Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bfniii · 01-09-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziffel

since the bible does contradict itself so often.

lest some people take you at your word, i have not ever seen an alleged contradiction that didn't have a reasonable explanation. they're very easy to find if you're confused about a particular passage.

bfniii · 01-09-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

God endorses unmerciful eternal punishment without parole.

endorse is not the right word. "allows" is probably more accurate. in other words, God allows us to be separated from Him because we chose to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If mercy is anything, it is forgoing eternal punishment with parole even when justice, in this case, God's justice, requires it. Otherwise, mercy is meaningless.

wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If God gave skeptics a parole in the next life, Christians would surely approve,

says who?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

but yet, they currently approve of God's endorsement of eternal punishment without parole. Do Christians actually have any opinions of their own?

What could possibly be more merciful than forgoing eternal punishment without parole?

you do realize that someone can choose to forego God's mercy, right?

TonyN · 01-09-2007, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyN
In the Old Testament, when Israel was held captive in Egypt they were said to be in an iron furnace. Was it eternal? Was there literal fire burning all of Egypt for 400 years? Did anyone get literally burnt?

Sharon: You still continue to go in circles since we have already covered this. Do I think the saved are literally wheat and the unsaved are literally weeds? Does anyone here think that? Of course not.

It is not in circles. It is going from a set of examples in the Bible where the fiery furnace was used (in which no one suffered eternally nor got burnt) and just bringing that idea over into the New Testament (in which no one suffers eternally and does not literally get burnt). If the sun scorches the grass in the Old Testament and in the New Testament it talks about the sun scorching the grass, can we not conclude that both are similar and it is not circular reasoning?

Quote:

Sharon wrote: The wheat is what is accepted as to having value and was specifically planted by the owner of the field for harvest from the owner's field, while the weeds are accepted as to not having any value since they were not specifically planted by the owner of the field for harvest in the owner's field. The wheat is taken to the barn and the weeds are burned. How could anyone get the idea that somehow later these burned weeds are all of a sudden going to be considered having value to the owner of the field?

Just because paul wants to put forth an idea of his own, does not make it a truth, especially when it contradicts the gospels.

But Paul does not contradict the gospels. You have yet to prove that he does. Just saying that some people get cast out of the kingdom and cast into the fire does not contradict the truth that God is going to save all mankind. God does not have to save all mankind before what happens in Matthew happens, you know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyN
In Matthew 13:42,43 which Sharon quoted above, it is concerning when Christ comes back to the earth and sets up His kingdom on the earth in Israel. He will be doing this: "Mat 13:41 The Son of Mankind shall be dispatching His messengers, and they shall be culling out of His kingdom all the snares and those doing lawlessness," and then casts them into the furnace which is outside the kingdom where the nations are. Will they literallyl be burned? Are the nations literally on fire during this time? Does this disprove that God will save all mankind at a later date? No to all those questions.

Sharon replies: Sure it is symbolic, but it has to follow the structure presented or it becomes chaos.

The field represents the world and the separation is done there only. The weeds are never in the Kingdom because they do not belong as explained in verses 13:38-39, so they are only gathered up from the field and burned as the passage clearly states. Verse 13:41 shows this with the weeds being prevented from entering the Kingdom. The wheat is taken to the barn which does respresent the Kingdom as 13:43 reveals.

But the weeds WERE in the kingdom because Christ tells the angels to gather OUT OF THE KINGDOM all who are causing snares etc. The wheat REMAINS IN THE KINGDOM. If I say I have 100 dollars in the bank and I tell my daughter to gather out of the bank 50 of those dollars, do you think those $50.00 would be somewhere other than in the bank?

Quote:

Matthew 13:24-30

24 Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.
25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.
26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 "The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

28 " 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

29 " 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "

Matthew 13:36-43

36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."
37 He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man.
38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,
39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.

40 "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.
41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.
42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

And how is this supposed to contradict that God WILL have all mankind to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4-6) and be reconciled to God (Col.1:20) be headed up in Christ (Eph.1:10); be made righteous (Romans 5:18,19) to name but a few? Obviously the blessings for humanity come at a later date.

sharon45 · 01-09-2007, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

lest some people take you at your word, i have not ever seen an alleged contradiction that didn't have a reasonable explanation. they're very easy to find if you're confused about a particular passage.

This is quite funny. No one is asking anyone that, the bible already presents this on its own, unless you need some help with your confusion instead.

sharon45 · 01-09-2007, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

endorse is not the right word. "allows" is probably more accurate. in other words, God allows us to be separated from Him because we chose to be.

It is plainly under his approval and support, so IOW, he endorses it as was previously stated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

wrong.

Wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

says who?

He didn't say all christians would approve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

you do realize that someone can choose to forego God's mercy, right?

Even if there really was a way, what does this have to do in response to the quoted part?

sharon45 · 01-09-2007, 05:03 PM

Quote: