Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

toldailytopic: For those unsaved. If it turns out you were wrong and you face God in

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by voltaire View Post
    SH. If you are making chess analogies, you should have said checkmate if you think you have shut me down.
    . . . I wasn't . . . but your answer in indicative of the types of assumptions you make.

    It was more like an undefended pawn advance on the 6th row near a fully castled king.


    We still dont know the full range of meanings for the hebrew word. Why should NaCl be the assumed ingredient?
    . . . with what part of "most common" are you having difficulty.

    They were thinking just as you were in 1611.
    . . . and every translation since . . .

    They had knowledge of dead sea salt. Perhaps it looked like salt.
    . . . if it looks like salt . . . and if it feels like salt . . . and if it tastes like salt . . . then it must be . . . what?

    The pompeii relics could pass for salt to the bronze age mind. What other word would a culture use that didnt have other words to describe other rocks that looked like salt?
    . . . you really get carried away on minor issues . . . if you can't defend your position it's always easier to defend a red herring . . . or so I'm told.
    "The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by voltaire View Post
      huh? How would you answer alwight?
      You're on your own there chum, it depends if you are a MAD or mad or perhaps only just slightly crazy.

      Comment


      • ---Quote (Originally by
        voltaire)---
        SH. If you are making chess
        analogies, you should have
        said checkmate if you think
        you have shut me down.
        ---End Quote---
        . . . I wasn't . . . but your
        answer in indicative of the
        types of assumptions you
        make.
        ---Quote---
        It was more like an
        undefended pawn advance
        on the 6th row near a fully
        castled king.
        ---End Quote---

        ---Quote---
        We still dont know the full
        range of meanings for the
        hebrew word. Why should
        NaCl be the assumed
        ingredient?
        ---End Quote---
        . . . with what part of "most
        common" are you having
        difficulty.
        ---Quote---
        They were thinking just as
        you were in 1611.
        ---End Quote---
        . . . an every translation
        since . . .
        ---Quote---
        They had knowledge of dead
        sea salt. Perhaps it looked
        like salt.
        ---End Quote---
        . . . if it looks like salt . . . and
        if it feels like salt . . . and if it
        tastes like salt . . . then it
        must be . . . what?
        ---Quote---
        The pompeii relics could pass
        for salt to the bronze age
        mind. What other word would
        a culture use that didnt have
        other words to describe other
        rocks that looked like salt?
        ---End Quote---
        . . . you really get carried
        away on minor issues . . . if
        you can't defend your
        position it's always easier to
        defend a red herring . . . or so
        I'm told.
        ***************
        SH. 1. I didn't make any assumptions. What part of the word "if" do you not understand? 2. lol 3. What part of " NaCl being the most common mineral in the are not making your point" do you not understand? 4. Because it appeared like salt and there was no other word to describe it and it still describes it best instead of a modern named mineral. 5. You are making assumptions that lot's wife was made of NACL. It was a stone made by volcanic processes. 6. You brought it up. I'm just rebutting you. What red hberring? Yours?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by voltaire View Post
          alwight. Ever seen the ruins of pompeii exhibit? Lots of people perfectly preserved in volcanic ash are there.
          Yes but I wouldn't say they were perfectly preserved though, not even preserved at all actually, only an impression of their last moments was left in the ash. What we see today are plaster casts of that impression minus the ash I believe.

          Originally posted by voltaire View Post
          Picture lot's wife as one of the people in the pompeii exhibit and you can see what moses meant by a pillar of salt.
          Not really as I explained above they were actually just hollow impressions. But the point is that people, which are basically just bags of water, don't normally turn into pillars of anything unless you invoke magic. Claiming magic happened because Lot's wife turned and looked might just make a more enthralling story that people would want to listen to and would re-tell around the campfire perhaps, rather than just that she was unfortunately struck by falling debris from a volcano. You might well prefer the magic version yourself I rather suspect, well me too actually, just as a story anyway not a verbatim truth of course.

          Originally posted by voltaire View Post
          No, moses did not write all of the pentateuch but why should we attribute other writer to most of it?
          I don't mind who wrote it tbh, Moses is fine with me, good name why not?
          Do we know enough about him to say how reliable he was, how special was he exactly?
          Was he simply telling it strictly as it was or was he as prone to spinning a good yarn as anyone else might be?
          I think people are far more likely to dramatise and embellish when they write for other people to read or hear rather than not, and to assume otherwise requires faith perhaps or better yet some good independent corroborative evidence might do it, all sadly lacking in the Bible imo.

          Comment


          • Skavau;2630612]http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...&postcount=360
            Except beliefs are not a choice. You can only 'choose' what actually convinces you. I cannot be convinced of Christianity or any specific religious belief until I am actually convinced that it is true (and in some cases, moral).
            Yes a belief has to have a solid inner core to trust in it. Wisdom or special effects don't free the mind, neither opens the door of the prison.

            This is laced with the assumption that God is actually able to be known. The method by which you propose to know God is for all intents and purposes identical to becoming fluent in Christian theology. You yourself have embraced it wholeheartedly but in doing so you mistake your devotion towards it to literally understanding God.
            Once again you have correctly discerned the problem, theology the elephant in the room that can't fit through the door anymore.


            The implications don't come into it. It is the fact that it smears the very character of all non-theists.
            Yea, the wills of both have that effect, silent hunter would make the perfect religious christian, he is just like them, glad I escaped from that will power war. But you come across as very calm and polite, and very smart to boot.

            Yes, you've given a justification for hell. It was however underwhelming and laced in hyperbole. It also smeared those it referred to by suggesting that those who go to hell somehow choose it, or rather gain it as a consequence of their actions and/or desire (whatever that may be). It did not address the very core point that such a hell in the face of an allegedly omniscient and omnibenevolent God need not exist in the very first place.
            This is the blue whale in the guppy bowl, and denys the absolute power of Love, its a bad doctrine and unbiblical if researched back to its birth. Its was brought into scare people into submission because they were being human. Lots of liberty in that message, who wants someone to stay with them because of fear? I certainly wouldn't Love someone like that. Its the ole shoot yourself in the foot doctrine that has made a mockery out of the goodnews to "all".

            No-one is rejecting mercy. Many atheists do not count themselves as anti-theist such as I and even amongst anti-theists the majority would only reject a specific rendition of God rather than all Gods.
            Most christians understanding of mercy is like their version of Love, doesn't have alot of either.


            I already queried whether you believed heaven involved utopian ideals. You didn't actually answer rather than complain that I didn't support it.
            Being a believer I would believe that their is a purpose for this prison planet, and that we are just pilgrims. But If others don't share that view it no longer concerns me.

            Not quite. For you suggested that life was meaningless without trial. If you view heaven as nothing but absolute perfection then one might query whether or not it would have meaning to you.
            Love doesn't require perfection, it leads by example not blind faith, it can be written about, and spoken about but until it comes to your door it's only a relative, until its an absolute one can never really understand its power over our own will.

            You're skirting the question. No-one removes themselves from contention. Not an atheist, scientologist or vehement anti-theist. Millions of non-religious people don't see the relevance of Christianity and live mundane lives in apathy towards it. Do you say that they have removed themselves from contention?
            God doesn't have any contentions, everyone is included, though He hids His intentions by reflecting one's own mental will back at them, in that process causing them to build a God in their own image.

            How so?
            Can a zebra change its stripes? theology proclaims one can, your masterfully showing the folly of it.

            I understand that there are people who claim it exists. It does not mean that I understand the proposition itself actually exists
            .

            Come on just make yourself believe, you can do it! maybe thats what they did, and is the reason for their bad theology on the absolutes of God. Relative proofs of men, verses the absolutes of God, man loses that contest.

