TruthisLife7
New Member
Re: What evidence would you accept?
hackenslash,
I'm not going to comment here a lot, since much will come up in the debate (this response is VERY short for me, I assure you. I just don't have time to send the same evidence to 100s of people repeatedly), including evidence that you have never seen as well as more importantly documentation of what counts as evidence, something that nearly all atheists are extremely confused about and have been lied to by atheist leaders about, but also many Christians also don't understand what counts as evidence. You say that witnesses are never credible, etc. similar to many atheists. You are dead wrong and indisputably so. Nearly EVERYTHING that we do in both science and history and nearly all rational thinking depends on witnesses. You can't do any science without a scientist witnessing and recording the experiment. And to say that only scientists eyes are valid and others aren't is at best stunningly prejudiced and elitist and at worst racist or bigoted (since it's often directed at people who are from a different culture or view than we are).
"Hitchens makes this clear in a recent essay about testimony regarding the Pakistanis citing Russell:
Annoyed even so by the loss of "deniability" that Mullen's testimony entails, the Pakistani officer class has resorted to pretending that its direct relationships with al-Qaida and the Haqqani syndicate do not exist, and that in any case any action or protest resulting would constitute a violation of its much-vaunted "sovereignty." Both of these claims are paper-thin, or worse. If we employ Bertrand Russell's argument of "evidence against interest," for example, we can find absolutely no motive for Mullen,flanked as he was by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta,to have been making such an allegation falsely. To the contrary, they had every reason to wish to avoid the conclusion they have been forced to draw. It makes utter and abject nonsense of the long-standing official claim that Washington's collusion with the ISI has been conducted in good faith and directed for a common cause.
http://www.slate.com/id/2304641?wpisrc=xs_wp_0001
Mullen's testimony is based on a variety of evidence including witnesses and this is absolutely normal across the board in all sorts of fields whether legal, scientific, historical or whatever. Witnesses are indisputably evidence. You can watch Ph.D. after Ph.D. after Ph.D. on the history channel speaking about history and the vast majority of what they say rests on witnesses alone, but some has archaeological evidence backing it up. Their credibility may vary, but anyone who says they aren't evidence and aren't credible doesn't know anything about how our history books are made or the court system or anything similar. I've been going through 2 court cases and witnesses are essential evidence in BOTH cases.
This is just one of many cases where atheists propaganda is indisputably making people stupid about what constitutes evidence. Atheism is committing numerous crimes against rational thinking like this.
Um, yes Jews and Christians have been presenting solid evidence and teaching it for 1000s of years. Pascal wrote a 700 page Pensees centuries ago which had MUCH evidence, quite good for that time. But most haven't even bothered to read it. The Bible contains much evidence and so do outside sources. Judaism and Christianity have always been based on evidence and much more and better evidence than supports many other things taught in history books, science, etc.
I didn't compare universal common descent with God. Mentioning them in the same sentence doesn't mean they are rivals. They were just examples. Yes, UCD has some evidence. This is a mistake of many Christians who don't understand what qualifies as evidence. I know there's a LOT better evidence for creation science than for UCD as will come out later in the debate. But, it's either ignorance of science or the evidence or deceit to deny UCD has evidence. In exactly the same way, it's ignorance of science/history, the evidence that DOES exist or deceit to deny that there is vast evidential support for God. But, if people don't have a clue as to what constitutes evidence as you so clearly don't and quite a few Christians don't, it would be a waste of time to even attempt to list evidence now. I DO have much you have never seen and it WILL be presented, but in the proper order and sequence, after documenting what counts as evidence from quite a few secular sources such as Hitchens above. And please don't even think of talking about the extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That's a fundamental violation of science and an unrivaled double standard to boot. If I could use that against UCD, it would be gone in 2 seconds flat. PERIOD. Double standards are immoral and irrational period. To present evidence right now when almost everyone has such dire misconceptions about evidence would be like trying to prove UCD to someone who doesn't accept that predictions and confirmations of those predictions counts as evidence. Just an utter waste of time.
About hell, the word "forever"/eternal is "aion" in Greek. "aion is used to refer to as long as life lasts or the material or situation lasts. There are 56 times in the Bible where "aion" is used about things that have already ended and finished (as below). Kittle's 10 Volume Unabridged Theological Dictionary (a series respected and used by pastors and theologians of all denominations) is one of the most authoritative word study series and says that "aion" is conditioned by the material and means as long as the material lasts. It can mean without end...since God and His people will live forever in heaven and death does NOT exist there. But, it also can refer to something continuing, such as punishment in hell a king's reign, etc., ONLY until death.
In English we actually use "forever" in the same way sometimes. For example:
**"I will love you forever."
**"That test took FOREVER."
It doesn't take a rocket science to distinguish which meaning is intended in English. It's no different in Greek/Hebrew.
Here are a few of the many cases in the Bible where God speaks of things going on "forever", but they have ended:
Jude 1:7 --Sodom and Gomorrah are examples of everlasting punishment. But, they are
NOT BURNING NOW. They are covered by water in the Dead Sea.
2 Peter 2:6 --Sodom and Gomorrah turned into ashes. They are NOT BURNING NOW.
Jeremiah:17:27 --Jerusalem was burned with unquenchable fire. People couldn't put it out. It completely destroyed Jerusalem but it is NOT BURNING NOW.
1 Samuel 1:22, 28--In verse 22 Hannah says she will take her child to the temple and he will remain here FOREVER. In verse 28, she says he will be lent to the Lord for AS LONG AS HE LIVES. FOREVER=AS LONG AS YOU LIVE
Exodus 21:6 --a slave can decide to serve his master forever. Obviously a slave will stop serving when he dies, so forever here also means as long as you live.
Other examples: --I Samuel 27:12, 1 Kings 1:31, I Kings 12:7!!, Psalms 48:14, etc.
The problem is that some Christians have followed traditions from Greek philosophy instead of the many very clear places in the Bible.
1. Here are verses in the Bible referring to hell where evil people and Satan himself will just be ashes. They will not be burning forever.
Malachi 4:1-3 --wicked will be stubble and ashes. NOT BURNING FOREVER.
Revelation 20:14, 21:8 --Wicked & Death & Hell(Hades) are burned up in the lake of fire. This is the 2nd and
FINAL DEATH. Notice it's death and not continual burning and torture.
Romans 6:23 --The results of sin are DEATH. NOT BURNING FOREVER.
Psalms 37:9-11, 20, 36 --wicked don't exist, we can't find them. They will perish, die. NOT BURN FOREVER.
Isaiah 47:13 --false prophets and counselors will be stubble and burned up. The fire will burn them up Revelation 20:9 --The lake of fire devours(completely consumes and destroys) the wicked.
Ezekiel 28:17,18 --Satan himself will be burned up and become ashes. He will not be the BOSS OF HELL.
Nahum 1:9 --Sin will not always exist. God will utterly end it. Affliction(suffering) will not rise a 2nd time.
There won't even be a coal to warm your hands by.
Obadiah 1:16 --Evil nations shall be as if they had never existed.
Ps. 68:2. --"The wicked perish at the presence of God"
Revelation 20:9,14-15 --Fire devours the wicked. Death and hell are thrown into the lake of fire, which is the 2nd DEATH.
Revelation 21:4 --There will be no more crying or pain. This is a "former" thing and will not exist anymore. If
people are burning, there would still be pain and crying. So Hell must end at some time.
Let's look at Revelation 20.
9 And I saw them as they went up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded God's people and the beloved city. But fire from heaven came down on the attacking armies and consumed them.
10 Then the devil, who had deceived them, was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
14 Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death. 15 And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.
In verse 9, those who have rejected truth repeatedly that they were convinced was truth and chosen to follow harmful and destructive ways against what they knew was right will be attacking God's city and will be CONSUMED by fire. This is NOT an eternal hell at all. They are CONSUMED. In verse 10 you have ONLY the devil and the beast and the false prophet being tormented forever and ever, but again this is "aion" which can mean until life ends and almost certainly does in this case. At WORST, it's the devil being tormented forever and ever, not people. Then verse 14 says it in words that can not be misunderstood. The lake of fire is the 2nd death (the 1st one happens in this life at the end of the world. This 2nd one happens after a 1000 years has gone by and people have had a chance to check the record of people's lives and see why certain people are or are not in heaven and whether God was just. God is putting his judgment under the review of people..and letting those He created judge Him. What awesome condescension and abdication of pride and His rightful place.
Does God enjoy torturing people in unending pain? This would make God worse than Hitler. At least Hitler ended their suffering. Is this really what God is like? NO. The Bible tells us that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked whatsoever. His rare acts of ending life are called His "strange act" because for Him to end life is so tragic and heartbreaking for Him and he hates doing it in every aspect of His being. But, to not do it would cause far more suffering in the universe. God has these 2 choices:
1) Let sin and evil continue forever with people committing crimes of violence, torture, abuse, rape, war, terrorism and all sort of other sins that cause much pain and suffering throughout all eternity. This option would be kind of a never ending hell for billions and trillions of people.
2) In mercy to this world and the universe, make an ending point for sin that is just and fair. Past this point, no suffering will occur and all will see that justice has been done. This is the main purpose of hell in the Bible, to put an end to suffering in a fair and just way.
There are no other choices that would keep human free will and the capacity to reason in tact and yet end the experiment with sin that abuses billions continually.
If you were God. which way would you choose? Option #1 lets cruelty go on forever. Option #2 ends the suffering in a fair way. There are not really any other options that would preserve human freedom of choice and justice and righteousness at the same time. So, while hell may seem very tragic and terrible, it is actually a merciful way to end suffering permanently and not let the hell of sin continue for billions and trillions of years into all eternity.
Satan loves to try deceive people and misrepresent(lie about) God's character and loves it even better if he can deceive Christians and convince them to do that. He often tries to show that God is cruel, unfair and unjust. But those are actual Satan's own characteristics. This is another example.
Satan's 1st lie(Genesis 3:4) was, "You will not surely die." The idea of the immortal soul is one serious doctrinal error based on that original lie. And from that immortal soul false doctrine comes this idea that even the wicked will never end their existence (the Bible states that only God is immortal, but that he will give immortality to those who go to heaven at the end of the world (1 Corinthians 15:51-54). NOT now.
There were 2 theologians who were most responsible for "baptizing" Greek philosophy and promoting it above the Bible's truth. 1 was Athenagoras, a leading Christian intellectual who strongly argued that Platonic philosophy could be combined with Christianity. "Athenagoras frequently combined the beliefs of the Greek poets and philosophers, particularly Plato, with the doctrines of Christianity" (Encyclopedia Americana [2001], vol. 2, p. 605).
According to professor of historical theology Dr. LeRoy Froom, Athenagoras' "main premise was that God's purpose in creating man was that he should live--that the divine purpose of man's existence is existence itself. And God's purpose, he contended, cannot be defeated. It must be accomplished. It is therefore impossible for man to cease to exist" (Dr. LeRoy E. Froom, The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers [Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc., 1965], vol.1, p. 931).
The result of this ubiblical argument would be eternal life for all, eternal torture for the wicked and heaven for the godly. Athenagoras was the one who brought the false doctrine of the immortal soul into the church. But, it was Tertullian of Carthage (A.D. 160-240) who also was heavily immersed in Greek philosophy until his conversion at 40. According to Froom, "it was Tertullian who first affirmed that torments of the lost will be co-equal and co-exist with the happiness of the saved." (Ibid., vol. 1, p. 950.)
"He [Tertullian] confessedly altered the sense of Scripture and the meaning of words, so as to interpret 'death' as eternal misery and 'destruction' and 'consume' as pain and anguish. 'Hell' became perpetually dying, but never dead" (Ibid., vol. 1, p. 951).
Without hesitation, Tertullian referred directly to Plato in his writings. Plato's primary theme, "every soul is immortal," became Tertullian's unwavering platform (Tertullian, On the Resurrection, chap.3, quoted in ANF, vol.3, p. 547).
Many early church leaders such as Minucius Felix, Cyprian of Carthage, Ambrose of Milan, John Chryosostom and Jerome (translator of the Bible into the Latin Vulgate) also greatly admired Greek thinking and accepted the arguments of Tertullian and promoted eternal hell. Why did they accept them? Was it based on the Bible? Dr. Froom observes: "...none of such early Christian writers ever sought for support for this doctrine (immortal soul) by primary appeal to Scripture, but had recourse instead to arguments similar to those used by Plato" (Dr. LeRoy E. Froom, Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers [1965], vol. 1, p. 954).
See more details at http://www.helltruth.com, (esp. http://www.helltruth.com/history/ancient-beliefs.aspx)
Um, this is ONLY in the science area (and I have MUCH more in science and many other areas) "Henry of Ghent (c. 1217, 1293) had an extremely high standard for real truth. He maintained that scientific knowledge (scientia) in the strict sense had to fulfill four exacting conditions: 'First, it must be certain, i.e., exclusive of deception and doubt; secondly, it must be of a necessary object; thirdly, it must be produced by a cause that is evident to the intellect; fourthly, it must be applied to the object by syllogistic reasoning process" (Vier 1951:117; ALSO SEE MARRONE 1985:69-92 AND aDAMS 1987;552-571)
Grosseteste (c. 1175, 9 October 1253) )developed a set of "Methods of Verification" and he was "the principal figure" in bringing about "a more adequate method of scientific inquiry" by which medieval scientists were able eventually to outstrip their ancient European and Muslim teachers" (Dales 1973:62). He initiated a productive shift in science's emphasis, away from presuppositions and ancient authorities, and toward empirical evidence, controlled experiments, and mathematical descriptions. He combined the logic from philosophy and the empiricism from practical arts into a new scientific method." P. 52.
"The thirteenth century began with a scientific method that lacked experimental methods and lacked an approach to truth that applied naturally to physical things. It concluded with an essentially complete scientific method with a workable notion of truth. Because of Robert Grosseteste at Oxford, Albertus Magnus at Paris, and other medieval scholars, it was the golden age of scientific method. Never before or since that century have the philosophy and method of science been advanced so greatly." pg. 58 Scientific Method in Practice Hugh G. Gauch Jr. (M.S. in plant Genetics from Cornell University and currently a professor there), Cambridge University Press, p. 52.
http://www.css.cornell.edu/staff/gauch/index.html
You can see some of this book online here:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr&id=iVkugqNG9dAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Grosseteste++scientific+method&ots=1Q0NzWPmZK&sig=Cr-kFPwNFUMLcD_B9gdZD-KAjHg#v=onepage&q=Roger%20Bacon%20scientific%20method&f=false
Christianity also started universities, developed the modern scientific method (following Daniel who did it in 600 B.C.), peer review process, the 1st scientific journals and societies and so much more. You need to stop laughing and get educated about history. You've been indisputably duped and very badly on a level of someone deceiving you into believing that the holocaust never happened [/quote]
Well, Christianity was the establishment in some places yes, but in other places it wasn't. But whether it was or wasn't the establishment, Christians challenged the establishment in NUMEROUS areas. Just a couple of 100s of example which I'll write about in much more detail later:
1) A Christian monk protested the gladiator games and was killed doing it. But, this inspired the ending of the gladiator games.
2) Christians in East Germany, Korea, America and other countries were leaders and patriots in their country, fighting against the establishments which they considered unjust. In Korea, ~1/3 of the signers of the document resisting the Japanese occupation were Christians. In America, nearly all the signers of the declaration of independence were and in East Germany, it was candle vigils in churches that contributed greatly to the overthrow of communism there.
3) Christians led the abolition movement to stop slavery in the British Empire, 1st time ever a country had made it illegal.
4) Christians led the civil rights movement in America led by Dr. Martin Luther King.
All these and so many others were directly inspired by Bible principles such as this one:
"the King will say, 'I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters,[f] you were doing it to me!'"
Matthew 25:40
There are so, so , so many others. Kenneth Scott Latourette, Sterling Professor at Yale University, wrote, "Across the centuries Christianity has been the means of reducing more languages to writing than have all other factors combined. It has created more schools, more theories of education, and more systems than has any other one force. More than any other power in history it has impelled men to fight suffering, whether that suffering has come from disease, war or natural disasters. It has built thousands of hospitals, inspired the emergence of the nursing and medical professions, and furthered movement for public health and the relief and prevention of famine. Although explorations and conquests which were in part its outgrowth led to the enslavement of Africans for the plantations of the Americas, men and women whose consciences were awakened by Christianity and whose wills it nerved brought about the abolition of slavery (in England and America). Men and women similarly moved and sustained wrote into the laws of Spain and Portugal provisions to alleviate the ruthless exploitation of the Indians of the New World"¦By its name and symbol, the most extensive organization ever created for the relief of the suffering caused by war, the Red Cross, bears witness to its Christian origin. The list might go on indefinitely. It includes many another humanitarian projects and movements, ideals in government, the reform of prisons and the emergence of criminology, great art and architecture, and outstanding literature."
[A History of Christianity, Vol. II, pp.1470,1471]. http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm
Sorry, but no it isn't. That's BLIND faith and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Bible's concept of faith. NOTHING. Word usages could have changed over time, such as the word gay and others have. But, if you insist on that definition of faith, then Christianity doesn't use any faith PERIOD. CASE CLOSED, NAILED and SEALED SHUT.
Do you not understand that the phrase with "prove" in red above is equivalent to test?
Here's the NLT translation, a MUCH more accurate and modern translation than the KJV (which was helpful in the past, but is somewhat obsolete because of language changes, better knowledge of how to translate, etc.)
10 Bring all the tithes into the storehouse so there will be enough food in my Temple. If you do," says the Lord of Heaven's Armies, "I will open the windows of heaven for you. I will pour out a blessing so great you won't have enough room to take it in! Try it! Put me to the test!
I've experienced this and so has my dad and quite a few others as well.
I could go on and on with the rest of your post..but I'm going to answer a couple others briefly and then focus on the debate.
hackenslash,
I'm not going to comment here a lot, since much will come up in the debate (this response is VERY short for me, I assure you. I just don't have time to send the same evidence to 100s of people repeatedly), including evidence that you have never seen as well as more importantly documentation of what counts as evidence, something that nearly all atheists are extremely confused about and have been lied to by atheist leaders about, but also many Christians also don't understand what counts as evidence. You say that witnesses are never credible, etc. similar to many atheists. You are dead wrong and indisputably so. Nearly EVERYTHING that we do in both science and history and nearly all rational thinking depends on witnesses. You can't do any science without a scientist witnessing and recording the experiment. And to say that only scientists eyes are valid and others aren't is at best stunningly prejudiced and elitist and at worst racist or bigoted (since it's often directed at people who are from a different culture or view than we are).
"Hitchens makes this clear in a recent essay about testimony regarding the Pakistanis citing Russell:
Annoyed even so by the loss of "deniability" that Mullen's testimony entails, the Pakistani officer class has resorted to pretending that its direct relationships with al-Qaida and the Haqqani syndicate do not exist, and that in any case any action or protest resulting would constitute a violation of its much-vaunted "sovereignty." Both of these claims are paper-thin, or worse. If we employ Bertrand Russell's argument of "evidence against interest," for example, we can find absolutely no motive for Mullen,flanked as he was by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta,to have been making such an allegation falsely. To the contrary, they had every reason to wish to avoid the conclusion they have been forced to draw. It makes utter and abject nonsense of the long-standing official claim that Washington's collusion with the ISI has been conducted in good faith and directed for a common cause.
http://www.slate.com/id/2304641?wpisrc=xs_wp_0001
Mullen's testimony is based on a variety of evidence including witnesses and this is absolutely normal across the board in all sorts of fields whether legal, scientific, historical or whatever. Witnesses are indisputably evidence. You can watch Ph.D. after Ph.D. after Ph.D. on the history channel speaking about history and the vast majority of what they say rests on witnesses alone, but some has archaeological evidence backing it up. Their credibility may vary, but anyone who says they aren't evidence and aren't credible doesn't know anything about how our history books are made or the court system or anything similar. I've been going through 2 court cases and witnesses are essential evidence in BOTH cases.
This is just one of many cases where atheists propaganda is indisputably making people stupid about what constitutes evidence. Atheism is committing numerous crimes against rational thinking like this.
Um, yes Jews and Christians have been presenting solid evidence and teaching it for 1000s of years. Pascal wrote a 700 page Pensees centuries ago which had MUCH evidence, quite good for that time. But most haven't even bothered to read it. The Bible contains much evidence and so do outside sources. Judaism and Christianity have always been based on evidence and much more and better evidence than supports many other things taught in history books, science, etc.
I didn't compare universal common descent with God. Mentioning them in the same sentence doesn't mean they are rivals. They were just examples. Yes, UCD has some evidence. This is a mistake of many Christians who don't understand what qualifies as evidence. I know there's a LOT better evidence for creation science than for UCD as will come out later in the debate. But, it's either ignorance of science or the evidence or deceit to deny UCD has evidence. In exactly the same way, it's ignorance of science/history, the evidence that DOES exist or deceit to deny that there is vast evidential support for God. But, if people don't have a clue as to what constitutes evidence as you so clearly don't and quite a few Christians don't, it would be a waste of time to even attempt to list evidence now. I DO have much you have never seen and it WILL be presented, but in the proper order and sequence, after documenting what counts as evidence from quite a few secular sources such as Hitchens above. And please don't even think of talking about the extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That's a fundamental violation of science and an unrivaled double standard to boot. If I could use that against UCD, it would be gone in 2 seconds flat. PERIOD. Double standards are immoral and irrational period. To present evidence right now when almost everyone has such dire misconceptions about evidence would be like trying to prove UCD to someone who doesn't accept that predictions and confirmations of those predictions counts as evidence. Just an utter waste of time.
About hell, the word "forever"/eternal is "aion" in Greek. "aion is used to refer to as long as life lasts or the material or situation lasts. There are 56 times in the Bible where "aion" is used about things that have already ended and finished (as below). Kittle's 10 Volume Unabridged Theological Dictionary (a series respected and used by pastors and theologians of all denominations) is one of the most authoritative word study series and says that "aion" is conditioned by the material and means as long as the material lasts. It can mean without end...since God and His people will live forever in heaven and death does NOT exist there. But, it also can refer to something continuing, such as punishment in hell a king's reign, etc., ONLY until death.
In English we actually use "forever" in the same way sometimes. For example:
**"I will love you forever."
**"That test took FOREVER."
It doesn't take a rocket science to distinguish which meaning is intended in English. It's no different in Greek/Hebrew.
Here are a few of the many cases in the Bible where God speaks of things going on "forever", but they have ended:
Jude 1:7 --Sodom and Gomorrah are examples of everlasting punishment. But, they are
NOT BURNING NOW. They are covered by water in the Dead Sea.
2 Peter 2:6 --Sodom and Gomorrah turned into ashes. They are NOT BURNING NOW.
Jeremiah:17:27 --Jerusalem was burned with unquenchable fire. People couldn't put it out. It completely destroyed Jerusalem but it is NOT BURNING NOW.
1 Samuel 1:22, 28--In verse 22 Hannah says she will take her child to the temple and he will remain here FOREVER. In verse 28, she says he will be lent to the Lord for AS LONG AS HE LIVES. FOREVER=AS LONG AS YOU LIVE
Exodus 21:6 --a slave can decide to serve his master forever. Obviously a slave will stop serving when he dies, so forever here also means as long as you live.
Other examples: --I Samuel 27:12, 1 Kings 1:31, I Kings 12:7!!, Psalms 48:14, etc.
The problem is that some Christians have followed traditions from Greek philosophy instead of the many very clear places in the Bible.
1. Here are verses in the Bible referring to hell where evil people and Satan himself will just be ashes. They will not be burning forever.
Malachi 4:1-3 --wicked will be stubble and ashes. NOT BURNING FOREVER.
Revelation 20:14, 21:8 --Wicked & Death & Hell(Hades) are burned up in the lake of fire. This is the 2nd and
FINAL DEATH. Notice it's death and not continual burning and torture.
Romans 6:23 --The results of sin are DEATH. NOT BURNING FOREVER.
Psalms 37:9-11, 20, 36 --wicked don't exist, we can't find them. They will perish, die. NOT BURN FOREVER.
Isaiah 47:13 --false prophets and counselors will be stubble and burned up. The fire will burn them up Revelation 20:9 --The lake of fire devours(completely consumes and destroys) the wicked.
Ezekiel 28:17,18 --Satan himself will be burned up and become ashes. He will not be the BOSS OF HELL.
Nahum 1:9 --Sin will not always exist. God will utterly end it. Affliction(suffering) will not rise a 2nd time.
There won't even be a coal to warm your hands by.
Obadiah 1:16 --Evil nations shall be as if they had never existed.
Ps. 68:2. --"The wicked perish at the presence of God"
Revelation 20:9,14-15 --Fire devours the wicked. Death and hell are thrown into the lake of fire, which is the 2nd DEATH.
Revelation 21:4 --There will be no more crying or pain. This is a "former" thing and will not exist anymore. If
people are burning, there would still be pain and crying. So Hell must end at some time.
Let's look at Revelation 20.
9 And I saw them as they went up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded God's people and the beloved city. But fire from heaven came down on the attacking armies and consumed them.
10 Then the devil, who had deceived them, was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
14 Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death. 15 And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.
In verse 9, those who have rejected truth repeatedly that they were convinced was truth and chosen to follow harmful and destructive ways against what they knew was right will be attacking God's city and will be CONSUMED by fire. This is NOT an eternal hell at all. They are CONSUMED. In verse 10 you have ONLY the devil and the beast and the false prophet being tormented forever and ever, but again this is "aion" which can mean until life ends and almost certainly does in this case. At WORST, it's the devil being tormented forever and ever, not people. Then verse 14 says it in words that can not be misunderstood. The lake of fire is the 2nd death (the 1st one happens in this life at the end of the world. This 2nd one happens after a 1000 years has gone by and people have had a chance to check the record of people's lives and see why certain people are or are not in heaven and whether God was just. God is putting his judgment under the review of people..and letting those He created judge Him. What awesome condescension and abdication of pride and His rightful place.
Does God enjoy torturing people in unending pain? This would make God worse than Hitler. At least Hitler ended their suffering. Is this really what God is like? NO. The Bible tells us that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked whatsoever. His rare acts of ending life are called His "strange act" because for Him to end life is so tragic and heartbreaking for Him and he hates doing it in every aspect of His being. But, to not do it would cause far more suffering in the universe. God has these 2 choices:
1) Let sin and evil continue forever with people committing crimes of violence, torture, abuse, rape, war, terrorism and all sort of other sins that cause much pain and suffering throughout all eternity. This option would be kind of a never ending hell for billions and trillions of people.
2) In mercy to this world and the universe, make an ending point for sin that is just and fair. Past this point, no suffering will occur and all will see that justice has been done. This is the main purpose of hell in the Bible, to put an end to suffering in a fair and just way.
There are no other choices that would keep human free will and the capacity to reason in tact and yet end the experiment with sin that abuses billions continually.
If you were God. which way would you choose? Option #1 lets cruelty go on forever. Option #2 ends the suffering in a fair way. There are not really any other options that would preserve human freedom of choice and justice and righteousness at the same time. So, while hell may seem very tragic and terrible, it is actually a merciful way to end suffering permanently and not let the hell of sin continue for billions and trillions of years into all eternity.
Satan loves to try deceive people and misrepresent(lie about) God's character and loves it even better if he can deceive Christians and convince them to do that. He often tries to show that God is cruel, unfair and unjust. But those are actual Satan's own characteristics. This is another example.
Satan's 1st lie(Genesis 3:4) was, "You will not surely die." The idea of the immortal soul is one serious doctrinal error based on that original lie. And from that immortal soul false doctrine comes this idea that even the wicked will never end their existence (the Bible states that only God is immortal, but that he will give immortality to those who go to heaven at the end of the world (1 Corinthians 15:51-54). NOT now.
There were 2 theologians who were most responsible for "baptizing" Greek philosophy and promoting it above the Bible's truth. 1 was Athenagoras, a leading Christian intellectual who strongly argued that Platonic philosophy could be combined with Christianity. "Athenagoras frequently combined the beliefs of the Greek poets and philosophers, particularly Plato, with the doctrines of Christianity" (Encyclopedia Americana [2001], vol. 2, p. 605).
According to professor of historical theology Dr. LeRoy Froom, Athenagoras' "main premise was that God's purpose in creating man was that he should live--that the divine purpose of man's existence is existence itself. And God's purpose, he contended, cannot be defeated. It must be accomplished. It is therefore impossible for man to cease to exist" (Dr. LeRoy E. Froom, The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers [Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc., 1965], vol.1, p. 931).
The result of this ubiblical argument would be eternal life for all, eternal torture for the wicked and heaven for the godly. Athenagoras was the one who brought the false doctrine of the immortal soul into the church. But, it was Tertullian of Carthage (A.D. 160-240) who also was heavily immersed in Greek philosophy until his conversion at 40. According to Froom, "it was Tertullian who first affirmed that torments of the lost will be co-equal and co-exist with the happiness of the saved." (Ibid., vol. 1, p. 950.)
"He [Tertullian] confessedly altered the sense of Scripture and the meaning of words, so as to interpret 'death' as eternal misery and 'destruction' and 'consume' as pain and anguish. 'Hell' became perpetually dying, but never dead" (Ibid., vol. 1, p. 951).
Without hesitation, Tertullian referred directly to Plato in his writings. Plato's primary theme, "every soul is immortal," became Tertullian's unwavering platform (Tertullian, On the Resurrection, chap.3, quoted in ANF, vol.3, p. 547).
Many early church leaders such as Minucius Felix, Cyprian of Carthage, Ambrose of Milan, John Chryosostom and Jerome (translator of the Bible into the Latin Vulgate) also greatly admired Greek thinking and accepted the arguments of Tertullian and promoted eternal hell. Why did they accept them? Was it based on the Bible? Dr. Froom observes: "...none of such early Christian writers ever sought for support for this doctrine (immortal soul) by primary appeal to Scripture, but had recourse instead to arguments similar to those used by Plato" (Dr. LeRoy E. Froom, Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers [1965], vol. 1, p. 954).
See more details at http://www.helltruth.com, (esp. http://www.helltruth.com/history/ancient-beliefs.aspx)
hackenslash said:
Um, this is ONLY in the science area (and I have MUCH more in science and many other areas) "Henry of Ghent (c. 1217, 1293) had an extremely high standard for real truth. He maintained that scientific knowledge (scientia) in the strict sense had to fulfill four exacting conditions: 'First, it must be certain, i.e., exclusive of deception and doubt; secondly, it must be of a necessary object; thirdly, it must be produced by a cause that is evident to the intellect; fourthly, it must be applied to the object by syllogistic reasoning process" (Vier 1951:117; ALSO SEE MARRONE 1985:69-92 AND aDAMS 1987;552-571)
Grosseteste (c. 1175, 9 October 1253) )developed a set of "Methods of Verification" and he was "the principal figure" in bringing about "a more adequate method of scientific inquiry" by which medieval scientists were able eventually to outstrip their ancient European and Muslim teachers" (Dales 1973:62). He initiated a productive shift in science's emphasis, away from presuppositions and ancient authorities, and toward empirical evidence, controlled experiments, and mathematical descriptions. He combined the logic from philosophy and the empiricism from practical arts into a new scientific method." P. 52.
"The thirteenth century began with a scientific method that lacked experimental methods and lacked an approach to truth that applied naturally to physical things. It concluded with an essentially complete scientific method with a workable notion of truth. Because of Robert Grosseteste at Oxford, Albertus Magnus at Paris, and other medieval scholars, it was the golden age of scientific method. Never before or since that century have the philosophy and method of science been advanced so greatly." pg. 58 Scientific Method in Practice Hugh G. Gauch Jr. (M.S. in plant Genetics from Cornell University and currently a professor there), Cambridge University Press, p. 52.
http://www.css.cornell.edu/staff/gauch/index.html
You can see some of this book online here:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr&id=iVkugqNG9dAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Grosseteste++scientific+method&ots=1Q0NzWPmZK&sig=Cr-kFPwNFUMLcD_B9gdZD-KAjHg#v=onepage&q=Roger%20Bacon%20scientific%20method&f=false
Christianity also started universities, developed the modern scientific method (following Daniel who did it in 600 B.C.), peer review process, the 1st scientific journals and societies and so much more. You need to stop laughing and get educated about history. You've been indisputably duped and very badly on a level of someone deceiving you into believing that the holocaust never happened [/quote]
hackenslash said:
Well, Christianity was the establishment in some places yes, but in other places it wasn't. But whether it was or wasn't the establishment, Christians challenged the establishment in NUMEROUS areas. Just a couple of 100s of example which I'll write about in much more detail later:
1) A Christian monk protested the gladiator games and was killed doing it. But, this inspired the ending of the gladiator games.
2) Christians in East Germany, Korea, America and other countries were leaders and patriots in their country, fighting against the establishments which they considered unjust. In Korea, ~1/3 of the signers of the document resisting the Japanese occupation were Christians. In America, nearly all the signers of the declaration of independence were and in East Germany, it was candle vigils in churches that contributed greatly to the overthrow of communism there.
3) Christians led the abolition movement to stop slavery in the British Empire, 1st time ever a country had made it illegal.
4) Christians led the civil rights movement in America led by Dr. Martin Luther King.
All these and so many others were directly inspired by Bible principles such as this one:
"the King will say, 'I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters,[f] you were doing it to me!'"
Matthew 25:40
There are so, so , so many others. Kenneth Scott Latourette, Sterling Professor at Yale University, wrote, "Across the centuries Christianity has been the means of reducing more languages to writing than have all other factors combined. It has created more schools, more theories of education, and more systems than has any other one force. More than any other power in history it has impelled men to fight suffering, whether that suffering has come from disease, war or natural disasters. It has built thousands of hospitals, inspired the emergence of the nursing and medical professions, and furthered movement for public health and the relief and prevention of famine. Although explorations and conquests which were in part its outgrowth led to the enslavement of Africans for the plantations of the Americas, men and women whose consciences were awakened by Christianity and whose wills it nerved brought about the abolition of slavery (in England and America). Men and women similarly moved and sustained wrote into the laws of Spain and Portugal provisions to alleviate the ruthless exploitation of the Indians of the New World"¦By its name and symbol, the most extensive organization ever created for the relief of the suffering caused by war, the Red Cross, bears witness to its Christian origin. The list might go on indefinitely. It includes many another humanitarian projects and movements, ideals in government, the reform of prisons and the emergence of criminology, great art and architecture, and outstanding literature."
[A History of Christianity, Vol. II, pp.1470,1471]. http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm
hackenslash said:
hackenslash said:
Sorry, but no it isn't. That's BLIND faith and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Bible's concept of faith. NOTHING. Word usages could have changed over time, such as the word gay and others have. But, if you insist on that definition of faith, then Christianity doesn't use any faith PERIOD. CASE CLOSED, NAILED and SEALED SHUT.
hackenslash said:
Do you not understand that the phrase with "prove" in red above is equivalent to test?
Here's the NLT translation, a MUCH more accurate and modern translation than the KJV (which was helpful in the past, but is somewhat obsolete because of language changes, better knowledge of how to translate, etc.)
10 Bring all the tithes into the storehouse so there will be enough food in my Temple. If you do," says the Lord of Heaven's Armies, "I will open the windows of heaven for you. I will pour out a blessing so great you won't have enough room to take it in! Try it! Put me to the test!
I've experienced this and so has my dad and quite a few others as well.
I could go on and on with the rest of your post..but I'm going to answer a couple others briefly and then focus on the debate.
