BMW i
Forum for the BMW i3, i4 and i8
BMW i3 BMW i8
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

  BMW i Forums > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      05-29-2015, 02:44 PM   #23
bmwmsport
Captain
bmwmsport's Avatar
United_States
124
Rep
950
Posts

Drives: E90 335i
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Jackson, MS

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by KlausPA View Post
According to the Bible God created it all. If you don't believe God created hell then you are saying God is not the sole creator. Someone created hell then. Who did? The Devil or Lucifer? Wasn't he an Angel created by God who rebelled?

I think you are confusing possibility with probability. I don't have to prove my belief because I have none. Let me go back to my previous example... Do you belief in Santa, Tooth Fairy? You answer most likely is no/ Prove it.
You still want Hell to be a created place. God did NOT create hell, it is a place he ALLOWS to exist. Hell is a word we use to describe the LACK OF God's love, mercy, and presence. Your next step would be to ask why? Why would a good God allow such a place of torment to exist if he is good? The answer: he allows it to exist for his glory. Where does light shine best? Against a dark background. God is just. Those in hell are there because of their own hand. Jesus died on the cross, defeated death, rose again in three days, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father. He was sent because (as in a court of law), we have sinned (All fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)) and now owe a debt we cannot pay. Jesus accepts our sins, effectively taking our debt on himself, that way God can let us go and still be a just God.

Lucifer wanted the power of God. He lusted for more. As a result, God cast him from Heaven to a place where God's light does not shine, we know this now as Hell.
__________________
2010 E90 335i Le Mans Blue Metallic // Saddle Brown // M Sport // iDrive // Comfort Access // Blown By Twins
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2015, 02:58 PM   #24
MiddleAgedAl
Lieutenant
100
Rep
418
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmwmsport View Post
You obviously have problems with the law of causality and the law of noncontradiction. God wasn't created, he has no beginning and no end. We can't rationalize infinites like this because we live in a little 4 dimensional world, where time for us is linear. We can't go forward in time nor can we go backwards in time. (if you travel at close to the speed of light, your personal relative time frame slows down, we consider this time travel. All conceptual. See relativity)

God and our universe are very different. God is limitless, we have limits. To say that God not needing a creator leads to us not needing a creator is a false conclusion.
What???

I'm very familiar with the law of noncontradiction:

A thing cannot both be A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense. A thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. A statement cannot both be true and not true at the same time and in the same sense.

I still dont understand how that has anything to do with the question that I have asked.

Telling me that "we cannot rationalize infinites" hardly constitutes a logically rigorous answer to my question. That sounds like a parent telling a child that they are too young to understand if the child asks a question that the parent cannot answer. It ranks right up there with "because I said so".

It has nothing to do with needing to travel forward or backward in time, or travelling at the speed of light, or any other similarly irrelevant misdirection.

Its a pretty basic premise: if the world is too complex to have spontaneously self-instantiated; and therefore must be the result of intelligent design, then it must logically follow that the designer of said world is necessarily even more complex than his creation, and thus is even more in need of a creator himself.

Why is that a false conclusion ?
__________________
If you want something you've never had before, then you better be prepared to do something you've never done before.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2015, 04:27 PM   #25
bmwmsport
Captain
bmwmsport's Avatar
United_States
124
Rep
950
Posts

Drives: E90 335i
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Jackson, MS

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
What???

I'm very familiar with the law of noncontradiction:

A thing cannot both be A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense. A thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. A statement cannot both be true and not true at the same time and in the same sense.

I still dont understand how that has anything to do with the question that I have asked.

Telling me that "we cannot rationalize infinites" hardly constitutes a logically rigorous answer to my question. That sounds like a parent telling a child that they are too young to understand if the child asks a question that the parent cannot answer. It ranks right up there with "because I said so".

It has nothing to do with needing to travel forward or backward in time, or travelling at the speed of light, or any other similarly irrelevant misdirection.

Its a pretty basic premise: if the world is too complex to have spontaneously self-instantiated; and therefore must be the result of intelligent design, then it must logically follow that the designer of said world is necessarily even more complex than his creation, and thus is even more in need of a creator himself.

Why is that a false conclusion ?

The "seemingly irrelevant misdirections" are to help you understand God. He exists outside the limits of this world, the example of time is an easy one to grasp. God's time and our time are very different. But, let's stay on topic if you wish.

Consider this: Aristotle (arguably smarter than all of us combined ) disagreed that "God" could be created. Aristotle rightly reasoned that there must be a First Cause, i.e. God (the uncaused cause).

While infinite regression is conceptually not irrational, we do not see them in this world. The reason that infinite regressions are unreasonable is because there are no actual infinites in our universe. (if anyone disagrees, please point to an actual infinite in matter (which has never been done)). Therefore, assuming no actual infinites, everything (effect) must have a cause (God (who himself MUST BE infinite)). Infinites must be outside this world. This isn't a "because I said so" answer as you so eloquently put it.
__________________
2010 E90 335i Le Mans Blue Metallic // Saddle Brown // M Sport // iDrive // Comfort Access // Blown By Twins
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2015, 04:46 PM   #26
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
706
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by KlausPA View Post
Sir, your post confused me, and although I respect your POV it raises other questions. According to John 3:16 God loved the world so much that he sent his one and only son to be judged and to save the world.

I want to make clear that my post is in no way meant to be offensive or combative... Take it as challenging if you may.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
- 1 John 5:7

I happen to think that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are one and three. Insofar as the three are also one, I see the use of "Son" as a matter of literary convenience, an concept God -- as Jesus -- articulated quite simply because it was the most straightforward way of expressing the trinity concept to the people to whom He spoke.

