NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm an occultist. I study the very foundations of reality itself. I know there are christians and there are idiotic people that actually believe that God is vain enough to love a child-molester who believes in him but not an atheist that does social work. These second idiots call themselves christians as well, so I'll add quotation marks to their names for the sake of identification. So... Come get me, "christians". I DARE your petty, vain, idiotic evil excuse for a god to come and get me. I do not believe a god vain enough to allow a child molester into heaven just because said molester believes him, and I will not ever. The truly Christian God would be terribly disappointed to know what you "christians" have been saying in his name, so, again, I dare you to send your "God-that-hates-everyone-that's-not-Christian" after me. Come get me, punks.

Whoa. you have been hanging out with the wrong Christians if that's your image of God, or perhaps you havent met any Christians at all, or you are too ignorant to listen to them properly. That would explain a lot.

Whoa. you have been hanging out with the wrong Christians if that's your image of God, or perhaps you havent met any Christians at all, or you are too ignrant to listen to them properly. That would explain a lot.
Meet Servus Dei and commando2, the friendly witchhunters from your neighborhood.^^

Whoa. you have been hanging out with the wrong Christians if that's your image of God, or perhaps you havent met any Christians at all, or you are too ignorant to listen to them properly. That would explain a lot.

In the very post you quote I went through hard work to make clear the distinction between christian and "christian". Re-read it and you'll see.

Meet Servus Dei and commando2, the friendly witchhunters from your neighborhood.^^

Danke schön. ;)

Wow. I was hoping to make it at least one more page before I stepped in and got involved in this original sin tangent we have going here, but I guess I'll have to start now.

Does nobody understand the greater truth behind the story of the Fall? Does nobody even ask the most important question?

Well, here: WHY, if eating of the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was such a BAD THING, did God put the tree IN THE MOST ACCESSIBLE PLACE IN THE GARDEN? Why didn't God just bury it in some far-away, unreachable corner?

Answer: choice. Humanity has the gift of reason, the freedom to choose actions be they right or wrong. God put that tree there to acknowledge that He had, at last, created a being that should rightly be free to choose its own path, even if that path might lead it away from God.

Again I'm back to Prometheus. Even though he was punished for bringing knowledge to mankind, he was looked upon as having done a service to man. Christianity punishes for it, and then condemns it thoughout history. It just gives an overall flavor of hostility towards independent thought.

What happened when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree? They gained the knowledge of Good and Evil.



:) Aiera

But isn't god still punishing them for disobedience? Saying "I have declared this knowledge out of bounds, and disobedience will get you punishment."

It still comes down to -using the free will I gave you will result in punishment.
In that case it's not really free will.

I just have a hard time respecting a deity that says you have free will when you don't really. That decides the knowledge that allows you to make decisions on how to use this "free will" is forbidden.

I mean, if you tell a child "Yes, you may go outside and play. But if you do, you'll get a spanking."- is that really giving him a choice?

And christianity has a long history of discouraging knowledge. You may explore the world around you, as long as you don't come up with any questions or answers we don't like. The whole history of the religion seems anti-knowledge.

In the very post you quote I went through hard work to make clear the distinction between christian and "christian". Re-read it and you'll see.

Righto. My view on the whole "Heaven and Hell" debate is that who goes where, as it were, is up to God, and people cannot predict what God will do. If you come across a Christian that claims to know how God judges people, well take what they say with a grain of salt.

Wrong! :p
Wrong! :D

But isn't god still punishing them for disobedience? Saying "I have declared this knowledge out of bounds, and disobedience will get you punishment."

It still comes down to -using the free will I gave you will result in punishment.
In that case it's not really free will.

It isn't punishment.

Moving past the fact that the Genesis account is allegory, what do we see in it? We see a people, humanity, in harmony with God - knowing only God, knowing only Good, living an idyllic existence in peace. They are one with God, made in the image of God and in full communion with God.

But God realizes something. Love - true love - means giving the loved person a choice. In this case, it was the choice to have knowledge not only of Good, but of Evil as well.

There is a risk in having that knowledge, however, because to have that knowledge means that we must take on a part of the mantle of Evil, we must allow Evil into ourselves in order to understand it. If we do that, then we are not beings of pure Good, and are in fact set apart by our own choice from pure Good. Thus, in gaining that knowledge, humanity set itself apart from God, and could not remain in the garden.

I just have a hard time respecting a deity that says you have free will when you don't really. That decides the knowledge that allows you to make decisions on how to use this "free will" is forbidden.

I suspect that God had other motives for making the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil so readily accessible, for look what ultimately came of it. Yes, humanity was for a time set apart from God. But what resulted?

God demonstrated a love surpassing all definition in sending Jesus, essentially coming down among humanity Himself to live with us, be tempted like us, and ultimately do die by our hands in the most brutal manner possible. And why? So that God might again forge that unity with us, so that the Evil might lose its hold on us, so that we might again be with God.

I mean, if you tell a child "Yes, you may go outside and play. But if you do, you'll get a spanking."- is that really giving him a choice?

No, but that is not what God did in the garden. What God did is allow for the possibility that some Evil might creep into humanity, in order that a greater - far greater - good be worked because of it.

And christianity has a long history of discouraging knowledge. You may explore the world around you, as long as you don't come up with any questions or answers we don't like. The whole history of the religion seems anti-knowledge.

Well, perhaps. But consider - through the Dark Ages, it was the Church that preserved the histories of pre-Christian civilizations, preserved the poetries of those civilizations, preserved the collected knowledge of the age and ages past.

Additionally, the first universities were founded by the Churches. Great advances in understanding the human body and its function were made by Church scholars. The printing press was developed by a devout Catholic. Galileo was a Catholic, and even after his incarceration remained true to his faith (recognizing that his faith was perfect, even if those in power in the name of that faith were not).

In fact, Galileo's incarceration was not so much about his findings - he published his book several years in advance of his being incarcerated, and it was widely read in its day. His incarceration began when he made some rather disparaging comments about the intelligence of the Papal Astronomer, comments which were misinterpreted as being set against the Pope himself.

And yes, the Church did not accept Galileo's findings until many centuries later, but their initial reaction was not to censure it. Nor did they censure Newton when his findings on gravity were published.

:) Aiera

You just proved with your statement that faith doesn't mean blindness or exclusivity. I am honored to have you as a discussion partner.

I didn't respond to this right away, because I wanted to prepare a suitable response.

I am honoured that you think that way, and you have proven yourself to be very open-minded and rational. I have greatly enjoyed this conversation.

But please do not attribute my statements solely to me, for I cannot rightly take credit for them. They are the words of God inspired in me. Yes, they are reflected in my own heart, and yes I believe them fully. But they are written on my heart by the Lord, and I am speaking only that which the Lord inspires me to speak.

If you would ask why my views on faith are what they are, I can respond only in one way:


The Nicene Creed
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

If I had a pen and could write on this screen for all to see, I would sign and date those words, commiting my life to them. I would make it my death warrant, should ever Christians in my country come to face deadly persecution. I would take a bullet for those words. I'd take an entire clip.

Just so it be known, I do not speak these words to all of you for my own edification, or my own reasons. I speak them for the Lord, for God, for His greater glory, in the hope that I might be an example for all so that they might too come to give glory to God.

:D Aiera

Well, perhaps. But consider - through the Dark Ages, it was the Church that preserved the histories of pre-Christian civilizations, preserved the poetries of those civilizations, preserved the collected knowledge of the age and ages past.

Unless you consider 'attempted to completely and utterly destroy this knowledge if it contradicted doctrine' the same as preserving this statement is inaccurate.. Almost all writing from Mayan and Aztec cultures are lost to us thanks to the church. Works from Roman and Greek times were heavily censored or worse. Admittedly in some cases the church kept a few copies under lock and key, away from the masses, in their own restricted libraries, but they got rid of the rest. Destroy it, keep it away from the masses or present to them a distorted picture so it either fits or can be ridiculed - that is how historically the church handles knowledge that is not in line with its own teachings.

Other knowledge however was extremely well preserved during dark times. Which required a lot of effort and is most commendable.

Unless you consider 'attempted to completely and utterly destroy this knowledge if it contradicted doctrine' the same as preserving this statement is inaccurate.. Almost all writing from Mayan and Aztec cultures are lost to us thanks to the church. Works from Roman and Greek times were heavily censored or worse. Admittedly in some cases the church kept a few copies under lock and key, away from the masses, in their own restricted libraries, but they got rid of the rest. Destroy it, keep it away from the masses or present to them a distorted picture so it either fits or can be ridiculed - that is how historically the church handles knowledge that is not in line with its own teachings.

At times, yes, the Church has wrongfully censured some knowledge (I'd wonder about the Mayan/Aztec information, if only because I'm fairly certain that by the time Europeans discovered them, the Dark Ages were long over). In the end, though, I think it has done more good than harm, and fostered the seeds of learning and knowledge far more than it has trod them underfoot.

As you note here:

Other knowledge however was extremely well preserved during dark times. Which required a lot of effort and is most commendable.

:) Aiera

Well paul was a jewish leader before he converted, so i dont know what you mean by anti jewish. Jesus said noone comes to the father except through me, meaning your going to hell if you dont beleive. Also Jesus said that i came to not bring peace but a sword. So what non violence are you talking about?

Unless you mean that jesus him self never was violent? In which case neither was paul. PAul was jailed and exectued as was jesus. PAuls teachings, while written by paul are still inspired by god. In fact "God" never wrote anyhting. thats what prophets are for. To write and tell his message to others.
Uhm, for clarity, not all the translations agree with your assessment about how one gets to the father. Read up a little more. "By means of me" is NOT the same as "through me". KJV - NIV, et cetera.
Also nothing in "revelation" is actually representative of the living Jesus of Nazareth, it's the wet dream bile of a fevered psychopath having a vision in a cave. Try to keep that in perspective.
Probably somewhat true though that "God" never wrote anything, semantically speaking, at least as far as the bible goes, i guess it just gets quoted/misquoted and feared/misunderstood and still not really a keen sense of appreciation much at all even so far late in the game. *sigh*

Howd a troll post turn into a big thread?
By the believers, of course!
Har, har.

So, let me get this straight: You read a book to support the faith that you must have in order to read the book that supports the faith you must have in order to read the book that supports the faith you must have in order to read the book that supports the faith you must have in order to read the book that supports the faith you must have in order to read the book that supports the faith you must have in order to read the book that supports the faith you must have in order to...

Okay, I'm getting dizzy.
Servus Dei had some unglamorous opinions of this whole matter, and i asked (it) to qualify whether (it) was a tautologist or not. Seems like the real root of the argument is the noose off the branch as well. Blah.
That post has to do with warning labels on the bible due its subject content. See 'round pages 9 on ....
BTW : Tautology .... the reciprocal argument of ineffability.
OED (Dictionary/Thesaurus SE): Saying the same thing twice in different words, especially as a fault of style .... repetition, redundancy, duplication.

Uhm, for clarity, not all the translations agree with your assessment about how one gets to the father. Read up a little more. "By means of me" is NOT the same as "through me". KJV - NIV, et cetera.

True and not, depending on what meaning you ascribe to the word 'through'. If I say "through this process" or "by means of this process", I am in effect describing the same thing - that by application of this process, something comes about.

Also nothing in "revelation" is actually representative of the living Jesus of Nazareth, it's the wet dream bile of a fevered psychopath having a vision in a cave. Try to keep that in perspective.

Well, admittedly John was in exile, although I'd hesitate to call him a psychopath. What "Revelation" is, actually, is a message of hope and reassurance to the persecuted Christians of the day (during the reign of Caesar Nero) that even though great strife and suffering was the order of the day, in the long run God would save His faithful, and righteousness triumph.

Probably somewhat true though that "God" never wrote anything, semantically speaking, at least as far as the bible goes, i guess it just gets quoted/misquoted and feared/misunderstood and still not really a keen sense of appreciation much at all even so far late in the game. *sigh*

God never wrote the Bible in the sense of putting divine pen to divine paper. God, through the Holy Spirit, inspired the human authors of the Bible to write the Scriptures. The Bible is the word of God in the sense that the Spirit provided the words to the authors by inspiration, and the authors wrote as they were inspired to.

:) Aiera

Made in God's image, Adam and Eve already had knowledge of Good, because in God there is only to be found that which is Good. Thus, in eating of the fruit of the knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve did not gain the knowledge of Good - they already had it - and instead gained only the knowledge of Evil.

And because in that moment Evil was made a part of them, then in that moment they ceased to be beings of Good only, and so were set apart from God. That's all original sin really is, people - an allegory. It's not genetic, it is just an acknowledgement that we can and will give in to the temptation of sin, and doing so sets us apart from God.

I feel that both "good" and "evil" can be found in God, but He acts without regard to either concept. He simply does what needs to be done.

God made in His image Adam from dirt, and He made Eve from Adam, but he did not give them the totality of His knowledge. The fact that He did not wish for either to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil suggests that He did not want either to learn of "good" and "evil". When the two ate the fruit, only then did they understand the concepts of "good" and "evil", "right" and "wrong". They knew they had done something "wrong", which was to disregard His warning concerning eating from the tree of knowledge. They saw the nakedness of their genetalia as "wrong", so they hid that and then themselves when God came by.

They were expelled from Eden, not because they knew of "good" and "evil", because God knew of this, too. The reason is that they, unlike God, would act on those concepts and bring Eden to ruin.

As for the serpent, he may have been Satan, but he could also have been just a rather exemplary serpent who was ignorant of God's reason for not letting Adam and Eve eat the tree's fruit. Instead of contradicting what God said, he was instead correcting Eve's misinterpretation of what God said would happen. Eve thought she'd die suddenly, but the serpent corrected her, saying that she wouldn't die suddenly. However, he didn't tell her she would be doomed to die at some point, like God had originally stated, so Eve thought that she wouldn't die at all. This is the serpent's "beguiling" which Eve explains to God when He confronts her in the garden.

Here's an explanation of the different meanings for "dying" which caused Eve some confusion. (http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html)

What seperates mankind from God is not this knowledge, but instead the (mis)use of this knowledge.

(Sorry, but my original post was a bit more explanatory. Unfortunately, it was devoured by internet imps, as was my second attempt. Ugh...)

Funny first line. All you have actually accomplished is a divot of info here that doesn't actually disprove what that person posted, only that the specific translation/edition you provide doesn't agree with theirs. Yours being the NRSV, whereas there are at least four other versions coming to mind right now, including the King James Version (KJ) and the New International Version (NIV) ..... did you try those? Don't be too hasty to think that they all say the same exact things, they don't. That's the point of a new translation.

The reason I rely almost exclusively on the NRSV (well, actually, I use the RSV, but it's hard to find an online, easily-referenced copy...the difference between the two is that the NRSV uses inclusive language) is that it is regarded world-wide as the most superbly accurate translation of the original texts, put together by a team of both secular and religious scholars with one common goal in mind: hyper-accurate translation of the raw text of Scripture.

The KJV is known to be rife with error, and the NIV borrows heavily from it. The words used in each are different, although it is important to note that the core message of the Bible perserveres in spite of the errors that might be present.

But I use the N/RSV because people get hung up on nitpicky details like which version puts what which way, and so it is best to use the most accurate quotable source. What is worse, some translations of the Bible attempt to insert words that are simply not there, as we saw in the quotations provided by our friend there.

:) Aiera

True and not, depending on what meaning you ascribe to the word 'through'. If I say "through this process" or "by means of this process", I am in effect describing the same thing - that by application of this process, something comes about.



Well, admittedly John was in exile, although I'd hesitate to call him a psychopath. What "Revelation" is, actually, is a message of hope and reassurance to the persecuted Christians of the day (during the reign of Caesar Nero) that even though great strife and suffering was the order of the day, in the long run God would save His faithful, and righteousness triumph.



God never wrote the Bible in the sense of putting divine pen to divine paper. God, through the Holy Spirit, inspired the human authors of the Bible to write the Scriptures. The Bible is the word of God in the sense that the Spirit provided the words to the authors by inspiration, and the authors wrote as they were inspired to.

:) Aiera
I appreciate that you think your posts out well for your perspective.
I again have to stand with the difference in further translations and editions between how someone would reach the father .... "by means of me" IS NOT the same as "through me". A person is more than capable of interpreting the difference in word and deed for the first meaning and obviously worship and submission in the second.
I would have to call John a psychopath in terms of what i personally considered some of his influences to gospel, obviously, whereas maybe "heinously psychologically inflicted" is a better term for his vision. I still think that it is a horrible, HORRIBLE portrayal of Jesus of Nazareth who, in the living was a very cool being, whereas in the "redemption" presented he is a horrible inflictor of suffering and bereft of the living spirit required to truly represent the bridge between "god" and "his or her children". To be fair, the part about Wormwood was disturbing, considering that's what Chernobyl means in Russian. So i don't dismiss all of it.
And as for the writing of, i did specifically use the qualifier "semantically". It's what i meant.
Shalom

The reason I rely almost exclusively on the NRSV (well, actually, I use the RSV, but it's hard to find an online, easily-referenced copy...the difference between the two is that the NRSV uses inclusive language) is that it is regarded world-wide as the most superbly accurate translation of the original texts, put together by a team of both secular and religious scholars with one common goal in mind: hyper-accurate translation of the raw text of Scripture.

The KJV is known to be rife with error, and the NIV borrows heavily from it. The words used in each are different, although it is important to note that the core message of the Bible perserveres in spite of the errors that might be present.

But I use the N/RSV because people get hung up on nitpicky details like which version puts what which way, and so it is best to use the most accurate quotable source. What is worse, some translations of the Bible attempt to insert words that are simply not there, as we saw in the quotations provided by our friend there.

:) Aiera
Which year, exactly, was the N/RSV penned, then? Unfortunately, the details of nitpicking are the nature of this individual's post .... and the difference between a GREAT number of people of different denominations as well. Translation is pretty important, IMO. I think it would and does at times qualify accuracy to know whether things were admitted/omitted/altered. Like any definition, only one source isn't particularly accurate as one needs to truly understand something. I cross reference as often as possible/necessary.

I feel that both "good" and "evil" can be found in God, but He acts without regard to either concept. He simply does what needs to be done.

My knowledge of God is somewhat variant from this, in that God is Good. Or, more accurately, God is Love, and no evil comes forth from Love.

God made in His image Adam from dirt, and He made Eve from Adam, but he did not give them the totality of His knowledge. The fact that He did not wish for either to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil suggests that He did not want either to learn of "good" and "evil". When the two ate the fruit, only then did they understand the concepts of "good" and "evil", "right" and "wrong". They knew they had done something "wrong", which was to disregard His warning concerning eating from the tree of knowledge. They saw the nakedness of their genetalia as "wrong", so they hid that and then themselves when God came by.

Humanity was made in the image of God, and yes, our mortal minds could not hope to know all that the eternal God knows.

