Finite sin, Infinite punishment?

[Bnet505]

Reading it for yourself is better. Of course you'd have to read the Bible to do so. It's all part of my diabolical plan!! LOL

I tried to read most of the Bible, but the bullshit made it a bit dull. Like one of those cliched horror movies.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Reading it for yourself is better. Of course you'd have to read the Bible to do so. It's all part of my diabolical plan!! LOL

Most atheists here have read the bible. I've read it numerous times.

[texasdave]

lullaby,
What makes you read the Bible? What are you looking for?

[Lullaby Chainer]

lullaby,
What makes you read the Bible? What are you looking for?

I'm not usually looking for anything. I'm just retaining the information, noting things I think are weird.

[Bnet505]

lullaby,
What makes you read the Bible? What are you looking for?

The reason Atheists read the Bible is because when you say your an atheist, you "need" an explanation apparently (Even though the theists have unquestioned grounds). We merely need it to show why we are.

[texasdave]

I was asking Lullaby.

[Zanzoken]

Lux,
Here is a BIG fulfilled prophecy. The Bible predicted the return of the Jews to Israel for the third time. Ezekial even said it would be 2520 yrs from a certain festival on a certain date. That 2520 yrs fell on EXACTLY May 14, 1948. The day the UN voted Israel into existence. Atheists used to mock that prediction. They are silent on it now. Also read Psalm 22. It gives a detailed description of Christ on the cross hundreds of years before it happend and describes crucifixion long before it even was a form of execution. I can give more if you like.

Uh, fulfilled prophecies are really great and all, but even if the prophecies are true (I am not saying they are or are not), would that mean or suggest that the rest of the book is true?

For a book to contain fulfilled prophecy and the rest false is somewhat possible, correct?

[onfiya]

Really? Because I can get really offended by say... radishes if I choose to. So the question is... does the scale of the offense lay with the offender... or the offended.

If the offender. "It's not that bad, nothing's an offense at all." </nonchalant attitude>
If the offended... hmm... then it becomes interesting. You see, God's nature is infinite, so the offense would be infinite.

And with rejection, I would say that the scale of the offense is related to the hurt felt by the one rejected. So, rejecting God is not a finite sin. Rejection, by it's very nature, is an ongoing thing that only mediates if resolved. If you think of a timeline... it's open ended in one end. One line becomes two. And that line extends at least the life of the subject, or if unbounded/immortal, to infinity.

Finally, while the punishment of separation from God is infinite, is the suffering of those who are condemned? Hell will be destroyed, thusly any such suffering will have a duration.

Hmm... interesting... if your concept of infinite suffering is separation from God, if you love God that much, would such separation be a just punishment for any other Sin. (Obviously, if you loved God such, you would not reject him). Maybe not... hmm... so would this necessitate redemption? Must there be a way to be redeemed?

Interesting. In that context the commandments make a lot more sense. (To me at least).

[Jack]

It's a shame texasdave went and got himself banned because I'd like to know if the "certain festival " he alluded to but didn't bother to name, occurred, as it must have by his reckoning, on May 14th, 572 B.C.? And if so was the date affected at all by the changeover from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar?