All Activity

1) Men wrote the scriptures, not God. 2) How would the scenario you suggest God should/could have used have proven his existence?

Thanks - I agree.

I suspect many people will have made that "jump" right along with JS without noticing what you have pointed out above.

So, you have what JS believes about end time punishment and on the other end of the spectrum, you have what Sean Finnegan from Living Hope (Vince Finnegan's ministry) believes. In his video The Lost Suffer Eternal Torment in Hell (after the 41:00 mark), he teaches that the lake of fire is simply the symbol for the second death and later says, “Now, you may ask the question...what about proportional justice. What if God wants somebody to experience pain for so long before they’re executed? I don’t know. I don’t have a verse on that. So maybe God is going to do that, maybe he’s just going to be merciful." Rhetorical question: Why didn't the almighty God (who is not the author of confusion) not make the one topic of end time punishment clear and concise in one piece of writing (necessarily in different languages) and preserve it forever (without any changes on the threat of a lightning bolt immediately striking anyone who tried)? That would definitely prove his existence! IMO, we have too many cooks spoiling the broth.

Hoo boy! That's a real knee slapper.

Yes, but honestly, did he seem like he had the slightest idea what he was talking about?

Charity, I think you can get a pass on calling the idea of punishment by immolation "abhorrent." I don't think that's an atheist conclusion and I do think a significant number of Christians share it. I suggest in the future you could add a qualifier to make it clear that you're interjecting your feelings, ("abhorrent to me") to make the statement a little more diplomatic. I will leave it to the page's Christians to determine whether you crossed a line in their view. In mine, you did not. But I will yield to our brethren of faith ...

Did you Turn the Page? Bob Seger

*reads the 9 verses* Even in his own version, it says people will be judged according to their works, and that's all they say. He went from those words to "they'll suffer for some time, and then they'll be annihilated." That was a heck of a jump on his part. It said they would be "judged" (HOW?) and they would be judged "according to their works" (WHAT'S THE CRITERIA, WHAT'S AT STAKE, AND WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES?) With no other verses, JS inserted his own ideas into the subject. -He footnoted and cross-referenced all sorts of things....but not when it came to that. So, it seems that his ideas were more important than being truthful on this subject. It speaks of vanity. It's the kind of thing that you would expect of a man who would publish his own version of the Bible.

Parables, from what I can see, are each meant to make a single, specific point, in a manner that almost anyone could understand it, and that's it. They are not meant to dissect in fine detail for doctrine- except possibly for the single, specific point. The parable in question is rather pointedly about forgiveness. So, in the parable, the framing story shows a person in prison until a debt is paid. As a basis for doctrine, that's missing the mark (to put it nicely.) Shame on JS if he couldn't just see that immediately, let alone catch it on a later read. As I see it, for him to miss something that obvious means he didn't WANT to see it, and was busy trying to justify something he wanted to see, even if he had to torture the verses to PRETEND that's what they said. Right now, it makes no sense to me for a punishment to be more suffering and THEN annihilation. I'll have to look over the 9 verses and see if, somehow, it makes sense to me afterwards.

*looks up from his book* I'll be back in a bit, but I want to see if anyone else gets it first. I'll keep reading in the meantime.

On a long and lonesome highway east of Omaha You can listen to the engine rolling out his one note song You can think about the woman Or the girl you knew the night before

Even VPW argued that the soul is simply your breath life.

Quantitative: countable. We have a soul. One. It's a thing. Not part of our imagination. Immeasurable: it doesn't have weight or mass. There's nothing about a soul that science can point to, independent of the body, in order to demonstrate its presence. It might be easier if I asked you what a soul is, independent of the body. I'm suggesting that St. Thomas Quinas' meditations on the soul carry no more weight in the real world than George Lucas' notes on how The Force works. (If you can think of a polite way for me to say that, I'm all ears)

Generously sufficient, thank you! Can you explain further what you mean by "quantitative immeasurable"? That brings back a memory of a blood test with my "quantitative covid antibody results" i.e. numerical antibody count. LOL

I can't use the first line because it contains the title.

I am reminded of Aunt Jackie, Mom's sister. She had a business called... The Business. Nope. That's right. Just, The Business. Or sometimes, Tha Business. She found a way to insert the phrase "The Business" into EVERY conversation, regardless of relevance. She'd just MAKE it relevant. The vagueness was deliberate and calculated. Anyone: "Oh, your business, Jackie? What is that? What kind of business?" Jackie: "Are you really interested to know? Do you have six hours after dinner for me and your uncle to tell you all about it?" Anyone: "No." Jackie: "How 'bout all day Sunday?" Similarly, Anyone: "Can you recommend a 'good' translation, John?" JS: "Why, yes. Yes, I can..." (The business? Amway. The translation? REV)

Bingo and bingo. I'm not sure about this one yet? It might come to me.

My mistake - the thread is in the Matters of Faith forum.

That's cool.

My apologies to you personally. I thought I was clear that this was as a species, not a criticism directed at you personally. I thought I was as far from singling you out as I could possibly be. But it is inherent in our opposing views that we will occasionally step on each other's toes. So allow me to rephrase, please, in a way that does not insult anyone directly or indirectly: Again with my apologies, is that better?

Hold on a minute... I don't think (or hope) any of us in this discussion on either side is being arrogant about their beliefs.

Since this is the "atheism" side of the fence as far as conversation goes, it's not off topic to posit that the soul simply does not exist. It is a function of the body, the name we give to this complex firing of synapses that I cannot begin to articulate because of its chemical complexity, but when the body stops, so does the soul. We believe that for almost literally every other animal. But in our arrogance as a species, we imagine ourselves to be an exception. We, alone in the animal kingdom, possess a quantitative, immeasurable attribute that contains our personality and will survive the cessation of our physical bodies. I know, the alternative is to have "no hope," and that leads to a feeling of, well, hopelessness. Then again, 10 trillion trillion years from now, I will not be burning in hell, so I have that going for me.

I appreciate and have no dispute what John is teaching, only adding an opposite opinion above. Put in legal terms, for me; let's say I'm still in the "discovery" phase of the argument...