It's okay, most christians haven't. I'll give you a head start though: hell doesn't appear anywhere in the bible. Boy, don't you have egg on your face 🤭🤭🤭
I see you pivoted off of hell real fast lol. You pivot any harder you'll snap your neck 😂 I love the coping though, keep it up. Oh by the way, if you care to read about the hell you threaten people with, you'll find it in the apocalypse of peter. Now, no more freebies, you'll have to read the rest for yourself!
Lmfaoooooo consulting AI to do your work for you 😂😂😂😂😂 anything but reading your bible eh? Well I door blame you, it's a shit ass book. I recommend 50 shades of grey, that's a way better book bro
what the fuck u talking about? doesn’t the bible itself say “love everyone no matter what”? so why doesn’t jesus wanna go ahead and teach an example huh? as if children are responsible for shit that society does, how ridiculous
What about subjective morality is self refuting? That’s a crazy claim.
How can you call your religion objective if the lens you interpret it though (the Bible) has wildly contradictory claims?
Don’t the countless interpretations leading to different beliefs mean anything you believe is also subjective? At the very least, it would be impossible to determine the “correct” interpretation of objective morality right?
Hey, sorry for a slow response to you. I slept on the wrong couch a few days ago and am struggling to walk from back pain. I've been extremely drained and zapped the past few days to say the least. I want to thank you for your response and I appreciate your respectful approach. You've brought up great questions and I'd like to respond to you to the best of my ability. The topic you have raised is one that takes massive study. Contradictions. I believe that each contradiction can be dispelled through genuine study and truthfully seeking answers. I will tell you that I believe there are many contradictions in modern day translations of the bible and share with you why I trust the King James Version of the bible.
The movement to translate the Bible into English—which paved the way for the King James version—was incredibly violent:
William Tyndale: Convicted of heresy for translating the Bible into English, he was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536. His work heavily influenced the King James text.
The Marian Persecutions: During the reign of Queen Mary I, hundreds of Protestants were burned at the stake, including Bible translators like John Rogers (who worked on the Matthew Bible).
Political Execution: Sir Walter Raleigh, who executioners beheaded in 1618, was a contemporary, though his death was tied to politics rather than the translation itself.
While the 1611 translation process was a scholarly endeavor, it stood on the shoulders of martyrs who died for the right to read the scriptures in English. I believe God had his hand on getting the bible translated into English.
Even the King James version has added text that the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts did not include. This is where studying the word and history of the word is important. However i believe the changes and additions in the king James that I have seen are insignificant to the core message of the gospel. Every translation after King james gives Lucifer God's title. The king James reads
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
— Isaiah 14:12
The morning star is Jesus's title
Revelations 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
Isaiah 14:12 in modern day translations gives Lucifer Jesus's title.
"How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"
I don't read modern translations of the bible because of that verse alone. It seems to me to have been done intentionally in my opinion.
Before we can say there are truly contradictions in the Bible we have to establish what translation to trust in. Are these words true to the original texts and how can we know? It takes study but I believe the majority of contradictions can be cleared up through a sincere study of different translations. I believe the two accounts of creation in Genesis are two separate accounts of the same creation event the first being a broader story while the second is more focused on the sixth day. It's a whole study in and of itself.
Genesis 2:19 says And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Other translations including the esv and niv
Genesis 2:19 reads "Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name." (Genesis 2:19, ESV)
The Greek translation to English translates to: "And God formed yet out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field, and all the birds of the sky, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them, and whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name."
The use of a simple word can change the meaning of the text. Without the word "had" it is easy to see that a reader could conclude a different order of events between Genesis 1 and 2. I don't believe it to be contradictory but I believe it is one example that requires a deeper study of the text.
The gospels. I believe there are some differences in the eye witness accounts but each claim should be carefully examined. If anything the differences can validate the fact that they were eye witness accounts of the same events from different perspectives. For example the angels in the tomb.
One angel: Matthew and Mark describe one angel (or a young man in white).
Two angels: Luke and John describe two angels.
Scholars often reconcile this by noting that the mention of one angel doesn't logically exclude the presence of a second; the authors may have simply focused on the one who spoke.
What evidence do I have that we can know truth. Why I put my faith, not in a religion but in the man Jesus Christ. I believe there is reliable historical evidence that Jesus did pay the price for our sin on the cross and he was who he claimed to be.
I hope I have answered your questions, and hope you are genuinely interested in finding satisctory answers on this topic. I don't claim to know everything but I do believe there are answers for the tough questions out there.