I believe that more so that it meaning literally son because if one looks at Jesus' words, one sees that, all dogma aside, He was an excellent communicator, and one of the key skills of a motivational and inspirational communicator is that they make that which is complex be simple to the audience. And let's face facts. There's nothing particularly simple about the mystery of the Trinity.

It's a concept that asks a lot of one to accept, particularly when the "ones" to whom one finds oneself speaking at the time are Jews who, by Jesus' time, had, much like the Roman Catholic Church, built up a huge, man made infrastructure and hierarchy of not only dogma, but also politics, around their faith. Then along comes a this guy, Jesus, who says that He, the Holy Ghost, and God are one. That's a lot to "swallow" for his Jewish contemporaries. Better to frame the discussion by calling Himself the Son of God. That, or a similar construct that makes the idea understandable to would be adherents, is certainly an approach I would take in explaining who I am.

And why wouldn't Jesus do the same? Looking at many of the things Jesus said and did, one see's the guy was if nothing else, practical. Take his encapsulation of six of ten commandments. "Love your neighbor as yourself." Short, sweet and gets the job done.

Additionally, one must realize that Jesus popped out of a vagina. Given even our understanding of how babies are born, he had to, as we understand birth, be "someone's" son. Seeing as Mary was divinely impregnated, that made him God's "Son." Again, however, one sees that the "son" element is a matter of human rationale being applied to a divine event. That said, if one accepts the Trinity as being part of the Truth about God, then it doesn't matter if one calls Jesus "son" or "God made man." The two are synonymous.

Will the preceding be something one might be told by an official member of one of today's organized religions? I don't know. I know only that the understanding I described is how I came to grips with the concept for myself.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 2
      05-29-2015, 04:53 PM   #27
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
706
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
What???

I'm very familiar with the law of noncontradiction:

A thing cannot both be A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense. A thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. A statement cannot both be true and not true at the same time and in the same sense.

I still dont understand how that has anything to do with the question that I have asked.

Telling me that "we cannot rationalize infinites" hardly constitutes a logically rigorous answer to my question. That sounds like a parent telling a child that they are too young to understand if the child asks a question that the parent cannot answer. It ranks right up there with "because I said so".

It has nothing to do with needing to travel forward or backward in time, or travelling at the speed of light, or any other similarly irrelevant misdirection.

Its a pretty basic premise: if the world is too complex to have spontaneously self-instantiated; and therefore must be the result of intelligent design, then it must logically follow that the designer of said world is necessarily even more complex than his creation, and thus is even more in need of a creator himself.

Why is that a false conclusion ?
Red:
On matters of faith, I don't think one is going to find the central points of any god-based belief system that's humanly rational. I think one needs to find a way to come to grips with "things" however one can and that's about it.

At the end of the day, pretty much every religion, except Atheism, is based at some point on "because I said so." It's just a matter of who said so. One either "buys it" or one doesn't.

Atheism is slightly different in that it's a religion based on "nobody's proven 'such and such' to my satisfaction, thus I don't believe it to be so." Make no mistake, Atheism is every bit a religion, it's just that it's one oriented around disbelief in the existence of a god rather than belief in one or more of them.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2015, 05:06 PM   #28
bmwmsport
Captain
bmwmsport's Avatar
United_States
124
Rep
950
Posts

Drives: E90 335i
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Jackson, MS

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Red:
On matters of faith, I don't think one is going to find the central points of any god-based belief system that's humanly rational. I think one needs to find a way to come to grips with "things" however one can and that's about it.

At the end of the day, pretty much every religion, except Atheism, is based at some point on "because I said so." It's just a matter of who said so. One either "buys it" or one doesn't.

Atheism is slightly different in that it's a religion based on "nobody's proven 'such and such' to my satisfaction, thus I don't believe it to be so." Make no mistake, Atheism is every bit a religion, it's just that it's one oriented around disbelief in the existence of a god rather than belief in one or more of them.

All the best.
See red. That is where I would disagree. We can completely rationalize the existence of God, see the excerpt from my paper on page one. As Romans 1:19-20 said (and as I stated earlier), "The truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities- His eternal power and divine nature. So they can have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God."

See blue. That is where I do completely agree.
__________________
2010 E90 335i Le Mans Blue Metallic // Saddle Brown // M Sport // iDrive // Comfort Access // Blown By Twins
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2015, 06:55 PM   #29
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
706
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmwmsport View Post
See red. That is where I would disagree. We can completely rationalize the existence of God, see the excerpt from my paper on page one. As Romans 1:19-20 said (and as I stated earlier), "The truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities- His eternal power and divine nature. So they can have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God."

See blue. That is where I do completely agree.
Page one of what? If you mean that link you provided in post #2 of this thread, I don't see any papers identified on that page.

BTW, instinct and logical arguments are not the same things. When I wrote "rational" I meant in the sense of a solidly constructed argument that leads to only one conclusion that is undeniable. There're plenty of things having to do with God that requires one have faith that they are so.

The matter of faith vs. reason has been exhaustively addressed by many religious pundits. Below I refer to only one of them, James Swindal of Dusquene University.
Traditionally, faith and reason have each been considered to be sources of justification for religious belief. Because both can purportedly serve this same epistemic function, it has been a matter of much interest to philosophers and theologians how the two are related and thus how the rational agent should treat claims derived from either source. Some have held that there can be no conflict between the two—that reason properly employed and faith properly understood will never produce contradictory or competing claims—whereas others have maintained that faith and reason can (or even must) be in genuine contention over certain propositions or methodologies.

Those who have taken the latter view disagree as to whether faith or reason ought to prevail when the two are in conflict. Kierkegaard, for instance, prioritizes faith even to the point that it becomes positively irrational, while Locke emphasizes the reasonableness of faith to such an extent that a religious doctrine’s irrationality—conflict with itself or with known facts—is a sign that it is unsound.

Other thinkers have theorized that faith and reason each govern their own separate domains, such that cases of apparent conflict are resolved on the side of faith when the claim in question is, say, a religious or theological claim, but resolved on the side of reason when the disputed claim is, for example, empirical or logical. Some relatively recent philosophers, most notably the logical positivists, have denied that there is a domain of thought or human existence rightly governed by faith, asserting instead that all meaningful statements and ideas are accessible to thorough rational examination.

This has presented a challenge to religious thinkers to explain how an admittedly nonrational or transrational form of language can hold meaningful cognitive content.

The writings attributed to St. Paul in the Christian Scriptures provide diverse interpretations of the relation between faith and reason. First, in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul himself engages in discussion with "certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers" at the Aeropagus in Athens (Acts 17:18). There he champions the unity of the Christian God as the creator of all. God is "not far from any one of us." Much of Paul's speech, in fact, seems to allude to Stoic beliefs. It reflects a sympathy with pagan customs, handles the subject of idol worship gently, and appeals for a new examination of divinity not from the standpoint of creation, but from practical engagement with the world. Paul, however, claims that this same God will one day come to judge all mankind.

In his famous passage from Romans 1:20, Paul is less obliging to non-Christians. Here he champions a natural theology against those pagans who would claim that, even on Christian grounds, their previous lack of access to the Christian God would absolve them from guilt for their nonbelief. Paul argues that in fact anyone can attain to the truth of God's existence merely from using his or her reason to reflect on the natural world. Thus this strong compatibilist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism] interpretation entailed a reduced tolerance for atheists and agnostics. Yet in 1 Corinthians 1:23, Paul suggests a kind of incompatibilism, claiming that Christian revelation is folly the Gentiles (meaning Greeks). He points out that the world did not come to know God through wisdom; God chose to reveal Himself fully to those of simple faith.

These diverse Pauline interpretations of the relation between faith and reason were to continue to manifest themselves in various ways through the centuries that followed.
Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/faith-re/#SH3b
Is someone here named Paul? LOL Paul or no Paul being present, we see the varying approaches to establishing the basis for belief appearing in even this thread. For my part, once I arrived at the point of accepting that God exists, I was fine with taking on faith all else that follows regarding my spiritual beliefs.

I see no point in quibbling over the verity of the rest of my dogmatic position for if I determine that there is a God, it's a short step to ascribe to him all the "omni" qualities I mentioned above, whereafter literally everything becomes possible when it comes to Him. From that point forward, it's just a matter of defining for myself what sort of relationship I want to have with Him. That's up to Him and me and nobody else.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed

Last edited by tony20009; 05-29-2015 at 07:18 PM..
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2015, 08:13 PM   #30
MiddleAgedAl
Lieutenant
100
Rep
418
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
BTW, instinct and logical arguments are not the same things. When I wrote "rational" I meant in the sense of a solidly constructed argument that leads to only one conclusion that is undeniable. There're plenty of things having to do with God that requires one have faith that they are so.

I would certainly agree with that. It's interesting to note that people often quote the Bible in the process of constructing what they feel to be a logical/rational argument to support their belief, without stopping to consider that the Bible itself is merely a document that cannot be irrefutably proven or disproven in the same manner that, say, a Newtonian Physics textbook can.

It's like they forget that if I dont implicitly accept the Bible as the one and only undeniable truth, then using that to support their assertion is really no more persuasive (to me), than if they literally said "because I said so". Certainly doesnt form the basis of what I would consider to be a rational argument that could withstand logical scrutiny.
__________________
If you want something you've never had before, then you better be prepared to do something you've never done before.
Appreciate 1
      05-30-2015, 08:38 PM   #31
KlausPA
Lieutenant
KlausPA's Avatar
194
Rep
443
Posts

Drives: Blue overpriced POS
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: York, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Red:

...Atheism is every bit a religion, it's just that it's one oriented around disbelief in the existence of a god rather than belief in one or more of them.

All the best.
Atheism cannot be a religion:

1- There's no belief to Atheism.
2- There's no worship of a supernatural entity (we have no God)
3- There's no particular system of faith and worship
4- We have no sacred scripture. Our lives are not based on a holy book of rules.
5- Atheism does not take time away from our lives, in other words we don't give atheism importance in our lives.
6- Atheism is not a way of life, it is simply a conclusion.
Appreciate 1
      05-30-2015, 09:03 PM   #32
KlausPA
Lieutenant
KlausPA's Avatar
194
Rep
443
Posts

Drives: Blue overpriced POS
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: York, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmwmsport View Post
You still want Hell to be a created place. God did NOT create hell, it is a place he ALLOWS to exist. Hell is a word we use to describe the LACK OF God's love, mercy, and presence.
Thanks for the explanation, it actually makes sense.

As an Atheist I lack the love of God, mercy and obviously his presence... Am I in hell then?
Appreciate 0
      05-31-2015, 03:14 PM   #33
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
706
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by KlausPA View Post
Atheism cannot be a religion:

1- There's no belief to Atheism.
2- There's no worship of a supernatural entity (we have no God)
3- There's no particular system of faith and worship
4- We have no sacred scripture. Our lives are not based on a holy book of rules.
5- Atheism does not take time away from our lives, in other words we don't give atheism importance in our lives.
6- Atheism is not a way of life, it is simply a conclusion.
??? What are you talking about. Do Atheists not very strongly believe there is no god? That is every bit a belief as is its opposite.

RE: #2 - #6: see the sixth sense noted here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion . There doesn't need to be for a set of beliefs to be a religion.

