Wait... who goes to hell?
- Thread starter n9newunsixx5150
- Start date
Your like a Dynamic Character always Changing how you present yourself. You wanted biblical anwers for an Eternal Hell, then we give it to you and you discredit the Bible. you wanted our Personal views, then our Scriptural views and you discredit them as well. I can't give you answers out of the Scripture about this subject. So I think I'm done with this thread, I'm not saying I hate your or Dislike you because you won't agree, but it's no use Bro.
I have not changed my position on this. I explained this pages ago. Concerning the "eternal hell" arguments, I explained that I was not looking for a Biblical answer. Rather, as I explained, I am looking for the logic to be addressed.
And I asked for Biblical views concerning the living entity that possibly goes to heaven or hell.
Although, at least for the moment, we are focusing on the eternal hell argument.
And I asked for Biblical views concerning the living entity that possibly goes to heaven or hell.
Although, at least for the moment, we are focusing on the eternal hell argument.
916 I'm not the only one that is watching the stunt you are pulling, and Stockon is right on the money.
LOL! This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Again, you have shown two lines of logic based on premises that SOME christians agree with. In your experience most "christians" probably DON'T accept logic because you probably don't explain it in a simple fashion or they think you are babbling about nothing. As far as your cheap shot on me I'll smile again.
I understand it more than I understand circle talk.
The problem is no one who would normally speak with you in regards to biblical matters (Mexcom and myself) is really willing to speak to you because of the way you put it out there.
The problem with you is when people are presenting their understanding or making an attempt to you go on and on and they actually get tired of it. At least when people get tired of me they say its because I type too much, but with you it is completely different. You type LESS than I type and people still don't give much time to what you say. Sometimes you have to take a lower road in order for people to understand you instead of always coming off like Yoda. Look at what you are doing to stockton. You are basically saying his views are wrong, but what you are REALLY doing is comparing the Bible to the Vedas and "christianity" to "hinduism". You're simply disguising it under the veil of "Wait...who goes to hell"
What a cop out. The fact is you are asking something that can easily be answered on your own, and you are throwing a fit because people don't want to respond to you in the fashion that you desire. Again, the way you came off is the reason why I said I wouldn't give you the answer, the reason why Mexcom isn't giving you the time of the day, and the reason why Stockton is basically telling you "no mas". I keep telling you it is the way you came off that turned people away from replying yet you keep avoiding this issue. Also, why discuss the topic with you if you are not going to look into it? What greater liberation will you have than reading and researching it on your own?
An unwillingness to explain does not mean it isn't circle talk, nor does it mean I am incapable of conveying my opinions in a logical fashion. What YOU are failing to grasp is I am choosing to NOT entertain you because of the way you came off. Since I WON'T explain it the point can stand from here til time ends. SO? Does your point standing matter in the grand scheme of things? No. Will it make me loose some type of "net credibility" and will people type "oooooooooooh heresy didn't answer now 916's point stands"? No.
LOL@ past lives! No, and what you're doing is mere circle talk.
More circle talk and bottle spinning. You being beat up by a 12 year old does not have anything to do with the subject and would be an ad hominem.
Let me break it down for you sport because you seem to be in a loop. You said:
(emphasis mine)
You are saying that WHATEVER (in regards to this subject) I (HERESY) have read in the Bible has been MISTRANSLATED and/or MISINTERPRETED.
Where is your proof that whatever I have read in the bible has been mistranslated or misinterpreted? YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE BIBLE TO MAKE THAT CLAIM! IT IS YOU WHO ARE USING THE AD HOMINEM NOT I!!!!!!
More circle talk and bottle spinning. Again, you have NO KNOWLEDGE of biblical translations or interpretations, so how can you claim whatever I am reading has been mistranslated or misinterpreted? YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND BIBLICAL LANGUAGE AND HOW THE WORDS ARE USED. THIS IS A SIMPLE FACT. SINCE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE BIBLICAL LANGUAGE AND HOW THE WORDS ARE USED YOU'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE THE CURRENT MINDSET THAT YOU HAVE.Many, if not ALL of the "contradictions" can be explained by simply learning the languages used and how they work. Those that can't can be rectified by more in depth reading/research. Apparently I have the kind of faith that lead me to actually LEARN about the bible, its history, political climate at the time of writing and what it actually contains. You on the other hand want people to give you the answers, and I am not going to do that. READ FOR YOURSELF.
Where is your proof that this is so? Where is your proof that there is a mistranslation or misinterpretation?
Stop spinning the bottle. You made a statement and I am bascially saying that your statement is hogwash because you can't support it. Why can't you support it? Well, because you don't know ANYTHING about the subject matter you are subjecting to scrutiny. In other words, you probably shouldn't speak on things you know nothing about.
You were given scriptures about hell, the lake of fire and BOTH OF THEM BEING ETERNAL. As far as mistranslations and misinterpretations READ THE LINK I INITIALLY GAVE EDJ.
Listen, what is meaningless is you making a claim with nothing to validate it. You are saying "mistranslation" and "misinterpretation" yet you have NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.
See above.
Again, different sects have different premises.
I HOPE the "oh hahaha" was sarcastic in nature...
What I am telling you is I am not "indoctrinated" because I LEFT the church when I was a teen ager, I am not a member of an "organized religion" and that I read for myself and allow the Holy Spirit to teach me. The way you break indoctrination is by READING FOR YOURSELF and allowing God to TEACH you. So, your attack was POINTLESS, but it is water under the bridge now.
From the START I told you I would NOT give you an answer. You pick and choose the stuff you want to address, so I now do the same thing. I am answering side statements that need to be addressed and I am avoiding your circle talk.
Certain people HAVE used certain Judeo-Christian teachings to indoctrinate people. The same can be said for Islam, communism, Hinduism, socialism, catholicism, marxism and every belief (religious or otherwise) known to man so what is your point?
THE MAIN POINT IS THE BIBLE DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF AN ETERNAL HELL. I GAVE YOU VERSES AND STOCKTON GAVE YOU VERSES. I GAVE A LINK AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO READ IT CAN READ IT. IF YOU BELIEVE THE VERSES THAT STOCKTON OR MYSELF HAVE POSTED HAVE BEEN MISTRANSLATED OR MISINTERPRETED I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO BACK YOUR CLAIM WITH PROPER TRANSLATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS.
You know how.
You are not going to lure or bait me into a debate. The biblical scriptures speak of an eternal hell and those scriptures have been posted. I'll let the bible be the final authority because I have no need to debate you. I'll post up something explaining why you don't make sense, you'll post up something explaining why you do and I don't, I'll do the same and it will keep going on. NO!
Stockton and myself have addressed this. I will not entertain your point.
Stockton and myself have addressed this. I will not entertain your point.
LOL! This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Again, you have shown two lines of logic based on premises that SOME christians agree with. In your experience most "christians" probably DON'T accept logic because you probably don't explain it in a simple fashion or they think you are babbling about nothing. As far as your cheap shot on me I'll smile again.
I understand it more than I understand circle talk.
The problem is no one who would normally speak with you in regards to biblical matters (Mexcom and myself) is really willing to speak to you because of the way you put it out there.
The problem with you is when people are presenting their understanding or making an attempt to you go on and on and they actually get tired of it. At least when people get tired of me they say its because I type too much, but with you it is completely different. You type LESS than I type and people still don't give much time to what you say. Sometimes you have to take a lower road in order for people to understand you instead of always coming off like Yoda. Look at what you are doing to stockton. You are basically saying his views are wrong, but what you are REALLY doing is comparing the Bible to the Vedas and "christianity" to "hinduism". You're simply disguising it under the veil of "Wait...who goes to hell"
What a cop out. The fact is you are asking something that can easily be answered on your own, and you are throwing a fit because people don't want to respond to you in the fashion that you desire. Again, the way you came off is the reason why I said I wouldn't give you the answer, the reason why Mexcom isn't giving you the time of the day, and the reason why Stockton is basically telling you "no mas". I keep telling you it is the way you came off that turned people away from replying yet you keep avoiding this issue. Also, why discuss the topic with you if you are not going to look into it? What greater liberation will you have than reading and researching it on your own?
An unwillingness to explain does not mean it isn't circle talk, nor does it mean I am incapable of conveying my opinions in a logical fashion. What YOU are failing to grasp is I am choosing to NOT entertain you because of the way you came off. Since I WON'T explain it the point can stand from here til time ends. SO? Does your point standing matter in the grand scheme of things? No. Will it make me loose some type of "net credibility" and will people type "oooooooooooh heresy didn't answer now 916's point stands"? No.
LOL@ past lives! No, and what you're doing is mere circle talk.
More circle talk and bottle spinning. You being beat up by a 12 year old does not have anything to do with the subject and would be an ad hominem.
Let me break it down for you sport because you seem to be in a loop. You said:
(emphasis mine)
You are saying that WHATEVER (in regards to this subject) I (HERESY) have read in the Bible has been MISTRANSLATED and/or MISINTERPRETED.
Where is your proof that whatever I have read in the bible has been mistranslated or misinterpreted? YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE BIBLE TO MAKE THAT CLAIM! IT IS YOU WHO ARE USING THE AD HOMINEM NOT I!!!!!!
More circle talk and bottle spinning. Again, you have NO KNOWLEDGE of biblical translations or interpretations, so how can you claim whatever I am reading has been mistranslated or misinterpreted? YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND BIBLICAL LANGUAGE AND HOW THE WORDS ARE USED. THIS IS A SIMPLE FACT. SINCE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE BIBLICAL LANGUAGE AND HOW THE WORDS ARE USED YOU'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE THE CURRENT MINDSET THAT YOU HAVE.Many, if not ALL of the "contradictions" can be explained by simply learning the languages used and how they work. Those that can't can be rectified by more in depth reading/research. Apparently I have the kind of faith that lead me to actually LEARN about the bible, its history, political climate at the time of writing and what it actually contains. You on the other hand want people to give you the answers, and I am not going to do that. READ FOR YOURSELF.
Where is your proof that this is so? Where is your proof that there is a mistranslation or misinterpretation?
Stop spinning the bottle. You made a statement and I am bascially saying that your statement is hogwash because you can't support it. Why can't you support it? Well, because you don't know ANYTHING about the subject matter you are subjecting to scrutiny. In other words, you probably shouldn't speak on things you know nothing about.
You were given scriptures about hell, the lake of fire and BOTH OF THEM BEING ETERNAL. As far as mistranslations and misinterpretations READ THE LINK I INITIALLY GAVE EDJ.
Listen, what is meaningless is you making a claim with nothing to validate it. You are saying "mistranslation" and "misinterpretation" yet you have NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.
See above.
Again, different sects have different premises.
I HOPE the "oh hahaha" was sarcastic in nature...
What I am telling you is I am not "indoctrinated" because I LEFT the church when I was a teen ager, I am not a member of an "organized religion" and that I read for myself and allow the Holy Spirit to teach me. The way you break indoctrination is by READING FOR YOURSELF and allowing God to TEACH you. So, your attack was POINTLESS, but it is water under the bridge now.
From the START I told you I would NOT give you an answer. You pick and choose the stuff you want to address, so I now do the same thing. I am answering side statements that need to be addressed and I am avoiding your circle talk.
Certain people HAVE used certain Judeo-Christian teachings to indoctrinate people. The same can be said for Islam, communism, Hinduism, socialism, catholicism, marxism and every belief (religious or otherwise) known to man so what is your point?
THE MAIN POINT IS THE BIBLE DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF AN ETERNAL HELL. I GAVE YOU VERSES AND STOCKTON GAVE YOU VERSES. I GAVE A LINK AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO READ IT CAN READ IT. IF YOU BELIEVE THE VERSES THAT STOCKTON OR MYSELF HAVE POSTED HAVE BEEN MISTRANSLATED OR MISINTERPRETED I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO BACK YOUR CLAIM WITH PROPER TRANSLATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS.
You know how.
You are not going to lure or bait me into a debate. The biblical scriptures speak of an eternal hell and those scriptures have been posted. I'll let the bible be the final authority because I have no need to debate you. I'll post up something explaining why you don't make sense, you'll post up something explaining why you do and I don't, I'll do the same and it will keep going on. NO!
Stockton and myself have addressed this. I will not entertain your point.
Stockton and myself have addressed this. I will not entertain your point.
Luke 18
18:15 Now people were even bringing their babies to him for him to touch. But when the disciples saw it, they began to scold those who brought them. 18:16 But Jesus called for the children, saying, “Let the little children come to me and do not try to stop them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 18:17 I tell you the truth, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.”
The gospel of Luke is your logic
you need to put it to perspective. The things you put into your mind and live by will be your destiny (knowalge--->Faith)
18:15 Now people were even bringing their babies to him for him to touch. But when the disciples saw it, they began to scold those who brought them. 18:16 But Jesus called for the children, saying, “Let the little children come to me and do not try to stop them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 18:17 I tell you the truth, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.”
The gospel of Luke is your logic
you need to put it to perspective. The things you put into your mind and live by will be your destiny (knowalge--->Faith)
I hope your being overly concerned with a "stunt" I am allegedly pulling rather than the points in this conversation allow you to still sleep well at night.
NO. NOT "AGAIN". YOU, Heresy, stated, "You have shown two lines of logic that some christians tend to agree with."
My response to this was straight forward and to the point: "I never said anything about Christians accepting the lines of logic, just the premises upon which the logic follows."
Instead of admitting that you were mistaken, you have simply modified your statement probably in hopes that I would overlook it.
Not to mention that your new, modified statement is wrong anyway. These premises are accepted by all Christians. Premise: God is absolute. Now find me a Christian who does not accept that premise. Certainly, BY DEFINITION, such a person would NOT be a Christian! Case closed.
If you don't understand something, it is wise to ask specific questions instead of throwing it out as "circle talk". Is this evidence of how you deal with the unknown?
I'm assuming that "no one" is herein limited to the people of GOM. Otherwise, you have no idea how many people I speak with in regards to Biblical matters on other websites as well as in person. I don't even know why you are making this statement. What is the implication? Am I supposed to be grateful that someone posts links rather than just ignores me altogether? This is certainly not as high of a concern for me as you think. I appreciate that you and others have contributed, but if you choose not to, so be it. I have various other venues in which to discuss. This isn't a "problem" for me.
Yoda? Bad example that is.
In what way have I presented anything that even remotely resembles Yoda (aside from the linguistic jokes I am now making)?
Maybe the comparison is made because you sometimes do not understand what yoda is saying and you also sometimes do not understand what I am saying. Well, "if questions you ask, answers receive you will."
So far as this topic is concerned, I am only applying logic. I am not comparing the Bible to the Vedas. I am not saying anything resembling, "the Bible is wrong here because the Vedas say this instead". Neither the Bible nor the Vedas have a monopoly on logic. But thank you for indirectly calling the Vedas logical.
Why is that a cop out? I create a thread on an internet forum for active conversation, not simply for links. Of course, internet links are encouraged to accompany what someone is saying, but simply posting links is not my intention here. That should be obvious when you consider what internet forums are for.
An unwillingness to explain a statement YOU made makes that statement unsubstantial. Watch, I can do it to:
Heresy loves going to see the Tijuana donkey show.
Now, my unwillingness to substantiate this claim does not mean that it isn't true, but it also DOES NOT SUBSTANTIATE IT, and therefore has no value.
Heresy says I am commiting "circle talk". How? Explain or retract your unsubstantiated claim. If you choose to do neither of these then everyone will see what kind of person you are, throwing out blatant accusations.
If you are choosing to not entertain me then why did you accuse me of "circle talk"?
Your attempt to minimize the importance of my point as standing instead of actually refuting my point neither strengthens your position nor weakens mine. So what exactly is your purpose here?
I'm glad you enjoyed that joke. I am still waiting for the punchline of the "what you're doing is mere circle talk" joke. Remember, timing is everything. Don't wait to long.
Wait. Now there's a bottle in the joke! This just keep getting better and better. Does the bottle have something to do with the donkey show?
Your basis for ad hominem is solely on my inclusion of the word "you". I could just as equally say, "Whatever has been read in the Bible (regarding hell being eternal), it has been mistranslated and/or misinterpreted." I chose to write "you" because it was you, Heresy, who I was addressing. This is not a personal attack. It is the conclusion I have come to using logic based on what we know about the absolute nature of God as well as my inclination to accept that the Bible is not therefore completely false. As I explained, I am giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt. Instead of saying, "this one contradiction in the English translated text must conclude that the whole Bible is false", I am saying, "There appears to be a contradiction as written, but perhaps it is a mistake in the translation or my understanding".
1) I already explained my reasons for making that statement.
2) Why are you unable to distinguish between the context of an internet forum thread and my personal decision to study these things for myself? I didn't make this thread so someone could say, "read the Bible for yourself". Although reading the Bible for myself is certainly a good idea. I am not contesting that. But so far as this thread goes, I am looking for contribution in the form of discussion. Thanks.
I have already explained the logic of my position. I am simply a logic-driven person. By this I mean, so far as logic can take me, I will proceed. Once we get to the point where faith is required, I will apply it. So far we haven't got to that point. And once we do get to that point, such faith will not contradict the logic that follows from the very premise that constituted our faith in the first place! This is unacceptable by intelligent beings.
I am forced into choosing between two options:
Either...
The Bible relays factual information pertaining to God, the individual soul and the relationship between the two and therefore an apparent contradiction in logic on a premise accepted in the Bible must be a mistranslation and/or misinterpretation.
or...
There is a contradiction here, therefore the Bible is enitrely BS.
I have already explained which option I chose and why. In order for me to require the supporting of my statement on your basis, you are required to un-support (show as unsubstantial) the logic I have presented. Logic, might I add, that follows from a premise accepted in the Bible. And I am only herein referring to one line of argument. If you can defeat one, you will still have others to address. I will not accept self-contradiction in the Bible. I have that much respect. Now you claim that most of these things can be cleared up with a greater understanding of the Scripture itself, but such logical arguments simply draw their power from a premise that is accepted in the very context they are defeating. Hence why it is called a "self-contradiction". In other words, simply quoting more and more verses positing that hell is eternal is not going to clear up the logical contradiction I have presented.
Why doesn't the link address the logical inconsistency? Furthermore, why do you provide me with a link that does not address my argument?
This is simply my faith in the Bible. Although, my faith does not undermine logic. I simply have not reached that self-righteous stage in my life, and I thank God that I haven't. Do you understand my reason for making that statement yet? "Mistranslation" and "misinterpretation" as no other acceptable options are available. I am not claiming to have direct evidence that specific words in the Bible are mistranslated and/or misinterpreted, although an interesting point here is that to substantiate such a claim I would need to do so in context of the Bible, which is EXACTLY what I am doing in applying logic. So pray tell me why it is acceptable for me to apply this method in determining translation and interpretation, yet it is unacceptable for me to apply logic in the same fashion?
You, as well. Lather. Rinse. Repeat as necessary.
Then I am not talking about such premises. I am talking about the ones that all sects accept. For example, God is absolute.
Ok. So you were not indoctrinated by the church. I never claimed that you were indoctrinated by the church. Therefore what meaning is there in you stating this?
Water under the bridge, certainly, let's just make sure we're on the same bridge here. By that I mean, on what basis we are analyzing these points. I am keeping logic intact here since it is by logic that I understand anything. You seem to be implying that I should throw logic out and simply accept a self-contradiction. I simply can't come to your standard and I suspect you can't come to mine.
I have addressed EVERYTHING. If I address something that includes a specific point of which I did not specifically address, that is of no accord since I have addressed it by reason of inclusion. Do you follow? Every point you have made has actually been addressed numerous times. More than could flood your bridge. If there is anything I have chosen to not address, it is because that particular point was answered elsewhere. So now you are not doing the same thing. You are doing your own thing, which includes unsubstantiated claims of "circle talk". So my question is, how will you have any time for the donkey show?
Wait. What happened to "water under the bridge". Ah, perhaps I really did flood it!
I know what your point is. Unfortunately, it hasn't to do with my point, which is the one that engaged this conversation.
Empty words to fall on idle minds, surely.
Well, you certainly told me!
Let the record show that you have given no explanation substantiating why I "don't make sense". Everything you attempted to explain, I have refuted. And many of the things you said were themselves unsubstantiated and therefore did not require me to refute them.
Not really. You've addressed it in terms of avoiding it and presenting more Scripture, which only perpetuated the contradiction present, but you have not addressed the logic itself; probably because doing so would be "entertaining my point".
Not really. You've addressed it in terms of avoiding it and presenting more Scripture, which only perpetuated the contradiction present, but you have not addressed the logic itself; probably because doing so would be "entertaining my point".
HERESY said:
LOL! This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Again, you have shown two lines of logic based on premises that SOME christians agree with. In your experience most "christians" probably DON'T accept logic because you probably don't explain it in a simple fashion or they think you are babbling about nothing. As far as your cheap shot on me I'll smile again.
My response to this was straight forward and to the point: "I never said anything about Christians accepting the lines of logic, just the premises upon which the logic follows."
Instead of admitting that you were mistaken, you have simply modified your statement probably in hopes that I would overlook it.
Not to mention that your new, modified statement is wrong anyway. These premises are accepted by all Christians. Premise: God is absolute. Now find me a Christian who does not accept that premise. Certainly, BY DEFINITION, such a person would NOT be a Christian! Case closed.
If you don't understand something, it is wise to ask specific questions instead of throwing it out as "circle talk". Is this evidence of how you deal with the unknown?
I'm assuming that "no one" is herein limited to the people of GOM. Otherwise, you have no idea how many people I speak with in regards to Biblical matters on other websites as well as in person. I don't even know why you are making this statement. What is the implication? Am I supposed to be grateful that someone posts links rather than just ignores me altogether? This is certainly not as high of a concern for me as you think. I appreciate that you and others have contributed, but if you choose not to, so be it. I have various other venues in which to discuss. This isn't a "problem" for me.
Yoda? Bad example that is.
In what way have I presented anything that even remotely resembles Yoda (aside from the linguistic jokes I am now making)?
Maybe the comparison is made because you sometimes do not understand what yoda is saying and you also sometimes do not understand what I am saying. Well, "if questions you ask, answers receive you will."
So far as this topic is concerned, I am only applying logic. I am not comparing the Bible to the Vedas. I am not saying anything resembling, "the Bible is wrong here because the Vedas say this instead". Neither the Bible nor the Vedas have a monopoly on logic. But thank you for indirectly calling the Vedas logical.
Why is that a cop out? I create a thread on an internet forum for active conversation, not simply for links. Of course, internet links are encouraged to accompany what someone is saying, but simply posting links is not my intention here. That should be obvious when you consider what internet forums are for.
An unwillingness to explain a statement YOU made makes that statement unsubstantial. Watch, I can do it to:
Heresy loves going to see the Tijuana donkey show.
Now, my unwillingness to substantiate this claim does not mean that it isn't true, but it also DOES NOT SUBSTANTIATE IT, and therefore has no value.
Heresy says I am commiting "circle talk". How? Explain or retract your unsubstantiated claim. If you choose to do neither of these then everyone will see what kind of person you are, throwing out blatant accusations.
If you are choosing to not entertain me then why did you accuse me of "circle talk"?
Your attempt to minimize the importance of my point as standing instead of actually refuting my point neither strengthens your position nor weakens mine. So what exactly is your purpose here?
I'm glad you enjoyed that joke. I am still waiting for the punchline of the "what you're doing is mere circle talk" joke. Remember, timing is everything. Don't wait to long.
Wait. Now there's a bottle in the joke! This just keep getting better and better. Does the bottle have something to do with the donkey show?
Your basis for ad hominem is solely on my inclusion of the word "you". I could just as equally say, "Whatever has been read in the Bible (regarding hell being eternal), it has been mistranslated and/or misinterpreted." I chose to write "you" because it was you, Heresy, who I was addressing. This is not a personal attack. It is the conclusion I have come to using logic based on what we know about the absolute nature of God as well as my inclination to accept that the Bible is not therefore completely false. As I explained, I am giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt. Instead of saying, "this one contradiction in the English translated text must conclude that the whole Bible is false", I am saying, "There appears to be a contradiction as written, but perhaps it is a mistake in the translation or my understanding".
1) I already explained my reasons for making that statement.
2) Why are you unable to distinguish between the context of an internet forum thread and my personal decision to study these things for myself? I didn't make this thread so someone could say, "read the Bible for yourself". Although reading the Bible for myself is certainly a good idea. I am not contesting that. But so far as this thread goes, I am looking for contribution in the form of discussion. Thanks.
I have already explained the logic of my position. I am simply a logic-driven person. By this I mean, so far as logic can take me, I will proceed. Once we get to the point where faith is required, I will apply it. So far we haven't got to that point. And once we do get to that point, such faith will not contradict the logic that follows from the very premise that constituted our faith in the first place! This is unacceptable by intelligent beings.
I am forced into choosing between two options:
Either...
The Bible relays factual information pertaining to God, the individual soul and the relationship between the two and therefore an apparent contradiction in logic on a premise accepted in the Bible must be a mistranslation and/or misinterpretation.
or...
There is a contradiction here, therefore the Bible is enitrely BS.
I have already explained which option I chose and why. In order for me to require the supporting of my statement on your basis, you are required to un-support (show as unsubstantial) the logic I have presented. Logic, might I add, that follows from a premise accepted in the Bible. And I am only herein referring to one line of argument. If you can defeat one, you will still have others to address. I will not accept self-contradiction in the Bible. I have that much respect. Now you claim that most of these things can be cleared up with a greater understanding of the Scripture itself, but such logical arguments simply draw their power from a premise that is accepted in the very context they are defeating. Hence why it is called a "self-contradiction". In other words, simply quoting more and more verses positing that hell is eternal is not going to clear up the logical contradiction I have presented.
Why doesn't the link address the logical inconsistency? Furthermore, why do you provide me with a link that does not address my argument?
This is simply my faith in the Bible. Although, my faith does not undermine logic. I simply have not reached that self-righteous stage in my life, and I thank God that I haven't. Do you understand my reason for making that statement yet? "Mistranslation" and "misinterpretation" as no other acceptable options are available. I am not claiming to have direct evidence that specific words in the Bible are mistranslated and/or misinterpreted, although an interesting point here is that to substantiate such a claim I would need to do so in context of the Bible, which is EXACTLY what I am doing in applying logic. So pray tell me why it is acceptable for me to apply this method in determining translation and interpretation, yet it is unacceptable for me to apply logic in the same fashion?
You, as well. Lather. Rinse. Repeat as necessary.
Then I am not talking about such premises. I am talking about the ones that all sects accept. For example, God is absolute.
HERESY said:
I HOPE the "oh hahaha" was sarcastic in nature...
What I am telling you is I am not "indoctrinated" because I LEFT the church when I was a teen ager, I am not a member of an "organized religion" and that I read for myself and allow the Holy Spirit to teach me. The way you break indoctrination is by READING FOR YOURSELF and allowing God to TEACH you. So, your attack was POINTLESS, but it is water under the bridge now.
What I am telling you is I am not "indoctrinated" because I LEFT the church when I was a teen ager, I am not a member of an "organized religion" and that I read for myself and allow the Holy Spirit to teach me. The way you break indoctrination is by READING FOR YOURSELF and allowing God to TEACH you. So, your attack was POINTLESS, but it is water under the bridge now.
Water under the bridge, certainly, let's just make sure we're on the same bridge here. By that I mean, on what basis we are analyzing these points. I am keeping logic intact here since it is by logic that I understand anything. You seem to be implying that I should throw logic out and simply accept a self-contradiction. I simply can't come to your standard and I suspect you can't come to mine.
I have addressed EVERYTHING. If I address something that includes a specific point of which I did not specifically address, that is of no accord since I have addressed it by reason of inclusion. Do you follow? Every point you have made has actually been addressed numerous times. More than could flood your bridge. If there is anything I have chosen to not address, it is because that particular point was answered elsewhere. So now you are not doing the same thing. You are doing your own thing, which includes unsubstantiated claims of "circle talk". So my question is, how will you have any time for the donkey show?
Wait. What happened to "water under the bridge". Ah, perhaps I really did flood it!
I know what your point is. Unfortunately, it hasn't to do with my point, which is the one that engaged this conversation.
Empty words to fall on idle minds, surely.
Well, you certainly told me!
Let the record show that you have given no explanation substantiating why I "don't make sense". Everything you attempted to explain, I have refuted. And many of the things you said were themselves unsubstantiated and therefore did not require me to refute them.
Not really. You've addressed it in terms of avoiding it and presenting more Scripture, which only perpetuated the contradiction present, but you have not addressed the logic itself; probably because doing so would be "entertaining my point".
Not really. You've addressed it in terms of avoiding it and presenting more Scripture, which only perpetuated the contradiction present, but you have not addressed the logic itself; probably because doing so would be "entertaining my point".
I certainly haven't "won" by democratic vote. That's for sure. And I am not attempting to out-type Heresy. I just don't feel like sitting back and letting this nonsense fly. I don't know if Heresy actually thinks he is making a valid point or not. I would think that at this point it would be obvious to him and anyone else reading (if anyone else is reading) that I am simply trying to engage in a conversation and have this logic addressed. It is quite clear to me that he is unwilling to do this, so that was my last post toward him in this regard.
If you send me a Concordance, can I send you a Bhagavad-Gita As It Is?
If you send me a Concordance, can I send you a Bhagavad-Gita As It Is?
LMAO! I was gonna ask did anyone else ever see the pics of the blue skin people who look androgynous. I'm going to make a thread for all religious art. I don't know how to post pics so hopefully you guys can contribute.
Btw, can someone post the pic from GEEZUS' profile? LMAO! That pic is sick because he looks like he is on one.
Btw, can someone post the pic from GEEZUS' profile? LMAO! That pic is sick because he looks like he is on one.
^THAT SHIT IS EASY. YOU CAN UPLOAD FROM YOUR COMP OR IF IT'S ON N-E SITE JUST DO WHAY YOU DO WITH QUOTES EXCEPT THE TAgS ARE WITH E SLASH ON THE XCOND ONE. AND WHAT IS ON gEEZUS'S PROFILE?
STOCTON,
IT WAS A BOOK, AND IT WAS gIVEN WAY BAK WHEN I WAS A YOUNg CHILD(12, 13). BUT DO A SEARCH AND YOU PROBABLY gET ALL KIND OF IMAgES. BETTER YET ASK NINEWUNSIX5150.
STOCTON,
IT WAS A BOOK, AND IT WAS gIVEN WAY BAK WHEN I WAS A YOUNg CHILD(12, 13). BUT DO A SEARCH AND YOU PROBABLY gET ALL KIND OF IMAgES. BETTER YET ASK NINEWUNSIX5150.