-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It's not negatively affecting my inner attitude; I think it's entirely reasonable to call someone out for operating on double standards. Apparently she has this magical ability to make accurate pronouncements about what is or is not in the Old Testament but everyone else is mired in the uncertain gloom of subjectively interpreting ancient texts and therefore cannot know the answer.
That is not a rational standard for discourse.
That is not a rational standard for discourse.
Mega - I did not say that all religious people are irrational. I said religion gives people irrational ideas. Concentrate please. I am also not trolling. I believe the admin was referring to you being frustrated speaking to an atheist on a thread for that purpose. Take it down a notch, Sir. I'm not insulting your mother...I'm asking legitimate questions looking for honest inquiry.
Red - people do not devote, alter and force the conversion of the works of Plato on other people. The fact that multiple versions is not an issue.
For something as infallible as the bible, because it's god word, you would expect to see a lot more consistency, that's all.
If your interpretation is that there is hell in the Old Testament, that's your personal take on it. Christopher hitchens and other scholars have come to different conclusions than you. That's the problem with basing everything on one fluid document.
I do not claim atheism is the truth. I will welcome actual reasonable evidence to the contrary. Heck, I used to be a catholic.
What I'm trying to ask is I don't understand how anyone can not be skeptical given the circumstances, inconsistencies and direct contradictions.
Red - people do not devote, alter and force the conversion of the works of Plato on other people. The fact that multiple versions is not an issue.
For something as infallible as the bible, because it's god word, you would expect to see a lot more consistency, that's all.
If your interpretation is that there is hell in the Old Testament, that's your personal take on it. Christopher hitchens and other scholars have come to different conclusions than you. That's the problem with basing everything on one fluid document.
I do not claim atheism is the truth. I will welcome actual reasonable evidence to the contrary. Heck, I used to be a catholic.
What I'm trying to ask is I don't understand how anyone can not be skeptical given the circumstances, inconsistencies and direct contradictions.
B
Cathym,
Did you know pretty much a majority of us Christians were once skeptical and questioned about the bible. That was a time when we didn't understand. Now that our eyes are open, and ears been unsealed, we are capable of understanding the depths. We were once part of the world, saw how the world saw, thought like the world thought, but then we were shut up in truth, humiliated in correction, and silent in the unseen. Being free from ignorance.
Did you know pretty much a majority of us Christians were once skeptical and questioned about the bible. That was a time when we didn't understand. Now that our eyes are open, and ears been unsealed, we are capable of understanding the depths. We were once part of the world, saw how the world saw, thought like the world thought, but then we were shut up in truth, humiliated in correction, and silent in the unseen. Being free from ignorance.
Praus - I guess you need to admonish Bryan also because he too, came up wth a different interpretation of the Sheol.
" I believe Hell and Sheol are two different places. Hell hasn't came yet, but Sheol is the grave of the undead, where people went after death. Sheol is a division of paradise and torment."
What's good for the goose....
" I believe Hell and Sheol are two different places. Hell hasn't came yet, but Sheol is the grave of the undead, where people went after death. Sheol is a division of paradise and torment."
What's good for the goose....
B
Cathym, we all hold to one foundational doctrine of salvation, but there will always be people will different interpretations of the deeper theological understandings. These things help us find the truth by discerning the truth from other interpretations. If you would like to know the truth, you must be willing to work with it by submitting to its understanding.
My understanding of Sheol is from the Hebrew, not from my own interpretation. But that's what I believe (someone might jump me for this statement lol). Just because a minority of students heard what the teacher said, doesn't mean no one knows what the teacher said.
My understanding of Sheol is from the Hebrew, not from my own interpretation. But that's what I believe (someone might jump me for this statement lol). Just because a minority of students heard what the teacher said, doesn't mean no one knows what the teacher said.
D
I do agree it depends on what you are attempting to prove. I only mentioned that line of reasoning as food for thought.
Here is something else to consider:
Police love to interrogate a person over and over. They take careful notes as the suspect repeat's his/her story over and over in hopes of finding discrepancies. If the main details of the person's statements are consistent, then they conclude he/she is telling the truth or is a good liar. In essence they are using "Paul" to prove "Paul".
I'm not attempting to make an argument. I'm only stating this as a point to ponder.
Here is something else to consider:
Police love to interrogate a person over and over. They take careful notes as the suspect repeat's his/her story over and over in hopes of finding discrepancies. If the main details of the person's statements are consistent, then they conclude he/she is telling the truth or is a good liar. In essence they are using "Paul" to prove "Paul".
I'm not attempting to make an argument. I'm only stating this as a point to ponder.
Uh, yes they have. Plato & co. may not be in vogue at this particular point in time, but the prior Western legal tradition has many of its roots planted firmly in Greek thought. And of course, it's painfully obvious that the translators of ancient Greek thinkers face the same problems as those who seek to translate the Bible. Neither constitutes an embarrassment - it's the nature of the discipline.
"If your interpretation is that there is hell in the Old Testament, that's your personal take on it."
Right - but how does this not apply to your own claim that Hell is not mentioned in the Old Testament? And if it does apply, what makes your personal opinion credible enough to form the basis of an actual sound argument?
"If your interpretation is that there is hell in the Old Testament, that's your personal take on it."
Right - but how does this not apply to your own claim that Hell is not mentioned in the Old Testament? And if it does apply, what makes your personal opinion credible enough to form the basis of an actual sound argument?
M
Why? And by that I mean, why are you even here asking questions at all? You say you're not here to be convinced or to convince us, so why bother asking us questions that you really don't care about how we answer?
Christopher Hitches isn't a Bible scholar by any means.
Well, that explains a lot.
Are you as skeptical of your atheism as you are skeptical of the Bible?
Also, there are no contradictions in the Bible, they've all been shot down. Is it too much to ask for you to come up with something better other than regurgitating any age old argument standard atheists spew out which have been shot down millions of time before?
So if you want to "break free from the shackles of religon," then why are you on a Christian forum?
Christopher Hitches isn't a Bible scholar by any means.
Well, that explains a lot.
Are you as skeptical of your atheism as you are skeptical of the Bible?
Also, there are no contradictions in the Bible, they've all been shot down. Is it too much to ask for you to come up with something better other than regurgitating any age old argument standard atheists spew out which have been shot down millions of time before?
So if you want to "break free from the shackles of religon," then why are you on a Christian forum?
K
Hell is mention in Luke,( I believe Luke 19) Before Christ died on the cross. That act alone brought about the mew covenant. When Jesus healed the ten leapers, He told then to present themselves to the priest according to the law. The law was abolished after the act of the cross and not before. Call it hades, sheol or what have you, the man said to Abraham I am tormented by this flame and begged for a drop of water.
This is why I stick to the King James, yes there are a few minor errors in this transliteration. But, when compared to the dead sea scrolls it is very accurate.
This is why I stick to the King James, yes there are a few minor errors in this transliteration. But, when compared to the dead sea scrolls it is very accurate.