But, the fact that humanity was made to live in the presence of God means that humanity was made fully Good, bearing no stain of evil, for in the presence of Love no evil can thrive.

Therefore, it stands to reason that eating of the tree did nothing to enhance humanity's knowledge of good, for that was complete by virtue of their close relationship and shared presence with God. Thus, since only evil was missing, only evil was gained, and since evil cannot thrive in the presence of love, humanity and God were seperated.

They were expelled from Eden, not because they knew of "good" and "evil", because God knew of this, too. The reason is that they, unlike God, would act on those concepts and bring Eden to ruin.

You reach a part of the conclusion, which is good. The introduction of evil into humanity clearly puts in peril the Garden of Eden, Paradise, God's realm. But also it puts in peril humanity, for Love and evil cannot coexist, and love is the stronger. Certainly there was grave peril for the Garden, but graver peril still for humanity.

As for the serpent, he may have been Satan, but he could also have been just a rather exemplary serpent who was ignorant of God's reason for not letting Adam and Eve eat the tree's fruit. Instead of contradicting what God said, he was instead correcting Eve's misinterpretation of what God said would happen. Eve thought she'd die suddenly, but the serpent corrected her, saying that she wouldn't die suddenly. However, he didn't tell her she would be doomed to die at some point, like God had originally stated, so Eve thought that she wouldn't die at all. This is the serpent's "beguiling" which Eve explains to God when He confronts her in the garden.

It is important to note, given the allegorical nature of Genesis, that it is the first book to prophesy the coming of Jesus. When God says to the serpent "I will put emnity between you and the woman, and her offspring will crush you beneath his foot, and you will strike at his heel", this is a reference to the coming and purpose of Christ - to crush the power of sin by taking sin on Himself and perishing in it.

:) Aiera

So what version are you referring to as accurate? Of course, the best way to study the Bible is just to learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, but not all Christians have the time on their hands (or the interest) to do that.
Just bumpin' up this line for reference to Aiera. Danke.

Which year, exactly, was the N/RSV penned, then? Unfortunately, the details of nitpicking are the nature of this individual's post .... and the difference between a GREAT number of people of different denominations as well. Translation is pretty important, IMO. I think it would and does at times qualify accuracy to know whether things were admitted/omitted/altered. Like any definition, only one source isn't particularly accurate as one needs to truly understand something. I cross reference as often as possible/necessary.

The RSV was first penned in...oh, let me think. The earliest version I know of is 1977, although it may have been earlier. It is a word-for-word translation of the original texts, drawing no basis on any previous translation of the Bible, and is widely regarded as the most scholarly and accurate Biblical translation available. If you take a Scriptural analysis class in any major University, expect to use the RSV or NRSV as your textbook.

In regards to your other post to me that immediately precedes the one I have quoted, yes, Revelation is often harsh in its reading, at least on first pass. But again, it is important to note the layers of allegory prevalent in it and acknowledge that it is a metaphor for Christian suffering and persecution in that day and age. The portrayals of Christ as the conqueror are not entirely without basis in the Gospels, because at times Christ does speak of the winnowing fire that will consume the chaff, and other such highly poetic examples.

:) Aiera

I'm an occultist. I study the very foundations of reality itself. I know there are christians and there are idiotic people that actually believe that God is vain enough to love a child-molester who believes in him but not an atheist that does social work. These second idiots call themselves christians as well, so I'll add quotation marks to their names for the sake of identification. So... Come get me, "christians". I DARE your petty, vain, idiotic evil excuse for a god to come and get me. I do not believe a god vain enough to allow a child molester into heaven just because said molester believes him, and I will not ever. The truly Christian God would be terribly disappointed to know what you "christians" have been saying in his name, so, again, I dare you to send your "God-that-hates-everyone-that's-not-Christian" after me. Come get me, punks.
if one takes the Bible, which is supposedly the authoritative text on the Christian God, at face value then i don't see any reason why the Christian God wouldn't love a child molester who worships Him; the Christian God himself impregnated an unknowing minor, so i don't see any particular reason why He would object to the rape of little children. maybe it's one of those "do as i say, not as i do" situations? like all His genocide, racism, and sexism?

Just bumpin' up this line for reference to Aiera. Danke.

My answer to that has already been made. If you want, I will cite a few websites to consult for N/RSV translations of the Bible:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html - this site has a pretty user-friendly interface. This is the RSV translation.

http://www.devotions.net/bible/00bible.htm - Devotions has a decent user-interface (not as good as above). This is the NRSV translation. The major difference? Inclusive language, the elimination where possible of gender-specific pronouns.

:) Aiera

if one takes the Bible, which is supposedly the authoritative text on the Christian God, at face value then i don't see any reason why the Christian God wouldn't love a child molester who worships Him; the Christian God himself impregnated an unknowing minor, so i don't see any particular reason why He would object to the rape of little children. maybe it's one of those "do as i say, not as i do" situations? like all His genocide, racism, and sexism?

Actually, Mary quite clearly made the choice to do as God asked, but it is important to note that she was in fact given the option.

Quit flaming, I know you're above that.
:( Aiera

My answer to that has already been made. If you want, I will cite a few websites to consult for N/RSV translations of the Bible:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html - this site has a pretty user-friendly interface. This is the RSV translation.

http://www.devotions.net/bible/00bible.htm - Devotions has a decent user-interface (not as good as above). This is the NRSV translation. The major difference? Inclusive language, the elimination where possible of gender-specific pronouns.

:) Aiera
To clarify, i have been bounding 'tween pages i'm reading on and of course the last page of responses to stay abreast. While functioning with a 56k and dial-up, i'm about as punctual as can be expected.
I find it curious that people this late in the 'game' of interpretation though, as i'd said earlier, find any need to attempt to interpret and clarify what was there. If anyone who wants to have their argument of an unmitigated version of the word of god qualified than i would see them as having to take ALL of the material pertinent, ALL of the texts, misinterpretations, lack of continuity between scope of apostle and even the parts where gender-specific pronouns are used. Else there is some alteration involved, pretty much by definition ... and that makes fallible or at least dubious the reliability of such. As i haven't yet perused the links you provided, i'll save any further opinions as to the editors' veracity or intent in that manner 'til after. I'm curious if they qualify what they think are errors with the translations. And if they involve the apocrypha and a few other low-visibility texts.
I think there's a site with the name Yeshwah or something like that (CRS) that has the cross reference easy to get to between four different currently-used editions.

To clarify, i have been bounding 'tween pages i'm reading on and of course the last page of responses to stay abreast. While functioning with a 56k and dial-up, i'm about as punctual as can be expected.
I find it curious that people this late in the 'game' of interpretation though, as i'd said earlier, find any need to attempt to interpret and clarify what was there. If anyone who wants to have their argument of an unmitigated version of the word of god qualified than i would see them as having to take ALL of the material pertinent, ALL of the texts, misinterpretations, lack of continuity between scope of apostle and even the parts where gender-specific pronouns are used. Else there is some alteration involved, pretty much by definition ... and that makes fallible or at least dubious the reliability of such. As i haven't yet perused the links you provided, i'll save any further opinions as to the editors' veracity or intent in that manner 'til after. I'm curious if they qualify what they think are errors with the translations. And if they involve the apocrypha and a few other low-visibility texts.
I think there's a site with the name Yeshwah or something like that (CRS) that has the cross reference easy to get to between four different currently-used editions.


The one error I know of in the RSV is the omission of the word 'begotten' from the phrase "only begotten son of God", but that has been corrected in amended versions to my knowledge.

I don't like the inclusive language in the NRSV because it makes a couple of links between Old Testament prophecy and Jesus' revalations about himself a little less obvious.

So yes, even in these hyper-accurate translations, there are minor errors. The point is, they are the most accurate we have, short of all speaking Aramaic, Greek, and Latin.

;) Aiera

Mythologically, the symbolism of the story of Adam and Eve is a story of the birth of consciousness:

"If, however, the myth is understood symbolically --not as an incontrovertible statement about human nature but as an expression of humanity's own experience of itself at the moment of initiation into consciousness --then the meaning changes totally. To bite into the knowledge of good and evil is then to be separated for ever from the state of unconscious unity in which all life is one. Suddenly there are two things, two terms: I and you, I and them, I and it. Division polarizes; discrimination --this is not that --brings with it evaluation: this is better than that; this is good, this is not good (evil). The experience of opposites results in conflict because either both are wanted and only one can be had, or only one is wanted and both are there. Now life comes with death, now pleasure comes with pain, joy with sorrow; or the self comes without the other, the man without the woman, spirit without nature, and the human being without the divine being."

We are not blamed by God, except as a story element; spiritually, we blame ourselves, because we are no longer a part of the unity of life. We are not like the other life-forms on this planet. We, mankind, because of our faculty of consciousness, have placed ourselves apart from nature and at odds with nature. Natural means "made by or in nature"; artificial means "man-made". Nature is "subdued" by man, controlled, beaten back and conquered. God exists in every fibre of nature (to use a metaphor), he is the life-force, and the matter and energy, and the forces that bind the universe together.

This is a wonderful interpretation, and one I had not come across before. Is this your personal thought, or did you get this from the teachings of others?

My answer to that has already been made. If you want, I will cite a few websites to consult for N/RSV translations of the Bible:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html - this site has a pretty user-friendly interface. This is the RSV translation.

http://www.devotions.net/bible/00bible.htm - Devotions has a decent user-interface (not as good as above). This is the NRSV translation. The major difference? Inclusive language, the elimination where possible of gender-specific pronouns.

:) Aiera

Cool, good to know. Just for reference, I'm using a 40-year-old Authorized King James Version, sanctified Catholic Red Letter Edition for reference. :D It was my father's, when he was going to monastery school as a teenager.

Actually, Mary quite clearly made the choice to do as God asked, but it is important to note that she was in fact given the option.

Quit flaming, I know you're above that.
:( Aiera
man, when did your sense of humor shrivvel away and die? chill the hell out.

besides, according to historical information and the Biblical texts themselves, Mary was too young to be physiologically capable of giving adult consent. she could not have consented to be impregnated any more than my 12 year old cousin can, because children do not have the neurological structures necessary to evaluate and make decisions in an adult manner. thus, giving her the "option" of being impregnated is irrelevant. and, of course, various texts are ambiguous about whether she was asked beforehand or informed after the fact, but we don't need to get into that because either way she could not have given adult consent.

bottom line: the Christian God knowingly impregnated a little girl who could not fully comprehend or consent to the situation. i can see plenty of reasons why somebody reading the Bible would conclude that impregnating little girls is acceptable to the Christian God, and thus why pedophilia and Christianity are not incompatible. i'm not saying that's how everybody should interpret it, since there are obviously plenty of cases where God does horrible things (murder, torture, etc) and yet humans aren't supposed to do those things. hence my "do as i say, not as i do" theory. God can impregnate little girls, commit genocide, stir up wars, reward parents who sexually abuse their children, condone rape and slavery, and a whole host of other nasties, but there's no particular reason why He should also allow humans to do those things...He could just as easily say "i am all-powerful God, so i get to do these things, but you aren't God, so you don't get to do them." that would be totally consistent with Christian doctrine.

I have to say, much as the Revised Standard Version may be much easier reading, I enjoy reading the King James much more; it is quite poetic, and has a certain flow about it that the RSV lacks. That being said, the RSV would much better suit a lay-student of the Bible with no background in archaic English. Of course, if you're bored, wealthy and exceptionally hard-core, you can always buy a reproduction of one of those huge medieval bibles such as the Corning or the First Bible of Charles The Bald. There are also countless other partial biblical texts and biblical commentaries, such as the Book of Kells, Lindisfarne Gospels, Coronation Gospels, Book of Durrow, Chludoff Psalter and so forth.
My personal interest in such books is not so much for their content as for their calligraphy and art.

He could just as easily say "i am all-powerful God, so i get to do these things, but you aren't God, so you don't get to do them." that would be totally consistent with Christian doctrine.

Actually, it'd be consistant with the Bush doctrine, not (actual) Christian ones.

You can explain but they just never accept it

They have to accept that's what Christians believe. They dont have to believe it themselves if they don't want to.

So Jesus wasn't really serious about that Matthew 25 stuff? ;)

Lots of people misinterpret Matthew 25 as being instructions that will secure us into heaven. They are instructions on how to live our lives in the wait as that is the way that God want's us to.

He has a diffrent belief waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Cry me a river, poof! You've done an act of god! LYKE OMG U R TEH GODZORZ!!1ONE!1
And PS:afk, food

I think the point is that their is no need just to go out intending to make people angry.

Maybe so, but then you must remember that atheists find pleasure in oblivion, and child molesters don't, but it'd be their only choice. Then - and ONLY then - such a system would be fair.

Fair by whose standards? Yours? And are you God? No. So dont question standards with God. As for nice Athiests going to hell, here is the reason. Jesus died to save EVERYONE from their sins. Not just nice people, not just bad people, not just saints, not just Jews, not just Isralies, not just Turks, not just Austrailian abroigineies, not just (insert any grouping of humans here) but EVERYONE. This is a concept few people seem to understand. As a result of his death he gave EVERYONE the chance to come to live with him in Heaven. But people have to accept that chance, they dont get it automaticaly. They get it via faith. The belief that there is noting you can do yourself to save you but that Jesus did everything that was required on the Cross.

Fair by whose standards? Yours? And are you God? No. So dont question standards with God. As for nice Athiests going to hell, here is the reason. Jesus died to save EVERYONE from their sins. Not just nice people, not just bad people, not just saints, not just Jews, not just Isralies, not just Turks, not just Austrailian abroigineies, not just (insert any grouping of humans here) but EVERYONE. This is a concept few people seem to understand. As a result of his death he gave EVERYONE the chance to come to live with him in Heaven. But people have to accept that chance, they dont get it automaticaly. They get it via faith. The belief that there is noting you can do yourself to save you but that Jesus did everything that was required on the Cross.

Are YOU God? No. So don't be megalomaniac enough to believe He does exactly as YOUR petty, excludent belief thinks he does. And believing that this would be remotely fair either shows a need to follow something unquestioning regardless of how screwed-up it is, or too much stupidity to question the ethics, or simply an unethical mind. And if God was this kind of vain egomaniac, I would question him, and I will. And there's nothing He or you can do to stop me.

Actually, it'd be consistant with the Bush doctrine, not (actual) Christian ones.
how so? the Bible is full of cases where God sends down all manner of punishments upon human beings, yet we are constantly admonished not to do those things to each other. clearly, God will engage in acts that He does not feel humans should engage in, yet we are still supposed to obey his wishes...how is that not "do as i say, not as i do"?

Are YOU God? No. So don't be megalomaniac enough to believe He does exactly as YOUR petty, excludent belief thinks he does.


You titled your thread "Psudeo-CHRISTIANS". Showing you were questioning the Christian faith. If you can't deal with what it says, then why bother posting.


And believing that this would be remotely fair either shows a need to follow something unquestioning regardless of how screwed-up it is, or too much stupidity to question the ethics, or simply an unethical mind. And if God was this kind of vain egomaniac, I would question him, and I will. And there's nothing He or you can do to stop me.

I question it, and I think if your logic is true (IE you get to heaven on the basis of the quantity and quality of your good deads) then you would be living in a dictatorship where you have to do the certian level of goodness to be accepted into the "Heavenly Class".

You titled your thread "Psudeo-CHRISTIANS". Showing you were questioning the Christian faith. If you can't deal with what it says, then why bother posting.

Your emphasis is wrong. And I dispute that you're a true christian.

I question it, and I think if your logic is true (IE you get to heaven on the basis of the quantity and quality of your good deads) then you would be living in a dictatorship where you have to do the certian level of goodness to be accepted into the "Heavenly Class".

Which is why more coherent faiths than yours have the purgatory.

Your emphasis is wrong. And I dispute that you're a true christian.


Ok you didnt put the empehsis in, but when I or anyone else tries to expalin a Christian perspective to you, you then ask "How is that any more valid than Islam?" or something to that effect. So why did you ask Christians if you want to have a viewpoint which works for everyone. Why not just entitle your thread "Psuedo-montheists". If you are unwilling to accept the Christian perspective then why ask what it is?


Which is why more coherent faiths than yours have the purgatory.

There is little to no biblical basis for Purgotary, which is why I don't believe in it. If anything your arguement sums up why I dont beleive it. I consider purgotary an idea invented by someone to make Christianity more palatable.

There is little to no biblical basis for Purgotary, which is why I don't believe in it. If anything your arguement sums up why I dont beleive it. I consider purgotary an idea invented by someone to make Christianity more palatable.

Wow. You admitted it needed to be made more "palatable". So you admit it's unacceptable and yet you seem to enjoy it. That or you believe that your righteous, merciful God is neither, and somehow manage to conciliate those two beliefs.

Wow. So you admit it's unacceptable and yet you seem to enjoy it. That or you believe that your righteous, merciful God is neither, and somehow manage to conciliate those two beliefs.

The truth hurts. But it is the truth. Watering down the message is something people do because they cant take the true reality, I find a great deal.

The truth hurts. But it is the truth.

No, it isn't. And if it were, it would mean God is a horrible (or powerless) being, so you'll have to either rethink your faith or admit you just called the LORD a horrible (or powerless) being.

No, it isn't. And if it were, it would mean God is a horrible (or powerless) being, so you'll have to either rethink your faith or admit you just called the LORD a horrible (or powerless) being.
That was an interesting, though illogical, leap.
How do you justify "horrible" or "powerless" from all of what Neo Cannen said?

That was an interesting, though illogical, leap.
How do you justify "horrible" or "powerless" from all of what Neo Cannen said?

If God conditions his DESIRE to save someone by wether or not they believe him (effectively sentencing Ghandi to Hell), he's a horrible being. If God conditions his ABILITY to save someone by wether or not they believe him, he's a powerless being.

No, it isn't. And if it were, it would mean God is a horrible (or powerless) being, so you'll have to either rethink your faith or admit you just called the LORD a horrible (or powerless) being.

Why is God horrible or powerless? I am not sure where you get these ideas from. He sent his son to die for us so that we have the oppotnity to go to heaven and live with him. If he was horrible he would have just left us "It's nothing to do with me, its their choice to leave" line. And if he was powerless then he would have not been able to save us with Jesus. If he was truely horrible, he could have wiped us all out at the very begining when we first sinned. He would have been totally justified. The fact that he didn't and we sinned proves how paitient (spelt badly, jolt needs a spell checker) he is. The fact that we as a people have been sinning and sinning for thousands of years now and he hasn't chosen to wipe us out proves how gracious he is (I know at this point someone is going to say "Or he does not exist" but I am debating within Chrsitan logic here, proving God's patience as the Bible portrays him. I am quite happy to discuss the logic of God's existance but not here. Go make another thread)

If God conditions his DESIRE to save someone by wether or not they believe him (effectively sentencing Ghandi to Hell), he's a horrible being. If God conditions his ABILITY to save someone by wether or not they believe him, he's a powerless being.

He DESIRES to save everyone. But they have to DESIRE to be saved back. Because of the nature of sin he will not save those unwilling to deal with it. Salvation is partly about faith, and partly about being mature enough to accept that you are in the wrong, and you cant do anything about it yourself and that you need God to deal with your sin for you. God CAN save every single one of us, and he wants to. But he is a just God and will not save those unwilling to accept they are in the wrong.

He DESIRES to save everyone. But they have to DESIRE to be saved back. Because of the nature of sin he will not save those unwilling to deal with it. Salvation is partly about faith, and partly about being mature enough to accept that you are in the wrong, and you cant do anything about it yourself and that you need God to deal with your sin for you. God CAN save every single one of us, and he wants to. But he is a just God and will not save those unwilling to accept they are in the wrong.

And "in the wrong" doesn't mean "child molester christian", means "person that never heard of god". Way to defend him.

And "in the wrong" doesn't mean "child molester christian", means "person that never heard of god". Way to defend him.

In the wrong means sin, all sin. And all know they sin. I challenge any person here to look at their life and admit they have never done anything wrong or in any way bad. That they are entirely good and without blemish. People of the old testement didn't know about Jesus and what he did for the simple reason that it hadnt happened yet. But many of then were saved, not because of what they did but because of their faith in God. In essence, it is not as important that you know about Jesus and what he did (it is of course very important, but not as important as the point I am about to make). What is important is that you understand these things

- You have sinned
- You cant deal with your sin alone, you need God to do it
- You must attempt no longer to sin

To have faith it is not absolutely nessecary to understand how God deals with it. Merely that he does and can, if you accept that you have sinned and that it can be dealt with by God and that he will deal with it then you have faith. Understanding Jesus's teachings on life are essential, but in reality his teachings do not say very much that you could not have assumed anyway what is to be done from leading what people characterise as a "good" life, so people have not rearly got an excuse to say "I didn't know that to do/not do X or Y was wrong/a sin etc"

An aside:

Your debating style is begining to grate on me. I answer a question and you then attack me for failing to answer a question that you didnt ask. Could you please attempt to be a little more direct in your style.

In the wrong means sin, all sin. And all know they sin. I challenge any person here to look at their life and admit they have never done anything wrong or in any way bad. That they are entirely good and without blemish.

Too bad you didn't account for people that, for cultural or geographical reasons, can't or won't be "converted". Does your God send them to Hell too? If so, he's evil.

Your debating style is begining to grate on me. I answer a question and you then attack me for failing to answer a question that you didnt ask. Could you please attempt to be a little more direct in your style.

Not really. If my style irks you, you can choose to adapt or not to debate, but I see no reason why should I make my style easier so you can stand a chance against it.

- You have sinned
- You cant deal with your sin alone, you need God to do it
- You must attempt no longer to sin

And can you prove to me that it's YOUR God, and ONLY your God? No, you can't.

And can you prove to me that it's YOUR God, and ONLY your God? No, you can't.

Flaw in your debating style again. You pointed this debate at Christians. If you want to constantly step outside the Christian framework then dont aim the debate at Christians. In answer to your question though I believe that Jesus is the method God used for dealing with sin. You dont nessecarly need to understand that method to have faith (If anything you have more faith if you dont as their is even less you understand). I cant "Prove" it but I dont have to (to myself) because my faith is enough. If anyone could prove any religion beyond reasonable doubt it would no longer be religion but accepted fact.

Flaw in your debating style again. You pointed this debate at Christians. If you want to constantly step outside the Christian framework then dont aim the debate at Christians. In answer to your question though I believe that Jesus is the method God used for dealing with sin. You dont nessecarly need to understand that method to have faith (If anything you have more faith if you dont as their is even less you understand). I cant "Prove" it but I dont have to (to myself) because my faith is enough. If anyone could prove any religion beyond reasonable doubt it would no longer be religion but accepted fact.

Actually, I am trying to make you justify the idea that nice atheists go to Hell but evil Christians don't. As I have been trying for the last 200 posts. Yet your responses fail a simple logic or coherency test.

Not really. If my style irks you, you can choose to adapt or not to debate, but I see no reason why should I make my style easier so you can stand a chance against it.

Forgive me if this seems incorect you but this seems to be your style at the moment.

HU: How come X is true?

NC: X is true because...

HU: But that doesnt explain Y...

NC: You didn't ask about Y. You asked about X. I can explain Y in this way....but you didnt ask about Y.

HU: But that doesnt explain Z

NC: Z is true because (etc)

Often you step outside the boundaries of Christianity to defend your points. Christianity does not (By itself) defend itself against other faiths. Nor does it seek to conform its ideas to your personal standard. This is what you seem to think it should do, but it never claims to be able to do either of those things. You have this idea that it does and then blame it for when it fails to do so.

Actually, I am trying to make you justify the idea that nice atheists go to Hell but evil Christians don't. As I have been trying for the last 200 posts. Yet your responses fail a simple logic or coherency test.

Ok I will explain this to you

Reason for "Nice" athiest to go to hell and for "Bad" Christian to go to heaven

To be accepted by God you need to believe truely the following things

1- That you have sinned/done wrong/been bad etc
2- That you cannot deal with the implications of said sins yourself
3- That you need a power beyond your understanding (God) to deal with it
4- That there is a God beyond your understanding who wants to and can deal with it.
5- Having accepted that you are in the wrong (sinned) you need to do something about it.

Here is what happens if you fail to accept any one of those things

1) If you refuse to accept that you are in the wrong, you are immature and arrogent, believeing that you are perfect, and on a par with God.

2) If you believe that you can deal with it yourself then you are still immatrue and arrogent, believeing that you can somehow redeem yourself by being good enough for God by your achivements. While your achievements now may be great, they do not remove any previous sins you have done. You cannot remove sins of your own power.

3&4) If you refuse to believe that there is a God and that he can and is willing to help you then what right do you have to expect any help from him. Thats rather like a friend sending you a letter attmepting to console you over a recent traumatic event, you sending a letter back to them saying you refuse to believe they exist and then expecting them to continue being friendly to you. God is there and God is willing. If you dont believe he exists he wont help you. It's the old line "Atheists don't believe in God don't they. Well God doesnt believe in Athiests". Why exactly should God help you if you dont believe he exists and that he can help you.

5) If you are aware of your sin (and if you are not you are very ignorent, see points one and two) and the fact that but do nothing about it, its rather like wearing the same clothes for an entire year despite having a full wardrobe and a fully working washing machine and a years supply of Ariel tablets. If you refuse to do anything about you sin, its akin to not accepting it is there in the first place and that is just stupid and ignorent (see point 1)

"Nice" athiest falls down at points 3 and 4, refusing to accept that their is a God

"Bad" Christian is more difficult. If someone does bad things but are aware of themselves being sinners and are sincere in their attempt to deal with it (even if they do not succed) then they are true Christians. Point 5 is the key. If you think "I am saved, I am safe, I dont need to worry about what I do from this point on" then you have not got a faithful attitude. Intentionally ignoring who God is and what he says is breaking point 5. Its a logical step rearly, you accept you do stuff wrong now. Ergo you have to now accept you should try and do stuff right.

Ok I will explain this to you

Reason for "Nice" athiest to go to hell and for "Bad" Christian to go to heaven

To be accepted by God you need to believe truely the following things

1- That you have sinned/done wrong/been bad etc
2- That you cannot deal with the implications of said sins yourself
3- That you need a power beyond your understanding (God) to deal with it
4- That there is a God beyond your understanding who wants to and can deal with it.
5- Having accepted that you are in the wrong (sinned) you need to do something about it.

Here is what happens if you fail to accept any one of those things

1) If you refuse to accept that you are in the wrong, you are immature and arrogent, believeing that you are perfect, and on a par with God.

2) If you believe that you can deal with it yourself then you are still immatrue and arrogent, believeing that you can somehow redeem yourself by being good enough for God by your achivements. While your achievements now may be great, they do not remove any previous sins you have done. You cannot remove sins of your own power.

3&4) If you refuse to believe that there is a God and that he can and is willing to help you then what right do you have to expect any help from him. Thats rather like a friend sending you a letter attmepting to console you over a recent traumatic event, you sending a letter back to them saying you refuse to believe they exist and then expecting them to continue being friendly to you. God is there and God is willing. If you dont believe he exists he wont help you. It's the old line "Atheists don't believe in God don't they. Well God doesnt believe in Athiests". Why exactly should God help you if you dont believe he exists and that he can help you.

5) If you are aware of your sin (and if you are not you are very ignorent, see points one and two) and the fact that but do nothing about it, its rather like wearing the same clothes for an entire year despite having a full wardrobe and a fully working washing machine and a years supply of Ariel tablets. If you refuse to do anything about you sin, its akin to not accepting it is there in the first place and that is just stupid and ignorent (see point 1)


Does not hold water, simply because you need to assume the things you say in order to assert them. Meaning: You assume that one-needs-God-period in order to explain why one-needs-God-Period. That's called a circular definition, and is listed as a fallacy.

Forgive me if this seems incorect you but this seems to be your style at the moment.

HU: How come X is true?

NC: X is true because...

HU: But that doesnt explain Y...

NC: You didn't ask about Y. You asked about X. I can explain Y in this way....but you didnt ask about Y.

HU: But that doesnt explain Z

NC: Z is true because (etc)

Often you step outside the boundaries of Christianity to defend your points. Christianity does not (By itself) defend itself against other faiths. Nor does it seek to conform its ideas to your personal standard. This is what you seem to think it should do, but it never claims to be able to do either of those things. You have this idea that it does and then blame it for when it fails to do so.


For starters, your ideas aren't even christianity. Christianity promotes tolerance, not "with-me-or-in-Hell" intolerance.

Does not hold water, simply because you need to assume the things you say in order to assert them. Meaning: You assume that one-needs-God-period in order to explain why one-needs-God-Period. That's called a circular definition, and is listed as a fallacy.

This is you steping outside Christian logic to defend yourself again. I am explaining the CHRISTIAN position. Agree or disagree that it is the truth but you must agree it makes sense withing CHRISTIAN logic. I have answerd your question. You wanted to know how Christians justify the "nice" athiest and the "bad" Christian. I GAVE you your answer. If you want to discuss the releive nature of the existance of God I would be glad to do so BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU ASKED.

For starters, your ideas aren't even christianity. Christianity promotes tolerance, not "with-me-or-in-Hell" intolerance.

It promotes tollerance between people. People should not judge other people on the basis of sin, since all are equal in sin.

Romans 3: 23
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God

It does not promote tollenence of God for sin. God does not tollerate sin. He will forgive people if they ask for forgiveness and clean away sin and remove it completely. God will not however tollerate sin if it is still in your life. A Christian is someone whos sins are (in God's sight) all gone. A non Christian still has their sin with them, and it is those people whom God will not allow into heaven. People should tollerate other peoples sin but God is not tollenerant of those who sin and refuse to deal with it.

This is you steping outside Christian logic to defend yourself again. I am explaining the CHRISTIAN position. Agree or disagree that it is the truth but you must agree it makes sense withing CHRISTIAN logic. I have answerd your question. You wanted to know how Christians justify the "nice" athiest and the "bad" Christian. I GAVE you your answer. If you want to discuss the releive nature of the existance of God I would be glad to do so BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU ASKED.

See, you're not Christian. You don't believe in God. You believe in an evil, self-sentered egomaniac of an omnipotent kid that will not recognize deed, only "if you believe in me, cuz if not, neeners-neeners-neeners, eternal damnation for you.". This is not god, this is a spoiled brat. Actual christians believe in a god of deeds, in a god that rewards good with good, and evil with evil, regardless of name. In short, actual christians believe in a god that is not an omnipotent spoiled kid.

It promotes tollerance between people. People should not judge other people on the basis of sin, since all are equal in sn. It does not promote tollenence of God for sin. God does not tollerate sin. He will forgive people if they ask for forgiveness and clean away sin and remove it completely. God will not however tollerate sin if it is still in your life. A Christian is someone whos sins are (in God's sight) all gone. A non Christian still has their sin with them, and it is those people whom God will not allow into heaven. People should tollerate other peoples sin but God is not tollenerant of those who sin and refuse to deal with it.

So you stand by the idiotic "with-me-or-in-Hell" side? Your god reduces himself to that? Poor spoiled little kid that he is. Because a god that's actually christian would be much, MUCH more mature than that, and because I MYSELF am more mature than that. That's right, I may not be more mature than the truly christian God, but I sure am more mature than yours. Come on, now. Worship me, and if you believe I exist I'll let you off the hook for whatever the heck you did, just like the spoiled brat you believe in would do.

See, you're not Christian. You don't believe in God. You believe in an evil, self-sentered egomaniac of an omnipotent kid that will not recognize deed, only "if you believe in me, cuz if not, neeners-neeners-neeners, eternal damnation for you.". This is not god, this is a spoiled brat. Actual christians believe in a god of deeds, in a god that rewards good with good, and evil with evil, regardless of name. In short, actual christians believe in a god that is not an omnipotent spoiled kid.

God recognises deads, but deads are nowhere near enough. To be God's standards by deads you would have to live your life from the very begining as Jesus did, and by his standards the whole of your life. The CHRISTIAN Bible makes it very clear that works are not enough. I am sorry if you dont accept that as the Christian way but it is what the Bible says. Since no one else is capablile of living the perfect life (and God knew this) he created a way around it. He sent Jesus to die. Now you dont need to know about Jesus and who he was or what he did. All you need to know is that you have sinned, that God does exist and that he is both willing and capablie of dealing with your sin and that you should do your best to be rid of sin now. If you cant do those three things, what right do you have to expect help from him?

So you stand by the idiotic "with-me-or-in-Hell" side? Your god reduces himself to that? Poor spoiled little kid that he is. Because a god that's actually christian would be much, MUCH more mature than that, and because I MYSELF am more mature than that. That's right, I may not be more mature than the truly christian God, but I sure am more mature than yours. Come on, now. Worship me, and if you believe I exist I'll let you off the hook for whatever the heck you did, just like the spoiled brat you believe in would do.

No, God is "I am reaching out my hand to save you, but if you dont grab it I cant help you". Read this for a further understanding.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/meorburn.html

God recognises deads, but deads are nowhere near enough. To be God's standards by deads you would have to live your life from the very begining as Jesus did, and by his standards the whole of your life. The CHRISTIAN Bible makes it very clear that works are not enough. I am sorry if you dont accept that as the Christian way but it is what the Bible says. Since no one else is capablile of living the perfect life (and God knew this) he created a way around it. He sent Jesus to die. Now you dont need to know about Jesus and who he was or what he did. All you need to know is that you have sinned, that God does exist and that he is both willing and capablie of dealing with your sin and that you should do your best to be rid of sin now. If you cant do those three things, what right do you have to expect help from him?

Good should be rewarded with good. Simple as that. And a god that fails to acknowledge that is not a god, is the devil.

Good should be rewarded with good. Simple as that. And a god that fails to acknowledge that is not a god, is the devil.

If that were the case, that the universe was completely fair then the following would be true
- Every time a dice was rolled, the more "virtious" person would win
- Every time a coin was tossed the more "virtious person would win
- The good would NEVER die first (or young).
- Hospitals would only be full of 'evil' people (and so why fund them, eh?)
- A twin that died one day earlier than another twin, would have to have been 'less good'.
- Smashing your thumb with a hammer would be reserved for the more evil...(and accordingly, skill and talent would have been 'deserved')
- Earthquakes only hit the evil cities, and ALL 'evil cities' MUST get earthquakes...

If you are talking about justification, that God should judge us by our actions, the Christian perspective has a great deal to say about that

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– not by works, so that no one can boast.


And if by grace, then it is no longer by works


and possibly the most fameous passage in the Bible


For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life


Note "Believes" not "Does X, Y and Z" but believes. And I have fully explained what constitutes "belief".

If that were the case, that the universe was completely fair then the following would be true
- Every time a dice was rolled, the more "virtious" person would win
- Every time a coin was tossed the more "virtious person would win
- The good would NEVER die first (or young).
- Hospitals would only be full of 'evil' people (and so why fund them, eh?)
- A twin that died one day earlier than another twin, would have to have been 'less good'.
- Smashing your thumb with a hammer would be reserved for the more evil...(and accordingly, skill and talent would have been 'deserved')
- Earthquakes only hit the evil cities, and ALL 'evil cities' MUST get earthquakes...

Then you admit that either god is insane or evil - and you accept him being so.

If that were the case, that the universe was completely fair then the following would be true
- Every time a dice was rolled, the more "virtious" person would win
- Every time a coin was tossed the more "virtious person would win
- The good would NEVER die first (or young).
- Hospitals would only be full of 'evil' people (and so why fund them, eh?)
- A twin that died one day earlier than another twin, would have to have been 'less good'.
- Smashing your thumb with a hammer would be reserved for the more evil...(and accordingly, skill and talent would have been 'deserved')
- Earthquakes only hit the evil cities, and ALL 'evil cities' MUST get earthquakes...

If you are talking about justification, that God should judge us by our actions, the Christian perspective has a great deal to say about that





and possibly the most fameous passage in the Bible



Note "Believes" not "Does X, Y and Z" but believes. And I have fully explained what constitutes "belief".

By your reasoning, it would mean that the "most christian" people would NEVER get hit by earthquakes, hurricanes and so on. Florida, anyone?

Then you admit that either god is insane or evil - and you accept him being so.

Do you actually think all of those things are true. That was a hypothitcal idea. You believe life should be fair, and that good should only be rewarded with good. If that were true then all those things would be true, and its quite obvious they are not. Unless you believe that all those who died in the Tsunami were somehow less virtious than those alive and safe in the west.

By your reasoning, it would mean that the "most christian" people would NEVER get hit by earthquakes, hurricanes and so on. Florida, anyone?

No this is not my reasoning. This is yours. You believe that good should only be rewarded with good. Hence you must believe that all those things were true. But they obviously are not. Good is not rewarded with good, and God has nothing to with that. That is our choice, us and our sin. If you are talking about justification then I have something for you, the verse's I posted above.

Do you actually think all of those things are true. That was a hypothitcal idea. You believe life should be fair, and that good should only be rewarded with good. If that were true then all those things would be true, and its quite obvious they are not. Unless you believe that all those who died in the Tsunami were somehow less virtious than those alive and safe in the west.

What I'm telling is good SHOULD BE rewarded with good. And if an omnipotent being will not do that, he's either not omnipotent or he's a SOB.

What I'm telling is good SHOULD BE rewarded with good. And if an omnipotent being will not do that, he's either not omnipotent or he's a SOB.

Good should indeed be rewared with good (on this earth) but it isnt. Out of all human history, only one man achived what God's conditions are for "good" and he suffered beyond belief. God's standards for "good" are nothing short of perfection. The Bible makes that clear.Man cannot achieve what God's standards are for "good" and so God created a way round those standards for us, so that we could be with him. Without God's intevention for us, only through perfection could we achieve hevean worthyness. If you believe you can achive perfection, good luck to you.

Good should indeed be rewared with good (on this earth) but it isnt. Out of all human history, only one man achived what God's conditions are for "good" and he suffered beyond belief. God's standards for "good" are nothing short of perfection. The Bible makes that clear.Man cannot achieve what God's standards are for "good" and so God created a way round those standards for us, so that we could be with him. Without God's intevention for us, only through perfection could we achieve hevean worthyness. If you believe you can achive perfection, good luck to you.

So your god isn't good, he's evil. And you accept that. I'm thankful for the fact that your god doesn't exist.

So your god isn't good, he's evil. And you accept that. I'm thankful for the fact that your god doesn't exist.

Are your standards for a Good God that he rewards Good for Good but not Evil for Evil? Because guess what, we all are very evil compared to God. I think your failure to understand this lies in your standards. By OUR standards we may be good, we may be brilliant, we may be worthy of sainthood but by GOD's standards we are nothing. God knows this, and he also knows that we cannot get around this ourselves so he sent Jesus to deal with this. You do not need to understand about Jesus to be saved, you just have to understand those things I pointed out earlier.

Good should indeed be rewared with good (on this earth) but it isnt. Out of all human history, only one man achived what God's conditions are for "good" and he suffered beyond belief. God's standards for "good" are nothing short of perfection. The Bible makes that clear.Man cannot achieve what God's standards are for "good" and so God created a way round those standards for us, so that we could be with him. Without God's intevention for us, only through perfection could we achieve hevean worthyness. If you believe you can achive perfection, good luck to you.

So if Jesus attained God's standards for good, why was he allowed to be killed in such a horrific way? <playing devil's advocate>

Are your standards for a Good God that he rewards Good for Good but not Evil for Evil? Because guess what, we all are very evil compared to God. I think your failure to understand this lies in your standards. By OUR standards we may be good, we may be brilliant, we may be worthy of sainthood but by GOD's standards we are nothing. God knows this, and he also knows that we cannot get around this ourselves so he sent Jesus to deal with this. You do not need to understand about Jesus to be saved, you just have to understand those things I pointed out earlier.

So your god is capable of making us as good as he wants, but demands MORE than HE MADE US able to be, then screws us over because we're not good enough? BUZZZZZZZZZZ!!! Still evil.

So your god is capable of making us as good as he wants, but demands MORE than HE MADE US able to be, then screws us over because we're not good enough? BUZZZZZZZZZZ!!! Still evil.

No, because he knew we couldnt meet his standards and so provided a method of dealing with it. Jesus. Now to be accepted by God it doesnt matter if you fully understand what that method is (It doesnt matter if you do/do not understand who Jesus is). What matters is that you accept that you yourself can never be good enough but God can make you good enough, and so you can be good enough with his help. If he was evil he would have not helped us at all. I did explain this in a previous post, please read all of what I say


Are your standards for a Good God that he rewards Good for Good but not Evil for Evil? Because guess what, we all are very evil compared to God. I think your failure to understand this lies in your standards. By OUR standards we may be good, we may be brilliant, we may be worthy of sainthood but by GOD's standards we are nothing. God knows this, and he also knows that we cannot get around this ourselves so he sent Jesus to deal with this. You do not need to understand about Jesus to be saved, you just have to understand those things I pointed out earlier.

Ok...i didn;t feel like taking the hour to read every post, but this is what i have to throw into the argument.

God/Jesus/Holy Spirit loves everyone, athiest, buddhists, child molesters, you name it. But he hates sin. The reason a child molester can go to heaven is not because he BELIEVES in God, but rather that he gives his heart, sould, mind, and life to God. Satan BELEIVES in God, but where is he?

You say you don't argue with catholics because their religion is about caring etc. Well, i don;t beleive that many people that call themselves Catholic are going to heaven. A Catholic beleives that as long as you confess a sin and do how many hail mary, etc. the priest says, it's all hunkey dory, and that you can go back and do it again, the Bible states otherwise.

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt
Hebrews 6:4-6

The Bible also says this about those who go to heaven:

Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29 He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God.
Romans 2:27-29

Circumcision was the covenant between the jews and God. This is used as an analogy for a covenant between a christian and God. They say that the covenant is inward not outward.

I am trying to keep my words from becoming a flame fest. Please do the same.

So if Jesus attained God's standards for good, why was he allowed to be killed in such a horrific way? <playing devil's advocate>

It was a chosen form of execution in that part of the world for governemnt dissenters (which is what jesus was tried for). Jesus was the human sacrifice for sins of all the people of all generations. He was the perfect sacrifice so that we wouldn't have to sacrifice animals any longer.

Heikoku? Are you offline or online? (the little box on your screen has been reading "offline" thought our whole debate so I am unsure)

No, because he knew we couldnt meet his standards and so provided a method of dealing with it. Jesus. Now to be accepted by God it doesnt matter if you fully understand what that method is (It doesnt matter if you do/do not understand who Jesus is). What matters is that you accept that you yourself can never be good enough but God can make you good enough, and so you can be good enough with his help. If he was evil he would have not helped us at all. I did explain this in a previous post, please read all of what I say

Again: If a person never heard of God and goes to hell for that, you intend to uphold that it would be fair? Does. Not. Hold. Water. Period. You'll have to make coherent claims, your god won't be good if he does this kind of thing, no matter how much you fantasize he would be. It does not hold water.

Bottom line: If God is good, he'd not make Ghandi burn in hell.

Again: If a person never heard of God and goes to hell for that, you intend to uphold that it would be fair? Does. Not. Hold. Water. Period. You'll have to make coherent claims, your god won't be good if he does this kind of thing, no matter how much you fantasize he would be. It does not hold water.

It does hold water and here is why


For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.


You dont need to know the books of the bible of by heart. You dont need to know anything about the old testement, you dont even have to have heard the name of Jesus to be saved. All you need to understand are these simple truths

- You have sinned (note: the word sin can easily be replaced with "have done bad stuff" or something to that equivilent)
- You yourself cannot deal/redeem yourself of said sins
- There is someone/thing which can redeem you and wants to
- You need someone/thing else to redeem you
- Because you know you have sinned, you need now to make an effort not to.

God sent Jesus to die for ALL. Not just those who heard of him. Also he ordered all Christians to go and tell people about Jesus. This is Christian logic. If you want to say "How do we know its the Christian God etc" then do it in another thread as you directed your question at Christians.

Ghandi goes to hell, and I bet you that Hitler went to heavan. Why? Because he WAS CHRISTIAN! He probably never repented because he thought he was killing IN THE NAME OF GOD, TO MAKE IT ALL CHRISTIANS! Check this site out.
www.evilbible.com (http://www.evilbible.com)
Yeah, I know, jummping in boards/board jacking, whatever, I can't respond, I'm doing crap.

You dont need to know the books of the bible of by heart. You dont need to know anything about the old testement, you dont even have to have heard the name of Jesus to be saved. All you need to understand are these simple truths

- You have sinned (note: the word sin can easily be replaced with "have done bad stuff" or something to that equivilent)
- You yourself cannot deal/redeem yourself of said sins
- There is someone/thing which can redeem you and wants to
- You need someone/thing else to redeem you
- Because you know you have sinned, you need now to make an effort not to.


I am pleasantly surprised to see this coming from you.

- You have sinned (note: the word sin can easily be replaced with "have done bad stuff" or something to that equivilent)
- You yourself cannot deal/redeem yourself of said sins
- There is someone/thing which can redeem you and wants to
- You need someone/thing else to redeem you
- Because you know you have sinned, you need now to make an effort not to.

God sent Jesus to die for ALL. Not just those who heard of him. Also he ordered all Christians to go and tell people about Jesus. This is Christian logic. If you want to say "How do we know its the Christian God etc" then do it in another thread as you directed your question at Christians.

So an atheist who tries his best to do good and take care of others dies because he or she does not believe that there is someone/thing which can redeem him or her?

Bottom line: If God is good, he'd not make Ghandi burn in hell.

I do not know wether or not Ghandi is in hell, but it is not God who sends anyone to hell. Hell was not intended for people in the first place. It was built for the devil and his angels (the common misconception is that hell is a place run by the devil, thats not true)


Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels


And God does not send people to hell. People would go to hell anyway, unless they were saved. God offers out his arm to those to pull you out of hell, all you have to do is grab onto it (see how to be saved, previous posts)

I am pleasantly surprised to see this coming from you.

Hello Dempublicents, nice to see you. Why, what do I normally seem to suggest to you. I have never believed anything other than this.

So an atheist who tries his best to do good and take care of others dies because he or she does not believe that there is someone/thing which can redeem him or her?

Yes. See post 306 points 3&4 for more detail.

EDIT

Note: he/she does not physically die for that reason. This is spirtual death in hell I am talking about.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8137438&postcount=306][/url]
3&4) If you refuse to believe that there is a God and that he can and is willing to help you then what right do you have to expect any help from him. Thats rather like a friend sending you a letter attmepting to console you over a recent traumatic event, you sending a letter back to them saying you refuse to believe they exist and then expecting them to continue being friendly to you. God is there and God is willing. If you dont believe he exists he wont help you. It's the old line "Atheists don't believe in God don't they. Well God doesnt believe in Athiests". Why exactly should God help you if you dont believe he exists and that he can help you.

Hello Dempublicents, nice to see you. Why, what do I normally seem to suggest to you. I have never believed anything other than this.

It surprises me because it is not very scriptural. It demonstrates that you have gone beyond church doctrine and interpreted things for yourself.

Yes. See post 306 points 3&4 for more detail.

I think the point I'm trying to make (other than that atheists don't expect anything from god so you're point is moot on that) is that God would punish (or all to be punished)people who did more good and lived kinder and gentler and more charitable lives than most people who believed in him/she/it or some other higher being who didn't. It comes back to the god being evil argument that is going on in some other threads. I'd just like your perspective on this in a logical way. I'd also like to ask you, if you want to convince me that you do actually care about beliefs other than yours, that for this one argument you leave the Bible at home. I realize that it is very important to Christians--but it is not the basis of an argument for an Atheist. Tell me why a God could be good and still allow people who did not evil and did good to others be punished simply because they did not believe in a higher being.

It surprises me because it is not very scriptural. It demonstrates that you have gone beyond church doctrine and interpreted things for yourself.

I am just making sense of things the best way I can. While I believe that Jesus did save us via the cross, I do not believe it is an intrigal factor of being saved that you need to understand who Jesus is and what he did. That's unfair to all those who will never hear Jesus's name. Faith means accepting what is true regardless of wether or not you can prove it for certainty. If anything, a person who accepts those points I stated and hasnt heard of Jesus has more faith than me as they have even less reason to accept God than I do. I have more proof than them.

Tell me why a God could be good and still allow people who did not evil and did good to others be punished simply because they did not believe in a higher being.

Do these people consider absence of God to be a punishment?

Do these people consider absence of God to be a punishment?

No, they just consider it the normal state of the world. We exist because we exist, life has meaning because its life and its here--it doesn't need an outside force to validate it.

<ADDITION>
Totally missed your point--its a good thing I oocasionally reread.

Of course what I said still kind of applies. Abscence of God isn't a punishment to an Atheist--because they don't need God for validation or for explanation or to know the difference in right and wrong. Maybe its arrogant--or maybe its just putting more faith in humanity.

No, they just consider it the normal state of the world. We exist because we exist, life has meaning because its life and its here--it doesn't need an outside force to validate it.

Scripturally, hell is simply separation from God. It is described as a lake of fire, etc. metaphorically - as being separated from God completely is the worst thing that a religious person can imagine.

As such, one who has chosen to be separated from God cannot really consider the continuation of this separation as a punishment.

That said, I don't claim to know if good atheists eventually dwell in the presence of God. It could be that they are given one last chance to "repent", as it were. It could be that there is a such thing as purgatory. I really don't know.

Scripturally, hell is simply separation from God. It is described as a lake of fire, etc. metaphorically - as being separated from God completely is the worst thing that a religious person can imagine.

As such, one who has chosen to be separated from God cannot really consider the continuation of this separation as a punishment.

That said, I don't claim to know if good atheists eventually dwell in the presence of God. It could be that they are given one last chance to "repent", as it were. It could be that there is a such thing as purgatory. I really don't know.

Dem, my respect for you continues to grow by leaps and bounds. Everytime I'm involved in a debate that you are also involved in, I never fail to learn something about myself and about the human condition.

Thank you for that.

I think the point I'm trying to make (other than that atheists don't expect anything from god so you're point is moot on that) is that God would punish (or all to be punished)people who did more good and lived kinder and gentler and more charitable lives than most people who believed in him/she/it or some other higher being who didn't. It comes back to the god being evil argument that is going on in some other threads. I'd just like your perspective on this in a logical way. I'd also like to ask you, if you want to convince me that you do actually care about beliefs other than yours, that for this one argument you leave the Bible at home. I realize that it is very important to Christians--but it is not the basis of an argument for an Atheist. Tell me why a God could be good and still allow people who did not evil and did good to others be punished simply because they did not believe in a higher being.

You will have to forgive me for refering to Christianity on this occation but I cannot not do so as I am a Christian. But I will not quote the bible, just to help you. Christians believe that as humans we cannot achive God's standards by works. We can get very high by our own standards but we cannot reach God's (note: reaching high by our own standards is what you and others describe as being a "good" athiest). I am sure you will agree that none can be as good as God, but to get to heaven by means of works, nothing short of perfection will do. Now God knows humans cannot reach hevaen via works so he created another way, through Jesus (note: at this point I should explain that you do not need to understand anything about Jesus or who he is to be saved, just that you yourself cannot work your way to heaven as you are not perfcect. To be saved you must accept yourself as being in the wrong and ask that God releaves you of your wrongs and try to live a life without wrongs). If you refuse to accept however that there is a God, and that there is nothing that enabled you to be saved then there is no reason for God to save you. To put it another way, if a phone company cold called you, asking if you are intersted in subscribing to a new deal that will shrink your phone costs by 50% and you said "I dont believe you exist so no I do not want your offer", it should not come as a suprise to you that you have not been listed in that companies offer database and that your phone bill is as high as ever. I hope this makes it clear to you.

You will have to forgive me for refering to Christianity on this occation but I cannot not do so as I am a Christian. But I will not quote the bible, just to help you. Christians believe that as humans we cannot achive God's standards by works. We can get very high by our own standards but we cannot reach God's (note: reaching high by our own standards is what you and others describe as being a "good" athiest). I am sure you will agree that none can be as good as God, but to get to heaven by means of works, nothing short of perfection will do. Now God knows humans cannot reach hevaen via works so he created another way, through Jesus (note: at this point I should explain that you do not need to understand anything about Jesus or who he is to be saved, just that you yourself cannot work your way to heaven as you are not perfcect. To be saved you must accept yourself as being in the wrong and ask that God releaves you of your wrongs and try to live a life without wrongs). If you refuse to accept however that there is a God, and that there is nothing that enabled you to be saved then there is no reason for God to save you. To put it another way, if a phone company cold called you, asking if you are intersted in subscribing to a new deal that will shrink your phone costs by 50% and you said "I dont believe you exist so no I do not want your offer", it should not come as a suprise to you that you have not been listed in that companies offer database and that your phone bill is as high as ever. I hope this makes it clear to you.

Okay, again Atheists aren't trying to get into heaven. And personally, I think doing somethign for a reward or to avoid punishment isn't really doing something for the right reason. You do good because its the right thing to do.

And if what you said is true (and I don't know its not, just conjecturing here) then God's love isn't unconditional as so many Christians spout quite frequently (typically only towards themselves though).

Scripturally, hell is simply separation from God. It is described as a lake of fire, etc. metaphorically - as being separated from God completely is the worst thing that a religious person can imagine.

As such, one who has chosen to be separated from God cannot really consider the continuation of this separation as a punishment.

That said, I don't claim to know if good atheists eventually dwell in the presence of God. It could be that they are given one last chance to "repent", as it were. It could be that there is a such thing as purgatory. I really don't know.

Then, if said separation is seen as not unpleasant, it would make for a fair god.

You dont need to know the books of the bible of by heart. You dont need to know anything about the old testement, you dont even have to have heard the name of Jesus to be saved. All you need to understand are these simple truths

- You have sinned (note: the word sin can easily be replaced with "have done bad stuff" or something to that equivilent)
- You yourself cannot deal/redeem yourself of said sins
- There is someone/thing which can redeem you and wants to
- You need someone/thing else to redeem you
- Because you know you have sinned, you need now to make an effort not to.

God sent Jesus to die for ALL. Not just those who heard of him. Also he ordered all Christians to go and tell people about Jesus. This is Christian logic. If you want to say "How do we know its the Christian God etc" then do it in another thread as you directed your question at Christians.

Now, it seems like you're saying that the existence of (the Christian) God is something that people who've never been exposed to this sort of thinking should be able to perceive and follow intuitively, as is this process, which leads naturally to entrance to Heaven. This is, I assume, in response to the assertation that the gazillions of people who never see a Bible or hear the name Jesus are being unjustly allowed to go the the bad place.

However, how do you account for the fact that this apparently not the case, that non-Abrahamic religions generally do not teach that one must rely on a higher power to overcome one's faults? If people were naturally inclined to fall into the steps above (particularily 2-4), you'd think they'd be pretty common ideas.

(examples from the modern world: Hindu thought, which has the systems of karma and dharma in order to overcome misdeed through proper acts and eventually transcend prosaic reality. Most forms of Buddhism teach that self-cultivation and knowledge are the answers, and barely deal with things like "sin" at all. And these are the two most significant non-Abrahamic religions out there today, both with hundreds of millions of followers.)

To argue against my own points, we do see things like Amida Buddhism (where a Boddhisatva, enlightened human who has decided to remain in reality and help others along, promises salvation if you say his name and pray to him in certain fashions), but I really feel that they're the exception rather than the norm.

Dem, my respect for you continues to grow by leaps and bounds. Everytime I'm involved in a debate that you are also involved in, I never fail to learn something about myself and about the human condition.

Thank you for that.

Why, thank you. ::blush:: =)

Dating an atheist makes you think pretty hard on these sorts of things, and his viewpoints have really been an interesting source for me.

Then, if said separation is seen as not unpleasant, it would make for a fair god.

Agreed. It harkens back a little bit to Dante's Inferno, where the outer edges of hell are populated by viruous pagans, who don't suffer particularily, and even have a chance to be saved.

Mind you, in this case I'm pretty sure they were all from before the time of Christ, so this may have little bearing on the discussion at hand :)

Agreed. It harkens back a little bit to Dante's Inferno, where the outer edges of hell are populated by viruous pagans, who don't suffer particularily, and even have a chance to be saved.

Mind you, in this case I'm pretty sure they were all from before the time of Christ, so this may have little bearing on the discussion at hand :)

No, no, it does matter. And in this case (and only in this case) we'd have a fair god.

No, no, it does matter. And in this case (and only in this case) we'd have a fair god.

Ah, you misunderstand me. Dante has little bearing on the discussion at hand. A theoretical God who doesn't brutally punish people who choose not to believe in him (or never have the chance) is, of course, precisely on topic ^_^

Of course, one who believes in such is probably not a pseudo-Christian...

Ah, you misunderstand me. Dante has little bearing on the discussion at hand. A theoretical God who doesn't brutally punish people who choose not to believe in him (or never have the chance) is, of course, precisely on topic ^_^

Of course, one who believes in such (a god who DOESN'T brutally punish people who choose not to believe in him) is probably not a pseudo-Christian...

EXACTLY! :)

What is fair? Is there a standard?

You keep saying God is not fair. Well first off you dont beleive in him really do you? Now you can choose to beleive in anything you want. That does not make it true. When people say i do or dont beleive in hell, does not make hell any more or less real. Either it is or it isnt.

Antoher interesting thing is that Dante should not be our basis for theological discusssion since what he wrote is admittiadly fictional. It is not the bible so we cannot judge God by something that is not His word.

Also, if one reads the bible they will see why all will go to hell if they do not have jesus.

Leviticus 24:22
You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.' "

Numbers 15:29
One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien.

1 Samuel 6:6
Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did? When he [ That is, God ] treated them harshly, did they not send the Israelites out so they could go on their way? ( we choose to leave God, not the other way around. It may seem like he just doesnt want to tell them the truth but many refuse to listen to it.)

1 Samuel 7:3
And Samuel said to the whole house of Israel, "If you are returning to the LORD with all your hearts, then rid yourselves of the foreign gods and the Ashtoreths and commit yourselves to the LORD and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines." (like wise we can turn back to the Lord)

1 Chronicles 16:10
Glory in his holy name; let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice.

Psalm 62:4
They fully intend to topple him from his lofty place; they take delight in lies. With their mouths they bless, but in their hearts they curse. Selah


Im sorry i just get crazy when i quote the Bible. But this is kind of about what i was goingfor. Its our choice to believe nto God's job to force us. If it was like that you would be made because it wasnt a free choice. Many have fallen away since the flood. While God laments that he cannot force them to beleive. Its us that needs to come back. God never turned back

What is fair? Is there a standard?

You keep saying God is not fair. Well first off you dont beleive in him really do you? Now you can choose to beleive in anything you want. That does not make it true. When people say i do or dont beleive in hell, does not make hell any more or less real. Either it is or it isnt.

Antoher interesting thing is that Dante should not be our basis for theological discusssion since what he wrote is admittiadly fictional. It is not the bible so we cannot judge God by something that is not His word.

Also, if one reads the bible they will see why all will go to hell if they do not have jesus.

Leviticus 24:22
You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.' "

Numbers 15:29
One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien.

1 Samuel 6:6
Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did? When he [ That is, God ] treated them harshly, did they not send the Israelites out so they could go on their way? ( we choose to leave God, not the other way around. It may seem like he just doesnt want to tell them the truth but many refuse to listen to it.)

1 Samuel 7:3
And Samuel said to the whole house of Israel, "If you are returning to the LORD with all your hearts, then rid yourselves of the foreign gods and the Ashtoreths and commit yourselves to the LORD and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines." (like wise we can turn back to the Lord)

1 Chronicles 16:10
Glory in his holy name; let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice.

Psalm 62:4
They fully intend to topple him from his lofty place; they take delight in lies. With their mouths they bless, but in their hearts they curse. Selah


Im sorry i just get crazy when i quote the Bible. But this is kind of about what i was goingfor. Its our choice to believe nto God's job to force us. If it was like that you would be made because it wasnt a free choice. Many have fallen away since the flood. While God laments that he cannot force them to beleive. Its us that needs to come back. God never turned back

God CANNOT? Aaaaand God is not omnipotent again. Anyways, for all you said, you fell into the "if he picks believers only, he's either evil or not omnipotent" conundrum. Won't hold water otherwise.

That was one of the most uneducated posts I have seen in any forum at any time.
Reminded me of a 8 year old child yelling and screeming because he dropped his ice cream.

What is fair? Is there a standard?

You keep saying God is not fair. Well first off you dont beleive in him really do you? Now you can choose to beleive in anything you want. That does not make it true. When people say i do or dont beleive in hell, does not make hell any more or less real. Either it is or it isnt.

But Hell's reality or lack thereof isn't at issue here. Some believe in it, some don't. Not the point. The real question is whether or not the ideals of salvation and damnation so dear to many alleged Christians are just, or fair, or good, or kind. The standard of basic human (for lack of a better term) decency seems pretty clear. We're not talking the relative merits of global free-market economics or anything, we're talking about when/if it's acceptable to torture people for all of eternity :)

What's being asked, then, is how one can justify this system of exclusive salvation (which you have demonstrated has a clear basis in the Bible)? Not "does the Bible say so?", but rather, "should the Bible say this?" and "Why is this the case?"

Got an answer?


Antoher interesting thing is that Dante should not be our basis for theological discusssion since what he wrote is admittiadly fictional. It is not the bible so we cannot judge God by something that is not His word.

Agreed, Dante is neither here nor there. Inferno could perhaps be seen as symptomatic of the kind of thinking being discussed, but it's temporally removed by 700 years, and grounded firmly in the politics of its time, so it's perhaps not particularily useful even then.


Im sorry i just get crazy when i quote the Bible. But this is kind of about what i was goingfor. Its our choice to believe nto God's job to force us. If it was like that you would be made because it wasnt a free choice. Many have fallen away since the flood. While God laments that he cannot force them to beleive. Its us that needs to come back. God never turned back

The question, then, is why God chooses not to extend mercy to those of us who are blind/short-sighted enough not to perceive his message, but are trying to lead good lives anyhow. And do you have a solution for the countless people who had the poor fortune to be born on continents and in time periods where there was no chance to hear the Christian message?

But Hell's reality or lack thereof isn't at issue here. Some believe in it, some don't. Not the point. The real question is whether or not the ideals of salvation and damnation so dear to many alleged Christians are just, or fair, or good, or kind. The standard of basic human (for lack of a better term) decency seems pretty clear. We're not talking the relative merits of global free-market economics or anything, we're talking about when/if it's acceptable to torture people for all of eternity :)

What's being asked, then, is how one can justify this system of exclusive salvation (which you have demonstrated has a clear basis in the Bible)? Not "does the Bible say so?", but rather, "should the Bible say this?" and "Why is this the case?"

Got an answer?



Agreed, Dante is neither here nor there. Inferno could perhaps be seen as symptomatic of the kind of thinking being discussed, but it's temporally removed by 700 years, and grounded firmly in the politics of its time, so it's perhaps not particularily useful even then.



The question, then, is why God chooses not to extend mercy to those of us who are blind/short-sighted enough not to perceive his message, but are trying to lead good lives anyhow. And do you have a solution for the countless people who had the poor fortune to be born on continents and in time periods where there was no chance to hear the Christian message?


Well, you for one have no excuse. I beleive that God extends grace to those who have never heard the word of God, but do have a belief in a higher, omnipotent being (Native americans for example). I beleive that all humans are born with an innate sense of a higher being, everyone has had their shred of belief at one point or another. I believe that God extendds grace to those people. LIke the monk that has lived hihg in the mountains of tibet his whole life, no outside contact, but devotes his life to meditation, trying to make oneself better, being benevolent and the like, but i don;t beliene that that same grace is extended to those who have heard but choos not to listen.

But Hell's reality or lack thereof isn't at issue here. Some believe in it, some don't. Not the point. The real question is whether or not the ideals of salvation and damnation so dear to many alleged Christians are just, or fair, or good, or kind. The standard of basic human (for lack of a better term) decency seems pretty clear. We're not talking the relative merits of global free-market economics or anything, we're talking about when/if it's acceptable to torture people for all of eternity :)

What's being asked, then, is how one can justify this system of exclusive salvation (which you have demonstrated has a clear basis in the Bible)? Not "does the Bible say so?", but rather, "should the Bible say this?" and "Why is this the case?"

Got an answer?



Agreed, Dante is neither here nor there. Inferno could perhaps be seen as symptomatic of the kind of thinking being discussed, but it's temporally removed by 700 years, and grounded firmly in the politics of its time, so it's perhaps not particularily useful even then.



The question, then, is why God chooses not to extend mercy to those of us who are blind/short-sighted enough not to perceive his message, but are trying to lead good lives anyhow. And do you have a solution for the countless people who had the poor fortune to be born on continents and in time periods where there was no chance to hear the Christian message?

Once again my point gets stolen. Man, I need to get a better lock. ;)

Well, you for one have no excuse. I beleive that God extends grace to those who have never heard the word of God, but do have a belief in a higher, omnipotent being (Native americans for example). I beleive that all humans are born with an innate sense of a higher being, everyone has had their shred of belief at one point or another. I believe that God extendds grace to those people. LIke the monk that has lived hihg in the mountains of tibet his whole life, no outside contact, but devotes his life to meditation, trying to make oneself better, being benevolent and the like, but i don;t beliene that that same grace is extended to those who have heard but choos not to listen.

So it's a higher being with a petty liking for fame? Wow, way to be higher, eh?

Well, you for one have no excuse.

Nope. If y'all turn out to be correct, I'm going straight to Hell (which is also the title of my favorite Clash song ;)).

I beleive that God extends grace to those who have never heard the word of God, but do have a belief in a higher, omnipotent being (Native americans for example). I beleive that all humans are born with an innate sense of a higher being, everyone has had their shred of belief at one point or another. I believe that God extendds grace to those people. LIke the monk that has lived hihg in the mountains of tibet his whole life, no outside contact, but devotes his life to meditation, trying to make oneself better, being benevolent and the like, but i don;t beliene that that same grace is extended to those who have heard but choos not to listen.

To the innate sense of higher divinity: If this is the case, how do you explain religions that don't believe in an omnipotent God? Some Native Americans did, but by no means all. Buddhists, generally speaking, don't. Many Hindus don't. If it was something intuitive and clear to everyone on Earth, you'd expect at the very least a sizable majority of religions to have a similiar take on the God issue.

To the monk example: does the Tibetan monk qualifies for Heaven even if he doesn't believe in any sort of omnipotent higher being? Are you asserting that serious religious belief, combined with a genuine desire to be good, is enough to pass muster at the pearly gates even the beliefs bear very little resemblance to Christianity? 'cause I'd be down with that.

Once again my point gets stolen. Man, I need to get a better lock. ;)

Thing is, you're listed as offline all the time, so I never know when it's safe to horn in on the thread and steal it... :D

When I die, I'll go to Hell, in Pennsylvania...

When I die, I'll go to Hell, in Pennsylvania...
Hell is in Michigan.

Hell is in Michigan.

There's one in Pennsylvania too. Anyways...

man, when did your sense of humor shrivvel away and die? chill the hell out.

And when did you buy a flamethrower? I'm trying to be a reasonable, light-hearted person, but your statement was more than offensive to me, and I'm very tempted to ask for an apology.

But since I know one won't be forthcoming, I won't waste my fingers on the typing.

besides, according to historical information and the Biblical texts themselves, Mary was too young to be physiologically capable of giving adult consent. she could not have consented to be impregnated any more than my 12 year old cousin can, because children do not have the neurological structures necessary to evaluate and make decisions in an adult manner.

A couple considerations - if we're going to use modern legal definitions to frame this debate, then it is not unreasonable to say that the entire human race is ancestored on rapacious unions, since marital customs in pretty much any culture I can think of often saw girls under the age of what we now call "legal consent" given away in marriage.

thus, giving her the "option" of being impregnated is irrelevant. and, of course, various texts are ambiguous about whether she was asked beforehand or informed after the fact, but we don't need to get into that because either way she could not have given adult consent.

Actually, I'm not aware that the texts are ambiguous. Three don't mention any details of how she came to be with child - only Luke delves into the matter.

Furthermore, Mary's reply to the angel is both highly reasoned and highly intelligent, not a perfunctory "no". Consider the dialogue:

Luke 1

26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28And he came to her and said, ‘Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.’ 29But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. 30The angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.’ 34Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I am a virgin?’ 35The angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God. 36And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. 37For nothing will be impossible with God.’ 38Then Mary said, ‘Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.’ Then the angel departed from her.

In how she frames her final reply, her comprehension and consent are both wonderfully demonstrated. But look at her responses and her considerations throughout the whole passage. She ponders carefully the greeting of the angel, and when he explains God's plan she doesn't simply say "yeah, okay". She corrects the angel on his facts.

"How can this be?" she asks him, "for I am a virgin!"

To which, of course, Gabriel gives further explanation, bringing us to Mary's final reply:

‘Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.’

In this one statement, she demonstrates that she understands that God has a great plan and hope for humanity, and that because it is God's plan she will not come to harm. She demonstrates that she is still the one in control of the dialogue, and in re-reading her reply above it is just as easy to imagine her refusal.

bottom line: the Christian God knowingly impregnated a little girl who could not fully comprehend or consent to the situation. i can see plenty of reasons why somebody reading the Bible would conclude that impregnating little girls is acceptable to the Christian God, and thus why pedophilia and Christianity are not incompatible

Why would they draw that conclusion? Because God asked a young girl of marriageable age (let us remember both the time and place in which this dialogue occurs, and also that Mary was already betrothed to Joseph) to have a kid?

i'm not saying that's how everybody should interpret it, since there are obviously plenty of cases where God does horrible things (murder, torture, etc) and yet humans aren't supposed to do those things. hence my "do as i say, not as i do" theory. God can impregnate little girls, commit genocide, stir up wars, reward parents who sexually abuse their children, condone rape and slavery, and a whole host of other nasties, but there's no particular reason why He should also allow humans to do those things...He could just as easily say "i am all-powerful God, so i get to do these things, but you aren't God, so you don't get to do them." that would be totally consistent with Christian doctrine.

First, these "other crimes" of God you speak of are from the Old Testament, and it is important to keep in mind that much of what is in the Old Testament is in fact allegorical.

But did you ever stop to notice how the progression of God's attitude towards humanity changes in a manner akin to the way in which a parent disciplines a child?

When we're younger, our parents (typically) apply a harsher standard of discipline, because we are younger and do not understand subtlety. As we begin to mature, that standard of discipline must necessarily relax, else we begin to lash out in reply. Finally, as mature adults, our parents are reduced to saying "I told you so" when we do something really stupid.

So too with God's relationship with humanity, both actual and allegorically portrayed. God is first portrayed as harsh, because human understanding has not matured enough to comprehend an alternative. But as God works to make Himself more apparent to humanity, He gradually seems less and less harsh. Finally, come the New Testament, God is not harsh at all, but rather the opposite - sending His only Son, coming down to Earth as one of us to live as us and die by our hands.

:) Aiera

Except instead of grounding you, God sends you to burn for all of eternity in a pit of sulfer and ash.

And don't even try to sell me that "But god is trying to save you from hell" crap. God made Hell as much as he made the heavens and the earth, if any of this is to be believed. To say that God doesn't send you to hell is to say that there is something outside of God's power, and this is typically regarded as heresy.

Except instead of grounding you, God sends you to burn for all of eternity in a pit of sulfer and ash.

And don't even try to sell me that "But god is trying to save you from hell" crap. God made Hell as much as he made the heavens and the earth, if any of this is to be believed. To say that God doesn't send you to hell is to say that there is something outside of God's power, and this is typically regarded as heresy.

I don't think God sends anyone to Hell. I think, in the spirit of giving us the freedom to make choices, God has to sit back and let us choose to go there, if we choose evil ways. Because to force us to do something that we do not choose is a grave injustice, and no hallmark of love.

:( Aiera

Okay, so maybe I'm not throwing you in the pit, but I'm digging it and filling it with spikes. God made the universe as it is, including hell for those who don't worship him, correct?

To the innate sense of higher divinity: If this is the case, how do you explain religions that don't believe in an omnipotent God? Some Native Americans did, but by no means all. Buddhists, generally speaking, don't. Many Hindus don't. If it was something intuitive and clear to everyone on Earth, you'd expect at the very least a sizable majority of religions to have a similiar take on the God issue.

To the monk example: does the Tibetan monk qualifies for Heaven even if he doesn't believe in any sort of omnipotent higher being? Are you asserting that serious religious belief, combined with a genuine desire to be good, is enough to pass muster at the pearly gates even the beliefs bear very little resemblance to Christianity? 'cause I'd be down with that.

One must consider the idea that God may be revealed in many different ways, or that we may perceive God in many different ways. A Buddhist contemplating enlightenment may be perceiving God, although he may not see it that way. While we as Christians believe we have found a route to a personal relationship with God, we cannot say with absolute certainty that there are not other paths.

Except instead of grounding you, God sends you to burn for all of eternity in a pit of sulfer and ash.

And don't even try to sell me that "But god is trying to save you from hell" crap. God made Hell as much as he made the heavens and the earth, if any of this is to be believed. To say that God doesn't send you to hell is to say that there is something outside of God's power, and this is typically regarded as heresy.

God made hell yes, and God made heaven and earth. Hell however was not built for humans but for the devil and his angels.

Matthew 25:41
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.


Humans will go there however if they sin and do nothing about it. God sent Jesus to deal with sin so that we can be with him, but if you refuse to accept him then what right do you have to expect him to save you

Okay, so maybe I'm not throwing you in the pit, but I'm digging it and filling it with spikes. God made the universe as it is, including hell for those who don't worship him, correct?

No, wrong again. Hell was not built for humans. It was built for the devil and his angels to suffer in. We will go their, not because we don't worship God, but because we don't choose to accept what he did to save us. To be accepted by God you need to do the following things

- Accept that you have sinned, that is being "big" enough (Or more accurately mature enough) to admit you are in the wrong

- Accept that you cannot deal with said sin yourself. Humans can never work to God's standards. To get to God's standards via works you would have to live the life of Jesus. Since no one can, you have to again be "big" enough and mature enough to see that you can never fix this problem on your own

- Accept that their is a God who is both willing and able to deal with your sin. If you refuse to accept that God exists then what right do you have to expect any help from him?

- Ask said God to deal with your sin. A reletively simple and self explanitary statement

- Now that you have accepted you have sinned, your attitude towards sin needs to change to one of attemting to stop. It's preety logical, you have accepted that there is a problem so you now should try and deal with it. Blatently ignoring the problem is stupid if you know its there.

So it's a higher being with a petty liking for fame? Wow, way to be higher, eh?

As I have stated, you do not have to have a detailed understanding of Jesus and who he was to be saved. You just have to accept that there is a God and that that God has a way of dealing with your sins. You dont have to understand that it is Jesus (though it is of great value that you do). On the other hand though if you are aware of Jesus and what he did and why he did it but choose to reject its value to you personally then you will not be saved. If you have never heard then its diffrent, but if you are fully aware, you have no excuse.

What's being asked, then, is how one can justify this system of exclusive salvation (which you have demonstrated has a clear basis in the Bible)? Not "does the Bible say so?", but rather, "should the Bible say this?" and "Why is this the case?"

The reason that I can justify exclusive salvation is this. It is not exclusive. Salvation happened by Jesus (note as I have explained, you do not need to know who Jesus was, see previous points) for everyone. He did not die for those who would choose to believe in him but EVERYONE. However, if you refuse to accept that he did that or that there is a God who sent his son to do that then what right do you have to share in something that you refuse to believe is true. To put it another way, if a phone company sent you a letter detailing their latest offers that could cut your phone bill by 75% but you wrote a letter back saying "I dont believe you exist, so no I am not interested", you should hardly be supprised when they do not include you in the offer. The same is true of salvation. The offer (eternal life) is extended to everyone, but if you refuse to believe that the offer has been extended and also do not believe that the person who gave you the offer exists, then you have very little reason to expect that you will recieve the benefits that the people who accepted the said offer recieved.

Okay, again Atheists aren't trying to get into heaven. And personally, I think doing somethign for a reward or to avoid punishment isn't really doing something for the right reason. You do good because its the right thing to do.


I think you are thinking about salvation slightly wrong. Getting salvation via faith is not so much doing something for a reward. It is more accepting the offer of a gift. God did not say "this is salvation, to get it you have to do this...", God says "I am giving you salvation, do you want it or not?". Its an issue of accepting a gift. The gift is given. Jesus died for everyone, not just those who would later become Christians but Everyone. The selection is based on those who accept the gift. As far as doing good is concered, doing good being "the right thing to do" and "God telling you to do it" means simmilar things. The very slight diffrence is where you get your idea of right from. As far as motives go, Christianity dictates that you should never do good to bring glory upon yourself, but to God. You should never boast in your own good works, but only in God.


And if what you said is true (and I don't know its not, just conjecturing here) then God's love isn't unconditional as so many Christians spout quite frequently (typically only towards themselves though).

God's love is unconditional. Jesus died for all. All that is conditional is humans reaction towards it.

Now, it seems like you're saying that the existence of (the Christian) God is something that people who've never been exposed to this sort of thinking should be able to perceive and follow intuitively, as is this process, which leads naturally to entrance to Heaven. This is, I assume, in response to the assertation that the gazillions of people who never see a Bible or hear the name Jesus are being unjustly allowed to go the the bad place.

However, how do you account for the fact that this apparently not the case, that non-Abrahamic religions generally do not teach that one must rely on a higher power to overcome one's faults? If people were naturally inclined to fall into the steps above (particularily 2-4), you'd think they'd be pretty common ideas.

(examples from the modern world: Hindu thought, which has the systems of karma and dharma in order to overcome misdeed through proper acts and eventually transcend prosaic reality. Most forms of Buddhism teach that self-cultivation and knowledge are the answers, and barely deal with things like "sin" at all. And these are the two most significant non-Abrahamic religions out there today, both with hundreds of millions of followers.)

To argue against my own points, we do see things like Amida Buddhism (where a Boddhisatva, enlightened human who has decided to remain in reality and help others along, promises salvation if you say his name and pray to him in certain fashions), but I really feel that they're the exception rather than the norm.

Buddihism is often mistaken for a religion. It would seem to me to be more of a philosphy, there being Christian Buddists and Hindu Budhists. The concept of "sin" IE that you have done wrong, is a universal one. I would challenge you to find a culture that has no concept comparable to sin, IE things done wrong. I think that these ideas I said are more to do with spirtual maturity, accepting that you are not powerful and that you cannot deal with your problems on your own and that you need something and someone more powerful to do it for you. The weekness being human flaw, which by a christian name is sin. Certianly the Buddist idea's of existance as suffering and the cause of suffering being desire fit in with Christian ideas of all have sinned and the cause of evil being the love of money.

A child molester may have done some terrible things, but that does not excuse God not loving them. Loves sinner, hate sin. If the two were inseperable we would all be dead as the wages of sin are death. They are now seprable thanks to Jesus's death. And I am unsure where you get the idea that God hate's everyone who isnt Christian from.

Either the Judeo-Christian god indeed hates some people, or the bible has apparently misreported a few things:

Leviticus 20:23
And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

Psalms 5:5
The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalms 11:5
The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Proverbs 6:16-19
These six things doth the LORD hate ... A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Malachi 1:3
And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Romans 9:13
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

And that isn't even counting God's demands of the Israelites to destroy everyone who inhabited the Canaanite cities. So which is it, Neo Cannen? Did God hate some people, or is the bible just plain wrong?

i believe that as well. God loves all His children. He gave them free will to decide how best to live, or how wrong to live. an athiest who shows compassion for humanity shall clearly be rewarded before that of a christian child molester.

Because he WAS CHRISTIAN!
No, he wasn't.

God CANNOT? Aaaaand God is not omnipotent again. Anyways, for all you said, you fell into the "if he picks believers only, he's either evil or not omnipotent" conundrum. Won't hold water otherwise.
God DOES not, because He gave us free will. :rolleyes:

Either the Judeo-Christian god indeed hates some people, or the bible has apparently misreported a few things:

Leviticus 20:23
And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

Psalms 5:5
The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalms 11:5
The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Proverbs 6:16-19
These six things doth the LORD hate ... A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Malachi 1:3
And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Romans 9:13
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

And that isn't even counting God's demands of the Israelites to destroy everyone who inhabited the Canaanite cities. So which is it, Neo Cannen? Did God hate some people, or is the bible just plain wrong?

God hates sin, not sinners. Before the Crucifixtion there was now way to seperate the two. Jesus died for everyone, not just good people. Salvation is given to those who want it. As for the cannanites, read this.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

it will help you understand it more. As for your quotes, God does not hate people who do X things. God hates it when peole do X things. He hates sin, not sinners.

God DOES not, because He gave us free will. :rolleyes:
Yet he supposedly created ever thing around us … is it truly free will when you have been conditioned for your whole life that one choice is better then the other.

He has a diffrent belief waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Cry me a river, poof! You've done an act of god! LYKE OMG U R TEH GODZORZ!!1ONE!1
And PS:afk, food

I don't understand what you just said there. I only speak English. Communication with the mentally impaired is not my strongpoint. But, if you mean what I think you mean, then let me just say that I don't care if he's an occultist, really. I do care if he goes around talking about how stupid other peope's religions are, asking them to fight with him. It's like a dork at school flipping off all the big, surly bullies. What do you expect to happen?
P.S. I don't actually know what you said. My head is still spinning. So if I didn't give you the response you were looking for, well- SPEAK ENGLISH!

No, no, it does matter. And in this case (and only in this case) we'd have a fair god.

Fair by your standards. Are you God? No. Am I God. No but unlike you I am actually analysisng the Bible and looking for God in that. You seem to look at the Bible and dont like it because it scares you into knowing that either you will not be saved or you cant be mature enough to admit you are in the wrong (see the first point I make in post 306). It may not "look" fair to you but believe me it is. Salvation is not something to be earned. Its a gift. All you have to do is chose whetehr or not to accept it. To accept it you do the things I described in post 306. It's that simple.

God CANNOT? Aaaaand God is not omnipotent again. Anyways, for all you said, you fell into the "if he picks believers only, he's either evil or not omnipotent" conundrum. Won't hold water otherwise.

How about this idea, God chooses everyone to be saved, but not everyone chooses to be saved. Switch the judgement call around for a moment. How about you are a saved Christian in heaven and there is someone who ardently believed all their life that Heaven and God do not exist. Why should someone who believes heaven does not exist be accepted into heaven?

How about this idea, God chooses everyone to be saved, but not everyone chooses to be saved. Switch the judgement call around for a moment. How about you are a saved Christian in heaven and there is someone who ardently believed all their life that Heaven and God do not exist. Why should someone who believes heaven does not exist be accepted into heaven?
But it is not a matter of choice ... unless you are saying that god CANT save them. he is the one setting the requirements of geting in (he is even choosing to set the limit at them having to choose to folow dogma) I think most people would wish heven if it existed so really not going against their free will.

But it is not a matter of choice ... unless you are saying that god CANT save them. he is the one setting the requirements of geting in (he is even choosing to set the limit at them having to choose to folow dogma) I think most people would wish heven if it existed so really not going against their free will.

God CAN save everyone but it is a matter of justice. If you dont accept God exists, what right have you to expect his help? Its quite amazing the number of athiests who want to go to heaven despite their lack of belief that such a place exists. Also, he has not so much "set the requirements" as he has a practical justice system. Thats like saying the justice system in the UK is unfair because it sets the requirements of guilt and innoncence (IE proof). It IS a matter of choice. It is not difficult to do what God asks. It is beyond no one. Everyone can do it, not everyone chooses to. Thats the reality. These five things are what you need to do


1- That you have sinned/done wrong/been bad etc
2- That you cannot deal with the implications of said sins yourself
3- That you need a power beyond your understanding (God) to deal with it
4- That there is a God beyond your understanding who wants to and can deal with it.
5- Having accepted that you are in the wrong (sinned) you need to do something about it.


Now everyone can do those five things. You need things like faith and maturity to do them but those things are not (contary to a common misconception) beyond the reach of some people. Faith and maturity can be achived. And if you think "I dont need to do these things" here is the reason why you should.


1) If you refuse to accept that you are in the wrong, you are immature and arrogent, believeing that you are perfect, and on a par with God.

2) If you believe that you can deal with it yourself then you are still immatrue and arrogent, believeing that you can somehow redeem yourself by being good enough for God by your achivements. While your achievements now may be great, they do not remove any previous sins you have done. You cannot remove sins of your own power.

3&4) If you refuse to believe that there is a God and that he can and is willing to help you then what right do you have to expect any help from him. Thats rather like a friend sending you a letter attmepting to console you over a recent traumatic event, you sending a letter back to them saying you refuse to believe they exist and then expecting them to continue being friendly to you. God is there and God is willing. If you dont believe he exists he wont help you. It's the old line "Atheists don't believe in God don't they. Well God doesnt believe in Athiests". Why exactly should God help you if you dont believe he exists and that he can help you.

5) If you are aware of your sin (and if you are not you are very ignorent, see points one and two) and the fact that but do nothing about it, its rather like wearing the same clothes for an entire year despite having a full wardrobe and a fully working washing machine and a years supply of Ariel tablets. If you refuse to do anything about you sin, its akin to not accepting it is there in the first place and that is just stupid and ignorent (see point 1)


Here is an alterntive metaphor for points three and four


To put it another way, if a phone company sent you a letter detailing their latest offers that could cut your phone bill by 75% but you wrote a letter back saying "I dont believe you exist, so no I am not interested", you should hardly be supprised when they do not include you in the offer

God CAN save everyone but it is a matter of justice. If you dont accept God exists, what right have you to expect his help? Its quite amazing the number of athiests who want to go to heaven despite their lack of belief that such a place exists. Also, he has not so much "set the requirements" as he has a practical justice system. Thats like saying the justice system in the UK is unfair because it sets the requirements of guilt and innoncence (IE proof). It IS a matter of choice. It is not difficult to do what God asks. It is beyond no one. Everyone can do it, not everyone chooses to. Thats the reality. These five things are what you need to do


So he CAN but chooses not to ... got it (so not all loving)

So he CAN but chooses not to ... got it (so not all loving)

He is all loving, he loves all. But not everyone choses to love him back. As I said, if you dont believe God exists, why should he save you. God does not take pleasure in not saving people, but due to the nature of sin and the nature of God, unless you are willing to deal with it you will not be saved. God is giving you the chance, he is giving you the oppotunity. It is your choice wheteher or not to accept. He is not forcing you, he wants to save you but he will give you a choice.

He is all loving, he loves all. But not everyone choses to love him back. As I said, if you dont believe God exists, why should he save you. God does not take pleasure in not saving people, but due to the nature of sin and the nature of God, unless you are willing to deal with it you will not be saved. God is giving you the chance, he is giving you the oppotunity. It is your choice wheteher or not to accept. He is not forcing you, he wants to save you but he will give you a choice.

But he can choose to forgive evrything including non acceptance

And you call that fair because...?
Do you really think it's fair for a child-molester that believes in God to go to heaven while a nice atheist doesn't? And I do not have the idea that God hates everyone non-christian, I DO have the idea that there are some idiots that think that and call themselves "christians".

Like that minister (can't remember his name at the moment) who brings protesters to the the funerals of gay people and waves around signs saying "God hates fags." Or he took his little band to a highschool where the more senior boys on the football team used sexual hazing to initiate the newer teammates and waved around banners at the school saying that this is what happens when society tolerates homosexuality.

You'll note that it was football players, the most homophobic macho guys you can expect to find in a highschool. The theater club had no such problems.

But he can choose to forgive evrything including non acceptance

Ah but religious leaders can't choose to forgive non-acceptance. Child molesters seeking redemption are a cash cow, but athiest social workers who go around making people think that this world can be just fine, well they not only don't contribute, but they take away all of those desperate souls who go to church to give meaning to their empty worthless lives by showing them that they don't need it.

But he can choose to forgive evrything including non acceptance

Forgiveness requires acceptence as you have to accept there is something to forgive. If X did Y bad thing to you, in order for you to forgive X, he/she first needs to admit they did Y and Y is wrong.

Grace. Without it the wind will scatter me into dust. These things can only be understood spiritually.

II Corinthians 12:9 And He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

I am not sucking up, I am held up. I am held together by His grace. Some people do not know that even now that they are with God. Only when they die will they be separated or joined. What happens before death will make the decision. If you do not know that He is here, just wait a little while.

Grace. Without it the wind will scatter me into dust. These things can only be understood spiritually.


So true.

bump. No one else interested?

No, they just consider it the normal state of the world. We exist because we exist, life has meaning because its life and its here--it doesn't need an outside force to validate it.

<ADDITION>
Totally missed your point--its a good thing I oocasionally reread.

Of course what I said still kind of applies. Abscence of God isn't a punishment to an Atheist--because they don't need God for validation or for explanation or to know the difference in right and wrong. Maybe its arrogant--or maybe its just putting more faith in humanity.

I think absence of God is a little worse than just a great spiritual sense of loss. It is what is known as God's common grace which keeps the world in some vauge sense of order. Without it, the world would become a mass of natural disasters and horrible stuff would just happen all the time

"I will be 9/11 times five thousand, four hundrud and sixty...two"

"9/11 times five thousand, four hundrud and sixty two! Thats...Thats....I dont even know what that is"

"Nobody does!"

SO let me get this right. God Created hell for Satan and his angels, but now if you don't believe in him, you just kinda slip in, and theres NOTHING HE WILL DO ABOUT IT? What a fine father, to let his children slip into a place of pain of his own creation, when all he has to do to save them is will it to be done. The way things are now, it's like saying to choose a number between one and ten, and if you don't pick the right one you go to hell. That is, if your an atheist, agnostic, buddhist, pagan, hindu, jew, muslim, or whatever else. The church shouts that the right number is three, and some muslim church says no, it's five. but if you pick the wrong number, TOO BAD, GOD DOESN'T CARE! Why should he save you? Why should I feed my kids and not murder them even though they don't respect me? Because their my kids, and I love them.*

*Note: I do not in fact have kids.

SO let me get this right. God Created hell for Satan and his angels, but now if you don't believe in him, you just kinda slip in, and theres NOTHING HE WILL DO ABOUT IT? What a fine father, to let his children slip into a place of pain of his own creation, when all he has to do to save them is will it to be done. The way things are now, it's like saying to choose a number between one and ten, and if you don't pick the right one you go to hell. That is, if your an atheist, agnostic, buddhist, pagan, hindu, jew, muslim, or whatever else. The church shouts that the right number is three, and some muslim church says no, it's five. but if you pick the wrong number, TOO BAD, GOD DOESN'T CARE! Why should he save you? Why should I feed my kids and not murder them even though they don't respect me? Because their my kids, and I love them.*

*Note: I do not in fact have kids.
I am a child to my father and mother, but I am an adult, and they treat me as an adult. I make my own choices in life. I would be very pissed off indeed if God acted to "save" me when I can very well make that decision for myself.

SO let me get this right. God Created hell for Satan and his angels, but now if you don't believe in him, you just kinda slip in, and theres NOTHING HE WILL DO ABOUT IT? What a fine father, to let his children slip into a place of pain of his own creation, when all he has to do to save them is will it to be done. The way things are now, it's like saying to choose a number between one and ten, and if you don't pick the right one you go to hell. That is, if your an atheist, agnostic, buddhist, pagan, hindu, jew, muslim, or whatever else. The church shouts that the right number is three, and some muslim church says no, it's five. but if you pick the wrong number, TOO BAD, GOD DOESN'T CARE! Why should he save you? Why should I feed my kids and not murder them even though they don't respect me? Because their my kids, and I love them.*

*Note: I do not in fact have kids.

I have given this example several times before regarding salavation but I will give it to you as well to think it over. Let's say your phone company sends you a letter saying that they have a way of reducing your phone costs for the next 10 years by over 50%. You send a letter back saying "I do not believe you exist despite having recieved your letter and so no I am not intersted in the offer" you should hardly be supprised that you are not included in the offer program. Thats how salvation is, offerd to all you have to choose if you want it or not.

Originally Posted by Pracus
Of course what I said still kind of applies. Abscence of God isn't a punishment to an Atheist--because they don't need God for validation or for explanation or to know the difference in right and wrong. Maybe its arrogant--or maybe its just putting more faith in humanity.
I think absence of God is a little worse than just a great spiritual sense of loss. It is what is known as God's common grace which keeps the world in some vauge sense of order. Without it, the world would become a mass of natural disasters and horrible stuff would just happen all the time
Sounds like magic.

Sounds like magic.

Are you saying it sounds like paganism or that you like it?

I have given this example several times before regarding salavation but I will give it to you as well to think it over. Let's say your phone company sends you a letter saying that they have a way of reducing your phone costs for the next 10 years by over 50%. You send a letter back saying "I do not believe you exist despite having recieved your letter and so no I am not intersted in the offer" you should hardly be supprised that you are not included in the offer program. Thats how salvation is, offerd to all you have to choose if you want it or not.
Except in this case the phone company has added to the letter "Of course if you don't accept our generous offer, we'll come and torture you for eternity."
Makes the phone company seem less than benevolent, doesn't it?
Also doesn't comparing God to a phone company seem to make him rather cold and distant to you?
Now if there was some kind of purgatory or reincarnation for nonbeleivers, I could deal with that, but I have a hard time seeing god throwing Ghandi into hell, just because he didn't think christianity made sense.

Also, if you don't accept that God is the one doing this, that Hell just exists, then answer this: Is Hell out of God's control?

Except in this case the phone company has added to the letter "Of course if you don't accept our generous offer, we'll come and torture you for eternity."
Makes the phone company seem less than benevolent, doesn't it?
Also doesn't comparing God to a phone company seem to make him rather cold and distant to you?


Ever heard of a concept known as a metaphor


Now if there was some kind of purgatory or reincarnation for nonbeleivers, I could deal with that, but I have a hard time seeing god throwing Ghandi into hell, just because he didn't think christianity made sense.

Purgotory has little to no biblical basis. Certianly the biblical arguements I have heard for it describe it in nowhere near the level of detail that people seem to think there is. Purgotary in my opinion is just one of sevearl 2nd century ideas designed to make Christianity more palletable. The truth hurts. Thats one of the signs of it being the truth.

My point being this, why should you expect the benefits that salvation offer if you dont accept that it works in the first place?

Are you saying it sounds like paganism or that you like it?
I am saying it sounds like magic, in the common sense of the word: as an unbelievable excuse for an inexplicable event.

The absence of a god that acts like such a vain, egocentrical, mealomaniacal spoiled brat as you seem to want your god to be, Canen, would DEFINETLY be Heaven for me. But, see, you can't accept other people believing other things and going to Heaven. You would LOVE to see them go to Hell. Only, it doesn't work this way.

No, but you do get a Jesus fish (http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/free/Pics/Ichthys.gif)!
FISH FISH!

The absence of a god that acts like such a vain, egocentrical, mealomaniacal spoiled brat as you seem to want your god to be, Canen, would DEFINETLY be Heaven for me. But, see, you can't accept other people believing other things and going to Heaven. You would LOVE to see them go to Hell. Only, it doesn't work this way.

Ok, if any of your points are going to be even the remotest bit valid, can you please explain how God in the way that I described him to you is in any way evil, egocentrical or a spoiled brat. I have described a God that gave us all a gift, salvation. All we have to do is choose to accept it. Its not that difficult and it does not involve any kind of rituals or worship. Just some simple truths.

- That you have done wrong
- That you cannot deal with the wrong yourself
- That you need someone/thing else more powerful than you to remove the things wrong
- That such a person/thing exists and is willing and able to do that for you
- Having accepted you have done wrong, you need to make a reasonably concerted effort to deal with the things wrong with your life.

I dont see anything unreasonable there. What exactly is your problem with these points. (see post 306 for more details on the 5 points). What proof/logic of any kind do you have that God judges us on the basis of works. And in answer to your point, I dont want to see anyone go to hell. Why do you think I am explaining this.

Ok, if any of your points are going to be even the remotest bit valid, can you please explain how God in the way that I described him to you is in any way evil, egocentrical or a spoiled brat. I have described a God that gave us all a gift, salvation. All we have to do is choose to accept it. Its not that difficult and it does not involve any kind of rituals or worship. Just some simple truths.

- That you have done wrong
- That you cannot deal with the wrong yourself
- That you need someone/thing else more powerful than you to remove the things wrong
- That such a person/thing exists and is willing to do that for you
- Having accepted you have done wrong, you need to make a reasonably concerted effort to deal with the things wrong with your life.

I dont see anything unreasonable there. What exactly is your problem with these points. (see post 306 for more details on the 5 points). What proof/logic of any kind do you have that God judges us on the basis of works. And in answer to your point, I dont want to see anyone go to hell. Why do you think I am explaining this.
I think it's #2 that is the sticking point for most people. Given that heaven and hell are simply metaphors, and people do "get over it", we do deal with it.

I think it's #2 that is the sticking point for most people. Given that heaven and hell are simply metaphors, and people do "get over it", we do deal with it.

Do you think you can go your entire life without ever wronging yourself or another?

Ok, if any of your points are going to be even the remotest bit valid, can you please explain how God in the way that I described him to you is in any way evil, egocentrical or a spoiled brat. I have described a God that gave us all a gift, salvation. All we have to do is choose to accept it. Its not that difficult and it does not involve any kind of rituals or worship. Just some simple truths.

- That you have done wrong
- That you cannot deal with the wrong yourself
- That you need someone/thing else more powerful than you to remove the things wrong
- That such a person/thing exists and is willing and able to do that for you
- Having accepted you have done wrong, you need to make a reasonably concerted effort to deal with the things wrong with your life.

I dont see anything unreasonable there. What exactly is your problem with these points. (see post 306 for more details on the 5 points). What proof/logic of any kind do you have that God judges us on the basis of works. And in answer to your point, I dont want to see anyone go to hell. Why do you think I am explaining this.

You're reducing DEEDS to nothing, noticed that? Plus, since you're quoting your religion, I'll offer the proof: It's because I say so. Every religion does it, so will I. Because I am the LORD your God now.

I think it's #2 that is the sticking point for most people. Given that heaven and hell are simply metaphors, and people do "get over it", we do deal with it.

1) How exactly are you going to go about changing your life in such a way that anything you have done wrong in the past has no bearing on your current existance at all. Because that is what God does with your sin when he removes it. He removes it compeletley when you accept salvation

2) What logical/theological evidence have you got that heaven and hell are just metaphors (since we are discussing them as real here, I suggest you do the same or else your points will make little sense in the general theme of things)

Do you think you can go your entire life without ever wronging yourself or another?
Absolutely not. And I won't go my entirely life without forgiving or being forgiven. We deal with it.

right, the basis of christianity is jesus dying for the sins of all mankind. to God all sin is equal that is a lie is equal to murder, gossip equal to rape etc. so no two sins are worse than the other. it sounds outragous, but that is biblical, and if you aren't religious or from another religion, it would probably makes no sense to you. the basis of christianity is that Jesus saves us from ourselves and our inherent un God like nature - ie sinful nature, but it is purely an act that Jesus does, we then have to accept and live our lives accordingly. the problem is that i know very few christians (myself included) that do. there is no earning your way into God's good books or heaven. it is a gift that he offers to all freely and without catch. it's then your choice if you live a live worthy of that gift.

Absolutely not. And I won't go my entirely life without forgiving or being forgiven. We deal with it.

I believe that when Neo Cannen says "deal with it", he is referring to "prevent it." Without help, human beings will do wrong. This is an admission that we all must make.

You're reducing DEEDS to nothing, noticed that? Plus, since you're quoting your religion, I'll offer the proof: It's because I say so. Every religion does it, so will I. Because I am the LORD your God now.

Flaw 1: You pointed your discussion at Christians, accept that. You have to deal with Christian logic

Flaw 2: We cannot achieve heavenly standard by works. The only way we could ever do that would be to live Jesus's life. Since we cant do that, God provides another way to him, via salvation, the death of Jesus (as I have mentioned before though, you do not need a full understanding of who Jesus is to be saved). Of course works are important, but they are not part of salvation. You are making the mistake here that all Christianity is is the explination of salvation. Its not.

1) How exactly are you going to go about changing your life in such a way that anything you have done wrong in the past has no bearing on your current existance at all.
Egads! Why would I want to?? That would entirely eliminate who I am!

Because that is what God does with your sin when he removes it. He removes it compeletley when you accept salvation
That's nice. I'd rather be the sum of my parts, though.

2) What logical/theological evidence have you got that heaven and hell are just metaphors (since we are discussing them as real here, I suggest you do the same or else your points will make little sense in the general theme of things)
They are metaphors because they have meaning apart from the literal meaning of the word. The studies of mythology and theology have both provided insight into how the symbols of heaven and hell have developed from Zorroastrian religion through to modern Christianity.

I believe that when Neo Cannen says "deal with it", he is referring to "prevent it." Without help, human beings will do wrong. This is an admission that we all must make.

Partly that, but also we cannot remove it from ourselves (IE the consequences). All humans do wrong things, and wrong things seperate us from God. So God found a way to deal with wrong things. Via Jesus

I believe that when Neo Cannen says "deal with it", he is referring to "prevent it." Without help, human beings will do wrong. This is an admission that we all must make.
Humans will do wrong, regardless. That is the symbolism of the "sinner".

Humans will do wrong, regardless. That is the symbolism of the "sinner".

Yes, but many believe they can lead a sinless life all on their own. One must admit that this is not possible.

Looks to me like you've already met Neo Cannen's #2.

Egads! Why would I want to?? That would entirely eliminate who I am!

That's nice. I'd rather be the sum of my parts, though.


I am refering to spiritually. There is no way for you to remove the spiritual consequences of your actions, which is what salvation does

Yes, but many believe they can lead a sinless life all on their own. One must admit that this is not possible.

Looks to me like you've already met Neo Cannen's #2.
Everything is as it should be.

I am refering to spiritually. There is no way for you to remove the spiritual consequences of your actions, which is what salvation does
Ah, but spiritual consequences happen to me. They are a part of the sum.

I am refering to spiritually. There is no way for you to remove the spiritual consequences of your actions, which is what salvation does

Not by YOUR god. You yourself said this is a thread aimed at christians, and your god isn't.

Everything is as it should be.

I am sorry, I am still unclear as to how you rationalise this. What about things like the Tsunami. I dont pretend that the deaths of all those people is what God wanted (though it is part of God's will, but those two things may sound simmilar, they are diffrent

What God wants = for everyone to be saved, for everyone to come to know him, etc

God's will = God's manipulation of certian events towards his ultimate plan.

I dont want to get into a predestination disussion now, although I may do later when I have more time)

Ah, but spiritual consequences happen to me. They are a part of the sum.

The spirtual consequence of sin is death. Not just physical but spirtual. Only via salvation can sin be removed and the soul saved. Thats the Christian line. Salvation I have already described, see post 306.

Not by YOUR god. You yourself said this is a thread aimed at christians, and your god isn't.

Can you rephrase that into normal English. If you are saying what I think you are saying then I am talking about sin. Sin is an action against God which leaves a spiritual "mark". This mark seperates you from God, and can only be removed via salvation (which I have explained is the 5 points I have mentioned and nothing to do with works)

Can you rephrase that into normal English. If you are saying what I think you are saying then I am talking about sin. Sin is an action against God which leaves a spiritual "mark". This mark seperates you from God, and can only be removed via salvation (which I have explained is the 5 points I have mentioned and nothing to do with works)

I'm actually disputing the statement that you're an actual christian.

Does God control hell? If yes, then he can prevent anyone he likes from being sent there.
If no, he is not omnipotent.

If yes, then he can prevent anyone he likes from being sent there.

that leads to free will. hes given everyone a way out. its your responsibility to choose. God doesnt choose for you.

I've got a gun to your head. That leads to free will. I've given everyone a way out. Just give me your money. Its your responsibility to choose. I don't choose for you.

I've got a gun to your head. That leads to free will. I've given everyone a way out. Just give me your money. Its your responsibility to choose. I don't choose for you.

Man, even after I got that lock my points are still stolen. :)

I've got a gun to your head. That leads to free will. I've given everyone a way out. Just give me your money. Its your responsibility to choose. I don't choose for you.

you have a gun to my head means you are forcing me to choose. God doesnt force us into hell. we send ourselves there because of our own sin.

you have a gun to my head means you are forcing me to choose. God doesnt force us into hell. we send ourselves there because of our own sin.

The criminal doesn't force us to choose. We choose for him because we give him no cash.

The criminal doesn't force us to choose. We choose for him because we give him no cash.

Alternatively: A thug drugs us and puts us in a trap connected to body movements in such a way that if we DON'T bend over and pull down our pants, our hands will be decepated. Our choice, free will.

accurate analogy.

Alternatively: A thug drugs us and puts us in a trap connected to body movements in such a way that if we DON'T bend over and pull down our pants, our hands will be decepated. Our choice, free will.

god isnt the thug, you are. god didnt put yourself in this situation, you did. god does not send you to hell, you send yourself there.

accurate analogy.

*In "Newsradio" Bill McNeal style*
Thank you... :)

god isnt the thug, you are. god didnt put yourself in this situation, you did. god does not send you to hell, you send yourself there.

YOUR god is a thug. The CHRISTIAN one isn't.

YOUR god is a thug. The CHRISTIAN one isn't.

MY god is the god of the Bible. Those who beleive in it are colled christians. therefore my god is the god of the bible.

god isnt the thug, you are. god didnt put yourself in this situation, you did. god does not send you to hell, you send yourself there.


Are you disputing that God made hell? That anything in this universe is outside of his control? Or are you saying, alternatively, that Ghandi deserves to burn forever because he didn't worship Jesus?

God made hell for satan and his rebellious angels. anyone who rejects god and jesus will go to hell with them. Ghandi rejected jesus christ. good works do not lead to slavation.

MY god is the god of the Bible. Those who beleive in it are colled christians. therefore my god is the god of the bible.

Riddle me this, riddle me that...

Which part of the Bible? The loving one from the New Testament or the evil one from the Old? Which interpretation of the Bible? The Catholic one that's nice and about deeds or the excludent, idiotic baptist one? Or any other? Which version of the Bible, and did it include all those things that the Church so carefully removed because they didn't say what it wanted the Bible to say? And the list goes on. Keep questioning, lest your brain dies from uselessness. Catholic Church that killed thousands in the Spanish Inquisition, or the Protestants that hanged people in the Salem Trials?

God made hell for satan and his rebellious angels. anyone who rejects god and jesus will go to hell with them. Ghandi rejected jesus christ. good works do not lead to slavation.

Okay, Cyrian, do you call him an idiot or should I do it?

The spirtual consequence of sin is death. Not just physical but spirtual. Only via salvation can sin be removed and the soul saved. Thats the Christian line. Salvation I have already described, see post 306.
That is correct, for a Christian. But I am not a Christian, and I don't see any rationality for believing that death is not inevitable, nor that there is anything after death.

Okay, Cyrian, do you call him an idiot or should I do it?
Right, i think I'll do it. I only get so many opportunities.

God made hell for satan and his rebellious angels. anyone who rejects god and jesus will go to hell with them. Ghandi rejected jesus christ. good works do not lead to slavation.
You just said that Ghandi deserves to burn. You are an idiot.

I am sorry, I am still unclear as to how you rationalise this. What about things like the Tsunami. I dont pretend that the deaths of all those people is what God wanted (though it is part of God's will, but those two things may sound simmilar, they are diffrent

What God wants = for everyone to be saved, for everyone to come to know him, etc

God's will = God's manipulation of certian events towards his ultimate plan.

I dont want to get into a predestination disussion now, although I may do later when I have more time)
People sin. This is a given. As Neo Canon said, it cannot be avoided. There no alternative. Therefore, things are as they should be.

Symbolically, god arranged for the apple to happen, for sin to happen. Therefore, things are as they are supposed to be.

Neo Cannen, do you claim that death is the only spiritual consequence? If so, why do you pluralize it?

Riddle me this, riddle me that...

Which part of the Bible? The loving one from the New Testament or the evil one from the Old? Which interpretation of the Bible? The Catholic one that's nice and about deeds or the excludent, idiotic baptist one? Or any other? Which version of the Bible, and did it include all those things that the Church so carefully removed because they didn't say what it wanted the Bible to say? And the list goes on. Keep questioning, lest your brain dies from uselessness. Catholic Church that killed thousands in the Spanish Inquisition, or the Protestants that hanged people in the Salem Trials?

gods love and anger (http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=7&itemid=2242)

what makes god angry?

denominations vary on interpretaion. they argue over miniscule aspects. i consider myself a christian, a follower of christ, not subject to a denomination.

the books not added to the bible are apocryphal, most NT apocrypha were written centuries after the events, and therefore are not taken seriously. The OT apocrypha were written in greek. the OT conon was written in hebrew. do a search on google and you will find out why the "other" books were not added.

Right, i think I'll do it. I only get so many opportunities.


You just said that Ghandi deserves to burn. You are an idiot.

Im an idiot?

gods love and anger (http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=7&itemid=2242)

what makes god angry?

denominations vary on interpretaion. they argue over miniscule aspects. i consider myself a christian, a follower of christ, not subject to a denomination.

the books not added to the bible are apocryphal, most NT apocrypha were written centuries after the events, and therefore are not taken seriously. The OT apocrypha were written in greek. the OT conon was written in hebrew. do a search on google and you will find out why the "other" books were not added.

The Bible says that God burned whole cities out of anger. Funny, it means that the unborn babies and travellers in the cities and other innocents died too. Great God, eh? At a second thought, you think Ghandi deserves to go to Hell... So, why am I wasting my time on trash like you? Come on, isn't there anyone that would actually stand a chance in debate?

Im an idiot?

Learning through repetition. Good. I'll help you out.
You are an idiot.

you think Ghandi deserves to go to Hell... So, why am I wasting my time on trash like you?

i dont see your point.

His point, I believe, is that you are an idiot for believing that god exists who would send Ghandi to hell, and moreso one for worshipping him.

i dont see your point.

Of course not, as we've already established that you're an idiot. And you failed to answer the rest of my post as well. But I digress. Let me chew this so you can understand it: Your belief that Ghandi deserves to burn in Hell is so utterly moronic that it means your value system is screwed up enough to accept God killing innocents along with the "sinners" in Sodom & Gomorrah as a good thing. Did you understand it now?

Gandhi has said that he had studied the scriptures and was attracted. But eventually he came to the conclusion that there was nothing really special in the scriptures which he had not got in his own. Unfortunatly, he missed the part where we are saved through Jesus Christ.

God killing innocents along with the "sinners" in Sodom & Gomorrah

sodom and gomorrah was destroyed for thier wickedness. Abraham pleaded with god not to destroy it if anyone rightous was found. god said find those that are rightous and i will not destroy sodom and gomorrah, abraham could not find any, it was destroyed.

Your belief that Ghandi deserves to burn in Hell is so utterly moronic that it means your value system is screwed up

if Ghandi rejected jesus, then he was not saved. we can be 'good' people, but even out best is 'like fithly rags' to god. we cannot be saved unless we put faith in jesus christ.

Gandhi has said that he had studied the scriptures and was attracted. But eventually he came to the conclusion that there was nothing really special in the scriptures which he had not got in his own. Unfortunatly, he missed the part where we are saved through Jesus Christ.



sodom and gomorrah was destroyed for thier wickedness. Abraham pleaded with god not to destroy it if anyone rightous was found. god said find those that are rightous and i will not destroy sodom and gomorrah, abraham could not find any, it was destroyed.



if Ghandi rejected jesus, then he was not saved. we can be 'good' people, but even out best is 'like fithly rags' to god. we cannot be saved unless we put faith in jesus christ.


Okay, Cyrian, wanna call him an idiot again?

The wickedness of these people in the OT is confirmed in verses of the Bible. So we see that these people are not quite as innocent as some would like you to believe. Then again, maybe they believe that killing your children is not all bad. After all, killing viable pre-born babies is legal in this country.

Gandhi has said that he had studied the scriptures and was attracted. But eventually he came to the conclusion that there was nothing really special in the scriptures which he had not got in his own. Unfortunatly, he missed the part where we are saved through Jesus Christ.
Do you really believe he missed the singular most important part?

Okay, Cyrian, wanna call him an idiot again?
This one's yours.

Gandhi has said that he had studied the scriptures and was attracted. But eventually he came to the conclusion that there was nothing really special in the scriptures which he had not got in his own. Unfortunatly, he missed the part where we are saved through Jesus Christ.
or he didn't believe it.


sodom and gomorrah was destroyed for thier wickedness. Abraham pleaded with god not to destroy it if anyone rightous was found. god said find those that are rightous and i will not destroy sodom and gomorrah, abraham could not find any, it was destroyed.
So even the children were evil, even the fetuses?


if Ghandi rejected jesus, then he was not saved. we can be 'good' people, but even out best is 'like fithly rags' to god. we cannot be saved unless we put faith in jesus christ.
IE Believe I'm right or you'll go to hell. You believe Ghandi is in hell. What's worse is that you also believe that this is somehow right. Any system God creates is under his control, it doesn't have to be this way, he MAKES it this way. Thus if he makes an unjust system, he himself is unjust, if he makes an uncaring system, he himself is uncaring. If he makes a cruel system HE HIMSELF is cruel.

The wickedness of these people in the OT is confirmed in verses of the Bible. So we see that these people are not quite as innocent as some would like you to believe. Then again, maybe they believe that killing your children is not all bad. After all, killing viable pre-born babies is legal in this country.

You think that Ghandi deserves to burn in Hell. That alone, repeated, could destroy any argument you make, because it proves that you are an idiot. But I'll oblige you and pretend you stand a chance: There surely were unborn children in Sodom & Gomorrah when the thing you worship allegedly destroyed them. Same with the Great Flood. So it's ok for him to kill random innocent children?

This one's yours.

Okay, thanks, I appreciate you knowing how to share.

if Ghandi rejected jesus, then he was not saved. we can be 'good' people, but even out best is 'like fithly rags' to god. we cannot be saved unless we put faith in jesus christ.

You believe that Ghandi deserves to go to Hell. You're an idiot.

Do you really believe he missed the singular most important part?

he liked the teachings of christ, but he was a hindu. Personally, i dont know what ghandi believed in his heart. if he rejected Jesus christ as the son of god, he was not saved.


Any system God creates is under his control, it doesn't have to be this way, he MAKES it this way.

he created a perfect world, we screwed it up. its our fault, not gods.

You think that Ghandi deserves to burn in Hell. That alone, repeated, could destroy any argument you make, because it proves that you are an idiot.

im an idiot because ghandi may be in hell?

There surely were unborn children in Sodom & Gomorrah when the thing you worship allegedly destroyed them.

do you agree with abortion? thats killing unborn children. Gods love comes with justice. we are not innocent.

Okay, thanks, I appreciate you knowing how to share.



You believe that Ghandi deserves to go to Hell. You're an idiot.

ok well im done with this discussion with you two, because your argument against me is that im 'an idiot.' if you want to debate beyond insults, let me know.

im an idiot because ghandi may be in hell?
do you agree with abortion? thats killing unborn children. Gods love comes with justice. we are not innocent.

No, you're an idiot because you believe that Ghandi may be in Hell. And God killed PLENTY unborn children in the Great Flood, so either you agree with abortion or you disagree with "God".

Hey, let's just put it this way, this'll make everyone happy...

God loves everyone. He's not really that bad a guy. Ghandi doesn't deserve to go to Hell, nah, I bet he's up there with Buddha too.

See, I'm not Catholic, but if they're right, then you would have to be pretty evil to get to Hell. The whole Purgatory thing, it was mentioned right? Well, you know, Ghandi goes to Purgatory for a few Centuries, then proceeds into Heaven.

I don't know about everyone else, but my view is basically somewhat like that. You know, just be a good person, truly a good person, and try your best to discover what the truth is, be it the Qu'ran, the Bible, the Torah, or whatever.

Though I think the Principia Discordia is stretching it a bit.

Even modern Theologians are beginning to accept new things. Like it's always been believed that suicide is a mortal sin, but some now think it would be all right in certain situations. Which is good news for me.

EDIT: Oh yeah, 42nd post! I should celebrate.

PS: I like to think that good old DNA is in Heaven too. I don't know what I'll do if he's not.

Hey, let's just put it this way, this'll make everyone happy...

God loves everyone. He's not really that bad a guy. Ghandi doesn't deserve to go to Hell, nah, I bet he's up there with Buddha too.

See, I'm not Catholic, but if they're right, then you would have to be pretty evil to get to Hell. The whole Purgatory thing, it was mentioned right? Well, you know, Ghandi goes to Purgatory for a few Centuries, then proceeds into Heaven.

I don't know about everyone else, but my view is basically somewhat like that. You know, just be a good person, truly a good person, and try your best to discover what the truth is, be it the Qu'ran, the Bible, the Torah, or whatever.

Though I think the Principia Discordia is stretching it a bit.

Even modern Theologians are beginning to accept new things. Like it's always been believed that suicide is a mortal sin, but some now think it would be all right in certain situations. Which is good news for me.

See, Justifidians won't accept this view, because it's not enough for him to be happy when he dies: EVERYONE ELSE must be miserable too, for him to be pleased.

ok well im done with this discussion with you two, because your argument against me is that im 'an idiot.' if you want to debate beyond insults, let me know.

You think GHANDI belongs in HELL. We don't NEED to call you an idiot, it's pretty much OBVIOUS. We do it for the fun of it though.

he created a perfect world, we screwed it up. its our fault, not gods.
If the world was perfect, we would be unable to "Screw it up"

Even I kinda disagree with Justifidians, and I'm Christian. I guess I get it from my mom, who, although also Christian, raised me to believe that God is merciful enough that as she said, you should just "try your best."

And that includes accepting other peoples' views, I think. So, well if you're fine with leaving my beliefs alone, I'll not shove my Christianity down your throat. (A lot of people complain about that, and then Christians tell me I'm not doing a good enough job evangelizing.)

ok well im done with this discussion with you two, because your argument against me is that im 'an idiot.' if you want to debate beyond insults, let me know.
We already know your position. "You can't get to heaven through works." Meaning that nothing good you do matters, beyond believing in Jesus Christ. So the believing sadistic child molester goes to heaven and by your own words, Ghandi goes to hell. You will not move from this position, and we will never, EVER accept it, so the debate is over anyway.

Even I kinda disagree with Justifidians, and I'm Christian. I guess I get it from my mom, who, although also Christian, raised me to believe that God is merciful enough that as she said, you should just "try your best."

And that includes accepting other peoples' views, I think. So, well if you're fine with leaving my beliefs alone, I'll not shove my Christianity down your throat. (A lot of people complain about that, and then Christians tell me I'm not doing a good enough job evangelizing.)

See, the one belief I can't leave alone is the belief that "religion X shouldn't leave people alone, and ANYONE from other religions should go to Hell". This would be an evil, Hitlerian God, not the true christian one.

We already know your position. "You can't get to heaven through works." Meaning that nothing good you do matters, beyond believing in Jesus Christ. So the believing sadistic child molester goes to heaven and by your own words, Ghandi goes to hell. You will not move from this position, and we will never, EVER accept it, so the debate is over anyway.

Come on now, Cyrian, you can't tell me you didn't have fun in calling him an idiot and winning debates against his idiocy. ;)

Fun has nothing to do with it!

;)
it's been a long time since I was able to tear someone's argument apart like that.
FIRING SQUAD!!!
:sniper:
:sniper:
:cool: :sniper:
:sniper:
:sniper:

God's love is unconditional. Jesus died for all. All that is conditional is humans reaction towards it.

So there is a condition. You can't have unconditional love and forgiveness with a condition.

What is fair? Is there a standard?

You keep saying God is not fair. Well first off you dont beleive in him really do you? Now you can choose to beleive in anything you want. That does not make it true. When people say i do or dont beleive in hell, does not make hell any more or less real. Either it is or it isnt.

Antoher interesting thing is that Dante should not be our basis for theological discusssion since what he wrote is admittiadly fictional. It is not the bible so we cannot judge God by something that is not His word.

Also, if one reads the bible they will see why all will go to hell if they do not have jesus.

Leviticus 24:22
You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.' "

Numbers 15:29
One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien.

1 Samuel 6:6
Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did? When he [ That is, God ] treated them harshly, did they not send the Israelites out so they could go on their way? ( we choose to leave God, not the other way around. It may seem like he just doesnt want to tell them the truth but many refuse to listen to it.)

1 Samuel 7:3
And Samuel said to the whole house of Israel, "If you are returning to the LORD with all your hearts, then rid yourselves of the foreign gods and the Ashtoreths and commit yourselves to the LORD and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines." (like wise we can turn back to the Lord)

1 Chronicles 16:10
Glory in his holy name; let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice.

Psalm 62:4
They fully intend to topple him from his lofty place; they take delight in lies. With their mouths they bless, but in their hearts they curse. Selah


Im sorry i just get crazy when i quote the Bible. But this is kind of about what i was goingfor. Its our choice to believe nto God's job to force us. If it was like that you would be made because it wasnt a free choice. Many have fallen away since the flood. While God laments that he cannot force them to beleive. Its us that needs to come back. God never turned back


That's a lot of pre-Jesus quotes to convince me that believing in Jesus is paramount. . .

So there is a condition. You can't have unconditional love and forgiveness with a condition.

Hahaha! Nice one, nice one! :)

See, the one belief I can't leave alone is the belief that "religion X shouldn't leave people alone, and ANYONE from other religions should go to Hell". This would be an evil, Hitlerian God, not the true christian one.

Yeah, there are a few religions that believe everyone else goes to hell.

I'm considering founding one that believes pretty much everyone goes to hell, even though I don't believe it.

Ah, whatever, just love man, just love, that's all we need.

Though I wouldn't say "boo" to a few billion dollars.

One must consider the idea that God may be revealed in many different ways, or that we may perceive God in many different ways. A Buddhist contemplating enlightenment may be perceiving God, although he may not see it that way. While we as Christians believe we have found a route to a personal relationship with God, we cannot say with absolute certainty that there are not other paths.

But an atheist complentating the nature of good and evil in this world, trying to do what is right for others, trying to be a good person (one might even say holy if s/he were religious) isn't perceiving god?

I think you are thinking about salvation slightly wrong. Getting salvation via faith is not so much doing something for a reward. It is more accepting the offer of a gift. God did not say "this is salvation, to get it you have to do this...", God says "I am giving you salvation, do you want it or not?".

But you continue to assert that you have to believe in God to get the salvation. That is not unconditional. A gift doesn't come witih strings. I don't say "Here, I give you this gift out of the good that is in me, but in turn you must worship me." Even if the person doesn't like me, if I truly love and care about them and give the gift unconditionally, I am goign to give it to them--regardless.



God's love is unconditional. Jesus died for all. All that is conditional is humans reaction towards it.

I think I quoted and said this before--but I'll repeat it. If God's love and salvation is tingent (is that a word?) upon people accepting it, then its not unconditional, because there is indeed a condition.

Why should someone who believes heaven does not exist be accepted into heaven?

Because God's love, if you believe as you claim, is unconditional? Why shouldn't they? If you love and give completely freely, then you don't make demands of any type.

He is all loving, he loves all. But not everyone choses to love him back. As I said, if you dont believe God exists, why should he save you. God does not take pleasure in not saving people, but due to the nature of sin and the nature of God, unless you are willing to deal with it you will not be saved. God is giving you the chance, he is giving you the oppotunity. It is your choice wheteher or not to accept. He is not forcing you, he wants to save you but he will give you a choice.


So again, you are putting a condition on God's love. That condition being "You must love Him as well."

Can you not see how this is a condition? You are putting human traits on a god. You are saying "Well, if someone didn't love me back then why should I help them?" because that is a human reaction. Isn't the point of an all loving, all caring God suppose to be that s/he loves without expecting anything in return? Isn't that the true nature of agape?

I think I quoted and said this before--but I'll repeat it. If God's love and salvation is tingent (is that a word?) upon people accepting it, then its not unconditional, because there is indeed a condition.
Contingent, I believe, is the word your looking for.

Forgiveness requires acceptence as you have to accept there is something to forgive. If X did Y bad thing to you, in order for you to forgive X, he/she first needs to admit they did Y and Y is wrong.

No, that's justice. That's not forgiveness. I have forgiven people who have never apologized to me, never admitted they did wrong, and enver made any type of restitution to me. Forgiveness can be given unconditionally. It's not easy, and its certainly not the base state for humans, but again I think you are trapping your own humanity into your image of god.

I have given this example several times before regarding salavation but I will give it to you as well to think it over. Let's say your phone company sends you a letter saying that they have a way of reducing your phone costs for the next 10 years by over 50%. You send a letter back saying "I do not believe you exist despite having recieved your letter and so no I am not intersted in the offer" you should hardly be supprised that you are not included in the offer program. Thats how salvation is, offerd to all you have to choose if you want it or not.

Yes, because God is a phone company trying to get you to switch service to him. . .great metaphor there.

wow... are you going to reply to every post in the last five pages of this thread by Neo cannon?

1) How exactly are you going to go about changing your life in such a way that anything you have done wrong in the past has no bearing on your current existance at all. Because that is what God does with your sin when he removes it. He removes it compeletley when you accept salvation

2) What logical/theological evidence have you got that heaven and hell are just metaphors (since we are discussing them as real here, I suggest you do the same or else your points will make little sense in the general theme of things)

I think the sticking point is that we don't see deeds we've done as this mystic black cloud that hangs over us for all eternity. We see right in wrong in actions because they are just that--right or wrong. You make ammends if you do wrong and you go on with your life. You strive to do right and hope to do the best you can as often as you can.

god isnt the thug, you are. god didnt put yourself in this situation, you did. god does not send you to hell, you send yourself there.

I've set it up so that you get to choose Door A or Door B. One door has a horrific fate while behind the other one is pure joy. You get to choose which door you go behind. I'm not choosing for you--you are sending yourself to a gruesome death or to pure bliss. Its all your responsibility. Granted, I'm the one who set it all up, including bringing you into this situation and requiring you to choose a door, but its still your choice.

gods love and anger (http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=7&itemid=2242)

what makes god angry?

denominations vary on interpretaion. they argue over miniscule aspects. i consider myself a christian, a follower of christ, not subject to a denomination.

the books not added to the bible are apocryphal, most NT apocrypha were written centuries after the events, and therefore are not taken seriously. The OT apocrypha were written in greek. the OT conon was written in hebrew. do a search on google and you will find out why the "other" books were not added.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but weren't most of the NT gospels written years after Jesus death and not by the actual disciples as their names imply?

And isn't the story of Hannukah in the books that are not in the Christian Bible? Macabees I believe? Kinda hard to believe they aren't important when they form the basis of one of the major Jewish holidays.

I've set it up so that you get to choose Door A or Door B. One door has a horrific fate while behind the other one is pure joy. You get to choose which door you go behind. I'm not choosing for you--you are sending yourself to a gruesome death or to pure bliss. Its all your responsibility. Granted, I'm the one who set it all up, including bringing you into this, but its still your choice.
Also, the doors are unmarked.

Also, the doors are unmarked.
Well, not so. One door has "Love me" on it. The other has "I love you."

Contingent, I believe, is the word your looking for.

DUH to me! Thank you!

wow... are you going to reply to every post in the last five pages of this thread by Neo cannon?

When its been a while, I like to catch up :) I am now though.

Can we agree that anyone saying that Ghandi is justly in hell is an idiot?

I've set it up so that you get to choose Door A or Door B. One door has a horrific fate while behind the other one is pure joy. You get to choose which door you go behind. I'm not choosing for you--you are sending yourself to a gruesome death or to pure bliss. Its all your responsibility. Granted, I'm the one who set it all up, including bringing you into this situation and requiring you to choose a door, but its still your choice. Also, the doors are unmarked.

I like this metaphor. But let's refine it further. There aren't two doors, there are hundreds. Only a few lead to anything pleasant. Or maybe only one does. However, they all have signs on them, mostly declaring that they are the door that you, yes you, should choose for your eternal happiness.

It's possible that the one I'm choosing says something like "Bugger this for a game of soldiers" on it (or possibly something far less polite). If the game's rigged, don't play it, says I.

I'm not eliminating the chance that the pseudo-Christians are correct, mind you, I'm deliberately choosing not to believe in a cruel, vain, capricious God. If it turns out I'm wrong, well, the company will be better in Hell anyhow.

And yes, people who believe that virtuous non-Christians are justly being tortured for all eternity are idiots. Not sure how productive it is to tell them this repeatedly (lessens the chance that they might actually listen to sense), but that's a different discussion ^_^

I'm not eliminating the chance that the pseudo-Christians are correct, mind you, I'm deliberately choosing not to believe in a cruel, vain, capricious God. If it turns out I'm wrong, well, the company will be better in Hell anyhow.

And yes, people who believe that virtuous non-Christians are justly being tortured for all eternity are idiots.

And again my point is stolen... ;)

And again my point is stolen... ;)

Shouldn't have given me that spare key ^_^

A couple of Bob the Angry Flower cartoons that I thought were strangely appropriate to this discussion. Oddly, "Bought" is the cartoon that's generated the most controversy for Stephen Notley, pretty much ever I think.

"Bought", examining a metaphor that's been tossed around a bit
http://www.angryflower.com/bought.gif

And "Bob Dies Again", for a bizarre but probably fair version of Heaven:
http://www.angryflower.com/bobdie.gif

(hopefully the linkage isn't a problem for the cartoonist. You should check the rest of the comics out and buy all his books, though.)

Can we agree that anyone saying that Ghandi is justly in hell is an idiot?

As I have said, and proven by Christian logic, salvation has nothing to do with works but to do with faith. Since I am fairly sure that Ghandi would have had a full understanding of the Christian faith but most likely chose to reject it and the salvation it offered, I am sorry to say that he may be in hell. Lets just get a misconception out of you peoples mind, you do not go to hell if you are "bad" and you do not go to heaven if you are "good". It is all based on faith. The only way to be "good" enough for heaven is to live the life of Christ to the letter and never once falter. Since God knows that only Jesus was capabile of that, he created anothe method of us being "good" enough for him. Salvation through faith (Which I have allready explained in my 5 point explination of salvation on post 306). I don't know for certain where Ghandi is (hell or heaven) but from what the Bible seems to say, it would seem to be the former is more likely. He knew about Jesus. He knew about salvation and he knew about what it meant. He chose to reject it. God can show you the door, your the one who has to walk through