Religions > Atheism > Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"duke32" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2003 09:00:24 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:47:53 GMT, Scott Rutter <sZIGrutter@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:
Actually he didn't slaughter humanity. What happened is that he
released nature to destroy all but those not guilty of massive sin.
Those destroyed were the evil sinners who stood before God and
rejected him.
How exactly does a 3 month old baby commit "massive sin".
A very good question. Perhaps I should have used a word less
demanding than "massive", because I had only adults in mind.
Maybe we should think in terms of "future sinner".
Anyway, it's God's decision, and I guess he saw things that we can't
even begin to imagine.
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
.
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
29 Jul 2003 02:14:31 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:30:08 GMT,
(Beowulf) wrote:
How exactly does a 3 month old baby commit "massive sin".
A very good question. Perhaps I should have used a word less
demanding than "massive", because I had only adults in mind.
Maybe we should think in terms of "future sinner".
Anyway, it's God's decision, and I guess he saw things that we can't
even begin to imagine.
So you admit that there is no rational moral justification for the
actions of your god in the supposed Noahic flood?
He had a good reason
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
30 Jul 2003 11:15:20 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:05:44 -0400, "Doug Semler"
<doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote:
So you admit that there is no rational moral justification for the
actions of your god in the supposed Noahic flood?
He had a good reason
Do I dare? Yes.....
Hitler had a "good reason" for committing the atrocities of the Holocaust,
but that does not make it a rational moral justification.
Hitler shunned the all loving God almighty.
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Semler" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
30 Jul 2003 06:09:40 PM |
|
|
At some point in the past, duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> posted this
drivel:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:05:44 -0400, "Doug Semler"
<doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote:
So you admit that there is no rational moral justification for the
actions of your god in the supposed Noahic flood?
He had a good reason
Do I dare? Yes.....
Hitler had a "good reason" for committing the atrocities of the
Holocaust, but that does not make it a rational moral justification.
Hitler shunned the all loving God almighty.
OK, what is the "good reason" that God had for killing every man, woman and
child, not to mention almost every single animal on the planet. Because he
didn't like the fact that they weren't worshiping him? Presupposing that
Hitler had very similar reasons for exterminating the Jews (I do not recall
the exact reasons, but most of the time you just hear "he didn't like
them"), it makes your god nothing more than a megalomaniac. Once again,
what is the RATIONAL MORAL JUSTIFICATION for killing the entire populace?
It boils down to God saying "I don't like them so I'll kill them."
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
31 Jul 2003 11:50:32 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:09:40 -0400, "Doug Semler"
<doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote:
Hitler had a "good reason" for committing the atrocities of the
Holocaust, but that does not make it a rational moral justification.
Hitler shunned the all loving God almighty.
OK, what is the "good reason" that God had for killing every man, woman and
child, not to mention almost every single animal on the planet.
Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the boat with your whole
family; I have found that you are the only one in all the world who
does what is right.
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
30 Jul 2003 08:28:34 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:14:31 GMT, duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net>
ejaculated:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:30:08 GMT,
(Beowulf) wrote:
How exactly does a 3 month old baby commit "massive sin".
A very good question. Perhaps I should have used a word less
demanding than "massive", because I had only adults in mind.
Maybe we should think in terms of "future sinner".
Anyway, it's God's decision, and I guess he saw things that we can't
even begin to imagine.
So you admit that there is no rational moral justification for the
actions of your god in the supposed Noahic flood?
He had a good reason
But you do admit that there is no rational moral justification for the
actions of your god, right? It was a case of might makes right.
--
<URL:http://www20.brinkster.com/beowulf9/gottod/JesusHatesTheLittleChildren.html>
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
30 Jul 2003 11:15:59 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:28:34 GMT,
(Beowulf) wrote:
So you admit that there is no rational moral justification for the
actions of your god in the supposed Noahic flood?
He had a good reason
But you do admit that there is no rational moral justification for the
actions of your god, right? It was a case of might makes right.
Of course not. God had a very good reason.
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
30 Jul 2003 12:30:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:15:59 GMT, duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net>
ejaculated:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:28:34 GMT,
(Beowulf) wrote:
So you admit that there is no rational moral justification for the
actions of your god in the supposed Noahic flood?
He had a good reason
But you do admit that there is no rational moral justification for the
actions of your god, right? It was a case of might makes right.
Of course not. God had a very good reason.
Then what is the rational moral justification for your god's behavior
in the supposed Noahic flood?
--
"You know I don't think they have enough gods on sticks."
- Cameron Diaz in "There's Something About The Virgin Mary"
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
30 Jul 2003 05:34:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:30:09 GMT,
(Beowulf) wrote:
But you do admit that there is no rational moral justification for the
actions of your god, right? It was a case of might makes right.
Of course not. God had a very good reason.
Then what is the rational moral justification for your god's behavior
in the supposed Noahic flood?
Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the boat with your whole
family. I have found that you are the only one in all the world who
does what is right."
See what happens when you reject God.
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
31 Jul 2003 08:16:49 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:34:20 GMT, duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net>
ejaculated:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:30:09 GMT,
(Beowulf) wrote:
But you do admit that there is no rational moral justification for the
actions of your god, right? It was a case of might makes right.
Of course not. God had a very good reason.
Then what is the rational moral justification for your god's behavior
in the supposed Noahic flood?
Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the boat with your whole
family. I have found that you are the only one in all the world who
does what is right."
See what happens when you reject God.
That's not a moral rational justification for your god's actions.
That is might makes right. God says "I told them to do X but they're
not doing X. I'm going to kill them now because I have the power to
do so."
You admit there's no moral rational justification for your god's
actions in the supposed Noahic flood.
--
"Divine mental biopsy reveals you need psychosurgery." - Tourniquet
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
31 Jul 2003 11:51:41 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:16:49 GMT,
(Beowulf) wrote:
Then what is the rational moral justification for your god's behavior
in the supposed Noahic flood?
Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the boat with your whole
family. I have found that you are the only one in all the world who
does what is right."
See what happens when you reject God.
That's not a moral rational justification for your god's actions.
That is might makes right. God says "I told them to do X but they're
not doing X.
I'll let him know you continue to disagree with him.
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
01 Aug 2003 12:41:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:08:28 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mpainteratattdotnet>
wrote:
I'll let him know you continue to disagree with him.
Which implies that you talk to god and that there are things it does not
know.
Suppose he asked me to continue my reports?
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
01 Aug 2003 11:29:31 PM |
|
|
In a previous article duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> writes:
:
;On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:08:28 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mpainteratattdotnet>
:wrote:
;
:>> I'll let him know you continue to disagree with him.
;
:>Which implies that you talk to god and that there are things it does not
;>know.
:
;Suppose he asked me to continue my reports?
But since you do not know the one you take to be God is really God, how
could you know God has asked you to continue your reports. If you were
to assume the existance of power far greater than you, how do you know
that it couldn't be that God is someone else, and that the one you took
to be God is in fact just a puppet of a powerful deceiver, so powerful
that you couldn't see through his disguises?
;duke, American-American
:*****
;First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
:to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
;means to save his soul; and the other things on
:the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
;and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
:end for which he was created.
;*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
01 Aug 2003 01:24:17 PM |
|
|
In article <4f9livkkdr5oidntsjhig4dl3rb58hcp4f@4ax.com>, duke32 says...
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:08:28 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mpainteratattdotnet>
wrote:
I'll let him know you continue to disagree with him.
Which implies that you talk to god and that there are things it does not
know.
Suppose he asked me to continue my reports?
Suppose you go to a doctor to get some medication so you stop hearing these
voices?
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
02 Aug 2003 02:03:16 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:24:17 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
I'll let him know you continue to disagree with him.
Which implies that you talk to god and that there are things it does not
know.
Suppose he asked me to continue my reports?
Suppose you go to a doctor to get some medication so you stop hearing these
voices?
