NationStates Jolt Archive

By 'mans standards' i mean what NonChristians live by, ie current morality, law and self belief in right and wrong, not the Bibles rules of good and bad. Of course by Christian standards Ghandi deserves to burn in Hell, but by "man's" ie non-spiritual standards of right and wrong, he doesn't.
(i hope i succeded at being non-offensive)

Yeah, sure. Non-spiritual standards of right and wrong are silly, but that's for a later post.

So, in a kind of save point:

Everyone agrees that:
When compared to mans standards, God is, at least, unjust.
NonChristian - ghandi/hitler argument
Christian - faith not deed argument
(is there some agreement?)

Things also going are that
Christian -Jesus was born without sin due to God father
NonChristian - Jesus still had sin due to human mother
(although i think thats up to the church if he did or didnt)

Quote and fix if i have major understanding problems.

The major understanding problem that you (and indeed almost all non Christians) is that hell and heaven have absolutely NOTHING to do with works. Its not even comparable that works should come into the equation for hell and heaven. Somewhere down the line someone thought that being a Christian and just being good were the same thing. And so when told that Christians go to heaven and non Christians do not they thought "ah so all good people get to heaven". Heaven is not something to be ernt, it never was. So "man's standards" are a little squewed up. Its a little like saying "Should a man be charged with murder for passing his driving test?" the outcome and the event are completely dis-simmilar and irreletive to one another. What God judges us on is whether we ask for salvation (see post 306 for more info). Its just a question of how we react to sin and God. Nothing else. Lots of non christians say at this point "But that means you dont care about works at all! NASTY PEOPLE!". But if you look at faith you will see thats not what it means. Part of salvation is to accept you have sinned and done wrong. So if you accepted you have done wrong, logic demands that you begin to do something about it.

The major understanding problem that you (and indeed almost all non Christians) is that hell and heaven have absolutely NOTHING to do with works. Its not even comparable that works should come into the equation for hell and heaven.

so if works have nothing to do with it, i don't go to heaven for pulling the little kid out of the well?

and i don't go to hell for bombing my high school?



gee, that seems like a free ticket to do whatever i want.

if it has no bearing on where i go in the afterlife, it doesn't really matter if i do it or not, right?

so if works have nothing to do with it, i don't go to heaven for pulling the little kid out of the well?

and i don't go to hell for bombing my high school?



gee, that seems like a free ticket to do whatever i want.

if it has no bearing on where i go in the afterlife, it doesn't really matter if i do it or not, right?

Read the rest of Neo's post. Christians don't do good deeds in order to reap rewards. Rather, they do them as a response to God's love. As Luther put it, "We are saved by faith alone, and saving faith is never alone." In other words, saving faith does produce righteous deeds, but we are not saved by them.

The major understanding problem that you (and indeed almost all non Christians) is that hell and heaven have absolutely NOTHING to do with works. Its not even comparable that works should come into the equation for hell and heaven.<snip>

I completely understand what you are saying, and that Heavens requirements have nothing to do with deeds. I was just showing that the NonChristian view of this, who live in a world built on what people do, view this as unjust. By Gods standards nothing counts but faith. By NonChristians', it is the other way around.

so if works have nothing to do with it, i don't go to heaven for pulling the little kid out of the well?

and i don't go to hell for bombing my high school?

gee, that seems like a free ticket to do whatever i want.

if it has no bearing on where i go in the afterlife, it doesn't really matter if i do it or not, right?

Lets not be too childish 8) . Read past posts (like the previous page) before posting anything that might bear a response, so that you're covered.

gee, that seems like a free ticket to do whatever i want.
It isn't; no more than atheists have a "free ticket".

See, I'm questioning the coherence of a good, fair god that acts in such an evil and unfair manner.

What exactly is it that you object to in God. Can you lay it down point by point as you seem to bring up diffrent aspects you are angry with all the time and I am trying to develop a coherant pictrue but its very hard.

Was Ghandi selfish? You can assume he overcame it. So he still went to Hell? Is THAT your god's fairness?

Again you keep relating being sentenced to hell on a judgement of works. Thats like being sentenced to community service by the police for handing homework in on late to your school. They are completely diffrent concepts! Please try and understand this. Better yet, think of a good valid reason why works should be considered of any relevence to salvation?

Thats like being sentenced to community service by the police for handing homework in on late to your school. They are completely diffrent concepts!

Please try and understand this. Better yet, think of a good valid reason why works should be considered of any relevence to salvation?

A strange analogy, the punishment you describe here is comparable too to the Hell that awaits non-believers, for a crime they see as being of little consequence. A large punishment for something people have trouble classing as a crime.

On your second point - good works shows the person has a kind soul and a good spirit, to use Christian terms. It would seem these could be made to fit Gods criteria in a round-about way.

(edit:misspelling)

Read the rest of Neo's post. Christians don't do good deeds in order to reap rewards. Rather, they do them as a response to God's love.

i don't do good deeds in response to "god's" love.

i do good deeds because of the little thing in my head that tells me what is right and what is wrong.

however, that is immaterial.

the topic of conversation is heaven and who is allowed into the clubhouse.

a god who rewards a bad man who acknowledges him over a good man who does not is not a god worth worshipping.



has it ever occoured to you that there is a different god out there, who acts in the very same way? you have never heard of this god, and therefore you will burn in the pits of hell for all eternity, but through no fault of your own.

after all, why should you be let into his heaven, when you have never known it to exist?

Yes but you would need a complex set up to somehow quantify/qualify the releive value of good deeds if a system of salvation by works was based on anything other than no sin

do you need to understand exactly what your "Good deed count" is to be a good person? no, you do not. A person does not need to know that this exact amount of good will cancel out this exact amount of bad, they just need to know that the more good things they do the better. Not "Saving a puppey is worth 20 good points, stealing money is minus 15." That would be stupidly complicated, but it's unnecessary.


And how would you quantify say two very good people but one was only a little under the mark. And what would be your qualification for various complicated value systems. The reletive quality/quantiy of good deeds is far to complicated for someone to make a workable judgement system on. You are generalising rediclously here when you are dealing with specific concepts. The problem with any kind of works based system of salvation is that you would have to have such an intricate system of judgements that no human would be able to understand it, or at least only a select few. Hence you would condem all those failing to understand it.

The one who was not good enough gets to live his life again, as I said. By removing the psychotically harsh punishment of hell, I don't have to worry too much about gray areas. Since he came close this time, he'll get it the next time around. And as I stated before, you do not need to understand EXACTLY how good or evil every single thing is to do more good than evil.


I dealt with that. I appologise if I was unclear but you are not sent to hell just because you do not believe. If you do not believe your sin is not removed. If your sin is not removed then you are going to hell. Not believing in itself is not a sin, but if you do not believe, your sin remains with you and you will be in hell.
Back to "all humans are inherently evil save jesus" or "god will never let anyone less than Jesus into heaven unless they worship him."




No, they are there because of their own sin and their refusal to do anything about it. Sin alone is not what sends you to hell. It is your reaction to sin. If you react in a postive way to sin (IE its ok to sin, its not rearly wrong etc) then your sin remains. If you react negatively to sin (Look what I have done, I need to get rid of this/stop) then you will be saved.
Doing this does not require belief in Jesus Christ. This is called "Trying to make yourself a better person."


God did not create hell for man to go to, but for the devil to go to. That is a common misconception that people have. It is also a common misconception that God "Sends" you to hell. He is trying to pull you out, your the one who chooses whether or not to go with him or not. And as to your second chance arguement, God has given you a lifetime of chances. Asking for another one now that you know is a little unfair.
Sending me to burn for eternity for one mistake is a little unfair. sending Ghandi to burn for eternity for not being inspired by the bible is a little unfair. Human beings would not go to hell unless God wished it. Hell is of his creation, not ours.

To everyone else:
It does not matter to me that the bible says good works won't get you into heaven, because even if such a thing were true, it would be wrong. God would be wrong.

Your position is that human beings are all evil. You say that there can be no good nonchristians because there can be no good people. This is to me a monstrous opinion which could be used to justify anything. Hell, you're already using it to justify burning nonbelievers in the pits of hell, they're evil like everyone and so obviously they deserve it.

God controls hell. HE IS NOT A VICTIM. He does not stand there, helpless, when things happen. He controls all, and thus all must be his will, because he could change anything he wanted.

To those who say god does not throw us into hell: Is it acceptable that all people who are not as perfect as Jesus go to hell? Do you really find this monstrous concept acceptable, and that the only way to get out of damnation is to run to God for forgiveness?

i don't do good deeds in response to "god's" love.

i do good deeds because of the little thing in my head that tells me what is right and what is wrong.It's good that you listen to your conscience. If you accept that you are doing good things for purely ethical motives, why would you then count those same things in favor of your own salvation through works?

however, that is immaterial.

the topic of conversation is heaven and who is allowed into the clubhouse.

a god who rewards a bad man who acknowledges him over a good man who does not is not a god worth worshipping.I agree. Good thing we don't worship this god! Again, as has been the topic for the last 15 pages, there has only been 1 good, perfect man in the history of the world.

You might say, "But Ghandi was a nice guy!" Sure he was. Nicer than I am, probably. But we're not dealing with reletivism. The standard is perfection. The standard is Christ.

Matthew 5:48
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. "

Psalm 14:2-3
"The LORD looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one. "

James 2:10
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

Romans 3:23-24
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."


has it ever occoured to you that there is a different god out there, who acts in the very same way? you have never heard of this god, and therefore you will burn in the pits of hell for all eternity, but through no fault of your own.

after all, why should you be let into his heaven, when you have never known it to exist?I have faith in God. While that means going out on a limb, I know full well what I'm doing.

Yes, but so does every other religion. There is nothing objective to recommend a brand of Christianity over any other faith, except for one's affinity for the messages being conveyed. Does God expect us to play some sort of cosmic guessing game, where we have a number of apparently equal choices, but only one is correct? Keep in mind that the penalty for guessing wrong is an eternity of suffering, something I, for one, would not wish on the worst human being who ever lived. Does this make me more compassionate than the God who punishes people in this way for having faith in something that is not objectively true (i.e. another religion in a universe where fundamentalist Christians are correct)?



But God is omnipotent. He can do anything, he has absolute control over absolutely everything. Free will in the face of omnipotence is meaningless. Saying "we caused this situation" is meaningless. Omnipotent God has the power to effortlessly fix or change anything and everything. Everything that exists, exists by his sufferance, and in a way that he finds acceptable, for he is all-knowing, all-powerful, and present everywhere at all times.

To say that any system is "not his doing" is ridiculous; he knew precisely what would happen when he created Adam and Eve; at that point he was aware of my choice, in 5th grade, to reject the hateful nonsense that was being spewed all around me. At that point he knew that Gandhi, an eminently compassionate individual, would examine the scriptures which you believe in and find them lacking. He may or may not be directly, personally responsible for any given event (he did not reach down and tweak my neurons into making me reject Christianity), but he is sure as hell knew the consequences of his actions when he made everything, down to the most minute detail. That's what you get in an all-powerful God: a being who is morally liable for everything that happens, ever.

Do I think that, this being the case, we should call God unjust for every little bad thing that happens? No; the illusion of free will exists completely, and to blame bad things on God is to reject one's personal responsibility. But it must be remembered that everything that happens was, if not pre-planned, at least predicted and known by God at the beginning of time. It certainly means that any systemics completely beyond our power (afterlife, possibly natural disasters) are completely in his hands and on his head. To say that it's not an omnipotent, omniscient God's fault that he presides over a system where minor personal failings lead to an infinity of torture is blind.
DAMNED good post. Hat's off to ye.

To be perfect is to be without sin. Therefore if you are not perfect you must have sinned. I can turn it the other way round eaily

To be without sin is to be perfect. Therefore if you have sinned you are not perfect. Cemantics of language rearly. My point is that anything short of Jesus's life is not justification for heaven on the grounds of works. The only way you can work your way to heaven is to be exactly like Jesus. Since no one can, God created an alternive route to heaven.
It's "semantics" ;)
M'kay, enough cross-bs. Your statements indicate that your understanding of the biblical situation is that everyone before Jesus had some other route to heaven, all the ones following Jewish law, perhaps? As well as the ones that god destroyed? Or maybe since Noah made it out from under the thumb and whip of the OT god maybe the way to salvation is through him, or Abram (changed to Abraham? WTF?), basically since there were many adherents to the will of god before Jesus, just how exactly do you explain the first purge of the planet that Noah and his family (apparently incestuous family) if Noah hadn't already found Jesus? I'm not asking for "cemantics", how bout specific quotes? And don't tell me scripture doesn't say in the current translations that the only way to the kingdom of heaven is THROUGH Jesus because that's already come up on this thread. And if it were the KJV then it would be "by means of me" which implies works, btw. So which one is it?
And maybe you should consider what truly quantifies a soul, since in post 423 there really is a discrepancy as to what it is, especially if it's gonna burn forever, as you seem to have the idea there really is a hell (although i'm unconvinced of its definition for you). Willamena said some astute things about it around 424 or 425 ....
....clarify? ....

Does Christianity exist in a vacuum? You're saying that God is just because he gave us an obvious way out of this mess, I'm saying that there is no obvious way, that in this world of God's creation we have more religions than I can count, almost without exception internally consistent and logical, and not a single one with a shred of evidence as to its veracity. Given a list of every active religion on Earth, there is nothing in Christianity that makes it jump out and proclaim that it is the correct path. If God provided it as the one way to overcome our horrible, sinful natures, he needs to hire someone to do his marketing for him. Regardless of what you believe, the world provides no easy answers in this matter, and to say otherwise is to be deliberately blind.



But when God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden with a big neon sign saying "Do not under any circumstances eat this tasty, tempting fruit", and then let a smooth-talking serpent into the garden to talk to Eve, he knew what would result. Can you honestly think otherwise?

And if he knows absolutely everything that will happen, and has infinite power to do absolutely anything at absolutely any time, then things happen because he allows them to. Free-will is all well and good, but any injustice in those matters he has sole jurisdiction over (i.e. things that mortal humanity cannot directly interfere with, where free will is not an issue: the afterlife) he is responsible for. It is certainly within his power to prevent good people from going to Hell, so we can only believe that he chooses not to.



I refuse to believe that failure to believe in God is anything but a minor failing. It hurts nobody, it causes no conceivable harm. Yet it is the one crime, according to you, that will guarantee an eternity of torment.

As for the comparisons to God, they're meaningless. If God is an impossible standard to meet, then it seems rather unfair for him to punish us for not living up to it (as he is doing when he demands that we go through his son to reach him, as penance for not being perfect). It is within his power to draw people up to Heaven despite their imperfections.

(I will take this opportunity to thank you for continuing to carry on this discussion in a mature and reasonable fashion, despite the abuse we are heaping on what you believe. I have no respect whatsoever for most of the ideals you are expressing, but a great deal for your conduct thus far ;))
I must agree with quite a bit of this individual's post. Kudos. Also, especially to the last part in regards to Neo Cannon's conduct. I should also add in Aiera (sp?).
As a note to an earlier reference, i understand that god did talk to the beings i mentioned (according to text) but that also begs that god got tired of humans and decided we weren't worth communicating with any more, according to text. Brings to mind the many-doors scenario mentioned earlier, post 490 on .... on that note, see "The 10th Kingdom" for a good take on this. Had me on the floor crying!

Let's try this another way. Let's talk benevolence. You say we don't live up to God's standards, let's try God against mine.

If every single person who didn't believe in him caused God pain akin to having a two-by-four wrapped in razor-wire shoved through his stomach and vigorously swiveled, and every sin made him feel like exacto-knives were scraping out the hollows of his ears, he should still prevent everyone from going to Hell for all eternity. He's the only one who can, and this gives him the moral obligation to do so. This is the selflessness and mercy I expect from perfect divinity, and this is how I hope I would act should I be elected God.

(now, I probably wouldn't, but that's why He's God and I'm not, right? He's better at turning the other cheek)
You ROCK!

So to you all of humanity is evil.
Worthless.
Sinful.
You believe that you cannot hold yourself above hitler, above pol pot. And more importantly, above me. You are no better than I am by your own admission, we are both equal in our worthlessness. The only difference, in your eyes, is that you've taken God's "Way out" by believing in him and accepting him. I have not admitted that I am evil, and so I will burn eternally.

Also, if we are all worthless and evil, what does it matter if we sin, if we steal, if we kill, if we rape and pillage and take what we want?

My only alternative is to believe that you are wrong. That we have worth without it being given to us, that we can create our own. You would see the Idea of human achievement as the greatest of heresies, for what is any achievement in the eyes of God?
Good post.

[QUOTE=Davistania]I found this. It's from a pastor from my synod.




There is a distinction that needs to be made here between motives for work. Christians work as a Response, others work as an action to get favor. Read those Bible verses again. Why was Babel destroyed- because it was tall? No, it was a monument to Man's pride. We achieve because we are to live godly, productive lives, not to fuel our egos or make up for things.

[QUOTE]
This makes me think there is a HUGE discrepancy due the population of the Amish to the rest of the "progressive" world. Someone who supposedly knows as much should elaborate the differences of worldly pursuits and equitable faith.

PostScript Yes, i'm catching up. This is an interesting and HUGE thread.

Ghandi did good deeds for MILLIONS of people. That's not enough. Jesus did more, plus he never did anything wrong.
Obviously in the view of the Jewish power at the time, he committed heresy QUITE A FEW times, which is wrong ... and he also cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit, which is cursing a creation of his god. So how much do you know about the book, anyway?

I would just like to point out that I never got a response on my previous series of posts about how God's supposed unconditional love and forgiveness and grace has a condition--at least to hear modern Christians tell it.

Granted, I haven't read every post since then as I've been busy. But I scanned the pages looking for a response (I'm histrionic and like to see my name) and didn't see one.

So I want an unswer:

How can something but unconditional when it has requirements?
Bumping your post.
It merits a coherent answer IMO.

was watching CSI, thought this quote would be relevant.
Q: What do you do when you see the Buddha walking down the road?
A: Shoot him, for Buddha is within all of us, and this man is clearly a False Buddha.
You ROCK!
:talking: :sniper:

This may upset you, but I have a different perspective to you on the nature of humanity. I believe that humans, being designed in God's image, had the potential to remain always good, but that since the Fall, we've been corrupted, and that we naturally tend towards selfishness. Good and evil are therefore struggling inside us, and good does come out naturally (parental love is one example that springs to mind), but I believe that people are generally selfish.
I didn't grow up with this belief, I didn't develop it by myself, I've learnt it from the Bible. I believe it is an entirely adequate explanation of the history of human behaviour
Has it occurred to you that everyone on this commerce ONLY EXISTS TO ARGUE BECAUSE OF THE FALL, assuming any such thing happened in the first place? Consider maybe the whole directive of the whole f*cking species is a giant apology? Refer to the other posts in here, especially Mockston, Cyrian Space and Pracus. Consider who's doing what to whom?

Has it occurred to you that everyone on this commerce ONLY EXISTS TO ARGUE BECAUSE OF THE FALL, assuming any such thing happened in the first place? Consider maybe the whole directive of the whole f*cking species is a giant apology? Refer to the other posts in here, especially Mockston, Cyrian Space and Pracus. Consider who's doing what to whom?

Straughn, I like you and all. But I don't follow the point you are trying to make.

And in response to the person you were responding too--the one who claimed that the base nature of humanity is selfishnes PBBBBBT!

You need to get out to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and free clinics more often. There is beauty and goodness in the world every day. Maybe the base level of many Christian groups is selfishness, but it certainly isn't the base for everyone. Some of us do good because it is good. some of us share with others because we have things to share. I'm not saying there aren't bad people in this world, because goodness knows I've met a lot of them--but there are a lot of good people too. They just get skipped over most of the time. It's only occasionally that people like MLK, Mother Teresa, and Gandhi get the attention that they so richly deserve. Of course, that would be because they don't try for attention--they just do good.

So I say stop trying to make all humans out to be evil and start trying to be a good human. It's amazing the things that will happen when you do.

[QUOTE=Davistania]There is a distinction that needs to be made here between motives for work. Christians work as a Response, others work as an action to get favor. Read those Bible verses again. Why was Babel destroyed- because it was tall? No, it was a monument to Man's pride. We achieve because we are to live godly, productive lives, not to fuel our egos or make up for things.

Certainly some Christians work as a Response while others work to get favor. But not all. I've known many many Christians who work just to get in good with their local congregation, to get attention, to get awards. And I don't take with that.

And guess what. I'm anti-theistic and I work not because I want attention, but because it needs to be done. You don't have to be a Christian to do good with pure motives.

Originally Posted by Pracus
I would just like to point out that I never got a response on my previous series of posts about how God's supposed unconditional love and forgiveness and grace has a condition--at least to hear modern Christians tell it.

Granted, I haven't read every post since then as I've been busy. But I scanned the pages looking for a response (I'm histrionic and like to see my name) and didn't see one.

So I want an unswer:

How can something but unconditional when it has requirements?

Gods love is "unfailing", it isnt "unconditional". Gods love is there, but we have to accept it. It is responsive to our asking, seeking, and knocking. "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."

Straughn, I like you and all. But I don't follow the point you are trying to make.

And in response to the person you were responding too--the one who claimed that the base nature of humanity is selfishnes PBBBBBT!

You need to get out to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and free clinics more often. There is beauty and goodness in the world every day. Maybe the base level of many Christian groups is selfishness, but it certainly isn't the base for everyone. Some of us do good because it is good. some of us share with others because we have things to share. I'm not saying there aren't bad people in this world, because goodness knows I've met a lot of them--but there are a lot of good people too. They just get skipped over most of the time. It's only occasionally that people like MLK, Mother Teresa, and Gandhi get the attention that they so richly deserve. Of course, that would be because they don't try for attention--they just do good.

So I say stop trying to make all humans out to be evil and start trying to be a good human. It's amazing the things that will happen when you do.
Actually, I was the one who claimed that the base nature of humanity is selfishness. And to deny it is to be extremely, entirely, blind to that which is blatently obvious. Mother Teresa, in fact, had already given her life to God. That would explain her actions. Similarly, Ghandi had the exact same motivations. He was extremely spiritual, and most religions teach the same peaceful, altruistic values. MLK, by the way, was also a christian. He, of course was not perfect either. In case you forgot, it has been documented that he was very abusive of women, and that he was having an affair. I don't condemn hem because of this, and the CIA had no business prying into his affairs, but the fact remains. Mother Teresa, I can gurantee you, probably had many days when she truly wished she hadn't chosen the life she did.

In no case is it easy to simply give up looking out for yourself. It goes against human nature. It does not come naturally. Do not be blind to this undeniable truth. If you do not believe in God, then there is no reason for a moral code to exist. Animals do not have a moral code. If we are animals, then a moral code is inherently unnatural for us.

You can point to all those soup kitchens, etc. I can also point to the fact that churches are almost entirely responsible for charity work. I have worked in many soup kitchens, Outreach programs, etc., and in every case the people I worked with were Christians they had chosen to give up their own time and money to help others because they believed that, according to whatever religion they proscribed to, it was God's (or god's) will.

Once again, the acts of selfishness, hatred, and violence are far, far more common than those of selflessness. A test was done on all paper money in L.A. Over 75% contained Cocaine in them from people rolling them and using them to sniff.

Plain and simple common sense will tell you that if a man is holding a gun against another person's head, your first instinct is to (maybe) call the cops, and get the hell out of Dodge. Like in the case in New York City where the woman was attacked, and her screams alerted over 30 people in the vicinity. They were sitting in their homes, looking out the window, watching her being murdered. The killer, noticing all the attention, ran off. No one called the cops. The killer then, realizing this, returned to the scene and finished the woman off. Or when the woman was gang-raped in Central Park, and passers-by actually joined in, rather than helping. Common sense makes all things clear.

[QUOTE=Straughn] You don't have to be a Christian to do good with pure motives.
No shit. I don't think anyone has argued that. But, it doesn't come naturally. And you know quite well you haven't devoted your whole life to helping everyone else but yourself. Do not refuse to see your own faults just because you wish to win an argument.

Actually, I was the one who claimed that the base nature of humanity is selfishness. And to deny it is to be extremely, entirely, blind to that which is blatently obvious. Mother Teresa, in fact, had already given her life to God. That would explain her actions. Similarly, Ghandi had the exact same motivations. He was extremely spiritual, and most religions teach the same peaceful, altruistic values. MLK, by the way, was also a christian. He, of course was not perfect either. In case you forgot, it has been documented that he was very abusive of women, and that he was having an affair. I don't condemn hem because of this, and the CIA had no business prying into his affairs, but the fact remains. Mother Teresa, I can gurantee you, probably had many days when she truly wished she hadn't chosen the life she did.

You are right. The people are cited were religious. But then I wasn't using them as part of an arguement that Christians/religious people were the only ones who coudln't be evil. Rather, I was using them to show people who have led exemplary lives of good. You don't have to be perfect to be unselfish. You don't have to give up looking out for yourself to be good. You just have to care about others and do your best to help them.


In no case is it easy to simply give up looking out for yourself. It goes against human nature. It does not come naturally. Do not be blind to this undeniable truth. If you do not believe in God, then there is no reason for a moral code to exist. Animals do not have a moral code. If we are animals, then a moral code is inherently unnatural for us.

I don't think so. I thik altruism exists just like selfishness exists in the basic fabric of mankind. If it didn't, they we'd all still be killing one another. I believe it can and does come naturally. And I don't believe in a theistic god, there is no Father in the sky waving his finger telling us to behave. Yet, I'm a decent and moral person. I don't rob, I've never killed, I don't cheat, I don't tell anything but white lies. I pay my taxes. I don't harm my fellow man and do my best to help them. I try to love others as I love myself. Sure I fail sometimes, but that doesn't make me an evil person or my base nature selfish.

As far as animals go, you see altruism in other animals--such as when a mother cat dies sheltering her kittens to keep them from starving.


You can point to all those soup kitchens, etc. I can also point to the fact that churches are almost entirely responsible for charity work.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong. There are many, many, many secular community programs out there. The United Way Ring a Bell? I'm not saying Christians and other religious people aren't involved--certainly there are. But there are many non-religious folks as well. Don't be prideful in assuming that you have a monopoly on charity. You don't.


I have worked in many soup kitchens, Outreach programs, etc., and in every case the people I worked with were Christians they had chosen to give up their own time and money to help others because they believed that, according to whatever religion they proscribed to, it was God's (or god's) will.

Gee, could it be that you worked primarily with Christians because you volunteered through your church? Or because you chose Christian baed programs to give your time through?


Once again, the acts of selfishness, hatred, and violence are far, far more common than those of selflessness. A test was done on all paper money in L.A. Over 75% contained Cocaine in them from people rolling them and using them to sniff.

What does cocaine have to do with violene, selfishness or hatred? And I don't think you are right about violence outweighing kindness. Just go stand in an airport terminal some day and watch people getting off of planes and greeting their loved ones after an absence (thank you Love Actually). Love is alive and well my friend. I'm not saying evil isn't, but the war is far from over.


Plain and simple common sense will tell you that if a man is holding a gun against another person's head, your first instinct is to (maybe) call the cops, and get the hell out of Dodge. Like in the case in New York City where the woman was attacked, and her screams alerted over 30 people in the vicinity. They were sitting in their homes, looking out the window, watching her being murdered. The killer, noticing all the attention, ran off. No one called the cops. The killer then, realizing this, returned to the scene and finished the woman off. Or when the woman was gang-raped in Central Park, and passers-by actually joined in, rather than helping. Common sense makes all things clear.

The examples you give are not the most common occurences. Rather, they are the exceptions--we just hear about them because they are more shocking. You don't hear about the woman being attacked and the people who call the cops or start making noise to scare the attacker away.

It's like with pedophilia. Everyone thinks homosexuals are more likely to molest kids--stastically heterosexual men are FAR more likely to molest boys or girls. But which do you hear reported on the news? You hear about the gay man.

Not because its more common, but because its less. Do not let media and an infatuation with the macabre that many people have confuse you into thinking that everyone--or even the majority of people--are selfish, evil, or bad. They may not be the epitomes of light and virtue, but they are still basically good people.

If that weren't true, then society would've fallen into complete anarchy right now and we'd all have to have guns to protect ourselves. Heck, if what you claim is true, then the modern world wouldn't exist at all and we would still be savages. But we aren't.

And I'm not saying that Christians, and Jews, and Buddhists, and Muslims cannot and do not do good.

What I am saying is that you don't need a God to go out and do good. Atheists, anti-theists, agnostics--we don't need a God to give us the knowledge and the will to help others. Neither do Christians for that matter--though I think that's great if there's that much more encouragement for people to do that. I just don't think its necessary. And I refuse to sit back and be told that because I do not believe in a father figure in the sky, I must be a bad person who cannot have morals and cannot help others.

[QUOTE=Pracus]
No shit. I don't think anyone has argued that. But, it doesn't come naturally. And you know quite well you haven't devoted your whole life to helping everyone else but yourself. Do not refuse to see your own faults just because you wish to win an argument.

When did I say I was perfect? When did I say I've devoted my whole life to helping everyone else? I just said that:

A. The base state of humanity is not evil (in everyone at least).

and

B. You can do good without having a god in your life encouraging you to do so. You can do good because it is good.

And I just read over my little post--my apologies if it came across as villifying Christians in any way. There are good Christians just like there are bad Christians just like there are good Atheists and bad Atheists.

Again, my point is that you don't have to be Christian to do good. And you don't have to be perfect to be a basically good person.

[QUOTE=HadesRulesMuch]

When did I say I was perfect? When did I say I've devoted my whole life to helping everyone else? I just said that:

A. The base state of humanity is not evil (in everyone at least).

and

B. You can do good without having a god in your life encouraging you to do so. You can do good because it is good.
And I stated that, in answer to

A. It is, actually, as you can see by simply turning on the TV and watching "Cops," or "Nip-Tuck."

B. I never said that it was impossible. However, the amount of willpower required to maintain that style of living on a long-term basis is so great that it becomes impossible to supply, without an outside source. Anyone can do a few good deeds. You get a great, warm, fuzzy feeling. And then you go out the next day, drive your brand new car, watch your nice TV on your warm couch, and think about what a great life you have. Meanwhile, someone is starving to death every three seconds. You go out drinking with the buddies, maybe get drunk, and drive home. Or take a cab. or walk. You get pissed off at the idiot who works with you and talk about him with some co-workers. Or maybe you blow your top at him. You steal a pack of gum or a shirt from a store. You drive off without paying for your gas. And it doesn't even have to be as obvious as that. We spend most of our lives looking out for ourselves. That is an unalterable truth.

And I just read over my little post--my apologies if it came across as villifying Christians in any way. There are good Christians just like there are bad Christians just like there are good Atheists and bad Atheists.

Again, my point is that you don't have to be Christian to do good. And you don't have to be perfect to be a basically good person.
I can agree to that.
It is the lack of perfection that concerns Christians however, because we all do screw up. It takes hard work to be a good person every day. Thats why we have bad says.

By the way, I didn't take any of your comments as being offensive toward Christians in general. I personally despise the type of Christians you are speaking of. They understand less of the Bible than most non-Christians, in my opinion at least.

And I just read over my little post--my apologies if it came across as villifying Christians in any way. There are good Christians just like there are bad Christians just like there are good Atheists and bad Atheists.

Again, my point is that you don't have to be Christian to do good. And you don't have to be perfect to be a basically good person.
I can agree to that.
It is the lack of perfection that concerns Christians however, because we all do screw up. It takes hard work to be a good person every day. Thats why we have bad days.

By the way, I didn't take any of your comments as being offensive toward Christians in general. I personally despise the type of Christians you are speaking of. They understand less of the Bible than most non-Christians, in my opinion at least.

Obviously in the view of the Jewish power at the time, he committed heresy QUITE A FEW times, which is wrong ... and he also cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit, which is cursing a creation of his god. So how much do you know about the book, anyway?
He cursed an unproductive tree. And since Jesus, in very nature, IS God, he can curse anything he damn well pleases. It's HIS creation. F for your reading comprehension skills.

And actually, the heresy part was for claiming to be God. Since he was, or at least we Christians BELIEVE he was, it would not have been wrong. Man's laws do not confine God.

[QUOTE=Pracus]
And I stated that, in answer to

A. It is, actually, as you can see by simply turning on the TV and watching "Cops," or "Nip-Tuck."


So the state of two TV shows that not everyone watches makes us all evil. You are again drawing conclusions based on the media. I ask that you go study the real world.


B. I never said that it was impossible. However, the amount of willpower required to maintain that style of living on a long-term basis is so great that it becomes impossible to supply, without an outside source. Anyone can do a few good deeds. You get a great, warm, fuzzy feeling.

I think our difference here is that you assume that for someone to not be selfish, they have to spend every minute of every day doing nothing but giving their lives to others. I assume that to not be selfish, you give as much as you can, but you take care of yourself so that you will be able to continue giving. I don't go out and work at the local free clinic because of the warm fuzzy feeling (because some days I don't get it--the people there can be very rude) but because it needs to be done. There are people out there that need help.


And then you go out the next day, drive your brand new car,


Uh no, my car is used. I bought it that way. It's a 2000, but I bought it in 2004. Prior to that, I drove a 94 that was two years old when I got it. What world do you live in that everyone has a new car?


watch your nice TV on your warm couch, and think about what a great life you have.

Actually, I go home and study for my classes the next week. I do have a guilty indulgence in Charmed and The Nanny. But as I said, you don't have to give up ALL personal pleasures to still be a good person.


Meanwhile, someone is starving to death every three seconds. You go out drinking with the buddies, maybe get drunk, and drive home.

Don't drink, rarely party, gave up getting drunk a LONG time ago--not a good place for me. I do go out with my friends for dinner on occasion or to a movie--but far more frequently finds me and them working on something for the clinic.


Or take a cab. or walk. You get pissed off at the idiot who works with you and talk about him with some co-workers. Or maybe you blow your top at him.

Won't argue that I don't get mad at people and do things that are less than perfect--that doesn't make someone a bad person or inherently evil. If they were inherently evil they could never do any good.


You steal a pack of gum or a shirt from a store.


Yeah, never did that. My parents taught me it was wrong. Further, I don't think most people actually shoplift--though I could be wrong. I don't know of anyone who does, and my friends and I do talk about things like that.


You drive off without paying for your gas.


Nope, never did that either. Let's see, that's pretty much none of none.


And it doesn't even have to be as obvious as that. We spend most of our lives looking out for ourselves. That is an unalterable truth.

I think you and I just have irreconciliable differences on what we believe makes someone good and kind and charitable. You seem to think that they have to be Jesus and perfect and that's the only good. I think that they have to try their best and sincerest to help others. Sure we're gonna flub up, but that doesn't mean we quit trying or that we have someone become bad and selfish people.

I can agree to that.
It is the lack of perfection that concerns Christians however, because we all do screw up. It takes hard work to be a good person every day. Thats why we have bad days.

By the way, I didn't take any of your comments as being offensive toward Christians in general. I personally despise the type of Christians you are speaking of. They understand less of the Bible than most non-Christians, in my opinion at least.


Well, then I think I'm happy that I'm not a Christian anymore. I don't have to concerned with being perfect or worrying that I'm not--just concerned about sincerely trying.

He cursed an unproductive tree. And since Jesus, in very nature, IS God, he can curse anything he damn well pleases. It's HIS creation. F for your reading comprehension skills.

Not to destroy our newfound common ground and all--but this response is hardly Christian.

[QUOTE=Pracus]
A. It is, actually, as you can see by simply turning on the TV and watching "Cops," or "Nip-Tuck."
Seeing staged fiction like "Cops" and "Nip-Tuck" is not viewing "humanity in its base state."

Seeing people on the street, opening doors for each other and thanking each other is.

I think it takes a heck of a lot more hard work to be a genuinely bad person than a good one.

I think it odd that so many people would seek to invalidate all good short of perfection. To say that you have to be as perfect as Jesus to get to heaven seems rediculous. And the heaven-hell duality is, in my opinion, a horrible concept.

Humanity admittedly has an ugly side, and I have seen plenty of it. But We also have a good side, and that's the side I try to focus on. What many of you are saying is that it doesn't matter what you do, it can never be good enough. You talk about getting into heaven and we talk about not being sent to hell.

He cursed an unproductive tree. And since Jesus, in very nature, IS God, he can curse anything he damn well pleases. It's HIS creation. F for your reading comprehension skills.

And actually, the heresy part was for claiming to be God. Since he was, or at least we Christians BELIEVE he was, it would not have been wrong. Man's laws do not confine God.
An F for MY reading comprehension skills? That's rich. Don't be so pompous. You obviously didn't even ingest my post. The first qualifier was THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST SENTENCE as for who saw it as wrong. And just what exactly was the outcome of that tree, praytell? You apparently lack the mental integrity to grasp the significance of that act for a so-called son of god (or in the more extremely dubious sense of being also god) to CURSE anything of the creation of "god", to say nothing of the fact that THE TREE HAD NO CONSCIOUS CHOICE IN THE MATTER. What kind of example is that supposed to set, to anyone reading the book OR ANYONE WITH JESUS AT THE TIME? Would you give the same argument if Jesus ran around kicking puppies and cursing them for wanting to f*ck their own sisters because GOD DESIGNED THEM AND WHAT KIND OF CHOICE IS THERE IN THE MATTER, YOU KNOW THE PLANT WAS GOING TO LEARN A LESSON THERE .... oh wait, you're fine with the incest and other cute stuff in the book apparently, and self-contradictions aren't too hard to live with for you. Jesus OF NAZARETH did NOT invent the fig tree. And what came of that curse, again, i ask you ... fig trees now produce fruit, so you're thinking maybe they didn't in his time? Is that why he cursed it for not producing? You make yourself to be a buffoon.
But hey, i'll save that for the last part of your post. To wit:
since at least Christians believe that he was also god (note, not all do nor are they specifically required to endorse the trinity concept), it was a recital of the prevalent law that was held by god's chosen people who supposedly had been endorsing the will of god itself that resulted in the conflict between Jesus and those people .... maybe you're not caught up, but the result was EXACTLY that man's laws confined "god" in that case. The very notion of what is right or wrong is ABOUT WHAT YOU BELIEVE AS CHRISTIANS. Admittedly, that was inevitable given the nature of this thread. Moreover, most of the effort put forth in a lot of the apologist posts (and their "opponents") are very specifically about confining "god" to meet the standards of an oft-misused, -misquoted, -misguided text rife with inconsistancies and near-blatant contradictions. God save me from your followers.

Straughn, I like you and all. But I don't follow the point you are trying to make.

And in response to the person you were responding too--the one who claimed that the base nature of humanity is selfishnes PBBBBBT!

You need to get out to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and free clinics more often. There is beauty and goodness in the world every day. Maybe the base level of many Christian groups is selfishness, but it certainly isn't the base for everyone. Some of us do good because it is good. some of us share with others because we have things to share. I'm not saying there aren't bad people in this world, because goodness knows I've met a lot of them--but there are a lot of good people too. They just get skipped over most of the time. It's only occasionally that people like MLK, Mother Teresa, and Gandhi get the attention that they so richly deserve. Of course, that would be because they don't try for attention--they just do good.

So I say stop trying to make all humans out to be evil and start trying to be a good human. It's amazing the things that will happen when you do.
Thank you. For note, i agree with you. Quite a bit. I had reservations to the post but did so anyway, since this seems an intelligent thread at times .... what i mean by my reference to the "fall" is that there is NO HUMAN ENDEAVOUR without the fall in the first place. Part of me knows the very existance of humans in the first place, in this argument, is only due the fact that we tend to learn and appreciate strangely, sometimes painfully, but not without merit, quite the opposite. It also means (in my mind somewhat) that the only way any one can really, consciously argue the significance of good and evil and right and wrong and all that other frilly stuff is to consider the base argument of how any of us are capable of knowing (ie discerning) the difference in the first place ... by consequence. It means in some way that this is a huge, drawn out test, that allots what my inner self recoils from as wicked injustice at times. I temper when i can that response, but when i see people using it as their justification for anything then i think it's important not to lose sight of how it starts, the source of the (mis)conception, the prejudice. Hope that helps a little. I'll elucidate if i can later.

You are right. The people are cited were religious. But then I wasn't using them as part of an arguement that Christians/religious people were the only ones who coudln't be evil. Rather, I was using them to show people who have led exemplary lives of good. You don't have to be perfect to be unselfish. You don't have to give up looking out for yourself to be good. You just have to care about others and do your best to help them.



I don't think so. I thik altruism exists just like selfishness exists in the basic fabric of mankind. If it didn't, they we'd all still be killing one another. I believe it can and does come naturally. And I don't believe in a theistic god, there is no Father in the sky waving his finger telling us to behave. Yet, I'm a decent and moral person. I don't rob, I've never killed, I don't cheat, I don't tell anything but white lies. I pay my taxes. I don't harm my fellow man and do my best to help them. I try to love others as I love myself. Sure I fail sometimes, but that doesn't make me an evil person or my base nature selfish.

As far as animals go, you see altruism in other animals--such as when a mother cat dies sheltering her kittens to keep them from starving.



Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong. There are many, many, many secular community programs out there. The United Way Ring a Bell? I'm not saying Christians and other religious people aren't involved--certainly there are. But there are many non-religious folks as well. Don't be prideful in assuming that you have a monopoly on charity. You don't.



Gee, could it be that you worked primarily with Christians because you volunteered through your church? Or because you chose Christian baed programs to give your time through?



What does cocaine have to do with violene, selfishness or hatred? And I don't think you are right about violence outweighing kindness. Just go stand in an airport terminal some day and watch people getting off of planes and greeting their loved ones after an absence (thank you Love Actually). Love is alive and well my friend. I'm not saying evil isn't, but the war is far from over.



The examples you give are not the most common occurences. Rather, they are the exceptions--we just hear about them because they are more shocking. You don't hear about the woman being attacked and the people who call the cops or start making noise to scare the attacker away.

It's like with pedophilia. Everyone thinks homosexuals are more likely to molest kids--stastically heterosexual men are FAR more likely to molest boys or girls. But which do you hear reported on the news? You hear about the gay man.

Not because its more common, but because its less. Do not let media and an infatuation with the macabre that many people have confuse you into thinking that everyone--or even the majority of people--are selfish, evil, or bad. They may not be the epitomes of light and virtue, but they are still basically good people.

If that weren't true, then society would've fallen into complete anarchy right now and we'd all have to have guns to protect ourselves. Heck, if what you claim is true, then the modern world wouldn't exist at all and we would still be savages. But we aren't.

And I'm not saying that Christians, and Jews, and Buddhists, and Muslims cannot and do not do good.

What I am saying is that you don't need a God to go out and do good. Atheists, anti-theists, agnostics--we don't need a God to give us the knowledge and the will to help others. Neither do Christians for that matter--though I think that's great if there's that much more encouragement for people to do that. I just don't think its necessary. And I refuse to sit back and be told that because I do not believe in a father figure in the sky, I must be a bad person who cannot have morals and cannot help others.
Good post.

Not to destroy our newfound common ground and all--but this response is hardly Christian.
Agreed. I think the individual here is hung up on grading the comments of others, specifically trying to make me feel bad about myself or my reading comprehension. *sob* Someone i don't know and never met cut me down!
Seriously, though, doesn't seem very Christian-like.

Flamebait! However, I would just like to add that, instead of doing this here, wouldn't it be really fun to do it in the middle of mass or something?
That's the real reason Church's have holy water, drowning occultist protestors.

That's the real reason Church's have holy water, drowning occultist protestors.

And here I always thought it was so the priest would have something to drink if he got thirsty while saying mass.

I was raised Methodist--still go the church when I'm home for my dear parents' sakes. Anyways, we don't use Holy Water persay but we do have a baptismal font. I once caught the minister filling up the water glass he drank out of when he got parched from the font.

I was thankful then that I'd already been Baptized.

Thank you. For note, i agree with you. Quite a bit. I had reservations to the post but did so anyway, since this seems an intelligent thread at times .... what i mean by my reference to the "fall" is that there is NO HUMAN ENDEAVOUR without the fall in the first place. Part of me knows the very existance of humans in the first place, in this argument, is only due the fact that we tend to learn and appreciate strangely, sometimes painfully, but not without merit, quite the opposite. It also means (in my mind somewhat) that the only way any one can really, consciously argue the significance of good and evil and right and wrong and all that other frilly stuff is to consider the base argument of how any of us are capable of knowing (ie discerning) the difference in the first place ... by consequence. It means in some way that this is a huge, drawn out test, that allots what my inner self recoils from as wicked injustice at times. I temper when i can that response, but when i see people using it as their justification for anything then i think it's important not to lose sight of how it starts, the source of the (mis)conception, the prejudice. Hope that helps a little. I'll elucidate if i can later.


Mi amigo, maybe its me. Or maybe its the fact that its 1AM. Or maybe I have too many breast, prostate, kidney, ovarian, cervical, and uterine disorders and neoplasias running through my head in preparation from the most awful test of a very hellish week (you guess it, pathology in eight hours!), but I can't understand waht you are saying.

Maybe its your form, maybe its my mind. However, I would appreciate it if you tried to restate it--because I have a feeling that what you are saying is something I would find very interesting.

And here I always thought it was so the priest would have something to drink if he got thirsty while saying mass.

I was raised Methodist--still go the church when I'm home for my dear parents' sakes. Anyways, we don't use Holy Water persay but we do have a baptismal font. I once caught the minister filling up the water glass he drank out of when he got parched from the font.

I was thankful then that I'd already been Baptized.
I'm Catholic, my mother is Penticostal, her church once made a video of it's day-to-day workings that accidently included a section of the janitor swimming in the baptismal font and drinking champegne.

Yep. You have to be as perfect as Jesus was if you want to work your way into Heaven.

This still makes no sense to me. Why would God set impossible standards to get into Heaven, knowing full well that there would be substantial parts of humanity who would never have the chance to hear about his son? I mean, I s'pose I can handle the damnation of those, like me, who conciously reject his message, but the eternal suffering being inflicted on people who never had any idea one way or another seems pretty indefensible.

Anyone care to take a stab at defending it?

(On a side note, I did have a conversation with a Christian friend, a good conservative Anglican, earlier today: his response to the whole subject was that he believed non-Christians can get into Heaven. Says he finds it easier to believe that the passages declaring Jesus to be the only path to God were being misinterpreted than to believe that passages declaring God to be merciful and good are incorrect. Doesn't believe in anything specific like Purgatory, no evidence in scripture, but has faith that God sorts it all out in an acceptable fashion anyhow.)

Again, my point is that you don't have to be Christian to do good. And you don't have to be perfect to be a basically good person.

Word.

Yeah, sure. Non-spiritual standards of right and wrong are silly, but that's for a later post.

You do realize that this is paramount to saying that atheists are silly for trying to be good people, yes? Care to rephrase or elaborate?

What exactly is it that you object to in God. Can you lay it down point by point as you seem to bring up diffrent aspects you are angry with all the time and I am trying to develop a coherant pictrue but its very hard.

The objections (from me: can't speak for Heikoku) to this version of God are as follows:

Hell: Hell is suffering for all eternity. Think of the worst thing that could possibly happen to someone, and do it to them a million times. Hell is worse. And not a little bit worse, infinitely worse. Eternity is a very long time. It seems unjust to condemn someone to Hell for personally raping Nanking and then covering it up so that it looked like the Japanese did it, while in reality the entire army was behind a hill having a quiet smoke when it happened. It seems unjust to condemn someone to Hell for clubbing baby seals to death with the frozen corpse of their mother. It seems unjust to condemn someone to Hell for simply, you know, killing somebody. It seems unjust to condemn someone to something infinitely worse than a million, billion, squillon lifetimes of wall-to-wall suffering, simply for not believing in a God who should be mature enough not to care either way.

Which leads us to, The Belief Thing: It is bizarre to state that God, allegedly a transcendant, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, supremely benevolent being, gives a damn whether or not any of us monkeys believes in him or not. Let alone care enough to not prevent Hell from happening to them. And it is even more baffling if you shift the blame from him onto us; by saying that it's not God's fault that people go to Hell, that they turn away from him, you're saying that God is petty enough to choose not to save someone from the worst thing that could conceivably happen to them (see Hell, above), because said person was either born in the wrong time or place, or for some mysterious reason (like, say, being raised that way) chose to believe in something else, or not to believe in anything at all. Whether or not we make the choice to believe or not (those of us who have the chance to make an educated choice, anyhow), God always has the ability to save us from Hell. Heikoku has said many times what it implies about him if he chooses not to exercise this ability.

God loves us, yes? Is it acceptable to stand idly by while people one loves are suffering horribly?

Ghandi Versus Hitler, or, Doing Stuff: Ghandi in this discussion symbolizes a really really good person who knew about Christ but didn't adhere to the whole Christianity deal. It doesn't matter if Ghandi actually fits this description; it's how he's being thought of, and he'll just have to deal with that. Hitler (or Stalin, or whoever you really don't like today. Papa Smurf, in my case) represents a really really bad person, of no particular religious affiliation (most of us agree the he's slated for the worst possible punishment anyways).

Now, assuming for a second that Hell isn't so outrageously awful a punishment that even Papa Smurf doesn't deserve to be left there (i.e. assuming that there are situations where it is just to damn people to Hell), we still have a bit of a problem. In this system entirely faith based system, there is no way, after the candlelight flicker of their respective lives, to differentiate between these two. Both are going to Hell, forever. God loves both of them equally, although he isn't to keen on some of the shit that Papa Smurf got up to while he was alive. None of this matters, in the long run, since both of them are roasting over an open fire while maggots made out of liquid iron burrow through their eyes and noses and have incestuous orgies in their brain cavities. The confusing middle-ground that most of us occupy aside, an extremely good person (not perfect, but pretty bloody good for human scum) and an absolutely awful person (Papa Smurf, who, while only nominally human, represents us at our most unpleasant) are being treated in exactly the same way. This does not seem right, and this is being objected to.

It's all very well to say that deeds don't grant entrance to Heaven, but how the fuck can you possibly believe that this in any conceivable way leads to a system that you, who would believe yourself a good Christian attempting to follow the ideals of compassion and tolerance, can in good conscience endorse?

do you need to understand exactly what your "Good deed count" is to be a good person? no, you do not. A person does not need to know that this exact amount of good will cancel out this exact amount of bad, they just need to know that the more good things they do the better. Not "Saving a puppey is worth 20 good points, stealing money is minus 15." That would be stupidly complicated, but it's unnecessary.


I did not say you needed to understand it to be a good person, I said someone would need to understand it if they were going to base salvation on it. If you are basicly saying you are saved by the quality/quanitity of good deeds then you logically must have a way of quantifying/qualifying them


The one who was not good enough gets to live his life again, as I said. By removing the psychotically harsh punishment of hell, I don't have to worry too much about gray areas. Since he came close this time, he'll get it the next time around. And as I stated before, you do not need to understand EXACTLY how good or evil every single thing is to do more good than evil.


See point above on the exact comment. Also letting people go again with a full knowledge eliminates the faith element. Without faith you would put God in a box and take him for granted.


Back to "all humans are inherently evil save jesus" or "god will never let anyone less than Jesus into heaven unless they worship him."


Salvation is not based on worship. No one ever claimed that. It is about acceptence and maturity. The matruity to accept it is you in the wrong and there is nothing you yourself can do to resovle it and the acceptence that there is a God who can deal with it for them. The Jesus point is to all of you who cannot get the works idea. To get to hevaen by works you must be perfect, living the life of Jesus. Since we cant do that God gave us an alternitve. A far fairer altentive as far as I can see. Why should you recieve something which you refuse to beleive exists and believe that if it does exist that it is evil and horrid.


Sending me to burn for eternity for one mistake is a little unfair. sending Ghandi to burn for eternity for not being inspired by the bible is a little unfair. Human beings would not go to hell unless God wished it. Hell is of his creation, not ours.


Yes but hell was not created for us, as I have said. It was never intended for Humans to go to. That is a result of sin, not God saying it. We go to hell because of sin. If we deal with sin, we dont. Its that simple. And as for Ghandi, he had full knowledge of Christianity and it was his choice to take salvation or not. He's not a particulaly special case. He was a human, like any other. Also, sin is not "One little mistake" it is a lifetime of mistakes. Sin is rebellion against God. God knows humans do this and so he created a way of removing the consequences of sin spiritually. As fi


To everyone else:
It does not matter to me that the bible says good works won't get you into heaven, because even if such a thing were true, it would be wrong. God would be wrong.


Wrong, so who is right and if so what evidence do you have for their correctness? Because it "Sounds" better and fairer. Of course, collective moral conscience is rearlly sound judgement. Yes it is, its fine (insert ridicullously sarcastic voice tone there)


Your position is that human beings are all evil. You say that there can be no good nonchristians because there can be no good people. This is to me a monstrous opinion which could be used to justify anything. Hell, you're already using it to justify burning nonbelievers in the pits of hell, they're evil like everyone and so obviously they deserve it.


There can be many "good" non christians. But this is human good not God good. God good is perfect and without sin. No matter how hard we try we cannot achieve that. Which is why God created an alterntive.


God controls hell. HE IS NOT A VICTIM. He does not stand there, helpless, when things happen. He controls all, and thus all must be his will, because he could change anything he wanted.

To those who say god does not throw us into hell: Is it acceptable that all people who are not as perfect as Jesus go to hell? Do you really find this monstrous concept acceptable, and that the only way to get out of damnation is to run to God for forgiveness?

Again the diffrence between God's plan and God's will. (I have explained this repeatedly before) God's will is that everyone comes to know him and all live the life he wanted etc. God's plan however is the events he allows/does not allow to happen and how he manipulates events towards the ultimate goal (Neo-Jerusluem = Hevaen on earth as described in Revelation). God wants to save all. The reason he doesnt is he is a just God.

This still makes no sense to me. Why would God set impossible standards to get into Heaven, knowing full well that there would be substantial parts of humanity who would never have the chance to hear about his son? I mean, I s'pose I can handle the damnation of those, like me, who conciously reject his message, but the eternal suffering being inflicted on people who never had any idea one way or another seems pretty indefensible.

Anyone care to take a stab at defending it?

(On a side note, I did have a conversation with a Christian friend, a good conservative Anglican, earlier today: his response to the whole subject was that he believed non-Christians can get into Heaven. Says he finds it easier to believe that the passages declaring Jesus to be the only path to God were being misinterpreted than to believe that passages declaring God to be merciful and good are incorrect. Doesn't believe in anything specific like Purgatory, no evidence in scripture, but has faith that God sorts it all out in an acceptable fashion anyhow.)

God did not "set" such high standards as you put it. God created humans perfect. They became imperfect so he created a way of making them perfect again. The only problem is that it has to be their choice. Also as I have said, you dont need to know about Jesus to be saved. You just need to accept those 5 points I mentioned earlier. You dont need to know it was Jesus that enabled those points to be true. If anything you have a greater faith if you dont as you are accepting something as true without understanding it fully.

God wants to save all. The reason he doesnt is he is a just God.

Justice is not punishment. Punishing innocents is unjust. Punishing beyond the scope of the crime is unjust.

It is unjust to behead someone for stealing a loaf of bread. It is unjust to allow someone to suffer eternal torment for any crime not of commensurate gravity.

If you're about to whip out the God is infinitely better than us card, thus any punishment is justified, then stop. Holding someone to impossible standards is unjust. It is unjust to expect a gerbil to write an SAT, and punish it for a failing grade. It is unjust to expect a human to match God's perfection.

If God had wanted equals, he would have made them.

God did not "set" such high standards as you put it. God created humans perfect. They became imperfect so he created a way of making them perfect again. The only problem is that it has to be their choice.

Why does it have to be our choice? This is God's decision, not some fait accompli.

Also as I have said, you dont need to know about Jesus to be saved. You just need to accept those 5 points I mentioned earlier. You dont need to know it was Jesus that enabled those points to be true. If anything you have a greater faith if you dont as you are accepting something as true without understanding it fully.

Your five points are overly specific. A small fraction of non-Christians will meet your requirements. If this is the best God can do by way of a universal solution, then I am unimpressed. And I am very easily impressed ;)

Justice is not punishment. Punishing innocents is unjust. Punishing beyond the scope of the crime is unjust.

It is unjust to behead someone for stealing a loaf of bread. It is unjust to allow someone to suffer eternal torment for any crime not of commensurate gravity.

If you're about to whip out the God is infinitely better than us card, thus any punishment is justified, then stop. Holding someone to impossible standards is unjust. It is unjust to expect a gerbil to write an SAT, and punish it for a failing grade. It is unjust to expect a human to match God's perfection.

If God had wanted equals, he would have made them.

As I said the justice is not based on works, that is human justice. The justice is about sin. Sin is not an impossible standard because it is quite easy to get rid of it, as I have said.

Why does it have to be our choice? This is God's decision, not some fait accompli.


This is about free will. God will not force you to choose him. You have to do it yourself. This is about maturity and self conscience. You should be mature enough to make your own decision about yourself. The "God saves everyone line" is basicly no one taking responsablity for their actions. To those who say "I though works/actions were of no importance" they themselves are not but it is our attitudes and our sinceriy in them which does count. If you are genuinely making a sincere effort to stop sinning but cant then God will not say "You didn't stop sinning! Nasty man". All you can do is try your best and God knows this.


Your five points are overly specific. A small fraction of non-Christians will meet your requirements. If this is the best God can do by way of a universal solution, then I am unimpressed. And I am very easily impressed ;)

I dont see much morraly wrong with the 5 points. Are you trying to make Christianity work so that the maximum number of people fit into it or that it fits general moral conscious. What exactly is wrong with the 5 points. Can you say?

Hell: Hell is suffering for all eternity. Think of the worst thing that could possibly happen to someone, and do it to them a million times. Hell is worse. And not a little bit worse, infinitely worse. Eternity is a very long time. It seems unjust to condemn someone to Hell for personally raping Nanking and then covering it up so that it looked like the Japanese did it, while in reality the entire army was behind a hill having a quiet smoke when it happened. It seems unjust to condemn someone to Hell for clubbing baby seals to death with the frozen corpse of their mother. It seems unjust to condemn someone to Hell for simply, you know, killing somebody. It seems unjust to condemn someone to something infinitely worse than a million, billion, squillon lifetimes of wall-to-wall suffering, simply for not believing in a God who should be mature enough not to care either way.

You think that hell is not justified by anything. You are only basing this from a human understanding of what sin is and who God is. God is God. The one who made everything and has all power and the right to hold that power with no legitamate and reasonalble challenge whatsoever. Sin is the direct challenge to his authority. I cant explain the relation of sin and God fully since I am not God but suffice to say that they are very polarised concepts, which is why sin is so serious. It is also why it is so amazing that God would chose to remove it all from us if we ask it to be done so. Also you are making the mistake again that we go to hell for not believeing in God. Whilst lack of belief is part of it the main part is our refusal to recgonise sin as the serious and nasty thing it is. If you recognise this and ask God to remove it of you (see salvation, 5 points plan) then you are saved. You are sent to hell firstly because you have sin (which could have been removed easily) and secondly that you did nothing about it. (will deal with other points later, have Sociology lesson now)

Abritary insult with no reason behind it. I think about Christianity all the time, else I would not know as much about it as I do now. If you read what I and others post on the subject, you would see that few Christians are just idiots. Would you kindly retract your statment, in favour of something like "I believe all religions are inventions of the human imagination" because then you are not sounding so brash and genralising without evidence. At least my arguements have logical reasoning and a source from which they all stem. Your arguement (and those on here who believe that virtious non Christians will go to heaven) are centred around this idea "Gasp that sounds to horrible to be true. Lets say it isnt and deal with it our own way".

You might as well be well versed in the Tales of the Brothers Grimm.
The reason behind my insult is that I can't stand people who argue over things that they know nothing about.
You have never been to heaven or hell, nor has anyone else. You are arguing about something you will never experience and be able to tell about it.
Ok, so you may know the Bible inside and out, and you might have your own opinions on it. But it's fiction!

God created humans perfect. They became imperfect...

How can a perfect creation become imperfect?

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.

Then you admit that the bible is in error wherever it says that God hates a person or people?

But it's fiction!
Even if it is, that doesn't eliminate story elements from being factual. People write fiction about World War II, and it happened.

Given human nature, it is not surprising that the issues of justice that arise regarding the doctrine of hell have received much more attention than those surrounding the doctrine of heaven. Most of us are more comfortable getting benefits we do not deserve or gifts that are inappropriate than we are shouldering burdens that are not ours or suffering pain we do not deserve. The fundamental point to notice here, however, is that the doctrines of heaven and hell are not separable in this way. They are intimately linked, and the account one accepts of one constrains the kind of account one can develop of the other. These points may seem obvious, but they are ignored regularly, especially in discussion of the nature of hell. If we think of hell as a place of punishment, the logical contrast would seem to indicate that heaven is a place of reward. Yet, the Christian conception denies that heaven is fundamentally a reward for faithful service; it is, rather, the free and gracious gift of a loving God, unmerited by anything we have done. Another way to put this tension is to note that explanations of presence in heaven and presence in hell seem to have little in common. On the usual position, presence in heaven is explained in terms of God's love, not his justice or fairness, whereas presence in hell is explained in terms of his justice rather than his love. Such explanations are at best incomplete, for love and justice often pull us in different directions regarding how to treat people. God's fundamental motive must be conceived of in terms of love rather than justice. Justice has no hope of explaining the two great acts of God, creation and redemption; only love can account for them.

Doctrine of justification in Christian theology. This doctrine presents in summary form the entire point of the Christian faith: that through the saving work of Jesus, the broken relationship between God and humans is restored, with the result that those redeemed by God in this way come to share his presence in heaven. The philosophical task of the doctrine traces to St. Paul's argument of the first chapters of Romans that God is both just and a justifier of sinners; that there is no logical conflict inherent in this conjunction, in spite of the fact that a classic example, both in ordinary thought and, pertinent to the mindset of St. Paul, in the Hebrew Bible of an unjust judge is one who lets the guilty go free. The doctrine of justification, that is, undertakes to show that there is no contradiction between the claims that God is perfectly righteous, just, and holy, that human beings are sinners, and that God justifies such human beings, i.e., grants them heaven in spite of their not deserving it.

So, an atheist, to whom, to the best of his knowledge, there is no god, is forgiven.
Actually the way it is laid out is there is an age of maturity, at which point we go from the innocence of a child to the knowledge of an adult. Those who never hear about Christ, or as in the Bible lived before his time, will be judges of a different scale. The Bible isn't very clear on what exactly that is but Abraham and others had certain behaviour count unto them as righteousness.

No we don't go around thinking that all humans are evil. We can, and many of us do, live good lives and are good people. Being good though is not enough. After all living a healthy lifestyle will not protect you against disease in a quaretine area if you haven't been protected. But we were all born into sin and have committed sin of one sort or another and this condems us.

Ok, ok. I think that it is has no use at all to try to show to christians that they DO NOT deserve heaven more than good atheists or people like Ghandi, because just saying: "I repent, dude." does NOT make them persons more deservable that good atheists or people like Ghandi.

So, I will try someting else.
Let's guess that you christians are right, and that your God (from which I believe that he's a more horrible and cruel monster than any Old One H.P. Lovecraft could ever have imagined) is a just and loving being. (which to me still makes as much sense as a pink sperm whale who's flying through the air while riding a bicycle and singing the Marselaisse but let's just intend for a moment that it's true.)
What about you? Do you can feel happiness while knowing that millions of people who did NOTHING bad are burning in hell only and only for their lack of belief? Do you can find peace in heaven while knowing that muslim and other non-christian children are tortured beyond human imagination only and only because they didn't want to accept a God as their saviour from which they actually never heard anything of?
Even if (for some miraculous reasons) this all is just in His eyes, can you accept that only because He says so? Is an order from above the only thing there's need of to satisfy your hearts? Have you no thoughts and feelings of your own? What are you, robots?
Can you really be THAT non-caring?
And DON'T give me that "well, God says that..." AGAIN. I'm not asking what this being, which for me becomes more and more the incarnation of cruelty when I'm talking to people like you, is thinking. I'm asking what YOU are thinking.
Do I feel bad that there are thousands and perhaps millions of people dying of disease? Yes, but it is not medical personelle being cruel by withholding medical supplies is it? In many cases the supplies are available but because of family/personal choices they do not take the meds. In those cases it is a personal choice not to accept the help available so they must accept the consequences. Maybe not the best analogy but I am trying to give you a basic understanding of Gods reasoning and logic. He setup the system and the rules and chose to abide by them. It is our free will that has brought the consequences of sin to life.

Given human nature, it is not surprising that the issues of justice that arise regarding the doctrine of hell have received much more attention than those surrounding the doctrine of heaven. Most of us are more comfortable getting benefits we do not deserve or gifts that are inappropriate than we are shouldering burdens that are not ours or suffering pain we do not deserve. The fundamental point to notice here, however, is that the doctrines of heaven and hell are not separable in this way. They are intimately linked, and the account one accepts of one constrains the kind of account one can develop of the other. These points may seem obvious, but they are ignored regularly, especially in discussion of the nature of hell. If we think of hell as a place of punishment, the logical contrast would seem to indicate that heaven is a place of reward. Yet, the Christian conception denies that heaven is fundamentally a reward for faithful service; it is, rather, the free and gracious gift of a loving God, unmerited by anything we have done. Another way to put this tension is to note that explanations of presence in heaven and presence in hell seem to have little in common. On the usual position, presence in heaven is explained in terms of God's love, not his justice or fairness, whereas presence in hell is explained in terms of his justice rather than his love. Such explanations are at best incomplete, for love and justice often pull us in different directions regarding how to treat people. God's fundamental motive must be conceived of in terms of love rather than justice. Justice has no hope of explaining the two great acts of God, creation and redemption; only love can account for them.

Personally I think it gets more attention because there are issues with hell if god is omnipotent omnipresent and omniloving


He either can not stop is from going to hell (so not omnipotent)
Or chooses to allow us to go to hell (so not omniloving)

Do I feel bad that there are thousands and perhaps millions of people dying of disease? Yes, but it is not medical personelle being cruel by withholding medical supplies is it? In many cases the supplies are available but because of family/personal choices they do not take the meds. In those cases it is a personal choice not to accept the help available so they must accept the consequences. Maybe not the best analogy but I am trying to give you a basic understanding of Gods reasoning and logic. He setup the system and the rules and chose to abide by them. It is our free will that has brought the consequences of sin to life.
But unlike your supposed god we are not omnipotent we can not help all because we are not all knowing nor all powerful

God has the ability to fix everything
Medical workers do not

How can a perfect creation become imperfect?

