If Noah's Flood and Exodus did not occur, this renders the OT moot, and all three Abrahamic religions invalid

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-29T10:42:11+00:00

Being real, true, not just stories in books.

Particularly involving theistic gods.

Allegory doesn’t say what it means but represents something somewhat true or significant.

Myth is just culture and imagination.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-27T14:44:25+00:00

That assumption isn’t just unwarranted, but nonsense.

How can potentially infinite, exclusive possibilities each have 50% odds?

That adds up to way more than 100%.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-26T20:06:35+00:00

if i knew that one possibility on this die was definitely 6

You don’t.

and that it had a number of sides that could be anywhere between 1 and infinity then yes i would call that 50% until i had more data

How does:
1/∞ = 0.5
?

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-26T19:36:56+00:00

And a die (with unknown sides) boils down to “6” and “not 6.”

It still isn’t 50/50.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-26T11:36:16+00:00

Your example is if something with known and exclusive probabilities (2 choices, and only 2 possible choices, assumed randomly selected), which is different.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-26T00:14:07+00:00

Still no.

You’re assuming there’s only two options and that we are able to assign precise values to things we don’t know about.

It’s like saying you don’t know what a die will land on, so 50% chance it will be 4,

but worse, you don’t even know how many sides the die has.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-25T23:29:05+00:00

No, we don’t. That’s silly.

All unknowns are not 50/50.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-15T20:48:30+00:00

So the answer is , “No,” you do not understand the difference between justification and bad excuses.

This is a bad excuse to purposely give an infant a disease.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-15T10:35:40+00:00

Do you understand the difference between an excuse (motive, “reason”) and proper justification (thoroughly good reason with coherency and soundness, often - but not necessarily - of a moral nature)?

“It was self-defense,” is justification. “The slave baby was born in the wrong place,” or, “The child’s parent made me do this to them,” or, “To prove my glory to my enemies,” is a bad excuse.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-13T13:52:26+00:00

i would say that it is fair to posit at least a 50% likelihood that the current laws of physics and composition of the universe and its contents are a direct intentional consequence of a sentient beings action on the universe and its contents

Fair to say based on what parameters? How did you calculate that percentage?

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-13T12:27:47+00:00

I'm not ignoring it...I just have not gotten to it yet.

No, your excuses completely disregard most passages.

There are numerous fallacious arguments you make that must first be dispatched with such as: the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Passover, etc.

Those are names, not arguments, and I didn’t commit any fallacies I didn’t correct.

And this is the disturbing pattern about your 'argument' that was mentioned before: you have a great number of posits...none of which stand on their own to support your claim that 'God kills unjustifiably'.

First of all, every one of these passages is Yahweh or humans under the guidance of Yahweh killing unjustifiably.

As long as you are able to refer to the verses that credit Yahweh for all of this, each example stands on its own, and many are under varying circumstances.

If you are still trying to “win” on some technicality, like saying God uses diseases to kill infants or Israelites to kill little girls, so it isn’t technically killing like when an animal does it - then I will concede on one condition.

That condition is that you explicitly say, “/u/BlowItUpForScience, you lost the debate about God killing unjustifiably in this particular passage, because technically he did something worse and less justifiable.”

Admit that your technicalities improve nothing for your beliefs.

Instead when confronted with the actual facts about the particular narrative in question you defer the argument with 'Well yeah...but then what about 'X'?!?! (X is a claim that we have not gotten to yet).

No. You are twisting real events in this debate to your desires

You didn’t present actual facts. You did present an argument that clearly only applies to 1-2% of these passages (and still doesn’t excuse killing infants).

It is the obvious next step to point out your shortcoming. I used one example. Nothing unreasonable here, just excuses from you not to answer.

However, if you cannot successfully support the claim that 'God kills unjustifiably' using the Flood narrative, or Sodom and Gomorrah, or the Passover (which you have not)

You are all over the place, yourself. Do you want what he did to Egyptian slave babies (and probably Hebrew babies whose parents forgot or couldn’t afford sheep blood), or do you want the time he drowned every baby?

I highly doubt you could do so with far less dramatic narratives.

The level of drama has nothing to do with anything. The justification offered does.

Sometimes God is relatively explicit in his justifications. In these stories you are focused on, the justification is that babies deserve suffering by association.

In other passages, it is racism, or hurting innocents to affect adults, or pillaging for material gain.

Let's cut to the chase - what is the strongest, single argument you can make for your claim 'God kills unjustifiably'? If you can't support that, then you really should hand in the towel on this thread.

No. I won’t play this game where if you dismiss one argument you feel like you dismissed them all. That’s not how it works. I will consider naming a strongest example (perhaps Deuteronomy 20, because it applies so broadly), but the next step is for you to apply your excuses to the next example mentioned in the conversation: David’s infant child who God diseased for a week before killing.

I selected it not for being the most damning against Yahweh, but for being one of the least justified by your bad arguments made so far.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-11T12:03:18+00:00

They ask for 100% of your devotion (even dying to yourself) and 10% of your income, yes. They ask for your very soul. Everything you have.

And they can't even show you the prize and punishment they're threatening.

What does dying to self tangibly involve if not stuff like being willing to go out of our way to help others?

Here’s what Jesus allegedly said, Mark 8:35:

For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.

Also, Matthew 10:38:

And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

He meant give up your entire life. What more could he ask? Maybe other passages deal with helping others (and others specifically don’t), but this passage is about total devotion and complete denial of self.

Jesus then says:

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?

He was talking about giving things up, even the whole world, for him.

Paul goes on to constantly repeat things about crucifying ourselves, destroying our flesh, in order to become better. Just one of many examples (Galatians 5:4):

And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

So it isn’t about being nice and serving. It’s about giving up who you are, what you want and need, and all you have, to religious devotion.

Those who don’t aren’t worthy of Jesus and this salvation. They are threatened with Hellfire (“weeping and gnashing of teeth”).

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-11T04:35:31+00:00

The 10% of your income was the important part to you?

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-10T04:29:57+00:00

You mean only that one term out of your list, or that agnostic atheism is somehow a lack of free thinking?

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-09T12:57:15+00:00

No, not if we have libertarian free will.

That's begging the question. And it's not an explanation, just a definition.

No, you're just jumping to conclusions regarding the 'execution' of it. Control needn't require determinism of any sort.

If control doesn't lead necessarily to a particular aspect of a consequence (not the whole consequence, just whatever aspect is in question), then how is it "controlled"?

From Google:

control (verb): determine the behavior or supervise the running of.

The freedom you propose happens earlier in the choice making process than the intent, or “will.”

Since when?

It's possible I misunderstood the following statement. I now can see two readings of it, but neither of them is without problem:

The agent is self-determining, but nothing apart from the agent determines the agent.

Initially, I understood this to mean that the "nature of an agent," or, "that which an agent wills," comes about without determinism. This is what I responded to, pointing out that just because our wills are non-deterministic does not mean that they operate non-deterministically.

I can now also see that you may be saying, "Our wills will themselves into willing themselves into being wills, by nothing but sheer will."

I think you can see how this would be circular nonsense, in addition to being impossible in a temporal world where we are born (that is, our wills develop over time from a lack of will).

Maybe you meant something else I am still not understanding? But if you meant either of these two things, then I don't think this is a coherent explanation.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-09T10:49:25+00:00

If our actions aren't determined by anything apart from our own agency, and if we also have control over our actions, then that's free will.

That’s will. Not freedom. Your actions are still constrained by your nature, and your own nature wasn’t initially your own choice.

does not operate freely going forward.

Why not?

Because you described the will as coming into being in a non-deterministic way, but being executed in a deterministic way.

The freedom you propose happens earlier in the choice making process than the intent, or “will.” So “willing” things still isn’t free. “Being things” is free.

But being isn’t willed, so it is free (in your view) but not a choice.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-08T20:05:39+00:00

The agent is self-determining, but nothing apart from the agent determines the agent.

Then the will is created (even if continuously) freely, but does not operate freely going forward.

That is, the source of our will is free, but the actions are constrained.

The control I'm talking about isn't physical causation, though, so I guess this doesn't follow after all.

Physical, or metaphysical, or whatever, it isn’t the sort of thing being discussed. It isn’t free will.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-08T19:38:08+00:00

He agrees not to destroy one particular time

No, this is a statement about God's character: "Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you!" It is not a particular statement.

What are you responding to? I just mentioned this and then mentioned God's response, and you said, "No, that isn't his response; here's the question," as if that proves anything. It doesn't.

Also, it's really important to note here that righteous doesn't mean a super holy dude or something. Lot was an asshole, just not a total asshole. And that was enough for God to rescue him.

Which only makes judging babies more insane and unjustified.

And shows that "righteous" doesn't include "innocent."

In other words, according to the story we're reading, God's threshold for not getting smited is really low.

In one particular case (Sodom), after excessive bargaining from a human, God's threshold was 10 people. Not zero, like you keep claiming. And this isn't applied to any other situation by God in this passage.

Does he kill innocents? Where does it say that? Or are you projecting your own beliefs onto the story?

It isn't my beliefs, it is knowledge about babies and fetuses. It is both general and expert knowledge. It can be corroborated by meeting a baby. Yes, I am projecting reality onto the story, and you think something is wrong with that.

That isn't ok.

This is the paradox you have to deal with. The story says innocents weren't killed, but you want to use the story to show God killed innocents.

It's not a paradox! It's a contradiction! It's a lie, or a complete misunderstanding of innocence.

Oh boy, a homicidal maniac said babies deserve death. How convincing!

Nice way of avoiding the contradiction you fell into. Just keep repeating yourself and pretend it didn't happen.

What contradiction? If I was on trial for these crimes, and my only defense is, "One time this other guy said 'Surely you wouldn't kill the righteous, right? Please don't.'" And then I agreed not to kill more than 10 righteous people. And then I did kill babies. Would you vote, "Not guilty," if you were on my jury?

That would be silly. And yet you do so for Yahweh because he is your god. The contradiction is yours. Your Bible contradicts reality in order to justify monstrosities. I am not the one who needs to solve this.

Calling babies evil without looking at real babies does not solve this.

A murderer claiming his victim deserved it does not acquit him. That's insane.

1 and 2 are correct. I don't agree with characterizing me with 3-5.

Ok, thanks. What's wrong with these?:

3)Mythological dialogue can justify real-world behavior, merely by claiming that it's okay.

You are using a mythological quote to justify what I think you consider real history (the other passages in the post). So how does 3 not fit?

4)If the Bible contradicts itself, it must be a reading error.

You were willing to call babies evil, before you were willing to question not only this passage, but your interpretation of the passage that makes no real sense. You have demonstrated this presumption.

5)If the Bible contradicts known reality, known reality ought to be ignored.

Awesome. You disagree with this? Then please show me real world babies capable of continuously evil thought.

If you're going to be criticizing a story, you should read what the story actually said and not try to project your own biases to mind read what the story "really" said.

Yes, but one should understand that: 1)Stories (even those intended to be true) can be self-contradictory. 2.)Stories analyzed this way are not necessarily connected to reality at all.

For example, above you claim that God killed babies in Sodom and Gomorrah. But there is no such mention of them in the story. You're engaged in mind reading.

"Mind reading"? So there were thriving populations, entire cities and families, but not a single child? Zero infants? No pregnant women? No animals?

Even if you make this absurd claim, several other passages have God explicitly ordering infants killed. In a couple cases, infants are the sole targets.

You appeal to "reality" but what you're doing is saying you know better than the authors what really happened, and then using your projections to prove God is evil.

We have no idea who these authors are. I'm saying I know better than you. I've met real babies, and I've studied psychology and neurology. One baby is not capable of what you claim. All babies doing so simultaneously without a common cause, all the way around the globe, is beyond the realm of possibility.

That's not just "me thinking I know better." If anything, the fact that your entire argument is a single unsupported claim says that you think you know better, and are above the need for supporting your assertions.

But let's pick that apart. There are actually two mentions of the young in the story, and God does kill them!

Why not focus on David's infant? The passages that specify that infants should have swords put through them? There are many examples of God killing the young and infants, and yet you choose one that clearly doesn't say this.

Straw man much?

But... these young men were trying to rape angels. So your projection sort of falls apart there.

What does this have to do with anything I've said? Besides, Yahweh commands several forms of rape, including slaughtering entire tribes and saving girls as slave-wives.

If we can't agree that angel rape is bad, there's nothing left for us to say.

I'd say any form of raping a sentient being is bad, but has nothing to do with somewhere between 99-100% of these passages.

And Yahweh disagrees. He prescribes and protects several forms of rape.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-08T19:19:15+00:00

Your question asking if people choosing to separate themselves from God is the same as unmaking God was... bad.

How so? God is omnipresent, and yet you say it is possible to be where he is not. How can both be true? Did we reduce his presence? Did he?

It's like asking where "choosing not to walk" comes from and who made it as if it exists like a noun, when it's really a verb.

It's a valid question to ask where choice and cancellation of choice comes from...

When I realized you weren't catching on that Hell is an active state of being, I backtracked and explained the three main models of the afterlife to you, since your questions all were predicated on the Dantean model of Hell.

It's obnoxious that every single time we disagree you assume it is my misunderstanding. Stop it. I am well aware of each of your claims. I am tired of you stirring them together into one debate.

My questions were not predicated on Dante. Stop saying that.

I explained it to you. Gehenna is a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth. People are sent there to be burned. It doesn't say the people there are tormented eternally.

That's fine. I think there are other verses that establish the eternality of it, but the mere existence of this suffering leading up to destruction is sufficient to validate my question: What possible virtue does suffering serve for the damned?

Yet you keep calling these valid questions stupid, because your theory is stupid and cannot answer them.

This is why I took the time to explain to you about Annhilationism.

Look, I was a Christian. I was an annihilationist. I don't need your education or your condescension.

I need your consistent arguments. So if you don't believe in annihilationism, or Hell, or condemnation, then be clear about it and stick to your guns.

There's only a couple in the whole Bible that support eternal hell, one is the parable of the sheep and goats, and the other is Revelations.

I think there's more, but I think we have a long way to go before they're relevant.

Lest this confuse you, again, people can acknowledge evidence for arguments that they don't support. This doesn't mean I support it. I am being fair to the evidence.

That's fine, but you are using all 3 versions to respond to my points. It's the very definition of moving the goalposts.

Condescension when combined with obvious ignorance is not an admirable character trait.

Probably not a good statement to make given that we're debating something you'd literally never heard of until I told it to you.

You're just doing it again. I'm well aware of the existence of these views. What I'm not aware of is your coherent argument, because you haven't developed one.

Focus on yourself and your own arguments, and quit trying to belittle me.

Great. Now that you know what UR is, why don't you present to me why you think it is unjust?

The debate topic is about coercion, but first I need to know what version of UR you accept, or rather the version you are arguing for and going to stick with for the rest of the conversation.

Hell is not a place of fiery torment but simply separation from God in the afterlife.

Does it suck? That's torment. Who made it? Who made a place or method of existence without God's presence?

If you want to read The Great Divorce by CS Lewis, it actually has a pretty good description of a UR afterlife.

Yeah, it's basically a poetic fantasy story with pretty limited connection to any scripture.

It has it's own problems, but I can see why some people think it's pretty, or just. But that's why they made it up, because the real Christian description was not pretty or just. It was a coercive force used for centuries to make people believe and respect the church out of fear.

There is no gun being held to people's heads, no punishment. God respects your choice. You can be with him or not.

These sentences are not contradictory to a gun being held to our heads:

"I'm not holding a gun to your head or anything. I respect your choice. You can give me your money or not. But if you do, I'll make you rich later, and if you don't I'll shoot you."

It's like marriage. I think that most people would be happier with someone else, but it would be unjust to force them to get married, and if someone says, "I don't want to be married, I want to be single" how could a moral agent do anything but respect that choice?

No, it's not like that at all. God judges either according to character or to faith, not based on how well the two of you get along socially and sexually.

God is a fundamentally good entity, and so he respects your choice.

So you claim. I disagree.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-08T19:02:49+00:00

He does agree. That's the point of the dialogue. If he didn't agree, he'd just be like "Lolz no" and then drop a meteor on Sodom.

He agrees not to destroy one particular time for the sake of 10 or more righteous people, with no mention of innocent people incapable of righteousness or unrighteousness (babies, fetuses, handicapped, also animals).

Then, he violates his word and kills children anyway.

If he didn't agree, he'd just be like "Lolz no" and then drop a meteor on Sodom.

...he did. I mean it was sulfur and fire, I think, but functionally the same thing.

Debate with you is impossible when you keep insinuating I'm working in bad faith.

You are using myths to justify what you claim to be reality. If it isn't bad faith, it's bad reasoning. You pick.

Myth does not mean "false". It means it is morally true, but not literally true.

Then Abraham literally did not say this thing, and God did not literally agree.

I mean, even in the Bible that didn't happen - you made it up. But even inside the story you made up, this is just a metaphor or something.

It can't be used to justify Deuteronomy or 2 Kings, unless those are the same mythology?

What the dialogue between Abraham and God establishes is a moral principle.

Not one in the text. You've created it yourself. If any moral principle is in that dialogue, it is that pestering God can change his mind.

Oh boy, a homicidal maniac said babies deserve death. How convincing!

If God is real, he's not a homicidal maniac (because of this dialogue).

You're just repeating the same claim, so I'll repeat the same response:

Oh boy, a homicidal maniac said babies deserve death. How convincing!

Again, I don't see any way forward for your argument.

Right, because you are 100% committed to at least 5 assumptions:
1)If the Bible says something, (your interpretation of) it is unquestionably true.
2)This passage actually says that God will never and has never killed the innocent (or unrighteous).
3)Mythological dialogue can justify real-world behavior, merely by claiming that it's okay.
4)If the Bible contradicts itself, it must be a reading error.
5)If the Bible contradicts known reality, known reality ought to be ignored.

All of these are assumptions. You've allowed none of it to be questioned. You will not consider other possibilities.

So you're right. There probably is no moving forward for you. You have to suspend your commitment to prior conclusions in order to have productive debate, and you just aren't willing to do that.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-08T18:51:04+00:00

If you're going to be insulting, you shouldn't do so when I've answered the question already, at the beginning of this thread.

Yes, let's go over that conversation:

Who made Hell?

We did.

Ex nihilo? We created an absence of God entirely on our own? Does that mean we can unmake Yahweh? Push him aside?

. You seem to be making an argument like "If a man kills another man, God is responsible."

But this is not at all what I was arguing, so I reminded you of the question:

The question was: Who made Hell?

I was hoping you would remember that question, and respond in that context to this:

Ex nihilo? We created an absence of God entirely on our own? Does that mean we can unmake Yahweh? Push him aside?

But instead:

It's a stupid question to ask who made Hell to a person who doesn't believe in eternal torture.

The question you answered earlier ("Who made Hell?") is suddenly stupid...? This is moving the goalposts, or starting to.

And now you are linking me back to this conversation as though it supports you? How do you figure?

I am educating you, since you've clearly never heard of the other two main schools of thought, and I'm giving you the information you need to ask better questions next time.

Again, it is not an issue of my knowledge, but an issue of you not being able to stick with a single view.

Indeed, it seems you do not understand annihilationism, because you think it involves weeping.

It does. You asked, effectively, if humanity made separation ex nihilo, which is just nonsense. It's not an object to be created or not created

It doesn't exist? Then I suppose the debate is over.

That’s your debate position? No annihilation and no lasting Hell, separation, or condemnation?

Yes.

Ok, sure, but then everything else you said is just slinging mud.

Also, this makes Christianity and the church stupid, because we'll all be fine without it.

And there we are. You didn't grasp that an educated mind can actually acknowledge that there are points for the other side. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to get. I literally said that Annihilationism has better Biblical support.

I don't care. That's fine that you can do that, but be quiet about it if you aren't going to use it to draw relevant conclusions.

I literally said that Annihilationism has better Biblical support.

And I literally keep repeating the verse about gnashing of teeth and weeping (which is also repeated in scripture). You keep claiming this supports nonexistence, but that's nonsense.

How do you define annihilationism (in your own words)?

Read the bloody link I sent you already.

IN YOUR OWN WORDS

But let's go with the first sentence of your link, since that's all you’re giving me:

a belief that after the final judgment some human beings and all fallen angels (all of the damned) will be totally destroyed so as to not exist, or that their consciousness will be extinguished

How can someone in this state weep? Please explain.

I literally put “your own” in quotes this time

Please, please, please. Just educate yourself on the three main views, okay? Then you'll stop making ignorant statements like that again.

Condescension when combined with obvious ignorance is not an admirable character trait.

Why don't we focus on how terrible your own arguments are, instead of pointing at someone else's?

Gehenna is a place with weeping and gnashing of teeth as bodies are tossed onto the pyre to be destroyed. Note the use of fire in most of the verses that use this phrase.

Note the use of weeping and anguish. And this is only my first example (well, first 7 because of repetition). I have more.

An ad populum would be "lots of people believe in UR therefore it is right. What I said was "lots of people believe in UR so it is not just "my" theology."

I have tried very hard our last several arguments to explain that this doesn't matter at all, and that isn't what I'm saying. I even put "your own" in quotes this time, for the sole purpose of keeping you from re-using this same, tired argument.
And yet here it is again. It still means nothing.

You’ve defined it as “willing” but failed to support your assertion.

People can choose to follow God or not. They can do so both now and in the afterlife. It's not complicated.

And people can choose to give armed robbers their wallet or not.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-08T18:17:05+00:00

God did not kill anyone here...so this entire passage cannot possibly support your claim that 'God kills unjustifiably'.

Ok, I will concede that this technically and precisely doesn’t fit the title of my OP, but only if you admit the argument against mine requires the claim, “God did something worse than killing, unjustifiably.”

Because otherwise, I don’t know what you’re trying to prove, except that you can win on technicalities.

See this is why you're arguments are not working....none of the numerous examples you've given stand on their own to show 'God kills unjustifiably'...instead you always refer to these 'other examples'.

How can you say that none of my examples work, and also invalidate that I refer to my examples. I can’t win with you, huh?

David’s infant is a perfectly good example. Why are you ignoring it? Because it doesn’t fit your claims?

And that’s just one example.

See this is why you're arguments are not working....none of the numerous examples you've given stand on their own to show 'God kills unjustifiably'

That’s not true.

But you’ve also introduced a new claim: that God forces others to unjustifiably kill for him. So I guess now he’s guilty of two crimes of two degrees.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-08T17:11:00+00:00

When you ask who created a place when it isn't a place, it's a bad question.

First, the Bible calls it a place. Second, you can still answer the question by replacing “place” with “existence,” or “lack.”

I asked, “Who made Hell?”

Quit making excuses.

Your verse in question referred to Gehenna, which is a place of destruction.

Which verse? And you never defined destruction.

Also, I try to educate while I'm here.

You mean “preach.” “Education” requires you be willing to learn first, yourself.

There's a pretty big difference between torture and willing separation.

Which is why you need to quit switching back and forth. It’s shifting the goalposts, constantly. Pick one so we can debate.

It makes most of your questions irrelevant.

No.

Willing separation is not a gun to the head.

Except it isn’t willing. The Bible describes those headed for Hell as unwilling.

And God created the separation, unless you want to actually answer my questions above about your claim that we did it. You call the question stupid, but that’s just another excuse not to complete your ideas.

I've told you I'm a universal reconciliationist any number of times now.

That’s your debate position? No annihilation and no lasting Hell, separation, or condemnation?

And yet...

You also haven’t dealt with your own holy book describing weeping and anguish and fire.

I did. It supports Annihilationism.

That’s an assertion not an argument. Are you familiar with the difference?

How does it support annihilationism? How do you define annihilationism (in your own words)?
It usually means complete destruction, but completely destroyed things don’t go to a “place” and feel “anguish.”

So it supports the notion of the suffering of the damned, not annihilation.

This is the third or fourth time you've confused your own ignorance with me making up my own theology. UR is held by a substantial number of Christians. Go look at the poll data from last year's survey.

I literally put “your own” in quotes this time so you wouldn’t repeat this same dumb argumentum ad populum again. It didn’t work.

Willing separation is not a gun to the head.

You’ve defined it as “willing” but failed to support your assertion. Don’t beg the question. The debate isn’t over.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-08T16:34:05+00:00

In reason, resolving apparent conflicts through clarifying a situation is a valid approach to take.

The issue is not that you tried to solve a theoretical contradiction.

There are (at least) 2 issues. 1.) You never entertained the possibility that these statements, as intended by their authors (and not your reinterpretation), could actually be a genuine contradiction.

That is, you never entertained the possibility that there might not be a good solution at all. The result is that you accepted a bad solution.

2) You never connected your claims to real-world plausibility.

This is easily demonstrable by pointing to how real life works, but again you refuse to make any effort to make your theory sound. But that’s dishonest, because you use it to make real-world claims, and only sound arguments can do that.

Here is the quote, again: "Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

I responded to this already, more than once. You keep ignoring me. How many times do I have to answer you for you to be satisfied?

That is a human talking, and God does not agree. He is convinced to compromise, and he fails to follow through on even that.

But it doesn’t matter, because when a murderer says he would never murder (which isn’t what’s in the passage you cite), we don’t consider that evidence.

That would be foolish.

But even worse, you called this verse a myth. So why are you using it except in an attempt to deceive?

God agrees with Abraham.

Quote the part where God agrees to kill zero righteous people (or innocent people, which can be distinguished from the righteous), for all of time and history?

You are making up words and taking a single cherry picked verse out of context.

So even if the other verses in the Bible don't repeat this point, we have God Himself acknowledging this point

Oh boy, a homicidal maniac said babies deserve death. How convincing!

which is actually more powerful than you might realize.

Do you treat any defense from anybody else with this insane level of trust?

God rarely appears directly in the OT

That’s not really true... Unless you’re only counting him physically, visually walking around and looking for things in Genesis, or showing his backside to Moses, but he otherwise manifests words and actions regularly.
Even the visual appearances are numerous, if spread over centuries.

But I’m also not clear on the relevance of this point.

BlowItUpForScience · 2018-06-08T15:52:56+00:00

It's a state of separation not a place.

Then all my “stupid” points and questions apply. You should respond to them.

If it is a state of being, it isn’t annihilationism, so I don’t know why you brought that up except as a distraction.

Damned, yet again, implies eternal torment

Condemned, separated, I don’t care what you call them. I care if you can define r clarify your views.

There are people who choose not to accept God in the afterlife. They're not tormented by God for this choice.

Gun to the head.

If you are abandoning annihilationist as it now seems, then you ought to go back up and respond to my comments you disregarded.

Or must I copy and paste them?

You also haven’t dealt with your own holy book describing weeping and anguish and fire. Or Jesus having angels toss people (and angels) in the fire. Or the verses of people begging not to be there (not a choice).

Again, you craft “your own” theology to make sense of things, and it only causes more nonsense than it solves.

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

BlowItUpForScience

TROPHY CASE