No, with Gd in my corner, I don't need a doctor
Have you got marshmellows for tonight's fireside activities?
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
04 Aug 2003 11:28:48 AM |
|
|
In a previous article duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> writes:
:
;On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:24:17 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
:wrote:
;
:>>>> I'll let him know you continue to disagree with him.
;>>>Which implies that you talk to god and that there are things it does not
:>>>know.
;
:>>Suppose he asked me to continue my reports?
;>Suppose you go to a doctor to get some medication so you stop hearing these
:>voices?
;
:No, with Gd in my corner, I don't need a doctor
How would you know God is in your corner if you don't know who is God?
If you were to assume the existance of power far greater than you, how
do you know that it couldn't be that God is someone else, and that the
one you took to be God is in fact just a puppet of a powerful deceiver,
so powerful that you couldn't see through his disguises?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
01 Aug 2003 08:55:59 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:51:41 GMT, duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net>
ejaculated:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:16:49 GMT,
(Beowulf) wrote:
Then what is the rational moral justification for your god's behavior
in the supposed Noahic flood?
Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the boat with your whole
family. I have found that you are the only one in all the world who
does what is right."
See what happens when you reject God.
That's not a moral rational justification for your god's actions.
That is might makes right. God says "I told them to do X but they're
not doing X.
I'll let him know you continue to disagree with him.
You haven't given his reason for doing it, so I how can I disagree
with it? I'm simply noting that there isn't a rational moral
justification for it based on what you've said so far about what god
told you his reasons were.
--
<URL:http://www20.brinkster.com/beowulf9/gottod/JesusHatesTheLittleChildren.html>
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
01 Aug 2003 12:44:13 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 13:55:59 GMT,
(Beowulf) wrote:
Then what is the rational moral justification for your god's behavior
in the supposed Noahic flood?
Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the boat with your whole
family. I have found that you are the only one in all the world who
does what is right."
See what happens when you reject God.
That's not a moral rational justification for your god's actions.
That is might makes right. God says "I told them to do X but they're
not doing X.
I'll let him know you continue to disagree with him.
You haven't given his reason for doing it, so I how can I disagree
with it?
He doesn't have to acknowledge his reasoning. So do what you want
because only you will answer for it. I can't make you listen to him.
I'm simply noting that there isn't a rational moral
justification for it based on what you've said so far about what god
told you his reasons were.
He never told me what his reasons are other than as stated in
scripture. He may be keeping a big eye on you. I would.
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
04 Aug 2003 09:34:28 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 17:44:13 GMT, duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net>
ejaculated:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 13:55:59 GMT,
(Beowulf) wrote:
Then what is the rational moral justification for your god's behavior
in the supposed Noahic flood?
Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the boat with your whole
family. I have found that you are the only one in all the world who
does what is right."
See what happens when you reject God.
That's not a moral rational justification for your god's actions.
That is might makes right. God says "I told them to do X but they're
not doing X.
I'll let him know you continue to disagree with him.
You haven't given his reason for doing it, so I how can I disagree
with it?
He doesn't have to acknowledge his reasoning. So do what you want
because only you will answer for it. I can't make you listen to him.
So far, there's nothing to listen to. You haven't given your god's
reason.
I'm simply noting that there isn't a rational moral
justification for it based on what you've said so far about what god
told you his reasons were.
He never told me what his reasons are other than as stated in
scripture. He may be keeping a big eye on you. I would.
So you admit that you have no rational moral justification for the
acts of your god in the Noahic flood. Ok, at least we're on the same
page.
--
<URL:http://www20.brinkster.com/beowulf9/gottod/JesusHatesTheLittleChildren.html>
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
04 Aug 2003 11:37:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 14:34:28 GMT,
(Beowulf) wrote:
You haven't given his reason for doing it, so I how can I disagree
with it?
He doesn't have to acknowledge his reasoning. So do what you want
because only you will answer for it. I can't make you listen to him.
So far, there's nothing to listen to. You haven't given your god's
reason.
Sure I have - choice basis free will.
He never told me what his reasons are other than as stated in
scripture. He may be keeping a big eye on you. I would.
So you admit that you have no rational moral justification for the
acts of your god in the Noahic flood. Ok, at least we're on the same
page.
Justification implies it was in my hands. Nothing is further from the
truth. He didn't give me his reason other than as scripture, and that
says they were responsible because "the world is full of their violent
deeds." Sounds good enough for me.
duke, American-American
*****
2Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
receive what is due him for the things done
while in the body, whether good or bad.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
06 Aug 2003 11:01:00 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:37:41 GMT, duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net>
ejaculated:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 14:34:28 GMT,
(Beowulf) wrote:
You haven't given his reason for doing it, so I how can I disagree
with it?
He doesn't have to acknowledge his reasoning. So do what you want
because only you will answer for it. I can't make you listen to him.
So far, there's nothing to listen to. You haven't given your god's
reason.
Sure I have - choice basis free will.
Well, no you haven't duke32. The only thing you have given was a very
firm assertion that god had a good reason, which could not except in
the most twisted of circumstances be construed to imply respect for
the free will of all the plants, animals, and little children killed
in the flood.
He never told me what his reasons are other than as stated in
scripture. He may be keeping a big eye on you. I would.
So you admit that you have no rational moral justification for the
acts of your god in the Noahic flood. Ok, at least we're on the same
page.
Justification implies it was in my hands. Nothing is further from the
truth. He didn't give me his reason other than as scripture, and that
says they were responsible because "the world is full of their violent
deeds." Sounds good enough for me.
So, you just answered my question. You lack a moral rational
justification for your god's behavior. You just go along with
whatever he does because if you don't suck his ***** long and hard
every day, he's gonna kick your *****. What a *****.
--
<URL:http://www20.brinkster.com/beowulf9/gottod/JesusHatesTheLittleChildren.html>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Rutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
26 Jul 2003 09:48:55 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:00:24 GMT, duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:47:53 GMT, Scott Rutter <sZIGrutter@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:
Actually he didn't slaughter humanity. What happened is that he
released nature to destroy all but those not guilty of massive sin.
Those destroyed were the evil sinners who stood before God and
rejected him.
How exactly does a 3 month old baby commit "massive sin".
A very good question. Perhaps I should have used a word less
demanding than "massive", because I had only adults in mind.
Maybe we should think in terms of "future sinner".
That's a pretty interesting term for "innocent child". So, you feel
your diety is justified in killing millions of innocent children
because they might commit sin in the future? That's pretty sick.
-
To Reply: Take off every Zig!
EAC - Director of Quantum Computing
Ordained Minister - Universal Life Church
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
27 Jul 2003 07:20:12 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:48:55 GMT, Scott Rutter <sZIGrutter@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:
Maybe we should think in terms of "future sinner".
That's a pretty interesting term for "innocent child". So, you feel
your diety is justified in killing millions of innocent children
because they might commit sin in the future? That's pretty sick.
Justified? I can't answer that one, nor can I declare he ever allowed
any of this to happen. We know that death is man's doing, not God's.
That. of course, leaves the flood story. Yet we know that even the
"supposedly innocent" children carry the stain of original sin on
their souls. And the idea that they "might" commit sin in the future
is not up for grabs - they are absolutely guaranteed to commit sin in
the future because of their human nature.
Just like you and me.
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
27 Jul 2003 06:44:05 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:19:45 GMT, Scott Rutter <sZIGrutter@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:
Justified? I can't answer that one, nor can I declare he ever allowed
any of this to happen. We know that death is man's doing, not God's.
That. of course, leaves the flood story. Yet we know that even the
"supposedly innocent" children carry the stain of original sin on
their souls. And the idea that they "might" commit sin in the future
is not up for grabs - they are absolutely guaranteed to commit sin in
the future because of their human nature.
