Burning Holy Books

[DjDan]

 

 

We have then, temperature of heaven, 525°C (977°F). Temperature of hell, less than 445°F). Therefore heaven is hotter than hell.

 

 

 

Afterall.. "God is a consuming fire"

[La_Dolce_Vita]

But now a general question.

 

Why do people with limited, in some cases close to the point of non existent knowledge of The Lord and his deeds have to reject The Lord based on their own ignorence? Why do such people have to condem others who do have faith in The Lord when all along those same people who condem us do not understand the thing the are condeming but instead use their own ignorence as the basis?

You ask all these questions, why can't the Lord do this or that. But the problem for you in giving credit to your claims is why one would conclude that a God exists. There is no evidence. You can't provide anything.

 

I’ve mentioned the upcoming Alpha courses. Why not at least look into one, you have nothing to loose, at least a few meals to gain, and at best an eternity that does not result in being imersed in burning lakes of sulphur.

I prefer the Jewish way of looking at things.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Many of you seem to know the work of the evil one far better than you know the working of The Lord. Would it really be to much trouble to put a bit of time into learning about what you know so little about?

What makes you so confident that you have been misled and have actually gone against God. You may have embraced Satan or something different. You just don't know.

 

Why do such people have to condem others who do have faith in The Lord when all along those same people who condem us do not understand the thing the are condeming but instead use their own ignorence as the basis?

Because we understand you have no evidence for your claims. It would be completely foolish to believe things on faith, especially when the result is to significantly alter one's perspective of others and the world they live in and affect the decisions they make.

Christianity is also quite clearly a man-made invention. A crass plagiarism of Judaism. And it's also an immoral faith.

But I don't condemn others, but specifically condemn their beliefs. Though the more you know of Christianity and the more you are prepared to defend it, the more I think of you as deluded, morally troubled, and foolish. I can't help it, I can't conclude otherwise. If you really think I deserve hell, for example, then you're not a nice person.

[jimbms]

Now if you get time read the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVay it makes a lot more sense than the crap in the real bible.

[Terse]

 

We live in a secular society now where we are taught to reject spiritual experiences and only trust in what we are told by man.

A typically misleading statement.

We are no longer compelled to believe man's interpretation of some ancient stories - we are allowed to think for ourselves and examine evidence before deciding what is true and what is false.

[DjDan]

What I said is perfectly true. Not misleading.

[Evil Goblin]

One had better put on gloves before handling the New Testament. The presence of so much filth makes it highly advisable.

-- Friedrich Nietzsche,

Well - a LibDem quoting Neitzsche!! A bit like the Devil quoting Scripture!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

A typically misleading statement.

We are no longer compelled to believe man's interpretation of some ancient stories - we are allowed to think for ourselves and examine evidence before deciding what is true and what is false.

I tend to think it is not misleading. We do place trust in man. But you're right, we do so on the basis of evidence. Of course we all do make the mistake of giving authority too much credit in what we know and believe. Just because a professor or Head of something gives a statement or view on something it can often be understood as being true or being right. But in the main we base what we know on what has been discovered through science or from our own reason.

 

Spiritual experiences. Well...what are they? What is spirit? Is there are evidence for it?

[spook]

Spook, firstly thank you for taking the time to answer my questions - It is fascinating attempting to understand your beliefs and I appreciate the time you have put in to express them.

spook, on 15 September 2010 - 09:53 AM, said:

Evolution is not at odds with Creation. If anything it supports it, evolution was creation in action leading to a world in which The Lord placed us, a world rich in his gifts to us.

 

I am a little unclear on what you mean here - what do you mean by creation? Do you belive that God created birds of their kind, or did he create a replicating chemical and let it to do what it did and what it did was evolve into thousands upon thousand of species including dinosaurs which evolved into thousands of thousands of species of which only birds have survived. If it is just the time scales you dispute it is difficult to have beasts of the earth after their kind created on Genesis "Day 6" after the creation of every winged fowl after his kind on Genesis "Day 5" - the fossil evidence is absolutely indisputable that birds evolved from land dwelling dinosaurs - the order is incorrect not only the length of time.

 

Why should it not be that The Lord created all beasts in such a form as was fitted to evolve over a period of time? That the creatures of today were intended to evolve from the proto-creatures at the time of creation? Keep in mind The Lord really IS The All Mighty and can do all things.

 

 

spook, on 15 September 2010 - 09:53 AM, said:

Why should the Lord not have placed confusion within his creation to sort the faithful from those who looked for reasons to reject him? Why should such confusion not be all too credible as a test fopr the fidelity of the faithful?

 

That statement is one of the most mind blowing statements imaginable to me. God is deliberately confusing people so that fewer people will believe in him!

The Lord is setting an impedence to those who are unwilling or unable to acccept His majesty by faith that is easily diverted by providing tempting alternatives. The path of Righteousnes is narrow.

spook, on 15 September 2010 - 09:53 AM, said:

Every question that looks for an answer that disproves The Lord can be and will be shown to be unable to survive in the light of The Lord and his actions.

 

But now a general question.

 

Why do people with limited, in some cases close to the point of non existent knowledge of The Lord and his deeds have to reject The Lord based on their own ignorence? Why do such people have to condem others who do have faith in The Lord when all along those same people who condem us do not understand the thing the are condeming but instead use their own ignorence as the basis?

 

I’ve mentioned the upcoming Alpha courses. Why not at least look into one, you have nothing to loose, at least a few meals to gain, and at best an eternity that does not result in being imersed in burning lakes of sulphur.

 

Here I have great difficulty - you say God is all loving etc, I presume you'd say there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

 

But look at the contradictions - here you are saying God deliberately makes it difficult to people to understand him and his works and so be faithful.

 

Earlier in this thread you've been fine with God deliberately hardenning people's hearts to over rule their free will to ensure the are damned.

 

I cannot worship a God who ever thought it was ok to stone to death a disobedient child, or someone who commited adultary, or a homosexual etc.

 

Why? The Lord makes the rules. Our duty is to obey them.

 

You simply ignore these issues - I've challenged you directly on them - the Elizabeth Anderson quote above is about the best explanation I've found about the profound immorality such a mind set creates - Christian churches owned and traded slaves for hundreds of years, had no moral objections to it. They did not have the moral courage to say their holy books indifference to slavery was a profound wrong; as is its attitude to homosexuals, adultary etc today.

 

To which as a Christian I see nothing wrong. Nothing at all.

[spook]

You don't say that people previously misunderstood God's message and so confused their cultural laws with God's divine message. No you proudly insist these were God's laws, that's ok for him and that your understanding is right.

 

MY understanding may be wrong but it is my understanding and it is founded on what the Bible, but more importantly by far what Jesus teaches.

 

You say the bible is infallibe, and that reality has been deliberately confused so that it doesn't look like it fits in with the bible and why to make it more difficult to believe it so only the most ardent believers will be saved. And not only that but God deliberately intervenes to over rule free will to ensure even more people are damned.

 

God gave Adam and the sons of free will in order for us to be tested so that the Gold may be found. Gold that comes by those with free will to do otherwise yet choose to accept Jesus and love The Lord.

 

And of course your understanding of the working of the Lord is right isn't it. Which allows you to be indifferent to people being stoned to death or tortured for eternity.

 

My understanding is my understanding. As a Christian I deplore stoneing as did Jesus who made that point in the case of the woman taken in adultery. Torturing for eternity is a choice that people make. They can avoid it and become saved or they can choose pride and foolishness and suffer the consequences.

 

What is sincere acceptance - if someone out of fear and terror accepted someone as their master is that sincere?

 

Possibly yes, but sincere for the wrong reason. You must accept out of love, not out of fear.

 

That is the message you are giving us - you'll all be tortured unless you agree with my beliefs, and God has deliberately confused reality so that anyone rationally looking at the world will see it in contradiction to what the infallible bible says, undermining their faith in the religion that book professes, and so making it less likely they'll be saved.

 

No, offering an impedance. The parable of the sower illustrates the principle. It provides the stony ground that seeds may choose to fall on.

 

You have to reject rationality in order to be saved and people who disagree with you "know the work of the evil one far better than you know the working of The Lord." Thanks so I'm an agent of Satan because I disagree with you.

 

To learn of the love of The Lord and of Jesus as your personal saviour and not accept the greatest gift of all is the exact opposite of irrational.

 

Spook in all honesty it makes me shudder. You are justifying the most sickening behaviours, saying it comes from an all loving God. My goodness.

 

I am not rejected God because I do not know him - I am rejecting him because you gladly portray him as something I can only call evil.

 

Then you do not understand The Lord or the nature of Evil.

 

A being who demands I reject rationality to blindly follow him or else be tortured.

 

I have commented on rationality.

 

That is monsterous, and you are proudly telling us this is what your God is.

 

Your understanding of The Lord is wrong therefor it is wrong to see Him as being monsterous.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The Lord makes the rules. Our duty is to obey them.

Why?

[jimbms]

One had better put on gloves before handling the New Testament. The presence of so much filth makes it highly advisable.

-- Friedrich Nietzsche,

Well - a LibDem quoting Neitzsche!! A bit like the Devil quoting Scripture!

Never have been a libdem never will be so once again you get the wrong facts, fucking cheek calling me one of them.

[Evil Goblin]

My apologies, Jimbo - even more insulting is my getting you confused with PK! Sorry!

Anyway, what are the other facts you reckon I've got wrong?

[- Paul -]

There you are Spook

A fleeting taste of a version of eternal suffering

Locked into an internet debate with the great poster and with no hope of escape

[Chinahand]

We live in a secular society now where we are taught to reject spiritual experiences and only trust in what we are told by man.

Dan when you say “trust in what we are told by man” what else do we have? You may think you are divinely advised, but you have to trust yourself in that – and you are human.

 

“Man” as you put it, people, have to interpret and struggle with meaning where ever it comes from – whether from personal revelation, inspiration from others, or insights from holy books too. People have to attempt to understand the meaning they believe they may gained and try to pass these on without making further errors while doing that, and people have to attempt to understand and interpret what others are telling them.

 

People are fallible – and hence we can only trust what we are told by “man” – including ourselves, we are all people and have to trust that we are not deluding ourselves

 

“Man” – everyone – has to interpret this world – to try to understand it and find what meaning they can from it.

 

It would be nice if Zeus or Angels or whatever would turn up and provide answers, but sorry there is zero compelling evidence that they do – at best they mediate themselves via the minds of people and minds are fallible.

 

Even the example of Jesus is just a man making extravagant, disputed claims long ago, and his message is now lost in time and legend. I love all the banners about a living lord – living? where? Oh, in an invisible world.

 

The main difficulty I have is that when you say things are spiritual, I see things which are mundane.

 

Many of the people portrayed in this video think they are possessed by a spirit – I don’t think they are.

 

 

If that is what you mean by rejecting spiritual experiences then yes you are correct. Rationalism, medicine and science look for explanations which don’t rely on spirits and demons etc. Methodological naturalism asks is there a mundane explanation – and so far the answers have always been yes there is. God diminishes in to the gaps – and into the people’s minds.

 

You and Spook believe you are right – though you hold many beliefs that contradict themselves – Spook do you believe Brigham Young was a prophet?

 

You have a rhetoric you see as complete and non-contradictory and you firmly believe it.

 

Fine, but when you are asked for evidence all you have are spiritual claims and fallible humanity.

 

Spook thinks it is rational to reject what the world shows us and instead believe a book written in the bronze age – though he happily reinterprets it to make sure the time periods don’t make him look farcical – Spook surely you recognize those reinterpretations have only come about because science has shown them to be wrong?!

 

Don’t tell me - where the bible is right it is a prophecy and where it is wrong it is just allegory - is the earth stationary or moving, hanging in the air or supported on the firmament?

 

Dan – what do you think are the real doctrines of Christianity?

 

Isn’t it at its core a judging God who will only save those who acknowledge Christ – John 14:6 and all that?