Pope: There Is No Hell

[hog88]

This is about as nonsense as it gets.

?

 

[BigO95]

I was wrong. More nonsense.

That's because you are an unbeliever. You are spiritually blind.

You probably don't believe in the resurrection either.

 

[therealUT]

​

there are no irrefutable clues with respect to dating the book, such that "proposals have ranged over many centuries from before the time of Moses to the period between the testaments
So the oldest it might possibly be is circa early 3rd millennium BC to late 2nd millennium BC.

Correct, we can speculate that some neanderhtal wrote the ****ing book on the wall of a cave that has since eroded away.

Or, we can say that the best evidence dates the writing of these books to after the Babylonian captivity.

But, you want to play the speculation game. So, here goes. Some atheistic Egyptian dude built himself a mother ****ing telescope and a rocket ship 20,000 years ago and flew around the ****ing the earth. He then built a computer, wired the ****ing region, and published his findings and his photographs (from the camera he built), throughout the world. It wasn't divine revelation that revealed the earth was round, it was this crazy genius.

Unfortunately, nobody maintained his ****, and eventually all that survived was his story, and eventually, the narrative was lost, but the fact that the world was round, even though it appeared flat to everyone, was so amazing it stuck in everyone's head.

There are no irrefutable clues to refute this happening. So, until you disprove it, it's what I'm going to run with.

 

[vol445]

​

Correct, we can speculate that some neanderhtal wrote the ****ing book on the wall of a cave that has since eroded away.

Or, we can say that the best evidence dates the writing of these books to after the Babylonian captivity.

But, you want to play the speculation game. So, here goes. Some atheistic Egyptian dude built himself a mother ****ing telescope and a rocket ship 20,000 years ago and flew around the ****ing the earth. He then built a computer, wired the ****ing region, and published his findings and his photographs (from the camera he built), throughout the world. It wasn't divine revelation that revealed the earth was round, it was this crazy genius.

Unfortunately, nobody maintained his ****, and eventually all that survived was his story, and eventually, the narrative was lost, but the fact that the world was round, even though it appeared flat to everyone, was so amazing it stuck in everyone's head.

There are no irrefutable clues to refute this happening. So, until you disprove it, it's what I'm going to run with.

I don’t understand why you are being disrespectful I thought we were having a friendly conversation. My point was there is no proof to prove either is 100% correct about the date. Making both of the things we said speculation

 

[therealUT]

That's because you are an unbeliever. You are spiritually blind.

You probably don't believe in the resurrection either.

It's actually because, taken literally, that timeline conflicts with the other timeline, taken literally, in the Book of Genesis.

Thus, I begin my reading of the Bible with the realization that, if this is all to be taken literally, at least one of these timelines must be false. So, either the Bible is declaring falsehoods (which could be the case) or all of the Bible is not to be taken literally.

If we say that all of the Bible is not to be taken as literal truth, then we can have the option of viewing the Creation Stories as allegorical. Since the best scientific theories of the day point against both the Creation Stories being taken literally, we should take them both as allegorical.

Hell, St. Augustine, 1,500 years ago, explicitly states that the Creation Stories in Genesis are not to be taken literally. Obviously, he was not filled with the spirit and did not believe in the Resurrection.

Or, alternatively, he was not a moron.

 

[BigO95]

​

Correct, we can speculate that some neanderhtal wrote the ****ing book on the wall of a cave that has since eroded away.

Or, we can say that the best evidence dates the writing of these books to after the Babylonian captivity.

But, you want to play the speculation game. So, here goes. Some atheistic Egyptian dude built himself a mother ****ing telescope and a rocket ship 20,000 years ago and flew around the ****ing the earth. He then built a computer, wired the ****ing region, and published his findings and his photographs (from the camera he built), throughout the world. It wasn't divine revelation that revealed the earth was round, it was this crazy genius.

Unfortunately, nobody maintained his ****, and eventually all that survived was his story, and eventually, the narrative was lost, but the fact that the world was round, even though it appeared flat to everyone, was so amazing it stuck in everyone's head.

There are no irrefutable clues to refute this happening. So, until you disprove it, it's what I'm going to run with.

It's a really big deal to call God a liar! I warn you, your unbelief will end you up in hell. I don't want you to go there, the church don't want you to go there and God certainly don't want you to go there.

 

[vol445]

It’s actually the one thing GOD can not do

 

[BigO95]

It's actually because, taken literally, that timeline conflicts with the other timeline, taken literally, in the Book of Genesis.

Thus, I begin my reading of the Bible with the realization that, if this is all to be taken literally, at least one of these timelines must be false. So, either the Bible is declaring falsehoods (which could be the case) or all of the Bible is not to be taken literally.

If we say that all of the Bible is not to be taken as literal truth, then we can have the option of viewing the Creation Stories as allegorical. Since the best scientific theories of the day point against both the Creation Stories being taken literally, we should take them both as allegorical.

Hell, St. Augustine, 1,500 years ago, explicitly states that the Creation Stories in Genesis are not to be taken literally. Obviously, he was not filled with the spirit and did not believe in the Resurrection.

Or, alternatively, he was not a moron.

Sorry, I don't put much stock in Augustinian theology.

 

[therealUT]

It's a really big deal to call God a liar! I warn you, your unbelief will end you up in hell. I don't want you to go there, the church don't want you to go there and God certainly don't want you to go there.

Yada, yada, yada.

 

[BigO95]

It’s actually the one thing GOD can not do

Hebrews 6:18 (KJV)
18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

 

[vol445]

My dad had a saying when I would screw up. He would always say it’s dark up there isn’t it?i never understood what he meant until I got older. Meaning my head was placed into my behind. Now I am glad I can see the light

 

[therealUT]

Sorry, I don't put much stock in Augustinian theology.

Nor in literal contradictions, obviously.

I would like to think that if you were given an illustrated child's book, in which, on page one it said, "Tommy's favorite food was ice cream", while on page two it said, "Tommy's favorite food was cookies", you would stop and say, "What a God-damned minute!"

Unfortunately, I'm not sold that you would even think twice about such a clear contradiction and dissonance. Further, you definitely don't think twice about it when it is written in the Bible. And, even if you do, it appears your response is simply, "Well, that seems contradictory and dissonant, but, so it goes. It's all true."

I would ask if you recognize the complete imbecility of such behavior, but I am already quite sure that you can't recognize that. If anything, it seems that your refusal to use the greatest capacity that your God bestowed upon any of the creatures, the capacity to actually reason, must strike God as the most severe of insults.

Here's a God that gives you the ability to think abstractly, recognize contradictions, and then question if there is a deeper, richer, allegorical meaning to this. And, you take that gift and **** all over it. And, then, to anyone who believes in God, believes that the Bible is truth, just not always literal truth, but sometimes a deeper, richer, allegorical truth, a truth that strikes to the very heart of human nature, you discard such a person because they, in claiming that it must be allegorical, they point at the following:

Story 1:
- Time 1: x is created
- Time 2: y is created
- Time 3: z is created

Story 2:
- Time 1: z is created
- Time 2: x is created
- Time 3: y is created

Your approach is, literally, the very definition of the ridiculous.

 

[BigO95]

Nor in literal contradictions, obviously.

I would like to think that if you were given an illustrated child's book, in which, on page one it said, "Tommy's favorite food was ice cream", while on page two it said, "Tommy's favorite food was cookies", you would stop and say, "What a God-damned minute!"

Unfortunately, I'm not sold that you would even think twice about such a clear contradiction and dissonance. Further, you definitely don't think twice about it when it is written in the Bible. And, even if you do, it appears your response is simply, "Well, that seems contradictory and dissonant, but, so it goes. It's all true."

I would ask if you recognize the complete imbecility of such behavior, but I am already quite sure that you can't recognize that. If anything, it seems that your refusal to use the greatest capacity that your God bestowed upon any of the creatures, the capacity to actually reason, must strike God as the most severe of insults.

Here's a God that gives you the ability to think abstractly, recognize contradictions, and then question if there is a deeper, richer, allegorical meaning to this. And, you take that gift and **** all over it. And, then, to anyone who believes in God, believes that the Bible is truth, just not always literal truth, but sometimes a deeper, richer, allegorical truth, a truth that strikes to the very heart of human nature, you discard such a person because they, in claiming that it must be allegorical, they point at the following:

Story 1:
- Time 1: x is created
- Time 2: y is created
- Time 3: z is created

Story 2:
- Time 1: z is created
- Time 2: x is created
- Time 3: y is created

Your approach is, literally, the very definition of the ridiculous.

I have visited many of these so called contradictions and careful study of the text always clears up the misunderstanding. You seem to think me a moron for having faith in the bible?
It's amazing that an admitted lost person has more spiritual insight than one of Gods children. Why don't you explain to me the meaning and purpose of the cross of Calvary? How about redemption or justification? I would be willing to listen.

 

[therealUT]

I have visited many of these so called contradictions and careful study of the text always clears up the misunderstanding. You seem to think me a moron for having faith in the bible?

No, I do not think that having faith in the Bible entails that one is a moron. That much has been clear, in what I have here posted.

 

[UT-Rex]

Well, I only had to watch 47 seconds of that video to find the first false statement.

He makes the claim that Job was written 1,500 years before Christ. That is false. The Torah, itself, was not written until the 7th Century BCE. Job was written after that (somewhere between the 6th and 4th Centuries BCE). Hence, we can only compare this claim about the free-floating earth to other claims that were written down at the same time.

The same time period gives us the pre-Socratics on the shores of the Mediterranean from Greece wrapping around to Egypt. And, the pre-Socratics provide both the arguments that the world must be round and the astronomical evidence.

Comfort is engaged in mere speculation if he is asserting that the Bible must have been the first written account of a spherical earth. There is no greater reason to believe that the Bible was first than that the pre-Socratics were first. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the authors of the book of Job could not have been informed of this by the philosophers of their day, as opposed to the other way around.

Moreover, since the pre-Socratics actually provide arguments for why this must be so, it is more likely that they influenced the author of the book of Job and not the other way around.

Can't believe I wasted 47 seconds of my life on that nonsense.

"informed of" ^^ implies that Job and the philosophers conversed with one another.

Thus, likewise, there is good reason to believe that Job was teaching the philosophers (just as they were teaching him).

See here, how the philosophers of his day recognized Job -- "He was the greatest man among all the people of the East" (Job 1:2).

The philosophers of the East were smart (as I understand it, the "magi" of the book of Matthew and/or Luke // the ones who followed the star to Bethleham would be included in this group of "scientists" who observed the Universe / stars -- per Gen 1, "and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years" -- the stars of Gen 1 / which God created do serve both those who aspire to follow and honor God as Creator, and even those people, such as Cain, who "went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod").

There is good reason to believe that the philosophers of Job's day listened to the wisdom of Job.

And, look at his friends, and the countries they represent: the Temanite; the Shuhite; the Naamathite.

As far as I can tell, these men were not "Hebrews" / not "Jews" yet, they each believed in God, and none of them, that I recall (I haven't studied book of Job in a while) / none of these 3 men denies what Job says/confirms/reports about the "science" of the Universe (nor do they, as far as I know, deny God as being the Creator). I think what they're debating is (not Who created; not how long did He take to create) -- rather, what they're debating is "sin" / repercussions of sin / penalties of sin / sin (where, the "science" discussions seem to be taken as fact, but correct me if I'm mistaken) ,

whereby, Job commits his spiritual honor and devotion to God, throughout even and during the deepest despairs of this physical world.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Nor in literal contradictions, obviously.

I would like to think that if you were given an illustrated child's book, in which, on page one it said, "Tommy's favorite food was ice cream", while on page two it said, "Tommy's favorite food was cookies", you would stop and say, "What a God-damned minute!"

Unfortunately, I'm not sold that you would even think twice about such a clear contradiction and dissonance. Further, you definitely don't think twice about it when it is written in the Bible. And, even if you do, it appears your response is simply, "Well, that seems contradictory and dissonant, but, so it goes. It's all true."

I would ask if you recognize the complete imbecility of such behavior, but I am already quite sure that you can't recognize that. If anything, it seems that your refusal to use the greatest capacity that your God bestowed upon any of the creatures, the capacity to actually reason, must strike God as the most severe of insults.

Here's a God that gives you the ability to think abstractly, recognize contradictions, and then question if there is a deeper, richer, allegorical meaning to this. And, you take that gift and **** all over it. And, then, to anyone who believes in God, believes that the Bible is truth, just not always literal truth, but sometimes a deeper, richer, allegorical truth, a truth that strikes to the very heart of human nature, you discard such a person because they, in claiming that it must be allegorical, they point at the following:

Story 1:
- Time 1: x is created
- Time 2: y is created
- Time 3: z is created

Story 2:
- Time 1: z is created
- Time 2: x is created
- Time 3: y is created

Your approach is, literally, the very definition of the ridiculous.

A third option is the possibility that Genesis 2 describes different events than Genesis 1 (and the first section of Genesis 2). I.e. -- to view the first section of Genesis 2 as a closure of the creation story:

Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

4 This is the history[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

And the following section the beginning of a more telescopic narrative--i.e. the Lord's provision of a specific garden for the first human couple to live in, as stated fairly explicitly in...

8 The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made...

...as opposed to a description of the creation of the cosmos, earth and all plants/animals on the earth. One could see Genesis 2's main narrative as more detail of what happened on day 6.

I don't get dogmatic one way or the other about how literal one must take the Genesis creation story, but did want to offer the potential change in context that would do away with the contradiction between the two.

:hi:

 

[therealUT]

See here, how the philosophers of his day recognized Job -- "He was the greatest man among all the people of the East" (Job 1:2).

