View Poll Results: See above.

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • The conspiratorial view

    2 5.88%
  • The progressive view

    19 55.88%
  • The perspectivist view

    11 32.35%
  • The economic view

    2 5.88%
Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324
Results 231 to 234 of 234

Thread: What is most responsible for Christianity's failure in the West?

  1. #231
    Educator HumanBeing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    745

    Re: What is most responsible for Christianity's failure in the West?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    I don't worship books, I worship God.
    If you're going to simply dismiss my claim, not citing scripture, not arguing from scripture, and not wanting any debate, that's fine, but it makes you look weak.
    1. You claim to worship the Christian God, the only way you could possibly claim to do that is through the books he supposedly wrote. If you don't believe he wrote them or disagree with the contents, you aren't a Christian no matter what you claim.

    2. If you really want a debate about whether the concept of hell is discussed in the bible, start a new thread for it. I may or may not bother joining. That doesn't make me look weak anymore than not getting into a discussion about whether the earth is flat makes me look weak. The argument that hell isn't in the bible is simply a pathetic waste of time based on a patently false premise.

    Yes there is academic debate, what's the opposite of eternal punishment, eternal life, what's the punishment, according to Paul "the wages sin pays is death." Other times in the NT, it discusses eternal "cutting off" or eternal "destruction." So it's obvious, what that verse is talking about, not eternal hell, but eternal destruction.
    Again, there is no academic debate among respected scholars regarding the existence of hell as a biblical concept. Such a debate would be laughable. You can call it destruction, damnation, "unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12), whatever you want if you prefer it over the word hell. It's just playing semantics.

    No, I'm a Christian, and I do follow the bible, and it's a bit weak to make statemenets like that and not be willing to back them up.
    Lemmeguess: When you say "I do follow the bible", you're only referring to the sequel right? And you're ignoring the part where Jesus said he came to uphold the laws of the Old Testament? Thought so The thing is, it doesn't even help your argument. Jesus himself stated that most people will go to hell (or "destruction" as you prefer to call it).
    If you hate capitalism so much, then just write everything in lower case. Problem solved.

  2. #232
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: What is most responsible for Christianity's failure in the West?

    Quote Originally Posted by HumanBeing View Post
    1. You claim to worship the Christian God, the only way you could possibly claim to do that is through the books he supposedly wrote. If you don't believe he wrote them or disagree with the contents, you aren't a Christian no matter what you claim.

    2. If you really want a debate about whether the concept of hell is discussed in the bible, start a new thread for it. I may or may not bother joining. That doesn't make me look weak anymore than not getting into a discussion about whether the earth is flat makes me look weak. The argument that hell isn't in the bible is simply a pathetic waste of time based on a patently false premise.
    1. I'm a biblical christian, and I can back up my beliefs with the bible ... can you?
    2. Again, which word are you arguing is "hell" hades? or Gehennah?

    Again, there is no academic debate among respected scholars regarding the existence of hell as a biblical concept. Such a debate would be laughable. You can call it destruction, damnation, "unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12), whatever you want if you prefer it over the word hell. It's just playing semantics.
    No it isn't playing semantics, because destruction mean's "cutting off" i.e. no longer conscious, and thus no longer able to suffer ... There are plenty of theologians and biblical scholars that understand that hellfire is not in the scriptures.

    It seams all you have is calling me "not a christian" or saying "there is no debate," give me some scriptures if you're claiming it's biblical, Matthew 3:12, is talking about burning the leftovers of agriculture ... such as would be done in the literal Gehennah, i.e. it's destroyed, no longer existing.

    Romans 6:7 - when you're dead your sin is gone ... because Romans 6:23 "the wages sin pays is death."

    When eternal destruction is mentioned its contrasted with eternal life ... that isn't hell.

    Lemmeguess: When you say "I do follow the bible", you're only referring to the sequel right? And you're ignoring the part where Jesus said he came to uphold the laws of the Old Testament? Thought so The thing is, it doesn't even help your argument. Jesus himself stated that most people will go to hell (or "destruction" as you prefer to call it).
    I'm refering to the whole bible, and he didn't say he came to uphold the laws of the OT, he said he came to fullfill them. Also the difference detween "destruction" and "hell" is huge, the former means non existance, the latter is some concept of eternal torment.

  3. #233
    Educator HumanBeing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    745

    Re: What is most responsible for Christianity's failure in the West?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    1. I'm a biblical christian, and I can back up my beliefs with the bible ... can you?
    2. Again, which word are you arguing is "hell" hades? or Gehennah?
    Again, you're already going into semantics while deliberately avoiding the point you were originally trying to make, which is that non Christians aren't punished in the afterlife for not believing in Jesus. It's nonsense and you know it.

    No it isn't playing semantics, because destruction mean's "cutting off" i.e. no longer conscious, and thus no longer able to suffer ... There are plenty of theologians and biblical scholars that understand that hellfire is not in the scriptures.
    Unquenchable fire is a direct quote from Matthew, when you say he's "obviously" not talking about hell. It's the very definition of arguing semantics, and it's a waste of my time as well as yours.

    It seams all you have is calling me "not a christian" or saying "there is no debate," give me some scriptures if you're claiming it's biblical, Matthew 3:12, is talking about burning the leftovers of agriculture ... such as would be done in the literal Gehennah, i.e. it's destroyed, no longer existing.
    So unquenchable fire is an agricultural reference, destruction was some other reference, and none of it is for punishing people who don't believe in your God? I repeat the fact you aren't a Christian and that there is no debate to be had on this subject because that's really all there is to say. I gave references to unquenchable fire, and you made some lame connection to agriculture. Obviously you're going to act in the same way no matter what references are given to you. It's a delusional way of debating.

    Romans 6:7 - when you're dead your sin is gone ... because Romans 6:23 "the wages sin pays is death."
    Nicely cherrypicked, however proving that the bible contradicts itself doesn't help your point. It's just more evidence that it was written by mere man.

    When eternal destruction is mentioned its contrasted with eternal life
    Only if you cherrypick in the right way. Like how at different points in the Bible God claims he is a "God of war" and then a "God of peace". I suppose you're going to tell me that balances out so he's a God of "potentially violent peace"?

    I'm refering to the whole bible, and he didn't say he came to uphold the laws of the OT, he said he came to fullfill them. Also the difference detween "destruction" and "hell" is huge, the former means non existance, the latter is some concept of eternal torment.
    Again semantics with regards to fulfilling or upholding, though the fact is he did neither. Fulfilling the old law would have meant stoning adulterers, which he didn't have the balls for. Clearly you aren't claiming that you live by the laws of the whole bible, as that would be absurd and highly illegal.
    Last edited by HumanBeing; 07-16-13 at 05:32 AM.
    If you hate capitalism so much, then just write everything in lower case. Problem solved.

  4. #234
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: What is most responsible for Christianity's failure in the West?

    Quote Originally Posted by HumanBeing View Post
    Again, you're already going into semantics while deliberately avoiding the point you were originally trying to make, which is that non Christians aren't punished in the afterlife for not believing in Jesus. It's nonsense and you know it.
    Those are not semantics, they are 2 words in the scriptures that mean seperate things, so when you're refering to hell, which one are you refering to ... That matters.

    Unquenchable fire is a direct quote from Matthew, when you say he's "obviously" not talking about hell. It's the very definition of arguing semantics, and it's a waste of my time as well as yours.
    No it isn't, the point of unquenchable fire is that it's absolute destruction, and it's clear when you see what happens to the dead in other scriptures.

    So unquenchable fire is an agricultural reference, destruction was some other reference, and none of it is for punishing people who don't believe in your God? I repeat the fact you aren't a Christian and that there is no debate to be had on this subject because that's really all there is to say. I gave references to unquenchable fire, and you made some lame connection to agriculture. Obviously you're going to act in the same way no matter what references are given to you. It's a delusional way of debating.
    Yes i'ts agricultural, read the passage, it's about seperating the chaff from the wheat. Unquenchable fire doesn't refer to eternal punishment, when something is burned up as it is in this PARABLE (keep that in mind), it's destroyed, that's references to gehennah which is used to talk about eternal destruction.

    Nicely cherrypicked, however proving that the bible contradicts itself doesn't help your point. It's just more evidence that it was written by mere man.
    It doesn't contradict itself, it's perfectly clear, sin is paid for in death, there is no post death punishment, nor does the bible teach that, you havn't shown that it does.

    Only if you cherrypick in the right way. Like how at different points in the Bible God claims he is a "God of war" and then a "God of peace". I suppose you're going to tell me that balances out so he's a God of "potentially violent peace"?
    .... No ... Want to stick to the subject? Want to actually pay attention to the points?

    Again semantics with regards to fulfilling or upholding, though the fact is he did neither. Fulfilling the old law would have meant stoning adulterers, which he didn't have the balls for. Clearly you aren't claiming that you live by the laws of the whole bible, as that would be absurd and highly illegal.
    No it's not semantics, if something is fullfilled, it's purpose is accomplished, it's done, that's why the christian church didn't keep the mosaic law, because Christ had fulfilled it.

    ... Are you a Christian? Have you done any biblical study at all? I mean this stuff about the mosaic law is basic elementary stuff.

Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •