Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Denshuu · 07-31-2002, 09:54 PM

Hush. Let us enjoy this civil moment.

HelenM · 08-01-2002, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by G B Mayes:
Atheists in heaven? David Matthews, I don't know whether you are serious or pulling someone's leg, but either way that's one wacky idea. It is not only not supported in scripture, it is at direct opposition to plainly stated scripture. Many ideas are open to interpretation but this is not one of them.

--Brent

David Mathews has given Scripture in support of his position.

You'd know that if you'd read more of his posts.

Anyway, despite what you say, there are lots of Bible-believing Christians who are open to 'those who have never heard' possibly ending up in heaven.

Also, why don't you quote me one verse that says atheists will not go to heaven? I know why - because the word 'atheist' isn't even in the Bible...

In my opinion, David Mathews has a much more informed approach to the Bible than you do, GB.

love
Helen

Not Prince Hamlet · 08-01-2002, 05:25 AM

This oughta be interesting.

nyx · 08-01-2002, 06:15 AM

Hi Helen,

I'd say that might not apply to many here on this board who have knowledge of the OT and NT.

Hebrews10:26
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins
10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Or would Christians say that in fact we had not heard the truth? Perhaps we do not wilfully sin.

Nyx

HelenM · 08-01-2002, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by nyx:

Hi Helen,

I'd say that might not apply to many here on this board who have knowledge of the OT and NT.

You mean, the 'have never heard'?

Fair enough. I expect there are ex-Christians here who know more than most or all of the Christians who ever post here. It's certainly hard to argue that someone who knows that much has 'never heard'.

Hebrews10:26
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins
10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Or would Christians say that in fact we had not heard the truth? Perhaps we do not wilfully sin.

Most Christians would probably say you'd heard 'the truth' and 'rejected' it.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple...

But then I'm not sure about much!

(That Hebrews passage is a hard one for Christians who believe that a Christian cannot lose their salvation, no matter what. However such Christians seem to have ways to deal with it...)

love
Helen

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]

B. H. Manners · 08-01-2002, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by G B Mayes:
Atheists in heaven? David Matthews, I don't know whether you are serious or pulling someone's leg, but either way that's one wacky idea. It is not only not supported in scripture, it is at direct opposition to plainly stated scripture. Many ideas are open to interpretation but this is not one of them.

--Brent

Hey Brent,

I thought you pissed off for good there buddy. Tell me, do you have answers to those questions I gave you?

B. H. Manners · 08-01-2002, 07:36 PM

I have been reading over this discussion between Diana and David Mathews and I thank both for their fine posts. I think the gist of what Diana is saying is that just because one Bible writer said one thing does not mean the other bible writer had that statmement in mind when making yet another statement. "Paul" may have said in Romans that the Gentiles would not have their violations of the law counted against them because of their ignorance, but that does not mean that was what Jesus was thinking about when he stated "Whoever believes and has been baptized....whoever believes not shall be condemned. How does Mathews know that Jesus had the Romans corrollary in mind when he made the statement concerning baptism,belief,and condemnation? It appears that Jesus was saying you are lost if you do not believe and gave no room for exceptions in his statement and then Paul comes along and says yes, unbelievers will be saved who were gentiles in "honest" ignorance of God's requirements.

However, does Paul contradict Mathews theory in I Thessalonians 2:16 when he complains that the Jews are trying to stop him and others from preaching to the gentiles so they may be saved. If they were outside the law in ignorance and still "safe" so to speak (giving David his due here), is he saying here that the grace given to the ignorant gentiles in Romans applied only up to the end time of the Old Covenant? Or is he saying that the gentiles had to hear the gospel to be "saved" because they were lost even though they were in ignorance-not having been able to hear the "truth" therefore disagreeing with Mathew's Romans theory.

I do not think Paul is referring to people he has converted by the time of v16 and Jews trying to stop him from continuing to work with them, because that in no way would necessarily cost them their souls which Paul is alluding to here. The reason why is that Romans 14 proves that "God" can make ignorant believers stand before him and be saved. If Paul was stopped by the Jews from preaching that would not mean that the new converts would be damned because of ignorance or mistaken doctrine due to their ignorance.

