Loving God = Eternal Torture?

[sojourner]

fire does also purify. I was thinking of the smelting reference at Proverbs 25:22 and Romans 12:20, but that isn't what is said about the "chaff" or "weeds". They were collected together to eventually be burned up, not softened and purified.

Isn't carbon a purer form than the composites that comprise weeds?

 

[truthofscripture]

Uh huh. You're claiming that there are no contradictions in the bible. Such a claim does not reflect "substantial knowledge."

That's probably why I've been invited to publish scholarly papers on the subject. Because they always hire morons to do that sort of thing.

Oh, indeed it does reflect substantial knowledge and study. If you think there are contradictions, you are not getting the sense of many of the scriptures. That is clear.

 

[Kolibri]

Isn't carbon a purer form than the composites that comprise weeds?

but by the time the weeds become carbon, they are no longer weeds but dust. That is not simply purifying and thus increasing value. That is eradicating.

 

[sojourner]

Oh, indeed it does reflect substantial knowledge and study. If you think there are contradictions, you are not getting the sense of many of the scriptures. That is clear.

There are two separate creation myths that on't jibe. There are four separate gospels that don't jibe. The OT, in many places says "dead is dead." The NT says that there is resurrection. These are contradictions that we sweep under the rug through apologetic and interpretation -- but they are there and cannot be textually reconciled. If you think there are no contradictions, it's clear that you're letting belief bias your critical reading. Your "substantial study" may be in the arena of apologetic and not necessarily textual criticism.

 

[sojourner]

but by the time the weeds become carbon, they are no longer weeds but dust. That is not simply purifying and thus increasing value. That is eradicating.

And by the time humanity is purified, we, too, will be dust. The bible tells us that "[we] are dust, and to dust shall [we] return." From a purely scientific POV, it doesn't really matter what form the matter is in, for nothing is either added or subtracted.

 

[truthofscripture]

There are two separate creation myths that on't jibe. There are four separate gospels that don't jibe. The OT, in many places says "dead is dead." The NT says that there is resurrection. These are contradictions that we sweep under the rug through apologetic and interpretation -- but they are there and cannot be textually reconciled. If you think there are no contradictions, it's clear that you're letting belief bias your critical reading. Your "substantial study" may be in the arena of apologetic and not necessarily textual criticism.

No. If you get the sense of the scriptures in question, there is no contradiction.

 

[sojourner]

No. If you get the sense of the scriptures in question, there is no contradiction.

No. If you understand the literary nature of the texts, you're able to treat them as separate writings that each have unique nuances of plot.

 

[truthofscripture]

No. If you understand the literary nature of the texts, you're able to treat them as separate writings that each have unique nuances of plot.

I understand them to be the written word of God, as inspired to the writers using holy spirit. Not as literary works. Calling them literary works, and not the inspired word of God is completely absurd.

 

[sojourner]

I understand them to be the written word of God, as inspired to the writers using holy spirit. Not as literary works. Calling them literary works, and not the inspired word of God is completely absurd.

Calling them "the inspired word of God" and not "literary works" is completely absurd, because it dismisses the reality of what they are: written works, with identifiable writing styles, genres, and agendas. Sure, God inspired the writers to write. but primarily, they are literary works.

 

[truthofscripture]

Calling them "the inspired word of God" and not "literary works" is completely absurd, because it dismisses the reality of what they are: written works, with identifiable writing styles, genres, and agendas. Sure, God inspired the writers to write. but primarily, they are literary works.

Jehovah is the author, not the ones who held the pen. He did not write literary works, but his principles, commands, and requirements. Others He inspired to write historical accounts.

 

[sojourner]

Jehovah is the author, not the ones who held the pen. He did not write literary works, but his principles, commands, and requirements. Others He inspired to write historical accounts.

With this post it's more than clear that critical study isn't on your radar. You know nothing about the texts, except what you wish to believe about them -- which is fine; don't get me wrong. But if you have nothing enlightening to say about the texts other than what you happen to "believe" about them, you just idon'thave a dog in this hunt.

 

[truthofscripture]

With this post it's more than clear that critical study isn't on your radar. You know nothing about the texts, except what you wish to believe about them -- which is fine; don't get me wrong. But if you have nothing enlightening to say about the texts other than what you happen to "believe" about them, you just idon'thave a dog in this hunt.

