Freethought & Rationalism Archive

post tenebras lux · 11-10-2005, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

God is responsible for hell existing in the sense that hell cannot exist unless heaven exists, and God has set aside one area for heaven and one area for hell.

And god is responsible for whatever happens in hell, just as he is responsible for whatever happens in heaven. They are both part of his domain.

Quote:

Being blinded by the god of this world can entail many things. Use an atheist as an example. Many in this forum have a fairly decent knowledge of the Bible and salvation. The reaction of such atheists to the Bible and salvation would be that which we would expect from one who has been blinded. Such atheists seem to understand their situation (as described by the Bible). They see the ticket offered to them but reject it. If you tell an atheist that his inability to respond positively to the gospel is a consequence of his being blinded by the god of this world, he laughs. Look at it from your perspective (given that you are an atheist).

Actually, what I'm looking for is consistency in your theological position. First up is internal consistency followed by consistency between it and the external world, both from the worldview of said theological position. I'm trying to understand your position from your point of view.

Does an atheist, who is not amongst the elect, have any option of accepting an offered ticket? Does he have the choice of getting a ticket and thus going to heaven or not?

rhutchin · 11-10-2005, 07:51 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Nope. God does not set people on fire. Hell is simply the opposite of heaven. Your contention seems to be that the owners of the football stadium are obligated to, perhaps, provide peanuts and beer as well as a 100 foot screen for people who refuse to purchase a ticket so that they can watch the game also.

John A. Broussard

So the divinely inspired writers who wrote about hell flames were simply lying.

Is that correct?

No. I think they are correct. People go to hell because of that which they do and not that which God does to them (so, God does not set people on fire.).

rhutchin · 11-10-2005, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Are you saying that the current translations may be inaccurate? Aren't they the divinely inspired words of god which guided believers throughout the world?

Please explain. You seem to be casting terrible doubts upon your sacred writings this morning.

Thank you.

I think it is pretty well recognized that translations of the Scriptures are not inspired and that they is no perfect translation.

Translations differ. For example--

Genesis 2
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The Torah has: "...you shall be doomed to die."
Knox has: "...thy doom is death."
Spurrel has: "...dying thou shalt die."
The Septuagint has": "...by death you shall die."

John A. Broussard · 11-10-2005, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

No. I think they are correct. People go to hell because of that which they do and not that which God does to them (so, God does not set people on fire.).

What in the world did god create a hell with eternal flames in it unless your god intended to have people burn there?

Are you saying that your god didn't realize that some people would end up in the eternal flames of his doing?

Can your god possibly be that naive?

Please explain.

John A. Broussard · 11-10-2005, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I think it is pretty well recognized that translations of the Scriptures are not inspired and that they is no perfect translation.

Translations differ.

So which translation is correct.

The Catholic Church says their translation makes Catholicism the True Church.

Protestants say that just is not so.

How do you know which is the "correct" translation?

Thank you.

John A. Broussard · 11-10-2005, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I am not sure how you mean that God suspends a person’s free will in the above cases. Pharaoh was free to act consistent with his desires (although God could have restricted Pharaoh’s actions). Sorta like putting a dog in a fenced yard. The dog is free to do anything it wants within the yard but cannot do anything outside the yard. As an example, you are free to pretty much do anything you want as limited by your physical and fiscal abilities.

So Pharaoh was completely free to have his heart hardened by god.

Does that make sense to you?

post tenebras lux · 11-10-2005, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I think it is pretty well recognized that translations of the Scriptures are not inspired and that they is no perfect translation.

How can you be sure that you are a member of the True Church, and living the life of a True Christian, it you don't know ancient greek and hebrew 'like a native' and there are no perfect translations?

Your god certainly seems to like to maker things hard for you, Rhutchin. Well, except for the fact that you're either on the list of the elect (since before time began) or you're not on it, of course. That bit's easy.

Jack the Bodiless · 11-10-2005, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I think it is pretty well recognized that translations of the Scriptures are not inspired and that they is no perfect translation.

Translations differ. For example--

Genesis 2
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The Torah has: "...you shall be doomed to die."
Knox has: "...thy doom is death."
Spurrel has: "...dying thou shalt die."
The Septuagint has": "...by death you shall die."

It is rather easy to see what's going on here, from the general context of the tale.

1. God describes only one consequence of eating the fruit: death.

2. The Serpent says that this consequence is false, and presents another: knowledge.

3. A&E eat the fruit, and gain knowledge.

...So the Serpent was correct.

Furthermore, the reason for A&E's mortality is also explained, but by an entirely separate event: their failure to eat from the OTHER tree. God acted specifically to prevent A&E becoming immortal.

This is also similar to the Sumerian version of this tale, in which the god Enki lies to the mortal Adapa about the allegedly lethal effects of eating the "food of the gods" (which would have made Adapa immortal, except that Adapa believed Enki's lie and didn't eat it). There is still a "toxic lie" here.

When you say "the translation is difficult", I think the problem here is that translations which support Judeo-Christian apologetics are difficult to wrest from the Hebrew. Strong's Concordance simply has a repetition of the Hebrew muwth (death or kill). It looks like "you will be killed dead", and dual-emphasis does occur in Hebrew. Hence the KJV's "surely die".

Wayne Delia · 11-10-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Surely you jest. Let’s see. People build a football stadium and only let those people enter who buy a ticket. You then accuse the owners of torturing those people who do not buy a ticket because the owners do not let them watch the game. How do you come up with this logic??

He didn't come up with this logic. You did. It's your strawman argument. It has nothing to do with the main point.

WMD

John A. Broussard · 11-10-2005, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If you are talking about libertarian free will, I agree (but LFW is a theoretical construction that does not exist).

Thanks for the reference.

"Usually when the term "free will" is encountered in theological framework, it is the Libertarian free will that is in view. As R. C. Sproul has said, 'Probably the most common definition says free will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition.' (Chosen By God)"

I'm surprised, however, that you would say it does not exist.

What's the problem with it?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.