For more thought on the matter, see the following:
All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      05-31-2015, 05:40 PM   #34
bmwmsport
Captain
bmwmsport's Avatar
United_States
124
Rep
950
Posts

Drives: E90 335i
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Jackson, MS

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
I would certainly agree with that. It's interesting to note that people often quote the Bible in the process of constructing what they feel to be a logical/rational argument to support their belief, without stopping to consider that the Bible itself is merely a document that cannot be irrefutably proven or disproven in the same manner that, say, a Newtonian Physics textbook can.

It's like they forget that if I dont implicitly accept the Bible as the one and only undeniable truth, then using that to support their assertion is really no more persuasive (to me), than if they literally said "because I said so". Certainly doesnt form the basis of what I would consider to be a rational argument that could withstand logical scrutiny.
The Bible itself is a historical document yes. However, I would argue that it can too be proven. What follows is another excerpt from another paper I wrote on this topic:
"Only one “holy book” can possibly be true[see Law of Noncontradiction]. Only the God of the Bible matches the description of the God we logically concluded must exist. The Bible has both internal consistency and external corroboration. Never once does the Bible contradict itself, despite being written by 40 different authors over a 1500 year period on 3 different continents in 3 different languages. In fact, the multiple eyewitness accounts just add to the reliability of the Bible as the true word of God. Instead of contradictions, the Bible gives different viewpoints on the same event. Also, there are lots of documents that provide external corroboration. The Bible is a historical document with correct information. When the Bible says there was a city named Jericho, other archives point to the existence of Jericho at the same place in the same time. Examples of records like this are the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of Joseph Flavius, Josephus, and Tacitus.
All other “holy books” such as the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, and the Veda scriptures all fall short of what the Bible achieves. They are not internally consistent and do not present historical events accurately. None of them have the overwhelming external corroboration the Bible has. On top of this, the Bible hasn’t changed in the 2000 years since it was written, even though it is the most printed book in human history. All other books that claim to be holy have changed over time. Plus, the Bible is the only holy book that makes humans out to be sinful and not good in their own nature. All other “holy books” make humans out to be basically good and provide a way to “heaven” by their own works. The Bible outlines a path where the only way to get to heaven is by God’s saving grace and the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Why would any man write a book condemning himself if it wasn’t true? Man wouldn’t write that book for himself if the only way to get to heaven was through a God that doesn’t exist. Why would man write a book whose main premise is: “God exists, you have wronged Him, and there is nothing you can do by your own arm to right that,” leaving man depraved and hopeless. It goes against man’s nature, which is to glorify himself."
__________________
2010 E90 335i Le Mans Blue Metallic // Saddle Brown // M Sport // iDrive // Comfort Access // Blown By Twins
Appreciate 0
      05-31-2015, 05:43 PM   #35
bmwmsport
Captain
bmwmsport's Avatar
United_States
124
Rep
950
Posts

Drives: E90 335i
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Jackson, MS

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by KlausPA View Post
Thanks for the explanation, it actually makes sense.

As an Atheist I lack the love of God, mercy and obviously his presence... Am I in hell then?
You are currently on Earth. Hell is a place for spirits. Presently, you are a spirit that occupies a body. By definition, you can't be in hell.
__________________
2010 E90 335i Le Mans Blue Metallic // Saddle Brown // M Sport // iDrive // Comfort Access // Blown By Twins
Appreciate 0
      05-31-2015, 05:49 PM   #36
bmwmsport
Captain
bmwmsport's Avatar
United_States
124
Rep
950
Posts

Drives: E90 335i
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Jackson, MS

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by KlausPA View Post
Atheism cannot be a religion:

1- There's no belief to Atheism.
2- There's no worship of a supernatural entity (we have no God)
3- There's no particular system of faith and worship
4- We have no sacred scripture. Our lives are not based on a holy book of rules.
5- Atheism does not take time away from our lives, in other words we don't give atheism importance in our lives.
6- Atheism is not a way of life, it is simply a conclusion.
As Tony20009 said, Atheists believe there is no God. That is still very much a belief. +1 for the articles he lists
__________________
2010 E90 335i Le Mans Blue Metallic // Saddle Brown // M Sport // iDrive // Comfort Access // Blown By Twins
Appreciate 0
      05-31-2015, 10:11 PM   #37
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
706
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmwmsport View Post
You are currently on Earth. Hell is a place for spirits. Presently, you are a spirit that occupies a body. By definition, you can't be in hell.
I think you are correct that the OP is on Earth. I have yet to learn exactly where Hell is. I think that if believers in God are "right," the OP may well find out. If we believers in God aren't "right," and Athiests are "right," none of us will end up in Hell.

I don't see much point in trying to explain Hell, where it is, who's there, or what it's for, to a non-believer. Hell, as per deist belief, holds souls. Do Atheists even believe there is such a thing as a soul? I don't see why they would for if they do, what is the point of it if there is no god?

Off Topic:
If one asks me, I honestly think that a fair number of deists -- Christians, Muslims, Budhists, Animists, etc. -- accept the premise that there is a god (or several) quite simply because logically speaking, it's the long term safer choice. Even though an Atheist may look at, say, my life and say that I'm "worse off" for believing in God, few folks who actually believe there is a god feel they are worse off for doing so.

I'm not so arrogant that I'm going to presume that believing is better for other folks. Similarly, however, I expect the same courtesy in return, that is, that others -- god fearing or not -- refrain from presuming that I don't know whether believing or not believing (or even how/what I choose to believe) is better, right, wrong, etc. for me.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      05-31-2015, 10:29 PM   #38
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
706
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

BMWSport,
Methinks you haven't entirely read the Bible for you wrote, "Never once does the Bible contradict itself." The very beginning of the Bible, the Creation Story, contains contradictions.

Some of them are clearly contradictions of simple fact. There's no need for interpretation at all.
How many horsemen?
1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Who is Joseph's father?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Who was at the empty tomb?
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
There are also contradictions that I suppose one could call different interpretations of something, but to me they just seem like contradictions.