Your annoyingly progressive nature prevents you from truly understanding the inspired word of God, and that's sad. If you COULD understand them, the things you would learn are amazing and life saving. As it stands now, those benefits will never be yours.

 

[sojourner]

Your annoyingly progressive nature prevents you from truly understanding the inspired word of God, and that's sad.

Several accepted, peer-reviewed and published biblical scholars would disagree with you.

If you COULD understand them, the things you would learn are amazing and life saving. As it stands now, those benefits will never be yours.

Don't be so Pecksniff. You have neither the understanding nor the information to make such a determination.

 

[truthofscripture]

Several accepted, peer-reviewed and published biblical scholars would disagree with you.

Don't be so Pecksniff. You have neither the understanding nor the information to make such a determination.

Peer reviewed biblical scholars ALL have the taint of tradition and religion and societal values, and therefore do not have the sense of the scriptures as God intended them, so their opinion means nothing to me. And, I am absolutely not now, nor have I ever been hypocritical with regards the scriptures, God, or His only begotten son. Your posts bear evidence that the same cannot be said about you thoughl.

 

[BilliardsBall]

All,

1. How do you know what "ancient Judaism believed" in the absence of written documents? Psychic powers? I have the Tanach and Talmud, and they both teach afterlife, eternity, eternal judgment, etc. as well as the triunity of God. You cannot sing "Tradition!" and confidently assert pre-Bible Jewish thought unless you have other documents I've never heard of, nor have you heard of!

2. I could do little better than to point to Exodus 3 to explain the reality of the afterlife in the Tanach.

Thanks.

 

[sojourner]

Peer reviewed biblical scholars ALL have the taint of tradition and religion and societal values, and therefore do not have the sense of the scriptures as God intended them, so their opinion means nothing to me.

Your opinion is rather seriously misguided, but I have NO DOUBT that you hold them in such contempt, because 1) they blow your theories out of the water, 2) they do it with lots of evidence. Actually, while no one can completely read bias-free, peer-reviewed scholars do read very cleanly -- more cleanly than most others. But I know you'll refuse to believe that. So much the worse for you, I suppose.

And, I am absolutely not now, nor have I ever been hypocritical with regards the scriptures, God, or His only begotten son.

You certainly have been with regard to your posts here -- and with your last post toward me. And you forgot to capitalize "Son."

 

[sojourner]

All,

1. How do you know what "ancient Judaism believed" in the absence of written documents? Psychic powers? I have the Tanach and Talmud, and they both teach afterlife, eternity, eternal judgment, etc. as well as the triunity of God. You cannot sing "Tradition!" and confidently assert pre-Bible Jewish thought unless you have other documents I've never heard of, nor have you heard of!

2. I could do little better than to point to Exodus 3 to explain the reality of the afterlife in the Tanach.

Thanks.

I dunno what you're on about, but the pericope of the burning bush has NOTHING to do with any concept of afterlife.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Terror and wrath are a means of force. The promise of death, damnation and the eradication of entire populations, is most definitely a kind terrifying force. Psalms 137:9 "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." What do you call this, gentle cajoling? Friendly advice?

What we call Psalm 137 is what happened to ancient Babylon. - see verse 1 - ancient Babylon was destroyed - verse 8 - so the end result of that destruction was the end of that family line. By saying little ones against the stones meant the family names would be wiped out. Compare Hosea 10:14, 13:16 and Nahum 3:10. The magnatude of the prophecy came true - Isaiah 13 vs 1,13-16

 

[BilliardsBall]

I dunno what you're on about, but the pericope of the burning bush has NOTHING to do with any concept of afterlife.

God told Moses I AM the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. The patriarchs had died centuries prior. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There are two separate creation myths that don't jibe.

Please notice the 2 creation accounts are from 2 different viewpoints:
1) The 1st account describes creation and all in creation - Genesis 1:1 to 2:4.
2) The 2nd account - Genesis 2:5 to 4: 26 concentrates on the creation of the human race and it fall into sin.

The 1st account is constructed chronologically divided into 6 consecutive ' days ' of unknown length.
The 2nd account is written in order of topical importance.

Doesn't Genesis chapter 2 add some details but does Not conflict rather it just takes up at a point in the 3rd day ?
Both accounts deal with all that was created before the 7th ' day ' or time period.