Split Thread Signs of the End Times

[Craig4]

Not so –this is not my idea, it is written, and I am under obligation to warn you.
If you do not repent, then into the lake you go!



Rev 20:13-15 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
If anyone's name was not found written in the Book of Life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

But that's just from the "Bible", that's nothing.

 

[Craig4]

This is not a prediction--it is a fact!
My predictions may as yet not have materialized--but the Scriptures are fact----

Mat_5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

This is what is written!

...in a book of fairy stories.

 

[JayUtah]

This is not a prediction--it is a fact!
My predictions may as yet not have materialized--

The ones that were supposed to have already come to pass flat-out failed. You are a false prophet. That is a fact.

but the Scriptures are fact----

The fact is you don't know what the scriptures say or mean. We proved this, whereupon you ran away. It's the running away that gives you away as a knowing false prophet. It's one thing to behave a certain way out of an excess of conviction. It's another thing to behave like a charlatan who has been caught and doesn't want to face the consequences.

This is what is written!

Superstition committed to papyrus is still superstition. You can't show that it has any relevance to the real world. Keep in mind your critics here don't share your preconceived notion of the Bible as some magically infallible book, and they certainly don't share your bibliolatry.

 

[halleyscomet]

This is not a prediction--it is a fact!
My predictions may as yet not have materialized--but the Scriptures are fact----

Mat_5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

This is what is written!

Welcome back!

Since you seem to be in a bit of a rut in this thread, how about we return to the Mitzvot!

Do you have a response to my comments in this post?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11421938#post11421938

I'll post the next batch of Mitzvot to the thread.

 

[Paul Bethke]

There's a lot of tripe written down in that book that did not happen - why should we think that the dire predictions part of it has any more validity?

We know the creation myths are untrue. We know the Flood never happened.
We know there was no "Tower of Babel". We know the Exodus never happened, or the Conquest of Caanan. We know that at least one of the genealogies of Jesus is false, and we know that the Crucifiction would not have happened in the manner described.

With what we know, why should we accept the fantastical stories of a "hell"?

You think you know a lot—but over the decades people have tried to discredit the truth—it is not that God wants anyone to go to hell. Hell is a place where the sinner will be away from the presence of a holy God.

So you hope that the Scriptures are not true so that you do not have to accommodate the truth. Well you are being misled with all the hog wash—how could such a wonderful creation just come about without a designer?

So what you think you know is not true.

 

[Craig B]

Not so –this is not my idea, it is written, and I am under obligation to warn you.
If you do not repent, then into the lake you go!



Rev 20:13-15 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
If anyone's name was not found written in the Book of Life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

I prefer Rev 14:10

... he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb​

That's some "Lamb"! The author of Revelation was seriously off his nut.

 

[halleyscomet]

You think you know a lot—but over the decades people have tried to discredit the truth—it is not that God wants anyone to go to hell. Hell is a place where the sinner will be away from the presence of a holy God.



So you hope that the Scriptures are not true so that you do not have to accommodate the truth. Well you are being misled with all the hog wash—how could such a wonderful creation just come about without a designer?



So what you think you know is not true.

"Reza Aslan destroys biblical literalism: “The Gospels are absolutely replete with historical errors”"
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/17/rez...th_historical_errors_and_with_contradictions/

And that's just the gospels. They can't even agree with EACH OTHER.

 

[Border Reiver]

You think you know a lot—but over the decades people have tried to discredit the truth—it is not that God wants anyone to go to hell. Hell is a place where the sinner will be away from the presence of a holy God.

I know that I don't know as much as I want to. I know that there is no one source of information and wisdom. I do however know that many of the stories in the Bible, the Eddas, etc. are stories made up by persons without the same knowledge base that we have trying to explain their world.

God/Yahweh/Jehovah/whatever you want to call it obviously doesn't want people to go to hell any more than Harry Potter, or Robert Baratheon do - fictional constructs have no desires of their own - only those of the person telling the story.

You've focused on the punishing aspects of Yahweh - punishing alleged sexually deviant behaviour, condemning persons with more melanin in their skin, etc. A psychologist might deduce that you were overcompensating for some perceived failing on your part and projecting your own desires onto your interpretation of a deity - or the psychologist might tell you something else.

So you hope that the Scriptures are not true so that you do not have to accommodate the truth.

What truth is that?

In any event there are enough historical inaccuracies, and other scientifically impossible events written down in the Bible that I know it is not a accurate source of information for either history or science. As for morality - Yahweh as depicted in the OT is not a moral force - he is a braggart, a bully, inconsistent and far too concerned with being told how great he is to be worthy of respect.

Well you are being misled with all the hog wash—how could such a wonderful creation just come about without a designer?

It did - the beauty of a sunset happens as a result of well defined and understood scientific principles - rainbows, ditto - no designer required.

So what you think you know is not true.

And you are basing this on?

 

[Slowvehicle]

You think you know a lot—but over the decades people have tried to discredit the truth—it is not that God wants anyone to go to hell. Hell is a place where the sinner will be away from the presence of a holy God.

So you hope that the Scriptures are not true so that you do not have to accommodate the truth. Well you are being misled with all the hog wash—how could such a wonderful creation just come about without a designer?

So what you think you know is not true.

Mr. Bethke, you keep saying things like this, without providing any support.

I keep offering you the opportunity to defend the silly stories in your book, and you keep running away...

I'll try again: When do you, personally, believe ƴ ͤ fludde took place? I mean, if it happened, it had to have happened at some actual time, right? Let me know the date you support, so you can show me the overwhelming evidence that indicates your book is in contact with reality.

 

[Craig4]

You think you know a lot—but over the decades people have tried to discredit the truth—it is not that God wants anyone to go to hell. Hell is a place where the sinner will be away from the presence of a holy God.

So you hope that the Scriptures are not true so that you do not have to accommodate the truth. Well you are being misled with all the hog wash—how could such a wonderful creation just come about without a designer?

So what you think you know is not true.

Couldn't a god just decide that no one has to go into the lake of fire?

 

[Rincewind]

Couldn't a god just decide that no one has to go into the lake of fire?

Yeah, but where's the fun in that?

 

[Craig4]

Yeah, but where's the fun in that?

What? He's going to make s'mores?

 

[halleyscomet]

Mr. Bethke, you keep saying things like this, without providing any support.

This is a persistent problem for him, even in his descriptions of his interactions with pastors in his area. He talks about telling them how he thinks the Bible should interpreted and dismissing them as corrupt when they reject or ignore him. I suspect he "learned" about religion in Sunday school, where authoritative, "Because I say so" dictum were the extent of the apologetic he learned. He clearly never advanced his theological or Biblical knowledge beyond a third or fourth grade level, as is repeatedly demonstrated in his writing here. As a result he simply fails to even offer an apologetic more complex than "Because the Bible says so."

This appears to be the extent of his knowledge of the Bible and of theology. Thomas Aquinas for example is, I suspect, far beyond his realm of understanding. I suspect he would struggle with "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis as unnecessarily fussy and pedantic. I have yet to see any indication that he could, for example, defend Christianity as a better choice than Islam, with arguments more complex than quoting the Bible.

The ONLY time I've seen him go beyond routine Bible quotes in his apologetic was when he was crafting increasingly complex justifications for racism. Racism is the real focus of his theology. I suspect if he couldn't use the Bible to support his racism, he'd change religions rather moderate his racism.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Bump.

If this is a fact, as you say, then proving Hell exists will be trivially easy.
You quote Scripture saying "your whole body will go into hell". Taking this literally, a position I assume you will have no quibble with, this means that when you die, if you were an unrepentant sinner, you will physically go to hell.
So, then: find the grave of any sinner you care to name. Look for subsidence, or rent a ground-penetrating radar device for a day, and show us the empty grave. They should be all over the place. Easy-peasy.
I await the photos with anticipation.

Come on, Paul Bethke! This is easy! Think how many souls you will save. That's got to get you into the executive lounge in heaven.
Where are the empty graves, Paul Bethke?

 

[halleyscomet]

Bump.

Come on, Paul Bethke! This is easy! Think how many souls you will save. That's got to get you into the executive lounge in heaven.
Where are the empty graves, Paul Bethke?

Jeffrey Dahmer was autopsied after he died. His body hasn't vanished.

We have fragments of Hitler's skull.

Think of all those Egyptians whose Mummies we have.

The theological implications of taking the Bible literally are fascinating and convoluted.

 

[Crossbow]

You think you know a lot—but over the decades people have tried to discredit the truth—it is not that God wants anyone to go to hell. Hell is a place where the sinner will be away from the presence of a holy God.

So you hope that the Scriptures are not true so that you do not have to accommodate the truth. Well you are being misled with all the hog wash—how could such a wonderful creation just come about without a designer?

So what you think you know is not true.

What a load of crap.

You cannot even show that your own God exists and yet you expect people to believe nonsense from your fair book.

 

[JayUtah]

You think you know a lot

I and others have demonstrated we know quite a bit more than you about your religion and the books upon which you argue it is predicated. We don't believe any of it is true, but we can demonstrate a superior grasp of it. You need to find an argument that isn't based on the presumption that all believers know more about a religion than any non-believer.

—but over the decades people have tried to discredit the truth—

You can't discredit what has no proof in the first place. Over the decades -- centuries, really -- rational people have been asking for proof that your fairy tales are true. You have none. Given what you do with those fairy tales (see below) they are right to continue demanding proof.

So you hope that the Scriptures are not true so that you do not have to accommodate the truth.

Quite the opposite. I see no evidence that the Bible is factual, that it is anything more than the recorded superstitions and fanciful pseudo-history of various peoples in the ancient Middle East. I see no evidence that your god exists.

What I do see, however, are centuries of oppression instigated by certain humans on the basis of these fairy tales. People take them literally, or at least seriously. On the strength of that personal belief only they justify depriving other people of their rights, up to an including their lives. This is wrong, and no amount of dogmatic expression of that personal belief suffices to justify it.

And you are potentially one of the worst offenders. You propose racist and sexist policies which you attribute to your god, as if that excused them from any rational scrutiny. You propose to aggrandize yourself by claiming an appointment as god's special messenger. All that is predicated on the blind faith that the Bible is factually true. I'm not the least scared, since no evidence supports your claim. You should be scared -- again, because no evidence supports your claim. You insist that the Bible must be true so that you can continue looking forward to your reign of terror, without having to justify it to a rational people.

Well guess what: unless your god wants to make a personal appearance and ratify any of your spewage, no one cares. The world's forbearance heretofore with religious dogmatism is wearing thin. We are tired of oppressive public policy and egregiously unprincipled behavior excused by nothing more substantial than a profession of faith.

how could such a wonderful creation just come about without a designer?

Prove it's a creation first, and not just happenstance over billions of years. Then you can argue about who may have created it.

 

[Paul Bethke]

I and others have demonstrated we know quite a bit more than you about your religion and the books upon which you argue it is predicated. We don't believe any of it is true, but we can demonstrate a superior grasp of it. You need to find an argument that isn't based on the presumption that all believers know more about a religion than any non-believer.



You can't discredit what has no proof in the first place. Over the decades -- centuries, really -- rational people have been asking for proof that your fairy tales are true. You have none. Given what you do with those fairy tales (see below) they are right to continue demanding proof.



Quite the opposite. I see no evidence that the Bible is factual, that it is anything more than the recorded superstitions and fanciful pseudo-history of various peoples in the ancient Middle East. I see no evidence that your god exists.

What I do see, however, are centuries of oppression instigated by certain humans on the basis of these fairy tales. People take them literally, or at least seriously. On the strength of that personal belief only they justify depriving other people of their rights, up to an including their lives. This is wrong, and no amount of dogmatic expression of that personal belief suffices to justify it.

And you are potentially one of the worst offenders. You propose racist and sexist policies which you attribute to your god, as if that excused them from any rational scrutiny. You propose to aggrandize yourself by claiming an appointment as god's special messenger. All that is predicated on the blind faith that the Bible is factually true. I'm not the least scared, since no evidence supports your claim. You should be scared -- again, because no evidence supports your claim. You insist that the Bible must be true so that you can continue looking forward to your reign of terror, without having to justify it to a rational people.

Well guess what: unless your god wants to make a personal appearance and ratify any of your spewage, no one cares. The world's forbearance heretofore with religious dogmatism is wearing thin. We are tired of oppressive public policy and egregiously unprincipled behavior excused by nothing more substantial than a profession of faith.



Prove it's a creation first, and not just happenstance over billions of years. Then you can argue about who may have created it.

So be it!

 

[JayUtah]

[/hilite]


So be it!

No, be it not. I'm not inviting you to prove Creationism. Better men than you have tried and failed. (In any case it's not the topic of this thread, so if you want to flail Creationism, do it in a separate thread.)

I'm telling you that your logic is backwards. You presume that the universe was created, and this leads you to conjure up a need for a creator. Then you use that purported need to infer that there must be a creator.

Fix your logic. Then go back and address the other parts of my post.

 

[halleyscomet]

No, be it not. I'm not inviting you to prove Creationism. Better men than you have tried and failed. (In any case it's not the topic of this thread, so if you want to flail Creationism, do it in a separate thread.)

I'm telling you that your logic is backwards. You presume that the universe was created, and this leads you to conjure up a need for a creator. Then you use that purported need to infer that there must be a creator.

Fix your logic. Then go back and address the other parts of my post.

I think it would be hilarious to watch him try to prove Creationism. But then, I wrote "Answering Kirk Hastings" as a result of one of my interactions with a comically inept creationist and apologist. Kirk was just competent enough to be entertaining, but too lazy and stupid to put together a compelling or well researched argument. This put him in a sweet spot of "Easy but fun to vivisect." Paul hasn't quite risen to Kirk's level of competence in his discourse here, so I don't expect as much "meat on the bones," so to speak, as I got from Kirk.

Kirk offered me some a decent meal, but I still look forward to the light snack I expect from Paul.

Edit: A few months back I used Amazon's price recommendation tool and it suggested I increase the price to $2.99. What the tool didn't take into account however was just how small of market there is for information about failed podcast host and inept apologist Kirk Hastings. As a result the book sales, previously better than anything published by Kirk Hastings, flatlined. Sunce a book unsold is a book unread, I just changed the price to $1.45. It may take until later Saturday or early Sunday for the new price to be listed when you view the book on Amazon.