Trinity contradiction:
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
For my own part, I don't struggle with the contradictions because my approach to the Bible's stories is that which I took from the Jesuit education I received as a child. To that end, and with regard to matters of faith and belief, I read Bible passages and look for what message they are trying to convey rather than what specific facts they offer.

For example, I don't care whether Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt. From that story, I take that the woman was given a set of divine instructions to follow, she didn't follow them and she paid the price. I take from it also that even when instructions aren't divine, most of the time, it's in my best interest to follow them. Al the same, when instructions aren't divine, I well within my right, if I have sufficient cause to think so, not to follow them, but be that as it may, there will quite likely still be negative consequences of doing things my own way. I need to be prepared to accept the consequences. That's the beginning and end of what I take from that part of the story.

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2015, 01:00 AM   #39
Jashley73
Second Lieutenant
78
Rep
234
Posts

Drives: '06 330i 6-M/T
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Louisville, KY

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmwmsport View Post
You still want Hell to be a created place. God did NOT create hell, it is a place he ALLOWS to exist. Hell is a word we use to describe the LACK OF God's love, mercy, and presence. Your next step would be to ask why?...

Lucifer wanted the power of God. He lusted for more. As a result, God cast him from Heaven to a place where God's light does not shine, we know this now as Hell.
As a fellow Christian, I have to take issue with this viewpoint on Hell. I don't believe that "Hell" truly is, or actually will be rather, what we humans "think" that it is. I would say the same about "Heaven" as well... In fact, I don't honestly believe that "Hell" exists, as the Bible describes it, yet... I would say the same about Heaven as well. I believe that the New Heaven, and the New earth, and consequently the New Hell won't be in their fullness, until God's final judgment. (This is a little difficult to understand, as I'm not denying that Heaven and Hell exist, but rather that they don't exist in their fullness, at least until after the judgment...) Certainly God exists in a place outside of our natural world, and for all practical purposes, I would agree that it's safe to say, that this place is called "Heaven." But it's not the "New Heaven" that God promises us in Revelation - the place where Jesus has prepared for us, where His believers will fellowship with God the Father, Son, and Spirit for all eternity. I don't believe that "New Heaven" place exists, in it's fullness, yet...

A New Heaven and a New Earth
Revelation 21:1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” -NIV



Now, let us turn our attention to "Hell." In the Book of Job, Satan comes to present himself before God in Heaven, and when asked where he came from, Satan responds, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”

Job 1:6 One day the angels[a] came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[b] also came with them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”

Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.” -NIV


In this story, God allows Satan - a sinful and fallen angel to be in his presence, in Heaven. This is in stark contradiction to the picture of the "New Heaven" that is painted for us in Revelation - a place where there will be no more sin...

It also goes to show us, that Satan is not currently cast into Hell, but was instead cast to the earth. That is, the here-and-now, 3rd rock from the sun, planet of earth, which we call home and set up shop - earth... We see it again in Job chapter 2...

Job 2:1 On another day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them to present himself before him. 2 And the Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”

Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.” -NIV


And Jesus himself was tempted by Satan, not in Heaven, but here on good ole' earth...

Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, ... -NIV

In fact, in 1st Peter, Peter reminds us that Satan is *still* here on the earth, tempting us to sin...

1st Peter 5:8 Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

But it doesn't end well for Satan. Revelation 20 tells us that Satan will indeed be cast into that place, which is described as the lake of burning sulphur (burning fire...), also called the 2nd death later in revelation... This lake of burning fire, the 2nd death, is the "Hell" where God will carry out His eternal-judgment on those who have sinned against Him - both humans and angels alike... This is not the "Devils's lair" where he is allowed to rule and torment those as he sees fit. This place, this Hell, is the place where almighty God will pour out his wrath on those who have sinned against Him, and have not believed in Jesus His Son...

The Judgment of Satan
Revelation 7:1 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. -NIV


Just after that description, we see the final judgment that will be carried out on all mankind... Non-Believers, "those whose names are not found written in the book of life" are cast into this same lake of fire...

The Judgment of the Dead
Revelation 20:11
Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.



I'd be perfectly willing to admit to God himself that I'm wrong about this stuff, but after much reading and study, to the best of my ability to comprehend it, I really believe this is what the Bible teaches us about Heaven and Hell...
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2015, 01:54 AM   #40
Jashley73
Second Lieutenant
78
Rep
234
Posts

Drives: '06 330i 6-M/T
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Louisville, KY

iTrader: (0)

Before someone asks, "Then why did God even need a Hell to punish sins, why can't he just forgive us all, and all be well and good?..."

Because plainly put, when this life and present world is over, (and I think we can all agree on the fact that each of us will in fact, die, and come to an end of our time here on earth...) what will God do with all this sinful stuff that is left over? We saw in Revelation 21 above, that He has already promised that there will be no more sin in Heaven, so what's God to do with all of the sinful people, and rebellious angels, and the rest of the sinful "stuff" that is left over? He's going to put it far away form himself, and his new Kingdom - the lake of burning fire that we saw in Revelation 20...

The good news though, is that God doesn't _want_anyone_ to suffer His just, eternal punishment. Rather, God _wants_us_ to repent of our sins, believe in His Son Jesus, and share eternity with Him, in His eternal Kingdom...

Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? <...snip...> 30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live! -NIV

In fact, God hates the idea that we'll suffer his judgment so much, that he did something about it. He sent His Son Jesus as the perfect sacrifice, to pay the price for ALL sin, so that we would not have to suffer for our sins, if we will only believe in His Son Jesus... (You would also be correct in saying that God didn't just "send" His Son, but that GOD THE SON HIMSELF came of His own free will in order to become that perfect sacrifice for sin...) Paul tells us more about that love that God has for us, and how God doesn't want us to suffer His judgement...

Romans 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were *still* sinners, Christ died for us. -NIV

Just as God pleaded with the wicked in Ezekiel to turn from their sins, and inherit eternal life, Paul tells us that while we were *still sinning* against God - that is, while we were those same wicked people He was pleading with - He made a way for us to pay for ours sins - which we do not have the means to pay for on our own... That way is to believe in His Son Jesus, and God will forgives us of our sins...

Those who believe in Jesus get spared the eternal punishment, and they get to share eternity in the New Heaven, with God the Father, Son, and Spirit, - a place where no sin will ever enter, and where God's plan for mankind to be in fellowship with Him, and to glorify Him, and share in that glory, will be forever and forever more...

Last edited by Jashley73; 06-01-2015 at 02:00 AM..
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2015, 09:24 AM   #41
bmwmsport
Captain
bmwmsport's Avatar
United_States
124
Rep
950
Posts

Drives: E90 335i
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Jackson, MS

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jashley73 View Post
Before someone asks, "Then why did God even need a Hell to punish sins, why can't he just forgive us all, and all be well and good?..."

Because plainly put, when this life and present world is over, (and I think we can all agree on the fact that each of us will in fact, die, and come to an end of our time here on earth...) what will God do with all this sinful stuff that is left over? We saw in Revelation 21 above, that He has already promised that there will be no more sin in Heaven, so what's God to do with all of the sinful people, and rebellious angels, and the rest of the sinful "stuff" that is left over? He's going to put it far away form himself, and his new Kingdom - the lake of burning fire that we saw in Revelation 20...

The good news though, is that God doesn't _want_anyone_ to suffer His just, eternal punishment. Rather, God _wants_us_ to repent of our sins, believe in His Son Jesus, and share eternity with Him, in His eternal Kingdom...

Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? <...snip...> 30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live! -NIV

In fact, God hates the idea that we'll suffer his judgment so much, that he did something about it. He sent His Son Jesus as the perfect sacrifice, to pay the price for ALL sin, so that we would not have to suffer for our sins, if we will only believe in His Son Jesus... (You would also be correct in saying that God didn't just "send" His Son, but that GOD THE SON HIMSELF came of His own free will in order to become that perfect sacrifice for sin...) Paul tells us more about that love that God has for us, and how God doesn't want us to suffer His judgement...

Romans 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were *still* sinners, Christ died for us. -NIV

Just as God pleaded with the wicked in Ezekiel to turn from their sins, and inherit eternal life, Paul tells us that while we were *still sinning* against God - that is, while we were those same wicked people He was pleading with - He made a way for us to pay for ours sins - which we do not have the means to pay for on our own... That way is to believe in His Son Jesus, and God will forgives us of our sins...

Those who believe in Jesus get spared the eternal punishment, and they get to share eternity in the New Heaven, with God the Father, Son, and Spirit, - a place where no sin will ever enter, and where God's plan for mankind to be in fellowship with Him, and to glorify Him, and share in that glory, will be forever and forever more...
Sounds to me like you are part Catholic. Catholics teach that once you die, you are kept in this holding place called purgatory until the last human dies, then God judges us finally. The definition you gave, "Hell won't be in their fullness, until God's final judgment," does not disagree with my definition. Hell is still a place apart from God's love. As to your question on time: when will we be judged?

See this excerpt from an article on bible.org:
"The Bible tells us that when we are dead we know absolutely nothing. Here are some Scriptures to support this belief: (all from the NIV)

Ecclesiastes 9:10
“Whatever you hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.“

Ecclesiastes 9:5
“For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten.“

Psalm 6:5
“No one remembers you when he is dead. Who praises you from the grave?”

Isaiah 38:18,19
“For the grave cannot praise you, death cannot sing your praise; those that go down to the pit cannot hope for your faithfulness. The living, the living – they praise you, as I am doing today.”

Psalm 88:5
“I am set apart with the dead, like the slain who lie in the grave, whom you remember no more, who are cut off from your care.”

Psalm 28:1
“To you I call, O Lord my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.” (grave)

The state of the dead is just nothing. Time stands still for someone who is dead, and it will make no difference to them if they have been dead 2 days or 2 thousand years, it will just be like waking from a night’s sleep. When Jesus went to Martha and Mary, he described their dead brother Lazarus as being ‘asleep’. (John 11:11-14)

The first thing anyone who has died will know, is being resurrected to stand before the Judgment seat of Jesus Christ.

“Multitudes that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake; some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting contempt.” Daniel 12:2
“….Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom,” 2 Timothy 4:1 That is when people will receive eternal life or eternal death..."

As I said earlier in the thread, God lives outside our linear time frame. To Him, he just created earth, sees us now, and has already judged everyone rightly. For us, it will seem that the first thing that happens after death is judgement. See passages above for that.
__________________
2010 E90 335i Le Mans Blue Metallic // Saddle Brown // M Sport // iDrive // Comfort Access // Blown By Twins
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2015, 09:52 AM   #42
bmwmsport
Captain
bmwmsport's Avatar
United_States
124
Rep
950
Posts

Drives: E90 335i
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Jackson, MS

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
BMWSport,
Methinks you haven't entirely read the Bible for you wrote, "Never once does the Bible contradict itself." The very beginning of the Bible, the Creation Story, contains contradictions.

Some of them are clearly contradictions of simple fact. There's no need for interpretation at all.
How many horsemen?
1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Who is Joseph's father?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Who was at the empty tomb?
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
There are also contradictions that I suppose one could call different interpretations of something, but to me they just seem like contradictions.

Trinity contradiction:
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
For my own part, I don't struggle with the contradictions because my approach to the Bible's stories is that which I took from the Jesuit education I received as a child. To that end, and with regard to matters of faith and belief, I read Bible passages and look for what message they are trying to convey rather than what specific facts they offer.

For example, I don't care whether Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt. From that story, I take that the woman was given a set of divine instructions to follow, she didn't follow them and she paid the price. I take from it also that even when instructions aren't divine, most of the time, it's in my best interest to follow them. Al the same, when instructions aren't divine, I well within my right, if I have sufficient cause to think so, not to follow them, but be that as it may, there will quite likely still be negative consequences of doing things my own way. I need to be prepared to accept the consequences. That's the beginning and end of what I take from that part of the story.

All the best.
You may want to check your salvation if you believe the Bible contains contradictions.

See excerpt from an article on christiananswers.net:
"[Christians] base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27)...
This incredible principle is clearly illustrated in the account of the capture of Zedekiah, king of Judah. Jeremiah the prophet told Zedekiah that God would judge him. He was informed that he would be “delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon” (Jeremiah 32:4). This is confirmed in Jeremiah 39:5-7 where we are told that he was captured and brought to King Nebuchadnezzar, then they “bound him with chains, to carry him to Babylon.”

However, in Ezekiel 12:13, God Himself warned, “I will bring him to Babylon …yet he shall not see it, though he shall die there” (emphasis added). Here is material to build a case against the Bible! It is an obvious mistake. Three Bible verses say that the king would go to Babylon, and yet the Bible in another place says that he would not see Babylon. How can someone be taken somewhere and not see it? It makes no sense at all—unless Zedekiah was blinded. And that is precisely what happened. Zedekiah saw Nebuchadnezzar face to face, saw his sons killed before his eyes, then “the king of Babylon… put out Zedekiah's eyes” before taking him to Babylon (Jeremiah 39:6,7). [For more information, see: Zedekiah in the ChristianAnswers Bible Encyclopedia.]

This is the underlying principle behind the many “contradictions” of Holy Scripture (such as how many horses David had, who was the first to arrive at the tomb after the resurrection of Jesus, etc.).

God has turned the tables on proud, arrogant, self-righteous man. When he proudly stands outside of the kingdom of God, and seeks to justify his sinfulness through evidence he thinks discredits the Bible, he doesn't realize that God has simply lowered the door of life, so that only those who are prepared to exercise faith, and bow in humility may enter."

Where in the creation story do you see contradictions? I see no such occurrences.

On your horsemen question, see this excerpt from an article on kjvtoday.com:
" Kings 4:26 says:
“Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen”.

2 Chronicles 9:25 says:
“Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen”.

The two verses do not contradict because they describe different types of stalls. The stalls in 1 Kings 4:26 were "of horses" which were used for chariots and by horsemen. Nothing in this verse says that these stalls were for the chariots. On the other hand, the stalls in 2 Chronicles 9:25 were for "horses and chariots". Such a stall to house both horses and chariots would not have been as numerous as stalls to house just horses because there is always a smaller ratio of chariots to horses. In fact, 2 Chronicles 1:14 says there were 1,400 chariots. Hence it makes sense that there would be less of these stalls that were capable of storing both horses and chariots.

Whereas 2 Chronicles 9:25 describes the purpose of the stalls (i.e. "stalls for...."), 1 Kings 4:26 describes the purpose of the horses (i.e. "horses for...."). In saying that the purpose of the horses was for Solomon's "chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" (interpreting the "twelve thousand horsemen" as part of the conjunctive list belonging with "chariots"), 1 Kings 4:26 effectively links the horses to items of which we know the numbers. If these horses were for 1,400 chariots (2 Chronicles 1:14) and 12,000 horsemen, the number of horses would have been considerably large. Even with the conservative assumption of 2 horses per chariot and 1 horse per horseman, the number of horses needed for 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horsemen is 14,800 horses. If there were one horse on reserve (a spare) per every horse on duty, that would already be 29,600 horses. Hence, 40,000 stalls would have been a reasonable number to accommodate this many horses."

On Joseph's father: [excerpt from erikbrewer.wordpress.com]
"You may have noticed that Luke says Joseph’s father was Heli. So the question is, who was Joseph’s father, Jacob or Heli? Remember, Luke is researching the life of Christ so he would have chosen to look at public or family records. During those days in the land of Israel, the women were placed under the protection of their fathers until they married and then upon marriage, they were placed under the protection of their husbands. Today, for instance, in many Middle Eastern countries, women are placed in the passports of the fathers until marriage and then in the passports of their husbands upon marriage. On paper, it looks like the women do not exist and when searching for their documents you have to look under the name of the father or the husband. That is what life was like during Joseph and Mary’s days. Mary would have been placed under the name of her husband so when looking to see who the father of Mary was, you would have to look under Joseph’s name, hence Joseph appears (on paper) to have two fathers. Heli is the father of Mary. So, Luke presents Christ’s heritage through His mother Mary, back to David. Jesus is the rightful ruler of the throne of David, both from His mother’s side and His earthly father’s side.

As you can see, there is no contradiction in the Bible. Joseph has one father and his name is Jacob. Heli is Joseph’s father-in-law. So those who claim that the Bible contradicts itself by saying that Joseph has 2 different fathers, are wrong and they prove that they do not study the Bible and do not understand the cultural context of the Bible."

On who was at the tomb, see this article from biblegateway.com:
"Question: Why does the Bible say that Mary Magdalene and another Mary discovered the empty tomb, while another Gospel says that only Mary did, while another says that Simon joined them? This to me seems like inaccuracies in the Bible.

Lee’s response: It’s important to clarify between a biblical inaccuracy (what others often call a contradiction) and what a Gospel writer simply chose to include or emphasize in his account. A contradiction is to affirm and deny the same thing, at the same time, in the same respect. A contradiction regarding the eyewitness testimony cited would be, for instance, that “only Mary Magdalene went to the empty tomb” – something no Gospel writers say – and “Mary and the other Mary” (Matthew 28:1) went to the empty tomb.

To shed a bit more light on the biblical passage you cited, John mentions only Mary Magdalene explicitly at the tomb in his Gospel (John 20:1). But if we read carefully we see in the next verse (20:2) that Mary tells Peter, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb but we don’t know where they have put him!” This supports the other Gospels when they say that other women went to the tomb with Mary, perhaps following closely behind. As the NIV Study Bible says, the we “indicates that there were others with Mary (see Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10), though John does not identify them.” So when John wrote his Gospel, he only mentions one woman by name but uses the plural pronoun “we” to indicate that others were with her.

Further, if the Gospel writers, two of whom were among the Twelve disciples of Jesus, wanted to fabricate a story about the resurrected Christ, it is unthinkable that they would have put women at the tomb first. It is well established that a woman’s testimony in the ancient world was generally not considered to be credible and that they were for the most part not allowed to testify in a court of law."

The trinity is an aspect of Christianity that people love to throw stones at. God the Son [Christ Jesus] is God limiting himself to the body of a man. In the latter verse you listed, Jesus says "my Father is greater than I." At that point in time, Jesus is completely God and completely human. He is talking to God the Father in heaven.

In conclusion, you cannot just pull specific verses from the Bible and call them contradictions. The Bible is meant to be understood as a whole. You must read the whole passage, the whole book, in the same way that you can't pull seemingly contradictory things from any other book and not reveal the big picture.
__________________
2010 E90 335i Le Mans Blue Metallic // Saddle Brown // M Sport // iDrive // Comfort Access // Blown By Twins
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2015, 10:59 AM   #43
Jashley73
Second Lieutenant
78
Rep
234
Posts

Drives: '06 330i 6-M/T
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Louisville, KY

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmwmsport View Post
Sounds to me like you are part Catholic. Catholics teach that once you die, you are kept in this holding place called purgatory until the last human dies, then God judges us finally. The definition you gave, "Hell won't be in their fullness, until God's final judgment," does not disagree with my definition. Hell is still a place apart from God's love. As to your question on time: when will we be judged?

<...snip...>

As I said earlier in the thread, God lives outside our linear time frame. To Him, he just created earth, sees us now, and has already judged everyone rightly. For us, it will seem that the first thing that happens after death is judgement. See passages above for that.
Baptist actually, but I don't get too caught up in that... And I would also offer the disclaimer that I'm not necessarily endorsing the viewpoint of my local church, or the Baptist faith as a whole, but rather what I've been led to believe from my own private study. Like I said earlier - I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm wrong if I can see Biblical reason to believe so...

- I absolutely agree that Hell will be a place apart from God's love... I just don't think it will be materialized into the eternal punishment, "The lake of fire" until after the judgment.

-Re: The timing of it all - I agree with you there too. Certainly we cannot see and know and understand, all that God knows and is. I just don't think that for us in our 4D universe, that these Heaven and Hell's have become what God says that are/will be, because Christ has not yet returned to us to judge and gather His believers to His Kingdom.

As for what is happening in the Heavenly realms - who knows? There are Christian theories that suggest that, as you described above, that after our earthly deaths we will simply "Sleep" until Christ returns. There are other Christians that believe that as soon as a believer dies, they are taken into fellowship with God. There are a few scriptures that could be used to support that...

Luke 23:40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” -NIV


Jesus saw fit to use the word today...

Revelation 6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10 They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” 11 Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been. -NIV

It's unclear weather these people are alive in the presence of God, or if it's just their souls crying out while they are dead, but none the less, these martyrs have a voice, and they are given a robe - a bodily garment - while they are told to wait for the eternal judgment... I'll be upfront and say that this scripture isn't enough for me to hang my hat on, and proclaim to others that we get instant heaven when we die, but it does make one (Me) at least stop and think... As well as the passage from Luke 23 as well...

I'm perfectly fine admitting that the particulars of Heaven and Hell and Death, and the timing of it all - it raises more questions than answers it seems. Regardless though, weather we get instant judgment & Heaven or Hell, or rather we have to wait until Christ's second coming, it really makes no difference to me. For the God-fearing Christian, it shouldn't make any difference either. God has promised that He will judge, and He's made it clear that punishment awaits those who do not believe in His Son Jesus, and that eternal life and glory awaits those who do believe in His Son...

Weather I'm right or wrong on my viewpoints of the particulars, I'm perfectly happy to submit to God on these little details, and am perfectly content to just take him at his word on the bigger promise...
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2015, 11:04 AM   #44
Jashley73
Second Lieutenant
78
Rep
234
Posts

Drives: '06 330i 6-M/T
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Louisville, KY

iTrader: (0)

More on the issue of Hell specifically though, as to why I believe it doesn't exist, yet, in it's fullness, as God has promised, has to do with Satan, the temptor... In the passage in Revelation 20 above, God cast's Satan into the lake of burning fire - Hell in it's fullness, as God describes it. Yet, as seen in Job, in Matthew, and other places in the Bible, it's pretty clearly understood that Satan roams about on the earth, tempting believers and non-believers alike to sin. He afflicted Job's life, he tempted Christ Jesus - God the Son - himself, and Peter warned us that he is still roaming around seeking those who's souls he may devour...

If Satan is still roaming on the earth, enticing us to sin, then he cannot yet be cast into the eternal lake of fire... (And I don't think it takes much convincing to agree that satans influence continues to be plainly seen all across the world...)

Last edited by Jashley73; 06-01-2015 at 11:10 AM..
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:05 PM.




bmw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST