Freethought & Rationalism Archive

inquisitive01 · 09-12-2004, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawen

But ya see inquisitive01, it's not the "continue to sin throughout the week and then attend church on Sunday as if the previous (acts during this) week never happened"part that I question. We all know many Christians do this.

It's the "self-claimed Christians" that I draw attention to. With the bible written so poorly and its interpretive abilities so vague, I believe Christians are ALL self-claimed.

I agree. Even an atheist could claim to be a Christian if he/she wanted to. However, that does not make it so. If one claims being a Christian, yet does not live by Christ's teachings, the Ten Commandments, etc., the claim (even though it still registers as being a claim) is false.

One can be a member of a gym, and legitimately claim his or her membership, but that doesn't mean he/she is actually going to the gym and working out. But leaving out that last detail (about not actually working out at the gym) might lead others to believe that he/she is working out, since membership with a gym has been claimed.

Sparrow · 09-13-2004, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

I agree. Even an atheist could claim to be a Christian if he/she wanted to. However, that does not make it so. If one claims being a Christian, yet does not live by Christ's teachings, the Ten Commandments, etc., the claim (even though it still registers as being a claim) is false.

Of course, this begs the question of who determines the truthfulness of the claim. Since I can be a Christian by your definition, I can claim that I am the one correctly interpreting the holy documents and therefore you are NOT a Christian, despite your claim. Since Christ's teachings (if there actually were any) are subject to debate, then many, if not everyone, who professes to be a Christian has an equal claim to True Christianity TM. Without a way to determine in this life which of the interpretations is correct, 'Christianity' as a term is meaningless. When you ask me to make such weighty decisions as whether or not ther is a hell, what it might be and how to avoid it, you should be very clear on what it is you're claiming and why I should believe you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

One can be a member of a gym, and legitimately claim his or her membership, but that doesn't mean he/she is actually going to the gym and working out. But leaving out that last detail (about not actually working out at the gym) might lead others to believe that he/she is working out, since membership with a gym has been claimed.

Here we have an external way to determine the membership. We can verify the claim and do not have to take the word of the claimant. Are you equivocating gym membership with everlasting hell?

Your claimed description of hell has no or virtually no evidence to support it and no external way to verify it. Why should I believe you?

inquisitive01 · 09-13-2004, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Of course, this begs the question of who determines the truthfulness of the claim. Since I can be a Christian by your definition, I can claim that I am the one correctly interpreting the holy documents and therefore you are NOT a Christian, despite your claim. Since Christ's teachings (if there actually were any) are subject to debate, then many, if not everyone, who professes to be a Christian has an equal claim to True Christianity TM. Without a way to determine in this life which of the interpretations is correct, 'Christianity' as a term is meaningless. When you ask me to make such weighty decisions as whether or not ther is a hell, what it might be and how to avoid it, you should be very clear on what it is you're claiming and why I should believe you.

Here we have an external way to determine the membership. We can verify the claim and do not have to take the word of the claimant. Are you equivocating gym membership with everlasting hell?

Your claimed description of hell has no or virtually no evidence to support it and no external way to verify it. Why should I believe you?

If one claims to be a Christian, yet continues to sin day-in and day-out, it is quite obvious that this person is not living by the principles outlined by both Jesus Christ and the Bible (living by these principles is an important part of Christianity, while NOT living by them shows disagreement).

What? Are you saying there's no evidence for the original term SHEOL? Try the following pages as only two examples:

http://www.wordonly.com/CI05.html

http://www.yeshuatyisrael.com/sheol.htm

BadBadBad · 09-13-2004, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

What? Are you saying there's no evidence for the original term SHEOL? Try the following pages as only two examples:

http://www.wordonly.com/CI05.html

http://www.yeshuatyisrael.com/sheol.htm

From the first URL:

Quote:

If you are a convinced atheist, you will find little value in this work. You will also disregard this if you are firmly convinced that some other religion outside Christianity is correct.

Maybe you would consider Christianity without the doctrine of everlasting torment. If this is a hindrance to accepting Christ, then please read on. I hope you find this analysis useful.

The author assures us the evidence won't be convincing. Also, the motive for eliminating hell from the Bible is obvious.

Sparrow · 09-13-2004, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

If one claims to be a Christian, yet continues to sin day-in and day-out, it is quite obvious that this person is not living by the principles outlined by both Jesus Christ and the Bible (living by these principles is an important part of Christianity, while NOT living by them shows disagreement).

