Ask Me Help Desk - In The Beginning There Was Genesis

Let's try it three at a time. I am supposing that the topic is the existence of hell and of judgment.

"Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire." A parable that clearly pictures the judgment of God and the existence of a place of punishment. If you don't agree with that, then tell what the teaching of the parable is.
Matthew 5:22. “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." A very clear and specific reference to hell. Agreed? And please don't say it's the garbage dump. That would be stupid. It also very clearly references judgment.
Matthew 5:29,30. "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell." Another clear and specific reference to hell. Agreed? Not a garbage dump. Hell.

Can't get editing to work. Sorry. I've given you something to chew on. See you tomorrow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

The papyrus fragments of Matthew contain 15-17 lines and none refer to the verse being discussed.

Am I to contend that you will believe only the most ancient texts? That there are 127 fragments (or less), that happen agree with the current bible, and only those verses can be trusted?

Seems a little scant for any kind of philosophical or religious study.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You posted two texts that had nothing to do with hell or judgment.

"Love your enemy" and "Father, forgive them" are clear refutations of your belief of unbelievers condemned to hell. I don't know why you can't see that.

In the second great commandment, Jesus says "Love your neighbor". He does not say to love God which was the first commandment. Does that mean the second commandment disproves the first because loving God is not mentioned in the second?

John tells his wife Mary that she has brought great happiness to his life. Does that mean John doesn't love Mary because he didn't say "I love you" in that sentence?

Quote:

You have refuted nothing.

This oft-repeated statement of yours is NOT an argument. How many times do I have to tell you that?

Quote:

If you want to suggest where I'm supposedly lying, then go for it.

Be glad to. You said, and I quote, "The only evidence Athos ever came up with concerning his suggestion that Matthew was miscopied (not really mistranslated) was the fact that the Matthew 25 passage in discussion did not agree with his own personal belief".

I never said my own personal belief was evidence of what you claim. And you know I never said that. Saying what you know to be untrue is the definition of a lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

Am I to contend that you will believe only the most ancient texts? That there are 127 fragments (or less), that happen agree with the current bible, and only those verses can be trusted?

I never said anything remotely like that. The more you post, the more disappointed I am with your thought process, and you started out here with such promise. Is this the only point you wish to make from that post?

I'm still waiting for your reply to my post #96 which was addressed to you right before you disappeared for a few days. Did you disappear to avoid replying to that post?

Quote:

"Love your enemy" and "Father, forgive them" are clear refutations of your belief of unbelievers condemned to hell. I don't know why you can't see that.

As regards your first text, have you considered this in Romans? "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.' "

The second one is simply Jesus forgiving those who crucified Him. It is certainly not some far-reaching forgiveness of all humanity.

So you still have the enormous problem of having absolutely no place in the New Testament where the Bible says there is no hell and no judgment. But perhaps I have misunderstood you. Are you agreeing that there is a hell and there is a judgment?

Quote:

In the second great commandment, Jesus says "Love your neighbor". He does not say to love God which was the first commandment. Does that mean the second commandment disproves the first because loving God is not mentioned in the second?

No. Why do you ask?

Quote:

Be glad to. You said, and I quote, "The only evidence Athos ever came up with concerning his suggestion that Matthew was miscopied (not really mistranslated) was the fact that the Matthew 25 passage in discussion did not agree with his own personal belief".

That's not true? If it's not, then you need something to justify your contention that the Mt. 25 passage was miscopied. There is certainly no textual evidence to that effect.

Did you see post 161?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

I never said anything remotely like that. The more you post, the more disappointed I am with your thought process, and you started out here with such promise. Is this the only point you wish to make from that post?

I'm still waiting for your reply to my post #96 which was addressed to you right before you disappeared for a few days. Did you disappear to avoid replying to that post?

I'm still waiting for an answer, as are others', on how you deem which scriptures authentic, and which are believable, or by what standard you judge their merits, or their interpretation.

You have no answers other than "you are wrong," "scholars agree," etc...no proof, no method, no nothing, except what you believe. Then you have the audacity to demand responses to " why didn't you provide it here" after neglecting to provide any refutation to my thesis. You have never addressed any content of my arguments, you claim your authority is enough to dismiss well thought out claims supported by evidence.

First you say "He wants to muddle the discussion by demanding long and complex ideas in the space of a Q&A forum." Then you say "If you know their extensive research, why didn't you provide it here."

"I never said anything remotely like that." Then what on earth are you saying? You have nothing to bring to any religious discussion except nonsense and strife and confusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

I'm still waiting for an answer, as are others', on how you deem which scriptures authentic, and which are believable, or by what standard you judge their merits, or their interpretation.

You have no answers other than "you are wrong," "scholars agree," etc...no proof, no method, no nothing, except what you believe. Then you have the audacity to demand responses to " why didn't you provide it here" after neglecting to provide any refutation to my thesis. You have never addressed any content of my arguments, you claim your authority is enough to dismiss well thought out claims supported by evidence.

First you say "He wants to muddle the discussion by demanding long and complex ideas in the space of a Q&A forum." Then you say "If you know their extensive research, why didn't you provide it here."

"I never said anything remotely like that." Then what on earth are you saying? You have nothing to bring to any religious discussion except nonsense and strife and confusion.

Sorry, Infojunkie, but this diatribe is nothing but a bunch of nonsense. My replies are well-thought out and clear. Some are offered as true, some are conjecture. That's the nature of discussion.

I must say that this post of yours is noted for its lack of response to ANYTHING being discussed here. It only reinforces my belief that you are unable to reply to the various points I've been making.

Your research comment, for example, neatly avoids the question I asked you. I thought we had gotten past the false ad hominem approach to debate, but I guess not.

Fine then, lets take a quick analsys of your words...since they are so clear and authoritative and have such good arguments...etc.etc.etc...

You do not address critiques, nor do you provide any evidences for your thoughts. You simply dismiss evidences. You make claim after claim and expect your authority on this to be suffecient. If you are not interested in actually having a meaningful discussion about these things, then what is your motive? You seem very arrogant, narcissistic, and have no basis for any of your claims. The closest thing there was to an actual rebuttal in this entire thread was Post # 97, directed at jlisenbe. This was a list with no rebuttals, simply "you're wrong" repeated several times. At the same time, you offered no valuable insight to those verses, as to what they actually mean, while thousands of years of christianity has taught excactly what jlisenbe contends.

"do you seriously believe anyone here (excepting the obvious) is going to buy your lengthy cut-and-paste-with-pictures as proof of a global flood?"

"that removed any possibility of real evidence in your study."

"This dated belief is rejected by every scientist on the planet"

"It is not the Genesis creation that is mirrored, as you seem to think, but the opposite"

"Look it up - it's all over the internet"

"answers are accessible via that great library we all have at out fingertips"

"There's nothing to take a look at."

"Take what I say by the content"

You regularly take one position, then another, then back again, regarding the same topic. You are a hypocrite, and thus a liar. You love to throw that one around, but you have no values or clear beliefs on any one subject. I assert again, that you believe what is convenient. You have no principals regarding morality nor interpertation of scripture. You believe every headline that "refutes" the bible as it is, and then what's left you butcher into compliance with your ideals. You are an empty idealogue.

"Take what I say by the content" [Yet the content of others is dismissive, and you contend I have to give you proof to be worthy of your discussion]

"The Bible in toto contradicts your belief re unbelievers, hell and eternal punishment." [You contend the bible was prone to error and mistranslation and was lost to the ages ect]

"Quoting the NT to support your belief is supporting your belief!" [You contend the bible in toto contradicts his belief]

"This requires thought beyond the surface meaning of the words" [You contend over and over that the "plain meaning" refutes various ideas]

"If you don't understand such basic exegesis, you really shouldn't be discussing the Bible from any point of view other than the surface meaning...the original Matthew was in Hebrew (lost)" [The surface meaning was lost, and now you have insight into its meaning]

"examining the Bible from a preconceived point of view. It's frowned upon by scholars. It is the main problem with evangelical/fundamentalist Biblical examination" [You contend that your preconceived point of view, through which you interpret the bible is, is not the problem] [You contend that your view is scholarly, and have cited only Augustus twice, while taking a badly misguided quote from a random internet page and assigning to Augustus' belief]

You claim some belief in the bible, or in a christian god, but you reject it wholesale. You contend over and over that there are errors, that the original was lost that you have the answers. What then is your religion? You do not believe in the God of the bible, you do not believe the scriptures regarding Him, you do not believe long standing christian beliefs. Claiming christanity as is what you say it is, is not christainity. It is Athosism. You are your own god, who dictates your own histories and moralities, and you pretend that you believe something that you did not create yourself. You are self deluded and, and again, narcisistic. You border on blasphemy, as described in the bible.

"the Bible reached its present form around the 4th century AD"

"It is not necessary to have the original Matthew to see that it's been miscopied (or mistranslated)."

"The Matthew verse you rely on is a copy of a copy of a copy going back to Jerome. Very few preachers outside of the evangelical fundamentalists will take that verse as you take it."

"The issue is whether the received Matthew centuries later is the same as the autograph. The first century autograph is long gone. No one contends that we have the original"

"the verse in question was not in any of the fragments/manuscripts cited"

"It was done more than once before being accepted as the canon in the 4th century"

"It is also accepted (without a doubt) that those original books are no longer available."

"would have been destroyed or incorporated into the later editions of the originals"

"Conjecture (pure or partial) is unavoidable when examining ancient documents."

"Not if the copies are in error."

"It is not the Genesis creation that is mirrored, as you seem to think, but the opposite"

"The allegory consists of those parts you say can be thrown out. The miracles and Adam, etc., etc."

"[Genesis] tells a story(s) in simple terms...like a child being told a bedtime story...Genesis is a story like that suited to grown-ups."

"Maybe God was dipping into the ambrosia or the nectar"

"The myth underwent extensive elaboration"

"...that "all-powerful" God is part of the allegory."

"a famous name was used as author to make the account more credible"

For the record, everything in quotes are the words of Athos.

If God is omniscient, why did He give Adam and Eve free will, knowing what would happen?

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

Fine then, lets take a quick analsys of your words...since they are so clear and authoritative and have such good arguments...etc.etc.etc...

Whew, Infojunkie, take a breath. I didn't mean to upset you so much. I cut your long attack - others can easily see it if they want.

I note that you do the very thing you accuse me of - listing many of my points you disagree with but not giving a single solitary example of YOUR point of view.

We are still waiting for YOUR REPLIES to my points, not a screed of what a bad person I am. In a debate/discussion, the one who attacks the person of the other is always considered a loser. You fit that description well.

Note also that a person who initiates personal attacks (you) should not be surprised when the victim returns the favor. When you can't take what you dished out, you come across as a wuss.

My advice to you is stick to the discussion at hand - it will be more fruitful for all. You can begin with my question that is hanging.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

If God is omniscient, why did He give Adam and Eve free will, knowing what would happen?

The question of the ages!

The simple answer is love.

Love is not something that can exist without free will, it must be freely given. This is what it means that sin is darkness. It is a lack of love for God, but rather a love of self. If you are not offered the choice of not loving God (ie sin) then there is no way love can be. This is what it is to be made in God's image. "They have become like one of us, knowing good from evil." To be able to choose what one's destiny becomes, and to pursue that which you desire. When you desire only sin, you will not desire God. Our will is greater than that of the animals, insomuch as we can master our beastly instincts and be free from the bondage of sin, be free from those instincts that rule this broken world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

Whew, Infojunkie, take a breath. I didn't mean to upset you so much. I cut your long attack - others can easily see it if they want.

I note that you do the very thing you accuse me of - listing many of my points you disagree with but not giving a single solitary example of YOUR point of view.

We are still waiting for YOUR REPLIES to my points, not a screed of what a bad person I am. In a debate/discussion, the one who attacks the person of the other is always considered a loser. You fit that description well.

Note also that a person who initiates personal attacks (you) should not be surprised when the victim returns the favor. When you can't take what you dished out, you come across as a wuss.

My advice to you is stick to the discussion at hand - it will be more fruitful for all. You can begin with my question that is hanging.

More empty criticism. Having a response is not the same as responding. When you learn this, you will be unstoppable, you are quite intelligent and quick to wit. Take a look at the way you respond to everyone who disagrees with you, you are not interested in truth, you are interested in being right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

More empty criticism. Having a response is not the same as responding. When you learn this, you will be unstoppable, you are quite intelligent and quick to wit. Take a look at the way you respond to everyone who disagrees with you, you are not interested in truth, you are interested in being right.

Were you gazing in a mirror when you wrote this? To repeat myself, it is better to stick to the discussion than to scream at another out of frustration with yourself because you can't (or won't) reply to what has been asked of you.

When you continue to screech, you keep losing whatever credibility you may have arrived here with. All this vitriol brings me to ask you - what is your age?

Your behavior indicates a young man - maybe a teenager, but probably older. Your reckless passion is on display, but not your maturity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

Were you gazing in a mirror when you wrote this? To repeat myself, it is better to stick to the discussion than to scream at another out of frustration with yourself because you can't (or won't) reply to what has been asked of you.

When you continue to screech, you keep losing whatever credibility you may have arrived here with. All this vitriol brings me to ask you - what is your age?

Your behavior indicates a young man - maybe a teenager, but probably older. Your reckless passion is on display, but not your maturity.

I will never lose my passion. I repeat myself, you bring nothing to this discussion by saying the empty and baseless things you say. You readily attack everyone, you explain nothing, you have no sources. You desperately deny what Christianity is, so you can claim your Athosism is truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

I will never lose my passion. I repeat myself, you bring nothing to this discussion by saying the empty and baseless things you say. You readily attack everyone, you explain nothing, you have no sources. You desperately deny what Christianity is, so you can claim your Athosism is truth.

This is not an improvement, infojunkie. You are just repeating what you already said. Not a good mark.

Why not do this as a start - go to post 96 in this thread and answer the last question in that post. It's asked seriously. Then try post #94 just before 96. It has several points that you have yet to do me the courtesy of answering.

Lacking that, pick any single issue where I did what you claim I did. Be sure to include ALL the content involved, and we shall see what we shall see. I doubt you will do this because then you would have to put up or shut up as the saying goes. I hope I'm wrong.

That's how it works, junkie. You ask, the other replies, you reply, and ask etc etc etc., keeping the insults to a minimum.

Your trouble here has been created totally by you. Soon after arrival, you broke the civility between us by calling me a name. When I naturally responded in kind, you later went off on a toot refusing to continue any meaningful dialogue by a back-and-forth civil discussion. Instead you spewed your vitriol post after post until you've become basically unreadable. You have only yourself to blame.

If you want fresh start, I will grant you that. Beware, I offer no civility. You speak as you wish, so do I. If you don't want to trade tit for tat, keep the accusations to a minimum. I am determined to find common ground with you, or relentlessly pursue your thoughts on AMHD with long diatribes about your character, with citations.

Please keep it simple and easy for readers to understand and follow. Enumerate (1, 2, 3) or use paragraphs prefaced by the name of the person who said it (Athos: xxxxx). Simple. Easy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

I'm still wondering how reptiles can speak. Did your creationists have any research on that?

I have no idea how reptiles can speak. I believe in God, where all things are possible. I would not be confounded if a reptile, being possessed, gained the ability to speak.

That being said, I do not believe this is true. You call me a literalist, but I am only literal where it is quite obvious to me that that is the intention. I have never thought much of this in the sense of literalism, I have thought that this story was true, but not in the way many imagine.

Given some consideration, I think serpent simply means Satan. It is very obvious that it is referring to the devil, but, specifically a cherubim called Satan (One in the same to me), not a possessed snake.

In Revelation, the devil is described as a serpent and a dragon. I believe this to be more a title of character, than a physical description. This figure of speech stands with us today, and is a perfect description for one who is slimy and scheming. It is also interesting that this creature is "cursed above all cattle". Why would this even be in here? What comparison could Satan have with cattle? If we look in Ezekiel and Revelation, we find that Satan is one of the order of angels called cherubim, specifically, one who covers God, (kind of like on the mercy seat); the cherubim have 4 faces, one of which resembles an ox or a calf. It is also pretty clear to me, that in Revelation, the devil is left defenseless and defeated; that he is on his belly, one might say.

To be clear, I do believe, (literally) that Eve was deceived by a (figurative) serpent.

People who question talking reptiles would, I suppose, be completely amazed about a man being raised from the dead.