Uploaded by TheAbridgenator 
1156x691 JPG 181 kB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Funny part is, the character who originally said this line ended up fleeing civilization in order to AVOID becoming a religious icon.
And then got strangled by that accounting program from TRON. XD
No kidding, I was in a debate with you about meat and someone here about religon, my fingers are sore, oh make it stop!!!
Anything political or religious in nature is a firekeg primed and ready with a hair-trigger fuse. Which is why I literally just stopped replying to and unsubbed from that horse meat/meat thread. I’m not going to put myself in a position where I’d say something I’d regret.
Eternal has a different meaning for God and for finite beings.
Now where did you get that from? Is that just an interpretation to avoid a contradiction? I can go to just about anyone on the street and they will tell me eternal has no end, forever has no end, forever and ever has no end, all of which the bible says to describe hell. If he’s omniscient he would know what these words mean to us and choose them appropriately. Why allow false words in the bible if you’re God?
eternal God is thy refuge: Deut. 33:27
from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God: Ps. 90:2
thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end: Ps. 102:27
being understood by … his eternal power and Godhead: Rom. 1:20
one Eternal God: Alma 11:44
God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal: D&C 20:17
The list goes on, I think it’s pretty obvious what eternal means in the bible, just the it is defined as. Though this is a bit weird, the bible states he has always been and will always be yet “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) implies a beginning…
Aren’t you, actually, doing the opposite thing,choosing the parts that makes God look like the devil? Interpretation is wrong when it opposes to the bible.
Technically yes I am interpreting the bible, but I am doing so using the explicitly implied information inherent in the definition and order of the words, this ends up showing things you don’t like to hear and it contradicts itself ad absurdum. The kind of interpretation you’re doing is what people normally consider interpretation, meaning applying different or uncommon meanings to words, starting with a conclusion (i.e. God exists) and looking for and using the text to try and justify those beliefs (you may say I’m doing that as well but with the opposite conclusion, however my conclusion is not that there is no god but that I see no reasonable evidence to believe in God. I am pointing out problems with your bibles so called evidence where as you’re trying to use is as evidence despite said problems. In essence you’re shifting burden of proof from proving he exists to proving he doesn’t. I’m not using my arguments as proof against God’s existence but rather that the bible is flawed ad absurdum and is not proof).
Exactly, they stop existing. After the last punishment of the eternal fire, John, in Revelation, sees New Heavens and a New Earth.
So torture and then death…even us fallible and sinful humans know that’s absolutely horrendous and immoral!!! Torturing someone and then killing them for the most absolutely petty of “sins” gets you sent to hell for all of eternity…yeah what a just and benevolent god that is. Look through a list of sins, you will see many of these you commit daily, hourly!! and it is literally beyond your control. You’d have to be spending more time repenting then actually living. For one being baptized before believing in Jesus will send you to hell…and that’s beyond your control!! Almost anyone who was raised by Christians was baptized before they could comprehend words even. So now someone else’s “crime” sends you to hell for eternity, again does that sound just or benevolent in any ways shape or form? IT IS LUDICROUS. (not to mention many of these sins are things you are taught to do in the bible in many places, and I’m not talking little things like a white lie, it tells you to kill and such)
The purpose of Jesus’s death remains in a sacrifice for everyone. The children of Israel made animal sacrifices for be forgiven. Someone without sin must die, so a sinner can be free of his payment. In the case of lamb sacrfiices, they must have been without spots, symbolizing purity of sin.
There is literally no logical backing on any of that, “it says it so it must be true” comes to mind…
About that illogical plan that implied murder, read Matthew 18:7.
Through what means are you picking these passages? It basically says “The world is in shambles so everyone (even those who had no cause towards the world being in shambles) deserves to be miserable. However it is inevitable that the world would be in shambles (so why are they punished?) but ?additional? misery to the person(s) who are the actual cause.”
..H-How is that supporting that you’re trying to say that the implied murder isn’t illogical? Your train of though is making no sense.
Eternal has a different meaning for God and for finite beings. Eternal, applied for a finite being, lasts until the being can support it. Sodoma and Gomorra were punished with eternal fire and they aren’t burning in this moment, by example.
Aren’t you, actually, doing the opposite thing,choosing the parts that makes God look like the devil? Interpretation is wrong when it opposes to the bible.
Exactly, they stop existing. After the last punishment of the eternal fire, John, in Revelation, sees New Heavens and a New Earth.
The purpose of Jesus’s death remains in a sacrifice for everyone. The children of Israel made animal sacrifices for be forgiven. Someone without sin must die, so a sinner can be free of his payment. In the case of lamb sacrfiices, they must have been without spots, symbolizing purity of sin.
About that illogical plan that implied murder, read Matthew 18:7.
It says nothing that negates the endless suffering, and if it does I implore you to quote any exact spot and explain how it negates it. If however it does negate eternal suffering, then it’s hugely contradicting itself…yet another time. So which should someone believe, the part that makes god sound benevolent or the part that makes him malevolent. Just skipping over the fact that it’s contradicting itself (in more ways then I could possibly list) and choosing to believe the parts you’d like to be true is not how things work. And don’t say it’s about interpretation, because who interprets it, how do we know they did so right (trust their word?), why was something wrong in the bible if it’s supposed to be the word of God?!
If it does negate eternal suffering then it also doesn’t explain what happens next. After suffering do they just cease to exist? Do they live another life to prove themselves? (in which case they forgot everything and can’t learn from past experience or the fact they were punished) Are they rehabilitated? (if so why did they need to be punished? Is God really that vengeful) Do they then ascend to heaven? It seems to just raise more questions then it “answers”.
There is also no logic what so ever in Jesus dying for our sins. Is there something beyond God’s power requiring some odd retribution? Did God think “Yeah son go and let them kill you because them killing you (which is a sin) pays off their sins”….what kind of logic is that anyway?! It just makes NO SENSE!
It negates it’s an endless suffering.
John 3:17 says that Jesus wasn’t sent for condemn the world. True, God could force our will, but even you know that that’s not how love works.
About why do we need Jesus, is because His death is enough payment for everyone’s sin. Payment of what? The payment of sin is death. His death give us the chance of an eternal life by just believing He is the promised Messiah.
I don’t know exactly what could have happened if God chose another means instead of books, revelations, prophets…maybe people couln’t have believed.
God doesn’t want the death of the evil one, and loved the world before sending His son, so we can have eternal life.
And how exactly do any of those negate the fact that the bible says that hell is eternal suffering?
As for your verses about the malevolent God, John 3:16-17 implies that we’re doomed/guilty unless we can prove otherwise. So unless we show we’re perfect (and he would know full well we’re not) then we will suffer eternally. Plus why does he need Jesus to do anything to “save” us? If he’s all powerful the mere thought should be able to make us all righteous people.
Ezekiel 33:11 really says nothing useful. It says he takes no pleasure in our suffering (gives no reason for us to believe that claim, just wants us to accept the words on the page) and then just says that the wicked just turned their back on him. They have all the reason in the world to, you have to already believe to find any truth in the bible. He’s supposedly all powerful, he has an uncountable number of ways of reaching people but supposedly chooses to do so through a book, something that can be nothing but forgery and lies. If he wants us to believe it’s his damn responsibility, to expect us to accept the words in a book with no proof (knowing full well we wouldn’t accept the book, because he’s supposedly omniscient) is ludicrous, plain and simple.
All the verses of the bible repeat the same stuff over and over with no further explanation. You did literally nothing to show that he isn’t malevolent.
Isaiah 47:14
Psalm 104:35
Malachi 4:1
Psalm 37:9-10
Psalm 21:9-10
And about an unjust malevolent God:
John 3:16-17
Exequiel 33:11
And eating the forbidden fruit, meaning comiting sin, doesn’t kill you. So unless that was a threat that he’d kill him it’s not a reasonable explanation. And if it’s him who’s kill them…then again he’s not just or benevolent.
Read your own book instead of picking and choosing what words are true and false.
“And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt. 25:46)
“And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,” (2 Thess. 1:9).
These men are those who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever,” (Jude12-13).
“And a second time they said, “Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever and ever” (Rev. 19:3).
“And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever,” (Rev. 20:10).
The list goes on, the bible speaks of ETERNAL! SUFFERING! as punishment. That is not indication of a just or omnibenevolent god but of an unjust malevolent one.
Considering the information I have received, Hell isn’t the way it’s shown. It won’t be an endless suffering.
His own word is written in a series of books. If He exists, He wouldn’t let his word to be edited without saving it.
You have time to rehabilitate.
Well that’s one thing sensible, glad we can agree if God exists then hell wouldn’t exist as laid out in the bible. If the bible is the word of God, why would any part of it be wrong or non-sensical?
Is confidence with your family against our nature?
I don’t think you should trust your family just because they’re family. They can be wrong as anyone else can. Besides, even if someone trusts someone, without an explanation it’s very easy to question why and suddenly they don’t have reason to do what they say. This happens in soo many ways with parents, telling there kids that they should do something with no explanation as to why, it can easily lead to resentment. If the bible gave reason for why it says what it does in a non circular way it would be far easier to take it seriously.
Considering the information I have received, Hell isn’t the way it’s shown. It won’t be an endless suffering.
His own word is written in a series of books. If He exists, He wouldn’t let his word to be edited without saving it.
You have time to rehabilitate.
Sounds like entrapment.
If God is guilty in this, so a mom is because his son got injured by using an axe, even when she said “don’t use it, because you’ll get injured”.
The bible never explains itself. A more accurate comparison would be the mom saying “Don’t use that axe” giving no further instruction. Of course the time comes where you see it could be helpfull to use it and hurt yourself. If the mom explained why to not use it or how to be safe using it that would be a better approach, but alas the bible doesn’t do that. It tells you something without explaining why that is the “true” and expects you to just accept it. That goes against human nature and so it’s really not worry of punishing if you know they’re going to ignore you if you don’t explain yourself. (and if he’s omniscient he’d know that)
But we can’t change ourselves, neither the good acts. Only God can do it.
Then why are people supposedly punished for all of eternity for a finite evil act if he knows full well we don’t have the power to change ourselves and thus we can’t choose to do the right thing, we must to taught to do so. If god exists he should come out from hiding and TEACH us for goodness sake instead of punishing us for trying to find what’s right on our own. And if someone does do wrong, he’d know that rehabilitation is the much better approach (and only approach an omnibenevolent god would take) over punishment.
The tendence to rebel against God is in everyone, even christian people. But we can’t change ourselves, neither the good acts. Only God can do it.
Would you believe in fiction if it tells you, considering the time of the work, the past and future of the world?
I don’t suppose many people who are Christian read the bible then became Christian. I doubt many read all other religions ever in existence to see which ones seemed most valid…or even one other religious text. In fact studies have been done, in the USA in general atheists know more of Christianity then Christians. More atheists have probably read the bible cover to cover (percentage wise) then Christians and also don’t rely on a pastors interpretation but rather read it as it is without built in “justification” by someone reading it.
Damn that’s a lot to read and I presume it’s from the bible? Anyway by objective reason I mean proof, so objective/universal/repeatable evidence. If it’s a section of the bible it’s likely some form of a-priori argument which in the case of religion are not very good arguments. By reason I don’t want some cost/benefit analysis like Pascal’s wager or someone saying “it can’t be disproven” or really any method of trying to justify something ones belief.
Things usually go like this.
Believe -> other don’t -> look for justification
It should go as follows.
Proof/sound reason -> belief
The problem with justifying ones beliefs is that the arguments aren’t proof if god but attempted explanations for the logical fallicies of the bible (or other religious texts) or pulling out a lot of hypotheticals to try and say why the bible doesn’t contradict itself, the real world and all reason. If you have to make up possible explanations as to why the bible doesn’t make sense…maybe you should question the validity of the bible.
Ex.
God exists
God is benevolent
God is omnipotent
Evil exists
One horrible justification is “god works in mysterious ways”, which although we can’t prove there isn’t some reasoning behind it we can’t comprehend, that still isn’t legitimate justification.
All “evidence” for God’s existence requires you to believe to even fathom it as evidence, therefore it’s not actually evidence.