Nonbelievers to Hell!

[sandy whitelinger]

How so. It is simple historical fact.

Offer a credible source please.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Can you post the Book, Chapter, and Verse from the Bible that says the earth is flat; all the times I have read the books of the Bible, I have never run across that verse.

Another popular fallacy.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, considering the Bible is full of all kinds of other errors like suggesting that bats are birds...

In the Biblical system of classification, bats are indeed birds.

 

[Meow Mix]

In the Biblical system of classification, bats are indeed birds.

If so, then that's only more evidence for the book's ineptitude. Bats are nothing like all "other" birds (assuming they're "birds," which is asinine).

 

[AxisMundi]

You obviously have misinterpreted the Biblical message according to a very simplified construct.

Father Heathen's summery of the theopolitical aspect of your scripture is spot on.

There is no choice, nor love, in requiring people to worship you or you will subject them to eternal suffering.

Offer a credible source please.

Prove me wrong. Even your own bible claims the earth is flat, as do those of your fellow Abrahamics.

In the Biblical system of classification, bats are indeed birds.

And yet the entire world realizes that bats are mammals, not birds, since they meet each and every requirment for classification as mammals, and absolutely none for an avian species.

Just another example of biblical fallacy.

 

[Midnight Pete]

I was talking to my very Christian Aunt, and I told her that I follow Asatru. Now she knows me very well and really feels that I am a genuinely kind and loving person. I asked her, based on her beliefs, that even though I am not a Christian, would I go to heaven when I died, if it existed. She said no, I would go to hell for eternity. Me, a kind and loving person, would go to Hell and burn for eternity, all because I didn't accept Jesus as my saviour. That's outrageous to me, and shows how intolerant the Christian god is, at least in my Aunt's interpretation. Now my Aunt is not the "religious" Christian, she says she is a "spiritual" Christian. One who feels that have a one-on-one relationship with God, and disagrees a lot with the Church. She says the only things you must do to get to Heaven is accept you are a sinner, and accept Jesus. She is very tolerant however, it seems as if her god is not. Her loving god who shows her the way, the truth, and the light, and cares so much about her and guides her. This loving god sends another loving human to eternal Hellfire for not accepting him.

To be fair, how tolerant would Odin be?

 

[AxisMundi]

To be fair, how tolerant would Odin be?

Quite, according to tthe research I've done, Odin, Cern, and other Northern European, Celtic, and British Isle deities were quite self-assured and confident, and didn't require their followers to impose their religion on others.

 

[Dan4reason]

There is a statement made by our founding fathers that explains my position toward the myth that an omnibenevolent God would torture people for infinity for not believing in a deity who refused to provide evidence of his existence.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

 

[Misty]

In the Biblical system of classification, bats are indeed birds.

Since when was the Bible an authority on scientific classification, or much else for that matter?

 

[LuisDantas]

If so, then that's only more evidence for the book's ineptitude. Bats are nothing like all "other" birds (assuming they're "birds," which is asinine).

Indeed. Then again, was the Bible ever meant to be used for such a purpose? There is some evidence that early Christians never expected Jesus' return to take even a generation more to happen, let alone a couple millenia.

At a time when people rarely even learned to read or write, there was little point in clarifying that "bird" was used as a shorthand for "flying animal". The differences between bats and birds are clear enough for such a distinction to be unnecessary anyway. And there is even the possibility that in ancient Hebrew there wasn't even a proper word for "bird" and Moses used something that does indeed mean "flying animal" instead.

Of course, the bottom line is that it is indeed silly to expect the Bible to be inerrant. It is not only errant, but rather faulty, particularly when removed from its original times.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If so, then that's only more evidence for the book's ineptitude. Bats are nothing like all "other" birds (assuming they're "birds," which is asinine).

God did not follow Linnaic classification. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word that renders birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly. The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. There is nothing "assinine" about it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Father Heathen's summery of the theopolitical aspect of your scripture is spot on.

There is no choice, nor love, in requiring people to worship you or you will subject them to eternal suffering.



Prove me wrong. Even your own bible claims the earth is flat, as do those of your fellow Abrahamics.

I guess you are your own source then? I will not chase down every incorrect interpretation you offer until you offer a credible source for them.

 

[Meow Mix]

God did not follow Linnaic classification. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word that renders birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly. The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. There is nothing "assinine" about it.

It just doesn't seem like a very efficient way to categorize life for having such an infallible source.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Since when was the Bible an authority on scientific classification...

Exactly, which makes me wonder why people use this tired argument ad nauseum.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It just doesn't seem like a very efficient way to categorize life for having such an infallible source.

It is quite efficient since a larger classification would have been irrelevant to the purpose. After all, the Bible is not a science text, now is it?

 

[Midnight Pete]

There is a statement made by our founding fathers that explains my position toward the myth that an omnibenevolent God would torture people for infinity for not believing in a deity who refused to provide evidence of his existence.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

You seem to trust Thomas Jefferson as much as other people trust God. Thomas Jefferson was just a man.

 

[Midnight Pete]

It is quite efficient since a larger classification would have been irrelevant to the purpose. After all, the Bible is not a science text, now is it?

No, no, and no. A science text is a mundane and earthly thing.

 

[Midnight Pete]

It just doesn't seem like a very efficient way to categorize life for having such an infallible source.

Why do you assume this infallible source (God Almighty) thinks like we do?

 

[AxisMundi]

I guess you are your own source then? I will not chase down every incorrect interpretation you offer until you offer a credible source for them.

In other words, you have no interest in debate and are merely spouting your unsupported nonsence.

Gotcha.

I beleive I will coin a new phrase for people like you.

I hereby, and foreever more, betow upon you and your fellow blind religious the title of Theotroll.

Enjoy

 

[Viajero del Oso]

I was talking to my very Christian Aunt, and I told her that I follow Asatru. Now she knows me very well and really feels that I am a genuinely kind and loving person. I asked her, based on her beliefs, that even though I am not a Christian, would I go to heaven when I died, if it existed. She said no, I would go to hell for eternity. Me, a kind and loving person, would go to Hell and burn for eternity, all because I didn't accept Jesus as my saviour. That's outrageous to me, and shows how intolerant the Christian god is, at least in my Aunt's interpretation. Now my Aunt is not the "religious" Christian, she says she is a "spiritual" Christian. One who feels that have a one-on-one relationship with God, and disagrees a lot with the Church. She says the only things you must do to get to Heaven is accept you are a sinner, and accept Jesus. She is very tolerant however, it seems as if her god is not. Her loving god who shows her the way, the truth, and the light, and cares so much about her and guides her. This loving god sends another loving human to eternal Hellfire for not accepting him.

You seem like you've figured out everything then, haven't you?