Jump to content

Burning Holy Books


La_Dolce_Vita
 Share

Recommended Posts

But very few people believe 'it' LDV. Like I said, it's only when they get political power and/or want to go to war that it affects the lives of the vast non-believing majority. It definitely doesn't drag my life down. Not one bit! I also just love their simple deduction that you can't live a moral and good life unless you 'subscribe'. What nonsense!

I think a lot believe in a God and heaven along Christian lines. It's less of a problem, though to be honest those who just believe in A God are probably sillier than serious Christians in a number of ways.

 

When you have just a bunch of people who believe in such things it isn't a problem. Just a weird group of people who indulge in fantasy. When it is a large proportion of society then it is concerning. As much as theology is interesting stuff, it does make me slightly uncomfortable when I hear people tell me they are Christian or Muslim. I have to wonder what they think about the world and how they make decisions considering they have such irrational beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 440
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A lecture looking at the writing of the Gospels.

 

Audio

Slides

 

A piece discussing the historisity of Christ - the idea that there is a lot of evidence for a historical Jesus is to me not realistic. Obviously there are the Gospels and the letters, but during his life there is no evidence that anyone "official" noticed Jesus. Plus there are problems over the things like the census etc which is meant to have got Jesus to Bethlehem etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How was supposed god's supposed love expressed in my mum's dreadful death despite her being devoutly christian? Sorry for the explicit detail, but she had a disease that ended by slowly drowning her in her own saliva. Unfortunately that life ending crescendo to the 2 year terminal disease took 5 days. Where was her god then?

 

Sounds a horible way to go, but I'm curious.. was she devout to the day she died?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lecture looking at the writing of the Gospels.

 

Audio

Slides

 

A piece discussing the historisity of Christ - the idea that there is a lot of evidence for a historical Jesus is to me not realistic. Obviously there are the Gospels and the letters, but during his life there is no evidence that anyone "official" noticed Jesus. Plus there are problems over the things like the census etc which is meant to have got Jesus to Bethlehem etc.

 

The Gospels can be discounted - historical analysis suggests they were not written by disciples of Jesus (if there were any), they were knocked up by messianic cult members in Turkey decades after the events are supposed to have taken place, by people who were not around at the time, or who had any personal knowledge of Jesus or his life. They're also knocked up from two sources - the authors of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) had been told one version of events, whilst the authors of John seem to have been told a completely different version, and seem to portray a different version of Jesus too. The letters aren't contemporary either.

 

You can't rely on other sources such as Josephus, thanks to a series of "helpful" ancient Christians amending the text when they transcribed it to make it fit in with the gospels (check the Josephus text in its "original" and "christianised" versions), so that any historical source mentioning Jesus has to be treated with skepticism.

 

For me, if he existed, Jesus was probably an unfortunate David Koresh-like leader of a small cult, who was posthumously fitted up as a messiah figure by one of the messianic organisations around at the time, and fanatically aggrandized by people who never knew him, being retro-fitted with divinity, a complex, variable history and a series of miraculous events in much the same way that Kim Il-Sung was in North Korea - and like Kim Il-Sung, requiring a complex process of indoctrination (ideally from early childhood) in order to build a fanatical following that would regard questioning the facts as heresy.

Edited by The Bastard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Spook you also reject evolution, geology*, paleantology, microbrial medicine etc?

 

Where do you get that idea from? What I accept is creation. What followed from that is another matter.

 

You believe all humanity is decended from one family ship wrecked on a mountain in Turkey 4000 years ago - how come the genetic evidence is totally contradictory to this?

 

Why should time not change the human genome? Why should The Lord not have established provision for such variation in his creation? And why should time dilation not also apply to the age of The Flood?

 

In any case The Flood related to Noah and his family. That family would have included wives from other families and even adopted children.

 

It looks like you are a day/age proponante in your understanding of Genesis - that makes you profoundly at odds with our scientific understanding of how the universe developed and life evolved - do you really believe the earth was formed before stars? PZ Myers has a good go showing the absurdity of such beliefs - in his usual style!

 

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?

 

* which in sedimentary rocks involves biology - chalk is basically dead animals and you can very clearly see the evolution of micro fossils over time in these rocks.

 

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.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and at best an eternity that does not result in being imersed in burning lakes of sulphur.

Ah the great threat.

'If you don't obey the rules of *insert name of book/deity* you'll suffer.

It may have cowed poor superstitious villagers in the middle ages, it is unlikely to work as well these days.

 

Kind words of enticement and promise then the lash for dissenters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I’ve made my point, I’ve stated my position, I’ve taken the ridicule, I’ve given a Christian perspective, I’ve told of a way forward by the upcoming Alpha courses, I’ve even sugested one that I believe will be amongst the best so now there’s not much more that I can do.

 

I hope that those of you who thought that this was some sort of joke now realise that it isn’t and if you still do then in a few short years you’ll find out first hand that it wasn’t.

 

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? The evil one has many names, the father of lies being one. Lies that are all too plausable especially when compared with the almost unbelieveable glory of The Lord. He really is not only The Almighty but more than that he is the ALL mighty, a thing that people forget when looking for simple explanations to what they see about them and see the tree but not the forest or the ground on which it stands.

 

It’s a shame that other Christians didn’t join this thread, maybe because they were embaressed to do so, maybe because they thought that I was insincere and just playing. Only they will know.

 

If anyone really wants to know more about being a true Christian but is embarresed to raise it on this thread then open a new one, or PM me if you want privacy. It’s a genuine offer. Its no more than I as a Christian can do in witness to my faith, and following the Christian requirment of me to work towards offering a invitation to salvation and telling how it may be achieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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've attended a session of the Alpha Course and the topic was Prayer. My own dislike of the Alpha course is that they water down the doctrines of Christianity so that they can suit everyone. In so doing, the doctrines become nothing.

 

The speaker who gave a talk on prayer even suggested that 'to a Hippie, a prayer could be to say "peace God!"'.

 

Christianity is falling away from the interest of the people - which is to be expected. 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. Much of Christianity has responded in generating "movements" rather than churches. This enables the various leaders to water down the doctrines even further. We also see a 'coming together' of various denominations - so again, the doctrines are forgotten and only the common ground is taught... so basically, only faith in Jesus Christ.

 

The Alpha Course has in my opinion become a 'movement', and it contributes to the general lack of understanding of the real doctrines among Christians today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and at best an eternity that does not result in being imersed in burning lakes of sulphur.

Ah the great threat.

'If you don't obey the rules of *insert name of book/deity* you'll suffer.

It may have cowed poor superstitious villagers in the middle ages, it is unlikely to work as well these days.

 

Kind words of enticement and promise then the lash for dissenters.

Ah now this theory can be proven as wrong and in fact heaven is Hotter than Hell (should anyone be foolish enough to believe each exists)

The temperatures of Heaven and of Hell are not given specifically in the Bible. Fortunately there is sufficient data available to calculate the temperature of Heaven, and the maximum temperature of Hell can also be determined.

 

The temperature of heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26 reads,

 

"Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days."

Thus, heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all. The light we receive from the moon is one ten-thousandth of the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature of heaven: The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation. In other words, heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation

(H/E)4 = 50

where E is the absolute temperature of the earth, 300°K (273+27). This gives H the absolute temperature of heaven, as 798° absolute (525°C).

 

The exact temperature of hell cannot be computed but it must be less than 444.6°C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes from a liquid to a gas. Revelations 21:8:

 

" But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."

A lake of molten brimstone [sulphur] means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, which is 444.6°C. (Above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake.)

 

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

 

next we must ask is hell exothermic or endothermic?

The answer:

 

First, we postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving?

 

From basic theological assumptions, no souls ever leave Hell. Hell is conceived of as a place of punishment where its inmates are tortured for all eternity. On the other hand, souls are continually entering Hell. The student observed that many religions teach that anyone who is not a member will go to Hell. Historically, Christians have taught that all non-Christians will go to Hell. And many non-Christians have believed that all Christians will go there as well. One might therefore assume that all souls will end up in Hell. Thus with souls continually entering Hell and no souls exiting, the total mass of Hell is increasing.

 

There are two possibilities:

 

If the volume of Hell is expanding at a slower rate than souls are entering, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will "clearly increase until all Hell breaks loose."

 

On the other hand, if hell is expanding faster than this rate, then the temperature and pressure will "drop until Hell freezes over."

 

Now going on a nice little redhead I met many years ago said "it will be a cold night in Hell before I sleep with you." It is noted that I have still not been able to engage in sexual relationships with her. I conclude that Hell is in no danger of freezing over. Thus Option 2 is invalid, the temperature of Hell is increasing, and thus Hell is exothermic.

 

Thanks to Li'l Demon and English Athiest for the above

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

 

I presume your answer is this:

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...