See here, how the philosophers of the day recognized TRUT:

"He was the greatest man among all the people of the West" (TRUT 1:1)

See the problem here?

The issue I raised was that there is no compelling evidence to think that it was the book of Job or the story of Job that lead the pre-Socratics to their view, because there is no compelling evidence that the book of Job or the story of Job pre-dates the pre-Socratics.

Now, once the story of Job was told and written, could it have then been distributed and disseminated through the region? Of course. In like manner, the wisdom of the pre-Socratics was widely distributed and disseminated throughout the Mediterranean region.

 

[therealUT]

A third option is the possibility that Genesis 2 describes different events than Genesis 1 (and the first section of Genesis 2). I.e. -- to view the first section of Genesis 2 as a closure of the creation story:



And the following section the beginning of a more telescopic narrative--i.e. the Lord's provision of a specific garden for the first human couple to live in, as stated fairly explicitly in...



...as opposed to a description of the creation of the cosmos, earth and all plants/animals on the earth. One could see Genesis 2's main narrative as more detail of what happened on day 6.

I don't get dogmatic one way or the other about how literal one must take the Genesis creation story, but did want to offer the potential change in context that would do away with the contradiction between the two.

:hi:

Sure, one can attempt to contextualize them. One has to make sense of the line in Genesis 2:4, though. It certainly cannot be taken literally. For, the same language used for "This is the story" is used in Genesis 1 to precede and introduce the creation. That is, it is a forward-looking phrase, regardless of how many Biblically literalists try to tell you that in Genesis 2:4, these words mean, "Such is the story" (rear-looking). Again, the wording in Genesis 1 for "This is the story" is identical to that in Genesis 2 for "This is the story". It's forward looking.

Thus, what follows 2:4 is the story of how God created the heavens and the earth, taken literally. Yet, as is clear, the timelines are absolutely at odds with each other.

If the move the "literalists" make is to not take 2:4 literally, but to contextualize it as not forward-looking, then everyone else is free to move away from the "literal" word and contextualize these stories based on the best reasons for interpreting them in certain ways.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Well, I only had to watch 47 seconds of that video to find the first false statement.

He makes the claim that Job was written 1,500 years before Christ. That is false. The Torah, itself, was not written until the 7th Century BCE. Job was written after that (somewhere between the 6th and 4th Centuries BCE). Hence, we can only compare this claim about the free-floating earth to other claims that were written down at the same time.

The same time period gives us the pre-Socratics on the shores of the Mediterranean from Greece wrapping around to Egypt. And, the pre-Socratics provide both the arguments that the world must be round and the astronomical evidence.

Comfort is engaged in mere speculation if he is asserting that the Bible must have been the first written account of a spherical earth. There is no greater reason to believe that the Bible was first than that the pre-Socratics were first. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the authors of the book of Job could not have been informed of this by the philosophers of their day, as opposed to the other way around.

Moreover, since the pre-Socratics actually provide arguments for why this must be so, it is more likely that they influenced the author of the book of Job and not the other way around.

Can't believe I wasted 47 seconds of my life on that nonsense.

Maybe the earliest known manuscripts of the Torah date to that period. However, if Moses is in fact the author it was written between 1446 and 1406 BC.

 

[therealUT]

Maybe the earliest known manuscripts of the Torah date to that period. However, if Moses is in fact the author it was written between 1446 and 1406 BC.

Moses is certainly not the author of all of the Torah, and it is doubtful that he wrote any of it.

After all, Moses dies in the Torah. Pretty clear that he didn't write that bit.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Moses is certainly not the author of all of the Torah, and it is doubtful that he wrote any of it.

After all, Moses dies in the Torah. Pretty clear that he didn't write that bit.

Moses death was obviously added by Joshua, however the Bible itself identifies Moses as the author.

Exodus 17:14, 24:4, 34:27, Numbers 33:1, Joshua 8:31, Mark 7:10, 12:26, and Luke 2:22-23 to name a few.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Sure, one can attempt to contextualize them. One has to make sense of the line in Genesis 2:4, though. It certainly cannot be taken literally. For, the same language used for "This is the story" is used in Genesis 1 to precede and introduce the creation. That is, it is a forward-looking phrase, regardless of how many Biblically literalists try to tell you that in Genesis 2:4, these words mean, "Such is the story" (rear-looking). Again, the wording in Genesis 1 for "This is the story" is identical to that in Genesis 2 for "This is the story". It's forward looking.

Thus, what follows 2:4 is the story of how God created the heavens and the earth, taken literally. Yet, as is clear, the timelines are absolutely at odds with each other.