OK, but since there are many people who claim to be Christians, read the same bible, but interpret it differently, there is no absolute definition of what is a sin and what isn't, what hell is and what it isn't, what Jesus did or didn't do. Note the many threads here where someone claims Jesus does or does not support something. The point is that the bible is not clearly instructive on acceptable behavior without personal interpretation. There are even times when it seems clear but must be reconciled with current morality. Did Jesus support slavery? Is slavery a sin?

Secondly, Christians are famous for their "Christians are not perfect, just forgiven" slogan. So according to your own religion, even if you try to live by the principles you think Jesus outlined, you'll fail. But that's OK, you're forgiven by the sky dad. How can I tell the difference between someone who tried to live a certain way and failed, and someone who didn't try and succeeded?

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

What? Are you saying there's no evidence for the original term SHEOL?

No, I'm not contesting the existence of a term. I'm contesting the veracity of the bible itself as a document of literal and historical accuracy. If you want to debate that, then start a thread in the right forum. But because individuals question the literalness of the document, they pick and choose what parts to keep and what parts to ignore. Without any reliable and detailed external evidence of Jesus' existence and conflicting internal evidence, it comes down to your personal interpretation of what you think Jesus' principles really are, if any at all.

BadBadBad · 09-13-2004, 02:37 PM

Another tidbit:

Quote:

The condition between death and resurrection is called the Intermediate State. Most Christians believe we all have eternal souls that remain conscious after death; Christians are conscious in heaven, while nonbelievers are in conscious torment.

This contradicts Inquisitive's first post in that we will be tormented for God knows how long until Christ's return. Inquisitive says we'll only gnash our teeth at the site of Gehenna. We might gnash our teeth there a little, but no worry, we'll be put out of our misery soon enough.

Looks to me this is exactly what we can expect from what the Bible says. It says I'll face eternal torment. I guess this guy Jesus is never coming back after all!

Quote:

In other words, those not saved are simply put out of their misery in the Second Death at Gehenna, while those saved are granted the gift of everlasting life (along with the great peace and love that accompanies it, as described in the Bible).

Here's another classic piece of evidence:

Quote:

A different view says we are unconscious after death until our resurrection. Believers will rise and be with Christ in heaven, while nonbelievers will rise to face judgment. This belief is commonly called Soul Sleep.

Sparrow · 09-13-2004, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

What? Are you saying there's no evidence for the original term SHEOL? Try the following pages as only two examples:

http://www.wordonly.com/CI05.html

http://www.yeshuatyisrael.com/sheol.htm

I like the following quote from the first URL:

Quote:

Better Case for Talking Trees

If we start with a false premise, we do not interpret the Bible properly. We sometimes take symbolic language literally if it supports our preconceived ideas. In Judges 9:8-15, there is a story about trees talking to each other. Isaiah 14:8 also has trees talking. Other Scriptures say trees rejoice (Psalms 96:12) and clap their hands (Isaiah 55:12).

There is a better case in Scripture for trees talking than there is for humans suffering in the intermediate state. We could also make a case that mountains and hills sing (Isaiah 55:12), and that stones cry out (Luke 19:40). Since Bible scholars do not believe these things, they do not take these passages literally. On the other hand, many take the story of the rich man and Lazarus literally because it supports their assumption.

Note that the author discounts this passage as literal due to the talking trees. What about the talking snake at the beginning of the book? Does this mean Genesis is not literally true?

It's hard for me to believe that anyone takes this stuff seriously.

BadBadBad · 09-13-2004, 02:42 PM

Oh the irony ... the pitiful irony!

Quote:

Amazingly, everlasting torment was rarely challenged since the third century. A growing number of Christians doubt this doctrine. While everlasting torment has always been repulsive to compassionate humans, Bible scholars now realize it is also difficult to defend in Scripture. Many are finally examining this subject, instead of accepting tradition without serious study. This investigation is long overdue.

BadBadBad · 09-13-2004, 02:54 PM

On defining the standard for evidence:

Quote:

The books in the Protestant Bible have passed rigorous scrutiny, so we must accept these as inspired. Other books in the Catholic Bible, called The Apocrypha, did not pass this test. The Apocrypha and other uninspired writings should only be used as reference material.

BadBadBad · 09-13-2004, 03:04 PM

More irony:

Quote:

Unfortunately, many people are content in their current, perceived, knowledge of the truth. Although we know more today than they did centuries ago, our work is not finished. We must continue searching the Bible and examining our beliefs. ...snip.... The Reformation must continue!

And finally, we agree! :rolling:

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.