So god just kills them before they have a chance to do whatever god
decided was the magic ritual to get into heaven. Eternal torture
for babies, quite a evil ***** you worship. You've already laid
down that threat on us with your "you lose" nonsense. Given your
previous comments, it's fear, not love that drives your worship.
No, actually we believe God puts them in a special place, one worthy
of much more than eternal damnation, but not fully empowered with the
beatific vision, which likely keeps them from heaven for the present
time. It is a place of great joy, though, although not up to eternal
salvation for the moment.
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
28 Jul 2003 10:17:20 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:44:05 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
No, actually we believe God puts them in a special place, one worthy
of much more than eternal damnation, but not fully empowered with the
beatific vision, which likely keeps them from heaven for the present
time. It is a place of great joy, though, although not up to eternal
salvation for the moment.
Biblical support for Limbo?
--
Douglas Berry
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
28 Jul 2003 11:43:07 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:17:20 -0700, Douglas Berry
<gridlore@mindspring.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:44:05 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
No, actually we believe God puts them in a special place, one worthy
of much more than eternal damnation, but not fully empowered with the
beatific vision, which likely keeps them from heaven for the present
time. It is a place of great joy, though, although not up to eternal
salvation for the moment.
Biblical support for Limbo?
Sign of a loving God.
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
28 Jul 2003 04:57:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:43:07 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:17:20 -0700, Douglas Berry
< > wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:44:05 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
No, actually we believe God puts them in a special place, one worthy
of much more than eternal damnation, but not fully empowered with the
beatific vision, which likely keeps them from heaven for the present
time. It is a place of great joy, though, although not up to eternal
salvation for the moment.
Biblical support for Limbo?
Sign of a loving God.
That's not what I asked. I ask for a Biblical verse that supports the
concept of a place where unbaptized children go. It's not there,
because the Catholic Church added baptism in the Dark Ages.
--
Douglas Berry
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
29 Jul 2003 02:11:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:57:27 -0700, Douglas Berry
<gridlore@mindspring.com> wrote:
Biblical support for Limbo?
Sign of a loving God.
That's not what I asked. I ask for a Biblical verse that supports the
concept of a place where unbaptized children go. It's not there,
because the Catholic Church added baptism in the Dark Ages.
Limbo, as an infant purgatory, is biblical. Jesus was baptised in the
Jordan.
What is your point?
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
30 Jul 2003 11:11:22 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:24:03 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
Limbo, as an infant purgatory, is biblical.
Chapter and verse, please.
Rev 21:27.
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
30 Jul 2003 05:34:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:11:22 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:24:03 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
Limbo, as an infant purgatory, is biblical.
Chapter and verse, please.
Rev 21:27.
Revelation 21:27
"And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth,
neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they
which are written in the Lamb's book of life."
Says nothing about Limbo. The verse is an appenage to the verses
describing the Holy City. Translated, it means "No sinners, no
criminals, but those who are in the book of Life may enter."
--
Douglas Berry
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke32" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's Wager# 6456272525256272 (Re: Bible Contradictions) |
31 Jul 2003 11:34:45 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:34:03 -0700, Douglas Berry
<gridlore@mindspring.com> wrote:
Limbo, as an infant purgatory, is biblical.
Chapter and verse, please.
Rev 21:27.
Revelation 21:27
"And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth,
neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they
which are written in the Lamb's book of life."
Revelation 21 (NIV)
27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is
shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the
Lamb's book of life.
I don't see how anyone can understand the KJV.
Says nothing about Limbo.
Limbo, a word invented by man, is used to title the holding place for
the unbaptized who thru no fault of their own do not possess the
purity necessary of heaven.
Clearly the bible in no uncertain terms says the impure cannot enter
the kingdom.
The verse is an appenage to the verses
describing the Holy City. Translated, it means "No sinners, no
criminals, but those who are in the book of Life may enter."
That's what I said.
duke, American-American
*****
First Principle and Foundation: Man was created
to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by this
means to save his soul; and the other things on
the face of the earth were created for man's sake,
and in order to aid him in the prosecution of the
end for which he was created.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
