Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just analyze the sentence: God doesn't send people to hell..." Of course (the Christian) god sends people to hell. He sits on a judgment throne and says, "Depart from me, ye curse, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his minions" Who sending them to hell if not the Christian god?
I don't think people are saying he doesn't do the "sending" in that regard. I think they just mean that we choose where we go, and he responds in accordance with what we choose.
Quote:
Now look at the 2nd part: "people send themselves..." How on earth do people send themselves???? A person would have to be a complete bird-brain to buy into such a silly notion that people voluntarily choose to god to hell.
Well I have heard atheists say they would rather go to hell than to be in heaven with god (who they usually coceptualiz as evil, a "bully", etc.) Stephen Fry said something to that effect, as I recall. But I agree with your main point. Generally, we do not choose hell even if we do reject the notion of a god. Rejecting theism =/= rejecting god, for starters. And neither should rejecting god be absolutely equated with agreeing to go to a place of eternal torment. Some anti-theists on this hypothetical judgment day may be so blinded, but not the vast majority of atheists, no.
Quote:
Is the Christian god God or not? If he's a real God he can do anything he wants including finding a way around this silly "I am a god of mercy but I am also a god of justice" balderdash. But the Christians cannot figure out a way to do both so they sacrifice their god's mercy for his justice because to Christians, accepting Jesus is at the core of keeping their particular brand of faith alive. That's the all-encompassing endgame: KEEP CHRISTIANITY ALIVE. Without accepting Jesus as THE cardinal rule of their faith, Christianity dies.
Okay, so I see nothing at all wrong with them insisting that Christianity (in and of itself) stay "alive", particularly if they have had experiences which convinced them that Jesus really is the son of god, etc., all the doctrines which come necessarily with the religion. But I wouldn't attribute belief in/defense of the hell doctrine to that; if nothing else, they can easily say that everyone will eventually accept Jesus Christ as their savior (with or without x method for "justice" to be served). And this would keep everything in tact.
Quote:
But try pitching universal salvation to Mike555, or BaptistFundie, or SAAN or any of those fundies and see how far you get.
Yes, it's sad that so many are strongly opposed to Universalism.
Quote:
The division among Christians whether eternal torment or universal salvation or annihilation is the proper end for the wicked proves perfectly why Christianity is just another pagan religion and not the true faith: because if it were the real true faith there would be only ONE belief in ONE destiny indisputably given by Jesus.
That doesn't follow at all, though I appreciate you being courageous enough to make your premise explicit (so many here refuse to do so).
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
Well if we used the Bible rules most raped women would be stoned to death
Where is that passage at, then?
Quote:
The Bible gives detailed instructions on how to treat a slave including how much you can beat them without punishment.
The verse you're alluding to does not say it's okay to beat them (which would contradict the explicit instruction not to even threaten them). It only tells others not to punish slaveowners for beating their slaves within certain guidelines, not unlike how it commands slaves to obey their masters but then says not to return slaves to their masters if they run away.
Quote:
I am not sure how you can say that no one can make a case against the type of slavery in the Bible.
Against the type of slavery condoned by the bible...
Quote:
Slavery in the Bible was not indentured slavery other than for male Hebrews. Female Jews were not released and non Jews were just as much a slave then as Blacks were in pre civil war USA.
There's nothing to indicate any of that in light of what seem to be general rules (again, not to oppress/threaten them, to let them live and work where they want, to treat them as they are to treat you, etc.)
Quote:
I am not sure how a person with a open mind free of concerns of offending his or her God can defend slavery as prescient in the Bible. And that is part of the abuse husband cimparision, even you cannot see b that slavery in the Bible was immoral without worrying of offending God,
I'm not even living in the same town as this "abusive husband" you seem to think I'm affiliated with (I'm an atheist). But it remains the case that this is empty rhetoric.
I don't think people are saying he doesn't do the "sending" in that regard. I think they just mean that we choose where we go, and he responds in accordance with what we choose.
Well I have heard atheists say they would rather go to hell than to be in heaven with god (who they usually coceptualiz as evil, a "bully", etc.) Stephen Fry said something to that effect, as I recall. But I agree with your main point. Generally, we do not choose hell even if we do reject the notion of a god. Rejecting theism =/= rejecting god, for starters. And neither should rejecting god be absolutely equated with agreeing to go to a place of eternal torment. Some anti-theists on this hypothetical judgment day may be so blinded, but not the vast majority of atheists, no.
Okay, so I see nothing at all wrong with them insisting that Christianity (in and of itself) stay "alive", particularly if they have had experiences which convinced them that Jesus really is the son of god, etc., all the doctrines which come necessarily with the religion. But I wouldn't attribute belief in/defense of the hell doctrine to that; if nothing else, they can easily say that everyone will eventually accept Jesus Christ as their savior (with or without x method for "justice" to be served). And this would keep everything in tact.
Yes, it's sad that so many are strongly opposed to Universalism.
That doesn't follow at all, though I appreciate you being courageous enough to make your premise explicit (so many here refuse to do so).
Where is that passage at, then?
The verse you're alluding to does not say it's okay to beat them (which would contradict the explicit instruction not to even threaten them). It only tells others not to punish slaveowners for beating their slaves within certain guidelines, not unlike how it commands slaves to obey their masters but then says not to return slaves to their masters if they run away.
Against the type of slavery condoned by the bible...
There's nothing to indicate any of that in light of what seem to be general rules (again, not to oppress/threaten them, to let them live and work where they want, to treat them as they are to treat you, etc.)
I'm not even living in the same town as this "abusive husband" you seem to think I'm affiliated with (I'm an atheist). But it remains the case that this is empty rhetoric.
Deuteronomy 22 23-29
As far as slavery inthe Bibke, I forgot just how wonderful it wss to be owned by someone else, to be able to be bought and sold, for women to be given to another slave if your master wished to do so and how your children would also be slaves.
Where does it state in the Bible that slaves were allowed to live and work where ever they wanted to just like a free man. This is the first I heard of that.
As far as slavery inthe Bibke, I forgot just how wonderful it wss to be owned by someone else, to be able to be bought and sold, for women to be given to another slave if your master wished to do so and how your children would also be slaves.
Where does it state in the Bible that slaves were allowed to live and work where ever they wanted to just like a free man. This is the first I heard of that.
We have slavery today. It's called "Mail order brides from the Philippines and other poor 3rd world countries."
First, let's get one thing clear: that the assertion Christians constantly throw at non-Christians that "God doesn't send people to hell; people send themselves to hell" is laughable reasoning is beyond dispute. Such an assertion is a priori stupidity and let me define a priori for those who may not have a legal background
a priori: relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.
Just analyze the sentence: God doesn't send people to hell..." Of course (the Christian) god sends people to hell. He sits on a judgment throne and says, "Depart from me, ye curse, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his minions" Who sending them to hell if not the Christian god? Now look at the 2nd part: "people send themselves..." How on earth do people send themselves???? A person would have to be a complete bird-brain to buy into such a silly notion that people voluntarily choose to god to hell. The crux of the argument is that by not accepting Jesus the Christian god has no choice but to go against his sovereign will and send people to where he doesn't want to send them. Is the Christian god God or not? If he's a real God he can do anything he wants including finding a way around this silly "I am a god of mercy but I am also a god of justice" balderdash. But the Christians cannot figure out a way to do both so they sacrifice their god's mercy for his justice because to Christians, accepting Jesus is at the core of keeping their particular brand of faith alive. That's the all-encompassing endgame: KEEP CHRISTIANITY ALIVE. Without accepting Jesus as THE cardinal rule of their faith, Christianity dies.
This inability of the Christian god to find a workable solution between the problem of saving everyone and thus justifying Jesus' sacrifice and the fact that most people simply reject Jesus--this inability of the Christian god to find a workable solution between these dichotomies makes the Christian god a total nincompoop--a bumbling idiot. Do we really want this kind of god running things in this universe???? when the simple solution is universal salvation--the ability to accept Jesus after death? Of course not. But try pitching universal salvation to Mike555, or BaptistFundie, or SAAN or any of those fundies and see how far you get.
The division among Christians whether eternal torment or universal salvation or annihilation is the proper end for the wicked proves perfectly why Christianity is just another pagan religion and not the true faith: because if it were the real true faith there would be only ONE belief in ONE destiny indisputably given by Jesus. But that never happened so the notion "God doesn't send people to hell..." stays a stupid, laughable, and silly notion and their god stays an impotent failure.
I have read things like this before, about people sending themselves to Hell.
You only have to do a google search on this, and ask a question, eg "is Hell fair or just?" etc and most Christian sites will give an explanation along these lines- ie people send themselves to Hell because they reject God and they reject Jesus Christ.
They will also say that God is perfect, and God is eternal, so it only makes sense that the punishment must also be eternal. This is a flawed logical argument, but is still commonplace.
Another argument is that unrepentant sinners will keep sin alive in Heaven, and thus must go to Hell.
This infers that the vast majority of humanity is incapable of being rehabilitated, just like some prisoners are now.
Universal Salvation may sound evil and Satanic to Evangelicals and Fundies, but I believe this is what will happen. (or at the very least am hopeful that this will be the case)
We have slavery today. It's called "Mail order brides from the Philippines and other poor 3rd world countries."
I know one example of it being an abusive relationship however i don't think that is is generally real slavery. I have heard others say we are slaves to our wages, however having quit a few jobs I know I am actually free from being a slave. Closest I have been to being a slave is when we had 2 dogs and 3 cats. 😊
In Icelandic Sagas slaves would be offered freedom the performed a certain task, such as murdering an enemy. Those stories occurred during the time Iceland was a Christian country but some Nordic Sagas are pre Christian. Slavery was widespread but that is still not an excuse for pretending that it was warm and fuzzy during Bubical times just to be able to ignore that the OT GOD did not oppose slavery but did make the effort to ban the eating of shellfish.
Well if we used the Bible rules most raped women would be stoned to death, fright, knife to their throat or hand over mouth not an excuse to prevent them from being stoned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Where is that passage at, then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
Deuteronomy 22 23-29
Okay, here is what the passage says...
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Seems to me a command (even assuming it's supposed to apply to people here and now, which is always disputable) to stone only women who do not scream for help while being "raped" (once again assuming it's referring to rape and not consentual adultery, which is forbidden elsewhere in the bible so there's a precedent for this sort of punishment).
Now, the last couple of verses are often criticized by anti-theists, but not because they say rape victims are to be killed. They say they're to be married, and only if we conceptualize "marriage" in a 21st century America way (instead of as marriage used to be conceptualized when and where this was written) can we score some rhetorical points against them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
As far as slavery inthe Bibke, I forgot just how wonderful it wss to be owned by someone else, to be able to be bought and sold, for women to be given to another slave if your master wished to do so and how your children would also be slaves.
Well again, if we keep the instructions in mind (e.g., don't oppress them, don't threaten them, treat them as they're to treat you, and let them live and work wherever they want) it seems clear to me that the only issue left is that of being "owned". And while it might offend our modern-day sensibilities of pride and subjective notions of "dignity", I'm not seeing a direct harm from the practice itself.
Quote:
Where does it state in the Bible that slaves were allowed to live and work where ever they wanted to just like a free man. This is the first I heard of that.
It doesn't say they were allowed to do this, but it's commanded that they are. From the same book you cited earlier, in fact (Isn't the anti-theist machine a great source for objective truth?). Deuteronomy 23:15-16 reads, "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them."
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Seems to me a command (even assuming it's supposed to apply to people here and now, which is always disputable) to stone only women who do not scream for help while being "raped" (once again assuming it's referring to rape and not consentual adultery, which is forbidden elsewhere in the bible so there's a precedent for this sort of punishment).
Now, the last couple of verses are often criticized by anti-theists, but not because they say rape victims are to be killed. They say they're to be married, and only if we conceptualize "marriage" in a 21st century America way (instead of as marriage used to be conceptualized when and where this was written) can we score some rhetorical points against them.
Well again, if we keep the instructions in mind (e.g., don't oppress them, don't threaten them, treat them as they're to treat you, and let them live and work wherever they want) it seems clear to me that the only issue left is that of being "owned". And while it might offend our modern-day sensibilities of pride and subjective notions of "dignity", I'm not seeing a direct harm from the practice itself.
It doesn't say they were allowed to do this, but it's commanded that they are. From the same book you cited earlier, in fact (Isn't the anti-theist machine a great source for objective truth?). Deuteronomy 23:15-16 reads, "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them."
So you are still fine with the concepts of stoning to death certain rape victims and owning other people? Remember that theists claim that the Bible is the word of God and is absolute morality and never changes. Therefore we morally should still be stoning all the women who get raped in their homes, dorms and on the streets of cities. It's right there in the Bible, you quoted it and those that claim that the Bible is never wrong society today must be immoral not to do so.
If you want to call me an anti theist due to I think the Bible contains some nasty stuff and some things that are not correct you are fine to do so. Are you an atheist that believes the Bible is all fine and stoning urban rape victims is just punishment that's up to you. Am I an anti theist if I don't accept the Noah Flood story as literal? I don't have a positive view of the God of the OT as portrayed in the Bible.
Ant theist means I would be against all Gods. You say you are an atheist but you do you accept the Bible as perfect, without error and the moral standard we must all follow? If you are defending the Bible in stoning victims of rape and of slavery can I also assume that you fully support the stoning of adulteters, unruly children and homosexuals and that witches must not be allowed to live? Or are you also an anti theist but just lives to argue. I am sorry but if you think the Bible is only good and everything within it is correct and moral then we will never agree. There is a possibility of there being a God but I cannot see it as the God of the OT if this God is all powerful, all knowing all loving and just.
Presumably then, there is no 'free-will' in your heaven?
This is an interesting question, and one I don't have a proper answer for.
The comment "keep sin alive" in Heaven is not mine, but one used in Christian arguments, and presumably one that is in scripture somewhere.
I recall Bryan Melvin also stated this in his Hell testimony as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A person would have to be a complete bird-brain to buy into such a silly notion that people voluntarily choose to god to hell.
