The Ultimate Christianity vs Atheism Debate Thread

[War Bringer]

Split from this thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=57207

In regards to the meat/veggie comments, I think a balance between the two is whats best.

And as for truth not being relative, there is a big difference between truth and morals.

[hulahooplolli]

I'm not talking about truth as in the sky is blue, and I'm talking about the truth as in your purpose in life.....can you give me such differences, this would help.

[War Bringer]

I'm not talking about truth as in the sky is blue, and I'm talking about the truth as in your purpose in life.....can you give me such differences, this would help.

No, I really can't give you any. I understand them in my head, but I cannot put it into words.

[Richard]

I'm not talking about truth as in the sky is blue, and I'm talking about the truth as in your purpose in life.....can you give me such differences, this would help.

The sky being blue is simply another fundamentalist Christian lie. It is in fact colourless. Although pandas would argue that it is a shade of greyish green.

[I Have a Clever Name]

I'm not talking about truth as in the sky is blue

You must go to bed very early without fail.

I'm talking about the truth as in your purpose in life

That is relative. Purpose is an abstract human term - it is an artificial construct of the mind. For example, your purpose is to serve and love God (or maybe I'm wording it badly), but is that a universal truth? Can you prove God exists? If God did exist, why would it be our integral purpose to serve and engage in a relationship with him?

[hulahooplolli]

I just don't understand how people say that morals are relatives and truths aren't
your humor never fails to amuse me clever.

[Erty_72689]

.

[War Bringer]

You are probably basing that idea on this verse. Luke 23:43 (NASB)

And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

Or is it:

And He said to him, "Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise."

Notice how I moved the comma from one place to the next and it changed the entire meaning of the sentence. This is really interesting because ancient languages had no punctuation. So the intended meaning of this verse is somewhat ambiguous.

Also notice 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17:

Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

If you actually went to heaven when you died, you would think that death would not be likened to falling asleep. Notice how in the later verses that it mentions God calling the dead up. If the dead are already in heaven, why bother? It wouldn't make sense.

There are more verses on this subject, but I'm feeling lazy right now.

You wouldn't happen to know of John Hendricks, would you?

[hulahooplolli]

Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

If you actually went to heaven when you died, you would think that death would not be likened to falling asleep. Notice how in the later verses that it mentions God calling the dead up. If the dead are already in heaven, why bother? It wouldn't make sense.

OK, I understand where you are coming from on this first verse. But either way we will go to heaven at somepoint.
The second set of verses that you showed me are different though. That passage is talking about the rapture. The dead go to heaven but their bodies stay here. When the rapture comes, their bodies will be caught up and made perfect. The trumpet is the call of God, after the trumpet the dead will rise from the grave and be caught up in the sky with Jesus. After this the christians who are living will be caught up, and they will be made perfect, and all their imperfections will dissappear. But you don't believe in heaven or the rapture. So what do you think that this passage is talking about?

[Erty_72689]

.

[Zuwxiv]

You are probably basing that idea on this verse. Luke 23:43 (NASB)

And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

Or is it:

And He said to him, "Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise."

Notice how I moved the comma from one place to the next and it changed the entire meaning of the sentence. This is really interesting because ancient languages had no punctuation. So the intended meaning of this verse is somewhat ambiguous.

I'm really sorry to point this out, but that is pretty much ridiculous. I'm a Christian, I'm not saying your ideas are bogus - the other passages are interesting. But a couple things:

1) This has been translated many times. That sentence is not what was originally said, it is a rewriting of it to make more sense after being changed into another language.

2) In Latin, there are no commas. There are no periods either, at least not in some eras. But the sentence order is completely different. The phrase "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." would look something like this in Latin (and many other languages): "(to you) truely (I say), you (in paradise) (with me) (today) (you shall be)", where words in parenthesis would be only one word. There is no mistaking that for this: "(to you) today truely (I say), you (in paradise) (with me) (you shall be)" It is hard to remember that it is a different language, but a slight change in an english translation creating a great change in meaning does not mean that a slight change in Latin would change the meaning.

A quick example, my old Latin teacher told us this and to my best knowledge it is correct.

English: "I would rather be in an apple tree than a bad man in adversity."
Not very confusing. Now that same meaning in Latin:

Latin: "Malo malo malo malo."
Quite difficult.

So just because the comma changes the meaning in english doesn't mean anything in the original language (which may or may not have been latin), and as you pointed out, punctuation didn't exist in some languages so it wouldn't matter anyway.

[Erty_72689]

.

[I Have a Clever Name]

I just don't understand how people say that morals are relatives and truths aren't

Well, in simple terms, what people decide to be inherently 'good' or 'bad' is relative to different societies. Yes, there are many similarities and overlapping aspects, but there are subtle differences. Further, your moral code is also subject to scrutiny - duty-based, religious, consequential and virtue based theories are some examples - all with glaring faults.

But truths are different. What people believe to be the truth is relative, but what is correct is simple fact. Some might say the world doesn't exist, the others say it does exist - regardless of who is correct or not, the truth is still immutable.

your humor never fails to amuse me clever.

I know, I should be a comedian.

You are probably basing that idea on this verse. Luke 23:43 (NASB)

And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

Or is it:

And He said to him, "Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise."

Notice how I moved the comma from one place to the next and it changed the entire meaning of the sentence. This is really interesting because ancient languages had no punctuation. So the intended meaning of this verse is somewhat ambiguous.

Also notice 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17:

Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

If you actually went to heaven when you died, you would think that death would not be likened to falling asleep. Notice how in the later verses that it mentions God calling the dead up. If the dead are already in heaven, why bother? It wouldn't make sense.

There are more verses on this subject, but I'm feeling lazy right now.

Such ambiguities, in conjunction with dubious historicity and numberless contradictions is why Christian theology is no basis for any form of metaphysical or ethical belief.

[I Have a Clever Name]

That passage is talking about the rapture. The dead go to heaven but their bodies stay here. When the rapture comes, their bodies will be caught up and made perfect.

I think its a case of somebody probably forgot about the spiritual logistics and got carried away, but thats my opinion. Or perhaps the author believes the souls are still contained within the bodies until Judgement day. Certainly it refers to the 'dead' but not to 'dead bodies'.

Oh so ambiguous.

[War Bringer]

I think its a case of somebody probably forgot about the spiritual logistics and got carried away, but thats my opinion. Or perhaps the author believes the souls are still contained within the bodies until Judgement day. Certainly it refers to the 'dead' but not to 'dead bodies'.

Oh so ambiguous.

The "soul" dies with the person. When they are raised up they are made anew, 100%

[I Have a Clever Name]

The "soul" dies with the person. When they are raised up they are made anew, 100%

So the soul is contained in a state of stasis until Judgement day? This contradicts the generally accepted view of people immediately ascending.

I'm also not sure I want to be made anew, is there a choice involved, or are my considerations breached?

[War Bringer]

No, the soul dies, gone, poof, no more soul. The only thing that remains is the spirit. And by made anew, I mean you will be you, just with a perfect body and mind.

[I Have a Clever Name]

No, the soul dies, gone, poof, no more soul. The only thing that remains is the spirit. And by made anew, I mean you will be you, just with a perfect body and mind.

Oh I see, and what precisely is the distinction between a spirit and soul?

So you are telling me that God, an all powerful being, has to come back to earth to get rotting flesh in order to give the souls that are already in heaven a new body? Why doesn't he make a new one from scratch? He pulled that feat off pretty well in Genesis.

I wouldn't use God's attributes to support your argument if I were you - they contradict his very existence.

[I Have a Clever Name]

I am sure there is some Christianity versus Atheism thread where your pithy, anti-Christianity potshots would be more relevant and/or appreciated.

Please, if you're going to start asking questions structured like 'Why would God do this with such and such trait' then eventually you're going to end up questioning his very existence. Or perhaps not in your case.

[Erty_72689]

.