            Can we meet perfection then?
            No more than we can make ourselves believe, its impossible, Love doesn't need it to have a relationship with, nor does it when its on the trail of the one being chosen to believe, hounds of Gods Love always finds the prey and it can't escape.

            And the "grace I ignore" is the literal equivalent of a supernatural pardon based on belief - something that you can't will upon yourself.
            Its not the believers right to judge others if they really understand the grace that was given them, It doesn't worry me that you don't believe, I know the power of Love and its very patience. If brains was all one needed then your more than qaulified, but thats not how Love works, its can be very foolish but effective.

            Grace, Zeke.
            Trying to awaken the divine principle in the belly of the fish.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by voltaire View Post
              ---Quote (Originally by
              voltaire)---
              SH. If you are making chess
              analogies, you should have
              said checkmate if you think
              you have shut me down.
              ---End Quote---
              . . . I wasn't . . . but your
              answer in indicative of the
              types of assumptions you
              make.
              ---Quote---
              It was more like an
              undefended pawn advance
              on the 6th row near a fully
              castled king.
              ---End Quote---

              ---Quote---
              We still dont know the full
              range of meanings for the
              hebrew word. Why should
              NaCl be the assumed
              ingredient?
              ---End Quote---
              . . . with what part of "most
              common" are you having
              difficulty.
              ---Quote---
              They were thinking just as
              you were in 1611.
              ---End Quote---
              . . . an every translation
              since . . .
              ---Quote---
              They had knowledge of dead
              sea salt. Perhaps it looked
              like salt.
              ---End Quote---
              . . . if it looks like salt . . . and
              if it feels like salt . . . and if it
              tastes like salt . . . then it
              must be . . . what?
              ---Quote---
              The pompeii relics could pass
              for salt to the bronze age
              mind. What other word would
              a culture use that didnt have
              other words to describe other
              rocks that looked like salt?
              ---End Quote---
              . . . you really get carried
              away on minor issues . . . if
              you can't defend your
              position it's always easier to
              defend a red herring . . . or so
              I'm told.
              ***************
              SH. 1. I didn't make any assumptions. What part of the word "if" do you not understand? 2. lol 3. What part of " NaCl being the most common mineral in the are not making your point" do you not understand? 4. Because it appeared like salt and there was no other word to describe it and it still describes it best instead of a modern named mineral. 5. You are making assumptions that lot's wife was made of NACL. It was a stone made by volcanic processes. 6. You brought it up. I'm just rebutting you. What red hberring? Yours?
              . . . and doing a job of it . . .
              "The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."

              Comment


              • For those who insist that lots wife must have turned in actual table salt, i say it is very possible. I misunderstood the pompeii remains as actual solidified bodies when looking at them. I realize now they were made from plaster casts. Lots wife could have been buried upright in volcanic ash and solidified through petrifaction. Salt could have accumulated on the ash while the process of petrifaction went on.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by voltaire View Post
                  For those who insist that lots wife must have turned in actual table salt, i say it is very possible. I misunderstood the pompeii remains as actual solidified bodies when looking at them. I realize now they were made from plaster casts. Lots wife could have been buried upright in volcanic ash and solidified through petrifaction. Salt could have accumulated on the ash while the process of petrifaction went on.
                  So you're saying then that Lot's wife was not instantly turned into a pillar of salt because she disobeyed God at all. She instead simply, if unfortunately, died or was killed by God upright on the spot, for whatever reason and then by some rather obscure but natural process eventually turned into a pillar of something, but not necessarily of salt.

                  Lot being a supposedly righteous and Godly man (presumably) just left his wife there to slowly petrify (vertically) over the course many years. Preferring instead to leave the scene with his two (soon to be pregnant, by him) daughters and start new families with them. He must have been quite pleased not to have given them away to the Sodomites after all.

                  And all this kind of thing you are apparently forced to construct and/or just believe as true simply because you must believe the Bible literally?

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X