2477445
I'm really not sure if I can even call this a response...
Needless to say, we can call this off or continue tomorrow, what say you? You are clearly not at the top of your game, or even in coherency mode.

2477399 But see, the idea is still there.

We broke the rules, and we have punished for it. And it's not exactly about 'not believing'.

The 'believing' part only saves you since the sin is there. Like I said above, we've all sinned. And just one sin is enough to violate God's law, which is indeed perfection.

In short, it's not the 'not believing' part that ands you to Hell. It's the fact that all have sinned, and repentance is necessary.

And now I'm pulling out of the debate because I'm exhausted.

2477380
Never said I did, it's just my interpretation. Not everything in the world is spelled out for you.

And if you're admitting that Free Will is a good thing, that means you recognize that Humanity willingly created sin. After all, God gave us free will, he gave us a mind to think on are own. It is our decision on the choices we make, and the consequences we receive as a result.

AKA Stop blaming God for someone else's bad choices.

2477415 Kalam Cosmological Argument: basically according the laws of cause and effects which is a must for the universe to exist. their must have been something that was a cause and its effect was the creation of the universe. there has to EVENTUALLY be an uncaused cause because

Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite

An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition

A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

Now this cause would have to have an inconcievable amount of power (and Gods power is not infinite because he has limits IE his laws which he cannot act in contradiction to). Now you could claim that their was just a couple of things that happened and bam universe but we KNOW that their was NOTHING before the universe came into being thus their has to be an uncaused cause that is outside of the nothing before our reality and our current reality. Now the only thing I can think of that can fit this is God, there might be others (probably is). However, when we take into the historical reliability of Christs resurrection and the Jewish Torah we can make a reasonably sound theory that Christianity or at the very least Judaism is likely to be true, AND the two basis for this theory are able to (in theory) be disproven.

This is just ONE argument that is common today. Its just the first one i came up with at 2 in the morning...

2477490
According to 2 Peter 1:20 the Bible isn't open to interpretation.

Pair that with John 1:3 and you get what I already said.

Meaning that according to your religion God created EVERYTHING.

AKA stop blaming humanity for the mistakes of an imperfect deity.

2477501
That is NOT what that verse is saying.

That verse is saying that the Bible hasn't been influenced or written in a bias by any prophet. It says nothing about not being able to interpret it different ways. How do you know your interpretation is correct?

I would advise you actually know what you're criticizing before trying to criticize it.

2477496
That's fine, thank you for providing something other than Bible scriptures.

2477475 Exactly.

Eh, I say we just call it off. We don't wanna end up at each other's throats. Although, it was a very good debate (up until my last response. That was more like the utterances of a madman).

I always say that a good debate is healthy; it sharpens you, keeps you on your toes.

So, thank you and good night.

2477511
Because it's the most literal fucking sense possible. So many Christians state that God created the universe and everything in it, as well as everything beyond it.

If you don't believe that then I commend you.

2477514 My pleasure. If you want to PM back and forth I can point you in the direction of others. William Lane Craig and John Lennox (i think thats his name) are two good debaters. Especially Lennox PLUS HES SCOTTISH!

2477520

Christians don't have the right to condemn, what makes you think YOU (of all people) do? XD

I'm done here.

2477534
That said "commend" genius.

2477520 he created everything good and he created the possibility for us to create ways to rebel against him... SO no he did not create evil but yes he did create us with the ability to create it.
http://www.realbiblestudy.com/?p=13

2477475 Oh, and one last thing before I go.

Do you happen to know of a way to get Fluttershy to stop playing Dark Souls?

'Cause, um... That's gonna be kinda an issue for me and my wallet...

2477559
That's still the creation of evil via catalyst.

2477563
Can't say. I do, although I'd recommend a game with a ton of replayability to keep occupied for extended periods of time.
Civilization or a primarily multiplayer game would work well

2477569 So if I have a son and I do everything I can possibly do to teach him good saving and spending habits but when he leaves my house he starts spending money until hes up to his neck in debt. Would I be to blame for it? No i am not, my son would be responsible for his actions. I did all that I reasonably could.

2477602 Great. So I have to somehow yank her away from Dark Souls and put her on Civ.?

FUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNN....

2477109

I am convinced that no one is going to hell because they weren't smart enough to believe in God correctly, or had some honest misconception.

2477145

No, God is and was Good, and sin is what contradicts him.

He merely did not make it impossible for sin to exist by creating beings with free will.

2477173

I do not believe in original sin, and I am far from alone in that.

It is our own sin that separates us from God, not that of others.

2477318

Jesus is an aspect of God, but he did not show the presence of God in the sense of seeing God in his full glory, though his words and deeds showed it.

God cannot, fundamentally accept evil as a being of perfect good, as evil is a defiance of his unyielding nature.

If sin was light enough that God could ignore it and brush it away, Jesus would not have been sent to live and die for us, to pay the price of our redemption.

Jesus took on the sins of the world as a sinless man in his sacrifice, as God in flesh, and thus broke the power of sin.

This was no light matter, as God the Father in a way turned from God the Son as he took on the sins of the world, shown in his words “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”.

The Trinity itself, by nature a oneness and community of three beings, turned from a part of itself in rejection of sin: the sinless being taking on the sins of the world to satisfy justice and pay the price of our punishment.

This is why Jesus' salvation is a great mercy to us: Sin is a serious threat that separates us from God, but in Christ, sin loses its power.

Jesus' sacrifice is empty and meaningless if God simply ignores sin.

2477607
Are you comparing yourself to God?

2477555

Oh so it did...XD

2477692
It's okay, honestly when you said condemn my first thought was that autocorrect screwed me over.

2477490
It is our choice to sin, yes, but what we say is sin would not be sin if God did not say it was wrong in the first place. Again and again, in both Old Testament and New, God has given us rules; He has told us that this is right and that is wrong.

Even in the Garden, there was sin. God gave Adam and Eve a simple set of rules:

1) Do not eat of this tree.
2) Everything else you could possibly desire is yours to do and have.

It is God who has defined the core of what is right and what is wrong. The definition of sin is doing what God says is wrong. And so while we may choose to do right, or we may choose to sin, we still were not the ones to create sin.

So, if God is the one to create the rules, and sin is the act of breaking God's rules, then God has created sin. But I do not think this is a bad thing.

God being the one to create sin is much like your parents being the ones to set their house rules. If you break them, you will be punished. He may even be angered. But as any good parent, He still loves you, and He will forgive you if you come to Him with remorse.

I am not sure what to believe about Hell, but I do not believe everyone will be allowed into Heaven, and for this to be true there must be some other place. What sort of place, I do not know. The Hell of Fiery Pits? The endless mourning of those who shunned Him? A Purgatory in which souls are cleansed of their taints as the vestibule of Paradise? I don't know.

2477317 *sighs*

2476609

As other said, if eternal presence with God is happiness, what leaves eternal presence without God?

I once read a interesting text that said the following: we humans were made from God, so we depend on him. Even those who refuse him still lives on a world that there is still his light, a world that was blessed for him. Just like our bodies need food, our spirits need God. So a completely separation to God would be like spiritual starvation, which would easily explains why hell is such an unsavory place.

I believe that all souls have this spiritual need for God, still I am not sure we could compare him to our gasoline. Still, a complete separation from him would make us incomplete, which would explain the suffering to our spirits.

2477109
Be careful what you say.

2477109
this man speaks the truth

2478539
Actually, mental disability is not a sin...

2478624
i'm aware of that

2478657
Then you didn't take "retards" literally, and I'm going to go be sad now.

2478666
k

be sad

be very very sad

2477197

If you want to make this argument, at least make it correctly, not as a strawman.

"To create" here means to bring into existence. To will into existence a free-willed being is not to will into existence all of its acts, since those are willed by the being itself.

2476609
2477308
I cannot believe the God of the Bible would exist without Hell.

If God is eternal, then he sees things with a little more time to them. If he sees things more long-term, he knows a person's whole life. If he knows a life intimately, he knows exactly what a person's motivations and desires are. If he knows a person that well, he knows exactly what will be effective. If he provides that way to bring someone to Heaven knowing this, and the person decides to deny this way, God can only help him by forcing a change of wills. Since God won't do that, due to the fact that the human would become a slave, and that God could no longer call Himself just, he must allow the human will to make that choice. Being the Creator, however, allows Him to enact whatever punishment He sees fit. A denial of God's holiness would leave only one solution: eternal damnation apart from Him. For God to call Himself just, he must also provide this place for His punishment to unfold. Therefore, for God to continue to call Himself just, there must be a Hell.

2478986
It is when you know every act said being is going to commit, and still do nothing to stop them.

It's not a strawman.

2481120

It is a strawman, because you are saying the Church teaches something she doesn't teach. You are also equivocating on such words as "create" and "cause." They do not mean "foreknow."

Knowing what is going to happen is not the same as causing it to happen, nor is allowing it to happen. In this case, we are talking about bringing into being free-willed beings responsible for their own acts. Knowing what acts they will choose is not the same thing as choosing for them.

You are very close to making what is the atheist's strongest argument, but you're getting it wrong.

2477960 Don't give me your Holyer then thou "oh look at this poor fool" bull. If you disagree with me then debate or retort with something that isnt a childish move.

2481120 I know that my mother will probably Drink alcohol again (even though shes an alcoholic and keeps saying that she wont), if she does do it again on my watch am I somehow responsible for her actions or her choices? I can tell her not to drink it in front of me but I cannot force her to do so because that would not solve anything. She would just do it when she thinks I am not looking or when I am not there.

2484049
You aren't God.

2484157 True but those are some of the limitations that God has. God cannot sin. Rebelling against his law is sin. One of the things he CANNOT do is infringe on peoples free will. If he did so he would sin and God cannot sin therefore he cannot murder, steal, lie, and remove peoples free will. God may have undending power and glory, BUT he is also ceaselessly good and good cannot do evil actions. Nor can a completely just and pure being sin.
If you force someone to be good then they arent really good now are they? They were unable to choose being good it was forced upon them.

2484199
That's a fat load of bullshit God absolutely fucks with free will.

We first see the Lord tell Moses what he is going to do and what is to transpire. Exodus 4:21: “The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.”

You wanna know what hardening the Pharaoh's heart, and forcing him to say no did? It resulted in God killing the first born of every person who didn't slaughter a goat and rub it's carcass on their door. Thus stealing the children(CHILDREN) from their families.

Hmm, that's God, murdering, stealing, AND fucking with free will, all in the same bible story.

Who'd a guessed?

2484265 Turning to the book of Exodus, most Bible readers must admit that they were at least slightly startled the first time they read about God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, and then His punishing Pharaoh for that same hard-heartedness. In dealing with these allegations, three distinct declarations are made with regard to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. First, the text states that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (7:3; 9:12; 10:1,20,27; 11:10; 14:4,8), and the hearts of the Egyptians (14:17). Second, it is said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (8:15,32; 9:34), that he refused to humble himself (10:3), and that he was stubborn (13:15). Third, the text uses the passive form to indicate that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, without giving any indication as to the source (7:13,14,22; 8:19; 9:7,35). The questions that arise from this state of affairs are: (1) did God harden Pharaoh on some occasions, while Pharaoh hardened himself on others? (2) Did God do all the hardening of Pharaoh, with the references to Pharaoh hardening himself being the result of God forcing him to do so against his own will? (3) Are all three declarations given in the text actually parallel expressions that mean the same thing? (4) Are the three declarations distinct from one another in their meaning, but all true in their own respects? Is the God of the Bible an unjust, cruel Being?

Two excellent explanations are available that account for the Exodus declarations, each perfectly plausible and sufficient to demonstrate that both the skeptic and Calvinist interpretations are incorrect. Both explanations pertain to the fact that every language has its own way of using certain types of words and phrases that might appear odd to a person not familiar with the language. For instance, suppose a person commented that his boss became angry and “bit his head off.” Would anyone think that the speaker actually had his head bitten off? Of course not! English-speaking people understand this example of figurative speech. Or suppose a person went looking for a job, and someone said that she was “hitting the streets.” She was not literally hitting the streets with her fists. Most English speakers would understand the idiom. In the same way, the biblical languages had idioms, colloquialisms, Semitisms, and word usages peculiar to them, which those familiar with the language would understand.

In his copious work on biblical figures of speech, E.W. Bullinger listed several ways that the Hebrew and Greek languages used verbs to mean something other than their strict, literal usage. He listed several verses that show that the languages “used active verbs to express the agent’s design or attempt to do anything, even though the thing was not actually done” (1898, p. 821). To illustrate, in discussing the Israelites, Deuteronomy 28:68 states: “Ye shall be sold (i.e., put up for sale) unto your enemies…and no man shall buy you.” The translators of the New King James Version recognized the idiom and rendered the verse, “you shall be offered for sale.” The text clearly indicated that they would not be sold, because there would be no buyer, yet the Hebrew active verb for “sold” was used. In the New Testament, a clear example of this type of usage is found in 1 John 1:10, which states, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him [God—KB/DM] a liar.” No one can make God a liar, but the attempt to deny sin is the equivalent of attempting to make God a liar, which is rendered with an active verb as if it actually happened. Verbs, therefore, can have idiomatic usages that may convey something other than a strict, literal meaning.

With that in mind, Bullinger’s fourth list of idiomatic verbs deals with active verbs that “were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do” (p. 823, emp. in orig.). To illustrate, in commenting on Exodus 4:21, Bullinger stated: “ ‘I will harden his heart (i.e., I will permit or suffer his heart to be hardened), that he shall not let the people go.’ So in all the passages which speak of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. As is clear from the common use of the same Idiom in the following passages” (1968, p. 823). He then listed Jeremiah 4:10, “ ‘Lord God, surely thou hast greatly deceived this people’: i.e., thou hast suffered this People to be greatly deceived, by the false prophets….’ ” Ezekiel 14:9 is also given as an example of this type of usage: “ ‘If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet’: i.e., I have permitted him to deceive himself.” James MacKnight, in a lengthy section on biblical idioms, agrees with Bullinger’s assessment that in Hebrew active verbs can express permission and not direct action. This explanation unquestionably clarifies the question of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. When the text says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, it means that God would permit or allow Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened.

A second equally legitimate explanation for the Exodus text is that the allusions to God hardening Pharaoh’s heart are a form of figurative speech, very closely associated with metaphor, known as “metonymy,” where one name or word is employed for another. For example, when we speak of “reading Shakespeare,” we mean that we read his writings or plays. God hardening Pharaoh’s heart would be “metonymy of the subject,” that is, the subject is announced, while some property or circumstance belonging to it is meant. Specifically, under this form of the figure, “[a]n action is sometimes said to have been accomplished, when all that is meant by it is that an occasion was given” (Dungan, 1888, p. 287; cf. Bullinger, 1898, p. 570).

The Bible is replete with examples that illustrate this figure of speech. John reported that “Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John” (John 4:1). In reality, Jesus did not personally baptize anyone (John 4:2). But His teaching and influence caused it to be done. Jesus, the subject, is mentioned, but it is the circumstance of His influence that is intended. His teaching was responsible for people being baptized. Repeatedly in the book of 1 Kings, various kings of Israel are said to have “walked in the way of Jeroboam…who had made Israel sin” (e.g., 1 Kings 16:19,26; 22:52). But Jeroboam did not force either his contemporaries or his successors to sin. Rather, he set an example that they chose to follow. Judas was said to have purchased a field with the money he obtained by betraying Christ (Acts 1:18). But, in reality, he returned the money to the chief priests and then hung himself. The blood money was then used to purchase the field (Matthew 27:5-7). By metonymy of the subject, Judas was said to have done that which his action occasioned. Paul warned Roman Christians: “Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died” (Romans 14:15). What he meant was that they should not set an example that lures weaker brothers into doing what they consider to be wrong. Paul told Corinthian Christians that they were in a position to “save” their unbelieving spouses (1 Corinthians 7:16). He told Timothy that he was in a position to “save” those who listened to his teaching (1 Timothy 4:16). In both cases, Paul meant that proper teaching and a proper example could influence the recipients to obey God’s will for their lives.