Or, one could see it bookend statements that wrap the narrative.

If the move the "literalists" make is to not take 2:4 literally, but to contextualize it as not forward-looking, then everyone else is free to move away from the "literal" word and contextualize these stories based on the best reasons for interpreting them in certain ways.

Again, one could take it as literally closing the six day narrative, and:

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

starting the next thought.

If one believes that the purpose of the scriptures are given for man to find his place with God, it would make sense for God to give the narrative per the creation of the universe (complete with verbiage saying that the expanse of the universe was created in part to show us His glory), and then to follow that general description up with more detail on, not just how He created us, but how He cared for us in and through that creation--with a perfectly suited garden, home, provisions, etc...

And, I thought I have alluded pretty well that I'm not dogmatic on this. I'm not telling you how you have to interpret scripture, nor constraining you on the logic you use to do so. I was merely showing how a person may be a literalist per the creation story without contradiction in the story.

ETA:

Genesis 1:1-2:3 "This is the long story of how God created the heavens and the earth. It took Him six days and He rested on the seventh."

Genesis 2:4-6 "So, yah. That was the story of how God created the earth and the heavens (notice the switch), before man was on the scene to tend the earth..."

Genesis 2:7 "Speaking of man's creation to tend the earth, here's more detail about that, actually..."

Genesis 2:8-... "God created a beautiful garden for man before creating him, and filled it with all he'd need..."

 

[therealUT]

Moses death was obviously added by Joshua, however the Bible itself identifies Moses as the author.

Exodus 17:14, 24:4, 34:27, Numbers 33:1, Joshua 8:31, Mark 7:10, 12:26, and Luke 2:22-23 to name a few.

No, the Bible does not identify Moses as the author. The closest any of these passages gets is Mark 12:26, where he refers to the "Book of Moses".

But, "Book of Moses" no more means "book written by Moses" than "Gospel of the Lord" or "Gospel of Jesus" means "Gospel written by the Lord" or "Gospel written by Jesus".

Moses might have written down specific commandments and passed them down. There is no reason to believe he wrote the Torah (since, there is every reason to believe that the Torah was written after the Babylonian captivity, as Jewish priests and leaders were seeking to recapture and preserve their stories that had been passed down orally, like almost all folklore of the time, from generation to generation).

Moreover, as they were passed down orally and as they were not originally, as story, composed in poetic verse, there is little reason to think that what was written down in the 7th Century BCE aligns perfectly with what was first told ten generations earlier. Non-poetic folklore has the tendency to turn into a game a telephone.

 

[therealUT]

Or, one could see it bookend statements that wrap the narrative.



Again, one could take it as literally closing the six day narrative, and:



starting the next thought.

If one believes that the purpose of the scriptures are given for man to find his place with God, it would make sense for God to give the narrative per the creation of the universe (complete with verbiage saying that the expanse of the universe was created in part to show us His glory), and then to follow that general description up with more detail on, not just how He created us, but how He cared for us in and through that creation--with a perfectly suited garden, home, provisions, etc...

And, I thought I have alluded pretty well that I'm not dogmatic on this. I'm not telling you how you have to interpret scripture, nor constraining you on the logic you use to do so. I was merely showing how a person may be a literalist per the creation story without contradiction in the story.

ETA:

Genesis 1:1-2:3 "This is the long story of how God created the heavens and the earth. It took Him six days and He rested on the seventh."

Genesis 2:4-6 "So, yah. That was the story of how God created the earth and the heavens (notice the switch), before man was on the scene to tend the earth..."

Genesis 2:7 "Speaking of man's creation to tend the earth, here's more detail about that, actually..."

Genesis 2:8-... "God created a beautiful garden for man before creating him, and filled it with all he'd need..."

The Hebrew form of this phrase is such that it is a "to be" phrase. It is a forward-looking phrase, literally. To treat this phrase as a bookend is to say that the verse is not to be taken literally.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The Hebrew form of this phrase is such that it is a "to be" phrase. It is a forward-looking phrase, literally. To treat this phrase as a bookend is to say that the verse is not to be taken literally.

Specifically which phase are you referring to? Created the heavens and the Earth?

And even if you are seeing that heaven and Earth please as introductory to a section, it is beginning a second short section that recaps gods creation of the heavens and Earth. That in no way does damage to the introductory sentence that introduced the creation of man in the last of chapter 2, beginning in verse 7.

And can you offer some commentary or scholarly reference that it must be interpreted as an introductory phrase? I haven't seen that. Ever.

I have seen references to repetition used to begin and end thoughts in Semetic writing--used a LOT in Proverbs, Psalms, Biblical history sections...