Besides the point, even if Mathews is right that there is a consistent line of thought contained in the bible regarding honestly ignorant unbelievers being saved at the "judgement day", what good does it do his position?
That still does not prove the existence of God no more than a consistent theology regarding zakat (charity tithe) or Ramadan in the Koran proves Allah either.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]

B. H. Manners · 08-01-2002, 08:02 PM

David,

here is an honest question for you. If God is not bound by any laws or rules, how do we know that all of the "commandments of God" are in fact from him? The Bible teaches that their is this fellow named Satan who no doubt would see a way to take advantage of your position. Since god is bound by no law, what better way for the devil to cause harm and evil than passing off some stuff of his own invention as a command from God? After all Old Scratch would know no believer would dare question God's right to do anything because of his might.

To put it in other words, if there is no objective value determining God's behavior, then we have no way to determine if man or the devil has issued some commands in the Bible for their own ends and passing them off as from God (to ensure their obedience).

David, I have a book called "Textual Variants of the Bible-Romans" in front of me right now. I have been looking through this wooly booger of a book and it is quite a read too! Did you know that the Book of Romans alone has at least one variant for every verse contained therein? Honestly, many of them are little, but in a few cases a verse in one manuscript will say the exact opposite as the same verse number in another manuscript. To make matters worse, we do not have all the manuscripts produced over time to compare them and worse still many of the manuscripts that are claimed to be older may not necessarily be so. It is a known fact that copiests would write and copy books in older style print much like we do today on diplomas, ect. So we cannot be sure just which version is correct or which variant is original to the text.

Jeremiah 7:8-9 even admits that scribes were tampering with the text and history proves this. Even if Mathews is able to prove my interpretation incorrect regarding Jeremiah 7, he still has to face some other facts. The Septuagint version of the Bible differed drastically from the Masoretic text in content. Some manuscripts of Exodus and Jeremiah are several chapters longer or shorter than others, just as two examples. Of course we have about 5 different endings to Mark as well as different inserts into Luke and John. So, it appears either forgers took a great deal of liberty with the text and/or Old Scratch got a word or two in. Actually, the scribes were tempted by Satan so it would be his word whichever way you look at it.

David, since it is a proven fact, and only a willful liar will deny it, that the Bible has been changed, added too, corrupted, ect. how do we know the passages about children being massacred by the Israelites or God sending people to hell were not inspired by Satan to turn people away from God? Worse yet, why would god allow his holy book to be corrupted by El Diablo anyway?

Unless you have an objective standard to I dare say judge God's actions you will never know if you are really following Satan or not.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]

David Mathews · 08-01-2002, 09:34 PM

Hello Barry,

Quote:

here is an honest question for you. If God is not bound by any laws or rules, how do we know that all of the "commandments of God" are in fact from him? The Bible teaches that their is this fellow named Satan who no doubt would see a way to take advantage of your position. Since god is bound by no law, what better way for the devil to cause harm and evil than passing off some stuff of his own invention as a command from God? After all Old Scratch would know no believer would dare question God's right to do anything because of his might.

David: To be perfectly honest, we don't know anything at all. All people accept things on faith. Even atheists such as yourself accept things on faith.

Quote:

To put it in other words, if there is no objective value determining God's behavior, then we have no way to determine if man or the devil has issued some commands in the Bible for their own ends and passing them off as from God (to ensure their obedience).

David: Humans are subjective creatures and there are no effective tools for escaping from this subjectivity.

Quote:

David, I have a book called "Textual Variants of the Bible-Romans" in front of me right now. I have been looking through this wooly booger of a book and it is quite a read too! Did you know that the Book of Romans alone has at least one variant for every verse contained therein? Honestly, many of them are little, but in a few cases a verse in one manuscript will say the exact opposite as the same verse number in another manuscript. To make matters worse, we do not have all the manuscripts produced over time to compare them and worse still many of the manuscripts that are claimed to be older may not necessarily be so. It is a known fact that copiests would write and copy books in older style print much like we do today on diplomas, ect. So we cannot be sure just which version is correct or which variant is original to the text.

David: Textual variants are a trivial matter because all texts have textual variations.

Quote:

Jeremiah 7:8-9 even admits that scribes were tampering with the text and history proves this. Even if Mathews is able to prove my interpretation incorrect regarding Jeremiah 7, he still has to face some other facts. The Septuagint version of the Bible differed drastically from the Masoretic text in content. Some manuscripts of Exodus and Jeremiah are several chapters longer or shorter than others, just as two examples. Of course we have about 5 different endings to Mark as well as different inserts into Luke and John. So, it appears either forgers took a great deal of liberty with the text and/or Old Scratch got a word or two in. Actually, the scribes were tempted by Satan so it would be his word whichever way you look at it.

David: Your approach to textual variation is quite bizarre, Barry. Scholars and translators of the Bible are aware of these differences and it is their job to resolve them. Given their qualifications and the years that they have devoted to this task, I will let them do that work.

Quote:

David, since it is a proven fact, and only a willful liar will deny it, that the Bible has been changed, added too, corrupted, ect. how do we know the passages about children being massacred by the Israelites or God sending people to hell were not inspired by Satan to turn people away from God? Worse yet, why would god allow his holy book to be corrupted by El Diablo anyway?

David: The Bible is not God, God is not the Bible. The Bible is not Christianity, Christianity is not the Bible. The Bible is not Judaism, Judaism is not the Bible.

I don't worship the Bible. The Bible can be imperfect.

Quote:

Unless you have an objective standard to I dare say judge God's actions you will never know if you are really following Satan or not.

David: What determines if I am following God or Satan is how I live my life in the here-and-now, in my day-to-day existence. Christianity is about how I live my life.

Best Regards,

David Mathews

nyx · 08-02-2002, 04:13 AM

Barry,

Thanks for the great post.

David,

Does the Church of Christ not believe the text of the New Testament in a literal way?

I have no reason to disbelieve you, but find it odd that you would say variants are trivial in light of the literal interpretation Church of Christ followers hold.

You have a very broad view(much more so than I'm familiar with) if the way you live in the here and now is what defines you as a Christian in the Church of Christ. More power to you.

Nyx

08-01-2002, 06:24 AM	#95
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	Originally posted by nyx: Hi Helen, I'd say that might not apply to many here on this board who have knowledge of the OT and NT. You mean, the 'have never heard'? Fair enough. I expect there are ex-Christians here who know more than most or all of the Christians who ever post here. It's certainly hard to argue that someone who knows that much has 'never heard'. Hebrews10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Or would Christians say that in fact we had not heard the truth? Perhaps we do not wilfully sin. Most Christians would probably say you'd heard 'the truth' and 'rejected' it. I'm not sure it's quite that simple... But then I'm not sure about much! (That Hebrews passage is a hard one for Christians who believe that a Christian cannot lose their salvation, no matter what. However such Christians seem to have ways to deal with it...) love Helen [ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

08-01-2002, 07:36 PM	#97
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	I have been reading over this discussion between Diana and David Mathews and I thank both for their fine posts. I think the gist of what Diana is saying is that just because one Bible writer said one thing does not mean the other bible writer had that statmement in mind when making yet another statement. "Paul" may have said in Romans that the Gentiles would not have their violations of the law counted against them because of their ignorance, but that does not mean that was what Jesus was thinking about when he stated "Whoever believes and has been baptized....whoever believes not shall be condemned. How does Mathews know that Jesus had the Romans corrollary in mind when he made the statement concerning baptism,belief,and condemnation? It appears that Jesus was saying you are lost if you do not believe and gave no room for exceptions in his statement and then Paul comes along and says yes, unbelievers will be saved who were gentiles in "honest" ignorance of God's requirements. However, does Paul contradict Mathews theory in I Thessalonians 2:16 when he complains that the Jews are trying to stop him and others from preaching to the gentiles so they may be saved. If they were outside the law in ignorance and still "safe" so to speak (giving David his due here), is he saying here that the grace given to the ignorant gentiles in Romans applied only up to the end time of the Old Covenant? Or is he saying that the gentiles had to hear the gospel to be "saved" because they were lost even though they were in ignorance-not having been able to hear the "truth" therefore disagreeing with Mathew's Romans theory. I do not think Paul is referring to people he has converted by the time of v16 and Jews trying to stop him from continuing to work with them, because that in no way would necessarily cost them their souls which Paul is alluding to here. The reason why is that Romans 14 proves that "God" can make ignorant believers stand before him and be saved. If Paul was stopped by the Jews from preaching that would not mean that the new converts would be damned because of ignorance or mistaken doctrine due to their ignorance. Besides the point, even if Mathews is right that there is a consistent line of thought contained in the bible regarding honestly ignorant unbelievers being saved at the "judgement day", what good does it do his position? That still does not prove the existence of God no more than a consistent theology regarding zakat (charity tithe) or Ramadan in the Koran proves Allah either. [ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: BH ] [ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

08-01-2002, 08:02 PM	#98
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	David, here is an honest question for you. If God is not bound by any laws or rules, how do we know that all of the "commandments of God" are in fact from him? The Bible teaches that their is this fellow named Satan who no doubt would see a way to take advantage of your position. Since god is bound by no law, what better way for the devil to cause harm and evil than passing off some stuff of his own invention as a command from God? After all Old Scratch would know no believer would dare question God's right to do anything because of his might. To put it in other words, if there is no objective value determining God's behavior, then we have no way to determine if man or the devil has issued some commands in the Bible for their own ends and passing them off as from God (to ensure their obedience). David, I have a book called "Textual Variants of the Bible-Romans" in front of me right now. I have been looking through this wooly booger of a book and it is quite a read too! Did you know that the Book of Romans alone has at least one variant for every verse contained therein? Honestly, many of them are little, but in a few cases a verse in one manuscript will say the exact opposite as the same verse number in another manuscript. To make matters worse, we do not have all the manuscripts produced over time to compare them and worse still many of the manuscripts that are claimed to be older may not necessarily be so. It is a known fact that copiests would write and copy books in older style print much like we do today on diplomas, ect. So we cannot be sure just which version is correct or which variant is original to the text. Jeremiah 7:8-9 even admits that scribes were tampering with the text and history proves this. Even if Mathews is able to prove my interpretation incorrect regarding Jeremiah 7, he still has to face some other facts. The Septuagint version of the Bible differed drastically from the Masoretic text in content. Some manuscripts of Exodus and Jeremiah are several chapters longer or shorter than others, just as two examples. Of course we have about 5 different endings to Mark as well as different inserts into Luke and John. So, it appears either forgers took a great deal of liberty with the text and/or Old Scratch got a word or two in. Actually, the scribes were tempted by Satan so it would be his word whichever way you look at it. David, since it is a proven fact, and only a willful liar will deny it, that the Bible has been changed, added too, corrupted, ect. how do we know the passages about children being massacred by the Israelites or God sending people to hell were not inspired by Satan to turn people away from God? Worse yet, why would god allow his holy book to be corrupted by El Diablo anyway? Unless you have an objective standard to I dare say judge God's actions you will never know if you are really following Satan or not. [ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

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

07-31-2002, 09:54 PM	#91
Denshuu Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Virginia Posts: 164	Hush. Let us enjoy this civil moment.

08-01-2002, 05:25 AM	#93
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	This oughta be interesting.

08-01-2002, 06:15 AM	#94
nyx Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: US Posts: 76	Hi Helen, I'd say that might not apply to many here on this board who have knowledge of the OT and NT. Hebrews10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Or would Christians say that in fact we had not heard the truth? Perhaps we do not wilfully sin. Nyx

08-02-2002, 04:13 AM	#100
nyx Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: US Posts: 76	Barry, Thanks for the great post. David, Does the Church of Christ not believe the text of the New Testament in a literal way? I have no reason to disbelieve you, but find it odd that you would say variants are trivial in light of the literal interpretation Church of Christ followers hold. You have a very broad view(much more so than I'm familiar with) if the way you live in the here and now is what defines you as a Christian in the Church of Christ. More power to you. Nyx

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.