Another instance of metonymy of the subject, closely aligned with the example of Pharaoh in Exodus, is the occasion of the conversion of Lydia, the businesswoman from Thyatira. The text states that the “Lord opened her heart” (Acts 16:14). However, the specific means by which God achieved this action was the preaching of Paul. God’s Word, spoken through Paul, created within her a receptive and responsive mind. In like fashion, Jesus is said to have preached to Gentiles as well as to the antediluvian population of Noah’s day (Ephesians 2:17; 1 Peter 3:19). Of course, Jesus did neither—directly. Rather, He operated through agents—through Paul in the first case and through Noah in the latter. Similarly, Nathan accused king David: “You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword” (2 Samuel 12:9). In reality, David sent a letter to his general ordering him to arrange battle positions where Uriah would be more vulnerable to enemy fire. On the basis of metonymy of the subject, David, the subject, is said to have done something that, in actuality, he simply arranged for others to do.

In the case of Pharaoh, “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” in the sense that God provided the circumstances and the occasion for Pharaoh to be forced to make a decision. God sent Moses to place His demands before Pharaoh. Moses merely announced God’s instructions. God even accompanied His Word with miracles—to confirm the divine origin of the message (cf. Mark 16:20). Pharaoh made up his own mind to resist God’s demands. Of his own accord, he stubbornly refused to comply. Of course, God provided the occasion for Pharaoh to demonstrate his unyielding attitude. If God had not sent Moses, Pharaoh would not have been faced with the dilemma of whether to release the Israelites. So God was certainly the instigator and initiator. But He was not the author of Pharaoh’s defiance.

Notice that in a very real sense, all four of the following statements are true: (1) God hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (2) Moses hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (3) the words that Moses spoke hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (4) Pharaoh hardened his own heart. All four of these observations are accurate, depicting the same truth from different perspectives. In this sense, God is responsible for everything in the Universe, i.e., He has provided the occasion, the circumstances, and the environment in which all things (including people) operate. But He is not guilty of wrong in so doing. From a quick look at a simple Hebrew idiom, it is clear that God did not unjustly or directly harden Pharaoh’s heart. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), He does not act unjustly (Psalms 33:5), and He has always allowed humans to exercise their free moral agency (Deuteronomy 30:19). God, however, does use the wrong, stubborn decisions committed by rebellious sinners to further His causes (Isaiah 10:5-11). In the case of Pharaoh’s hardened heart, God can be charged with no injustice, and the Bible can be charged with no contradiction. Humans were created with free moral agency and are culpable for their own actions.

source: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1205

Whaddya know A non believer who makes a claim about something they dont understand is wrong
who would have guessed.

In the same way I wont go into a biologist lab and start picking away at their work and theories without sufficient studying. NO instead I would go in there humbled that I do not know enough to question them on the level of an equal and ask what this means as a student asks a teacher.
I may not be a priest or the a great expert but I do know more than you because I have devoted my life to Christ and learning his teachings. Do NOT rip into my beliefs by pulling out bible verses without first consulting the requisite teachings so that you can understand what it is saying, OTHERWISE it makes you look like a jerk. If I go to a Evolutionary Biologists Lab with the intent on debating certain concepts of Evolution it is in MY best interest to look up information and study those concepts. Not just cherry pick certain things of those concepts that fit my argument and then leave it at that. OTHERWISE the person who DOES know what they are talking about can and likely will tear my argument apart and in real life that can be quite humiliating.

2484586
My scroll wheel hurts now.

Would it be safe to say you believe that the bible is subject to a degree of interpretation, then?

Whaddya know A non believer who makes a claim about something they dont understand is wrong
who would have guessed.