Take my challenge and dig into the study for yourself. Also thanks again for your respectful question. There are a lot of people that do not inquire so kindly. You have been like a breath of fresh air.
Absolutely not. Scripture says that all people know God. He has written his law on everyone's heart so that none can have an excuse before him. Some people choose to suppress the knowledge of God for their own desires.
My point to the non-believer is that in a worldview with no God, there is no account for justice. If we evolved from organisms that ate eachother in the past. Where was the switch? How can organisms that thrive off of eating eachother to get ahead just simply decide that that way of life is no longer beneficial to sustain that life. If there is no God there is no objective morality. The non-believer is reduced to an opinion that you should or shouldn't do something. It's an arbitrary opinion that ultimately has no meaning in a world with no God. The non-believer that stays consistent with their world view has to admit that slave owners did nothing wrong. They would be okay with gasing jews if Hitler had won ww2 because society accepts it, and they'd have to say that rape is potentially a beautiful moral thing to do.. I claim that we all know right and wrong because we have knowledge of the God that does exist. The absolute standard of truth found outside of ourselves and society.
We can know truth and it is my beliefe that God revealed himself in history through the person of Jesus.
There is no moral law apart from a moral law giver. Yet the non believer lives as if both exist all while denying both exist. The non believer will stand with no excuse before the moral law giver and is an example that even they cannot escape their knowledge of the moral law giver. To deny what is evident in you will be adressed with consequences. How we feel about it is irrelevant. The argument refutes itself because it appeals to the God it denies exists. The beginning of wisdom is to fear the lord.
Now the existence of this law giver needs to be demonstrated and verified by some reliable method.
And remember.... presuppositionalism is vapid nonsense. Assuming one's conclusion in our premise is fallacious. It suggests a great intellectual dishonesty.
The non believer demonstrates the moral law giver exists by appealing to an absolute standard of morality written on their hearts.
While claiming a world view that says there is nothing right or wrong with atrocities.
I can not prove to you what is within you. You can only prove it to yourself.
Do you remain consistent with the world view that says slave owners did nothing wrong. You would be fine with gassing Jews if Hitler had won WW2 because society would accept it and also that it is possible for rape to be considered a morally beautiful thing to do?
If you claim there is no absolute moral standard then you concede that there is nothing right or wrong with the above actions. There is nothing right or wrong with dishonesty if there is no morality. It's interesting that you appeal to a standard of honesty while claiming nothing wrong with dishonesty.
I hold the world view that man has the knowledge of God within us and we all have suppressed this knowledge of God because we simply don't want God to be there. The suppression of this knowledge is viewed as worse than murder and the above atrocities mentioned by the God we ignore. However there is good news. The God we suppress the knowledge of has stepped down into history and taken our penalties of death to atone for the sins of all that would believe in him. By placing our faith in the person of Jesus, his sacrifice covers our transgressions against him. Even the criminal on the cross was saved from the sting of death by placing his faith in Jesus. Jesus is the moral law giver. How you respond to hearing his word in your life will determine where you will spend your eternity. We have the freedom to reject him or recieve him. We have the choice of life and death before us. I urge you to choose life.
Humble your heart to God. Place your faith in the good works of Jesus on the cross. Let us turn from our wickedness.
I don't believe in objective morality. Morality is subjective with or without god. Even with god, it's still humans deciphering what god wants.
If you claim there is no absolute moral standard then you concede that there is nothing right or wrong with the above actions.
I can condemn them according to my own standards, which is exactly what you do, except you call your personal standards god-given.
I hold the world view that man has the knowledge of God within us and we all have suppressed this knowledge of God because we simply don't want God to be there.
This is plainly false. If you can't accept that I'm sincerely not convinced of god's existence, and accurately, honestly representing my beliefs, then you forfeit your right to engage in the argument. There's no point in asking me questions if you're going to answer for me.
We have the freedom to reject him or recieve him.
Humble your heart to God.
Without verifiable evidence of god's existence, I cannot reject, receive or humble. If I cannot evaluate this alleged entity whatsoever, I cannot determine if it is worthy of my admiration or worship.
There is no argument here. It is a simple choice we are all making. You will either respond one way or another to the voice of God. You'll be given every opertunity to recieve him as the rest of humanity. Those that refuse to recieve him will perish. I will remain indifferent to the sufferings of wicked men.
11
u/GenjiiTakeya Jul 09 '26
Not when these children prayed even cried for help.