after death question

Originally posted by divegeester
It is your extrapolation to all christians and all christianity because Germany was a christian country', that I disagree with, and I find astounding that you won't admit to what you are doing. It's the same as saying athiesm is bad because (self claimed) athiests carried out atrocities somewhere, or do you claim this has never happened?

Surely you see the flaw in this type of collective inference.

I was doing no such thing. If you followed the thread (which you clearly didn't), you would realize that RC was claiming that those who held Christian principles were persecuted by the Nazis. He cited as proof the treatment of the Jehovah's Witnesses, a small Christian sect in Germany at the time (25,000-30,000 members) who were badly treated because they refused to take loyalty oaths or serve in the military because of their Biblical interpretations. But those interpretations are thoroughly rejected by the vast majority of Christians and their persecutors were overwhelmingly Christian.

Those are historical facts.

They say the soul goes to heaven or hell when we pass..so if this is true, is there a such thing as being reincarnated?

Originally posted by Paulstouch
They say the soul goes to heaven or hell when we pass..so if this is true, is there a such thing as being reincarnated?

No, no reincarnation for anybody. Nobody comes back as a mouse or a molecricket. We die and go immediately to Heaven or Hell...how do I know? For the Bible tells me so.

Originally posted by dystoniac
No, no reincarnation for anybody. Nobody comes back as a mouse or a molecricket. We die and go immediately to Heaven or Hell...how do I know? For the Bible tells me so.

Do you know what the smallest seed is? The bible tells you that its the mustard seed. But guess what? The bible is wrong. Gee, I wonder how many other things the bible is wrong about.

Originally posted by rwingett
Do you know what the smallest seed is? The bible tells you that its the mustard seed. But guess what? The bible is wrong. Gee, I wonder how many other things the bible is wrong about.

"the smaller than all the seeds " (Matt.13:32)


Its just an expression not a textbook on batony.

I wonder in how many other things you are an expert at missing the point.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b] "the smaller than all the seeds " (Matt.13:32)


Its just an expression not a textbook on batony.

I wonder in how many other things you are an expert at missing the point.[/b]

Just an expression? Is the bible literally true, or is it not? Is the bible inerrant, or is it not? It seems to me that they put down the mustard seed as being the smallest because the people who wrote the bible didn't know any better. But an omniscient god would have. If our knowledge of seeds can change over time, then why should we conclude that anything in the bible is timeless and absolute?

Originally posted by rwingett
Do you know what the smallest seed is? The bible tells you that its the mustard seed. But guess what? The bible is wrong. Gee, I wonder how many other things the bible is wrong about.

No it doesn't.

Mark 4:31
It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:

I believe what this verse means is that of all seeds, the mustard seed, by comparison to all other seeds, produces the largest plant.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I was doing no such thing. If you followed the thread (which you clearly didn't), you would realize that RC was claiming that those who held Christian principles were persecuted by the Nazis. He cited as proof the treatment of the Jehovah's Witnesses, a small Christian sect in Germany at the time (25,000-30,000 members) who were badly treated because the ...[text shortened]... heir persecutors were overwhelmingly Christian.

Those are historical facts.

I have no issue with the fact that many people from many countries have done many bad things in the "name" of christianity.

My point is that athiests have committed war crimes also, but you do not condem atheism. The argument is therefore invalid as it cannot be extrapolated to other groups.

Originally posted by divegeester
I have no issue with the fact that many people from many countries have done many bad things in the "name" of christianity.

My point is that athiests have committed war crimes also, but you do not condem atheism. The argument is therefore invalid as it cannot be extrapolated to other groups.

Your point is irrevelant to the discussion I was having with RC. I wasn't "condemning" anything; I was just pointing out that, contrary to RC's assertion, "Christian" principles were not incompatible to Nazism (at least in the eyes of Nazis, who were overwhelmingly Christians).

Originally posted by divegeester
I have no issue with the fact that many people from many countries have done many bad things in the "name" of christianity.

My point is that athiests have committed war crimes also, but you do not condem atheism. The argument is therefore invalid as it cannot be extrapolated to other groups.

The argument is frequently made that one cannot be moral without a (christian) god. Likewise it is claimed that atheists have no basis for morality and are therefore more likely to commit crimes. Pointing out the frequent crimes of christians is an attempt to undermine those spurious viewpoints.

Originally posted by rwingett
Just an expression? Is the bible literally true, or is it not? Is the bible inerrant, or is it not? It seems to me that they put down the mustard seed as being the smallest because the people who wrote the bible didn't know any better. But an omniscient god would have. If our knowledge of seeds can change over time, then why should we conclude that anything in the bible is timeless and absolute?

What? As an evolutionist, you cannot figure out that at the time the text was written, quite possibly evolution had yet to 'evolve' a seed smaller than that of a mustard plant?

Originally posted by jaywill
Its just an expression not a textbook on batony.

Oh, just now you gave me the perfect argument why creationism based on the bible is plain wrong:
"Genisis is not a textbook on biology."

Originally posted by dystoniac
No, no reincarnation for anybody. Nobody comes back as a mouse or a molecricket. We die and go immediately to Heaven or Hell...how do I know? For the Bible tells me so.

Where does it say we immediately go to heaven or hell?

Originally posted by josephw
No it doesn't.

Mark 4:31
It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:

I believe what this verse means is that of all seeds, the mustard seed, by comparison to all other seeds, produces the largest plant.

…I believe what this verse means is that of all seeds, the mustard seed, by comparison to all other seeds, produces the largest plant...…

Well, if your interpretation is correct then that would mean rwingett is right and the Bible is completely wrong!
What about the Sequoia tree of the US west? This tree often has a seed as small as any mustard seed, yet it can become the largest individual organism on the planet.

And what about orchid seeds?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed#Seed_size_and_seed_set

“…The dust-like orchid seeds are the smallest with about one million seeds per gram…”

Note that many of these orchids can grow to plants larger than any mustard plant -especially the Tiger orchid which is gigantic for an orchid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatophyllum_speciosum

Perhaps you should be careful to give interpretations of verses in your Bible that are not absurd and don’t blatantly contradict the known facts?

Originally posted by dystoniac
What? As an evolutionist, you cannot figure out that at the time the text was written, quite possibly evolution had yet to 'evolve' a seed smaller than that of a mustard plant?

Are you suggesting that, for example, no orchids (with there dist-like seeds) existed at the time when the Bible was written because “they had not evolved yet“?
there is no evidence that orchids can evolve that fast but there is evidence of orchids existing as far back as the dinos:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6969301.stm