That... wasn't really necessary.

2484940 http://www.christianforums.com/t1994195/
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Verac/C-1402.htm
That sums up my view on interpretation.
Secondly, yes I reacted causticly to an equally caustic remark and one towards my father. While I know that my Father is a big guy and doesn't need me defending his honor. If someone is going to insult, defame, blaspheme, and do their best to color my Father in a negative light using scripture out of context. I will, using scripture, completely crush their "point" without hesitation and with vitrol. I do this because this is the only way people are able to get other to remember their counterpoints in debates these days. Especially in Christianity Vs. Secular/Atheist debates since those ALWAYS have atheists cherry pick bible verses to paint their narrative or back up their preset opinion without actually going for context. It seems to be the only way to teach them not to do that. If anyone whos a non believer comes to me just to talk about it and ask for clarification then I will oblige and do so calmly and without vitrol. What unfortunately happens is that people rarely do so.
And i can be a very patient person but cherry picking verses, quotes, parts of quotes, sentences from anything to paint a narrative without actually reading the requisite resources. Well that is my biggest pet peeve of which I admittedly need to work on my patience with.

2485217
Well, the Christian Forums thread you linked doesn't really help, because while the stated quote says there is no alternate interpretation, it doesn't say what the correct interpretation is when linguistic issues make the meaning ambiguous to any degree.

You should also see further down the thread, where the linked post is poked full of holes, such as where it is said to refer to prophecy (and in fact, actually contains that word as subject), not the bible in its entirety.

Furthermore, that we read translation of texts that are no longer existent means we are reading interpretive works, whether we like it or not. Unless someone actually has the original scriptural texts hidden away somewhere and isn't telling us, we're stuck with interpretation and, according to 2 Peter 1:19-21, we are all therefore in the wrong.

The second thing you linked is just bizarre, as it goes straight from setting down considerations for use in translating the bible to a tangent about nazis. It goes on to support biblical literalism without actually saying how the process of translating the bible can arrive at a correct verse that we may trust, accept as reliable, and take literally. Instead, it relies on anecdotes and straw men (such as the police officer/driver in violation analogy) and makes the assumption that other people trying to interpret the bible are doing so for the same reason the author says he selfishly had - which is not true.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take any of it seriously.

I do this because this is the only way people are able to get other to remember their counterpoints in debates these days.

It is not. It is far more memorable to leave one's opponent without the ability to make a counter-point than to just make caustic statements over the Internet. Saying things like what I quoted in my prior post leaves opponents rolling their eyes and ignoring the poster as "yet another person being rude on the Internet." That's the best case - at worst, one is held up as an example of Christianity and used to discredit the rest of us.

Especially in Christianity Vs. Secular/Atheist debates since those ALWAYS have atheists cherry pick bible verses to paint their narrative or back up their preset opinion without actually going for context.

And simply quoting two lines to support biblical literalism is any different? By saying 2 Peter 1: 19-21 is a justification for biblical literalism, you are not only missing what it's referring to and ignoring context (cherry picking), you are using it to paint your entire narrative and/or support your own pre-set opinion.

This is doing the exact same thing you accuse them of.

Because of all of this, I can't accept your justification of returning rudeness for rudeness.

2485217
I forgot to actually make my point. Sorry.

Here it is:

source: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1205

You can't use biblical literalism to arrive at an argument such as the one you quoted from here, which is ... well, it's all about interpretation (which it takes a lot of to arrive at "I will harden his heart" not being the act of God against a man's free will).

In other words, while the argument made in that article supports your point about free will, it is not consistent with your beliefs if you are a biblical literalist.

2484265
I've warned you about personal attacks and language before. Stop.

2477607
You didn't also create the world he'll be going into, the traps therein, and the legal system that will punish him. And you certainly didn't do it knowing full well what he was going to do when you did it.

2486245
That wasn't a personal attack, and people curse here all the time.

2488102
I'm trying to get people to stop using that kind of language. Just because other people do something doesn't mean you should too.

2488383
If all your friends stopped jumping off the bridge, would you too?