A little thing called free will...

A little thing called free will...
So not everything god created is perfect ... he created free will which seems to be the cause of flaws therefore he created flaws

intresting

You might as well be well versed in the Tales of the Brothers Grimm.
The reason behind my insult is that I can't stand people who argue over things that they know nothing about.
You have never been to heaven or hell, nor has anyone else. You are arguing about something you will never experience and be able to tell about it.
Ok, so you may know the Bible inside and out, and you might have your own opinions on it. But it's fiction!

You cannot prove it is fiction. I cannot prove its fact beyond certian levels of historical accuracy. You cannot claim it is fiction for certianty so kindly withdraw your statement unless you have some actuall serious proof.

So not everything god created is perfect ... he created free will which seems to be the cause of flaws therefore he created flaws

intresting

I think you are confusing the use of the word perfect here. God's creation at the beginig was perfect in that it was how God wanted it to be. Humans, without sin, living in a harmonious relationship with him and for said humans to have free will. Perfect does not, in this context mean uncorruptable. If you would like to say God did not create an uncoruptable creation then I would be happy to agree with you, and then go on to point out the implications of an uncorruptable creation (No free will, no independent knowledge).

But unlike your supposed god we are not omnipotent we can not help all because we are not all knowing nor all powerful

God has the ability to fix everything
Medical workers do not

All powerful and all just. God is all powerful and can save us, but will not save us all because he is all just.

I think you are confusing the use of the word perfect here. God's creation at the beginig was perfect in that it was how God wanted it to be. Humans, without sin, living in a harmonious relationship with him and for said humans to have free will. Perfect does not, in this context mean uncorruptable. If you would like to say God did not create an uncoruptable creation then I would be happy to agree with you, and then go on to point out the implications of an uncorruptable creation (No free will, no independent knowledge).
No he created free choice ... as long as he created everything he created either the cause for the bad or the bad thing in and of itself

unless you are saying god did not create everything ... that is another arguement

He either can not stop is from going to hell (so not omnipotent)
Or chooses to allow us to go to hell (so not omniloving)

I dont know how many times I have explained this to you. All loving does not mean all saving. He loves all but he is just. It is reasonable to assume that those who do not accept salvation will not recieve it. Why should they? Because "hell is awful"? That seems to be the repetitive arguement. He loves us so much that he streched out his hand and grabed us from death. We now have the chance to go free into heaven, but its up to us if we want to go or not.

No he created free choice ... as long as he created everything he created either the cause for the bad or the bad thing in and of itself

unless you are saying god did not create everything ... that is another arguement

Are you blaming God for the sin? He did not create the sin, if thats what you mean. We did that by doing it.

I dont know how many times I have explained this to you. All loving does not mean all saving. He loves all but he is just. It is reasonable to assume that those who do not accept salvation will not recieve it. Why should they? Because "hell is awful"? That seems to be the repetitive arguement. He loves us so much that he streched out his hand and grabed us from death. We now have the chance to go free into heaven, but its up to us if we want to go or not.
So he is loving right up to the point his justice side takes over (not really all loving) you figure being able to do anything he should be able to convince us or get the information we each personaly need to us to make a informed decision (I have read EVERY religous document I can get my hands on and listened to them all HE has not gotten the information I need to make a good decision what I want to do with my life ... if he is there he has FAILED me )

Are you blaming God for the sin? He did not create the sin, if thats what you mean. We did that by doing it.
but in order to choose sin sin has to be present ... cant choose something that does not exist

I dont know how many times I have explained this to you. All loving does not mean all saving. He loves all but he is just. It is reasonable to assume that those who do not accept salvation will not recieve it. Why should they? Because "hell is awful"? That seems to be the repetitive arguement. He loves us so much that he streched out his hand and grabed us from death. We now have the chance to go free into heaven, but its up to us if we want to go or not.

Which brings us back to the question of why he would set up a system like this at all? Why not save everyone? If God is omnipotent, why create a system that is so obviously flawed?

Which brings us back to the question of why he would set up a system like this at all? Why not save everyone? If God is omnipotent, why create a system that is so obviously flawed?
I never got that ... people who propose he is omnipotent seem to put the most restrictions on his abilities

So he is loving right up to the point his justice side takes over (not really all loving) you figure being able to do anything he should be able to convince us or get the information we each personaly need to us to make a informed decision (I have read EVERY religous document I can get my hands on and listened to them all HE has not gotten the information I need to make a good decision what I want to do with my life ... if he is there he has FAILED me )

That is why its called "FAITH". God never promises that you can prove what he said as true. And it is hardly God's fault if many humans come up with their own ideas and start portraying them as religion, which confuses him.

Also he does love us, justice does not "take over" as you put it. You seem to be of the impression that being loving and being just are diffrent things. He loves us all but he cannot force us to be rid of our sin. All he can do is make it possible for us to be rid of it. He loves you so much that he was willing to go through all that he did to give you that choice. But he also loves you enough to know that you are mature enough to make the choice yourself. He will not force it upon you.

That is why its called "FAITH". God never promises that you can prove what he said as true. And it is hardly God's fault if many humans come up with their own ideas and start portraying them as religion, which confuses him.

Also he does love us, justice does not "take over" as you put it. You seem to be of the impression that being loving and being just are diffrent things. He loves us all but he cannot force us to be rid of our sin. All he can do is make it possible for us to be rid of it. He loves you so much that he was willing to go through all that he did to give you that choice. But he also loves you enough to know that you are mature enough to make the choice yourself. He will not force it upon you.
"he can not force us" so not omnipotent

So he chooses to not give me enough faith so that I will go to hell (so it is his choice to send me to hell)

but in order to choose sin sin has to be present ... cant choose something that does not exist

Sin is not some kind of object that exists independently of humans. It is an action. A punch does not exist externally of myself but that does not stop me doing it. Sin is an action, which has a spirtual consequence. It does not have to be "present" as you claim.

Sin is not some kind of object that exists independently of humans. It is an action. A punch does not exist externally of myself but that does not stop me doing it. Sin is an action, which has a spirtual consequence. It does not have to be "present" as you claim.
But the sin is an action ... he had to create both the option of sin and the sin itselfs

Example

Adultry
Why is it a sin?

God had to create a list of what is sinning and decide what individual was a sin

Why is adultry a sin? (besides not wanting it)
Adultry did not have to be a sin
or did the drive to cheet have to exist

If he created everything

I dont think you fully get the concept of him creating EVERYTHING

"he can not force us" so not omnipotent


Sorry, my mistake. He will not force us because he loves us. He knows he created us with free will and the ability to choose. He will not circumvent that as it is a vital part of who we are. Take away free will and we become drones following because we know no better.

Also faith is not "given" to you by God. It is the belief that you have in God. God doesnt give that to you. You believe for yourself. God is not in some way responsable for you believeing or not. Its up to you.

(On an asside UT, are you in the UK?)

Sorry, my mistake. He will not force us because he loves us. He knows he created us with free will and the ability to choose. He will not circumvent that as it is a vital part of who we are. Take away free will and we become drones following because we know no better.

Also faith is not "given" to you by God. It is the belief that you have in God. God doesnt give that to you. You believe for yourself. God is not in some way responsable for you believeing or not. Its up to you.

(On an asside UT, are you in the UK?)
Nope Minnesota USA

But the sin is an action ... he had to create both the option of sin and the sin itselfs

Example

Adultry
Why is it a sin?

God had to create a list of what is sinning and decide what individual was a sin

Why is adultry a sin? (besides not wanting it)
Adultry did not have to be a sin
or did the drive to cheet have to exist

If he created everything

I dont think you fully get the concept of him creating EVERYTHING

God created humans with free will. Humans were created by God however with a specific style of life in mind (the pure, holy, sinless life). That is the sort of life that God wanted them to have. Humans can however choose not to live this life. That is sin, rebelling against the way of life God wants us to lead and so rebelling against God. As for your adultery comment, the reason adultery is a sin is that in Eden God had created things as he wanted it. A father and a mother who would procreate and bear children. Sex is something sacred given by God to be enjoyed but not abused. The "drive to cheet" as you call it is simpley a uncontrolled sex drive combined with a lack of moralls. There is no biological "drive to cheet" that I can see.

Which brings us back to the question of why he would set up a system like this at all? Why not save everyone? If God is omnipotent, why create a system that is so obviously flawed?

What exactly is flawed about it? He saved us, we choose if we want salvation (see 5 points, post 306) there seems little wrong with that.

God created humans with free will. Humans were created by God however with a specific style of life in mind (the pure, holy, sinless life). That is the sort of life that God wanted them to have. Humans can however choose not to live this life. That is sin, rebelling against the way of life God wants us to lead and so rebelling against God. As for your adultery comment, the reason adultery is a sin is that in Eden God had created things as he wanted it. A father and a mother who would procreate and bear children. Sex is something sacred given by God to be enjoyed but not abused. The "drive to cheet" as you call it is simpley a uncontrolled sex drive combined with a lack of moralls. There is no biological "drive to cheet" that I can see.
Grrr I dont think you get it but I am burnt enough to just give up for a bit ... some other time

Grrr I dont think you get it but I am burnt enough to just give up for a bit ... some other time

Perhaps you could explain again. I do not see what you are trying to get me to see. If you believe God created the option of sin then yes, he gave us free will, but that does not ammount to creating sin.

Perhaps you could explain again. I do not see what you are trying to get me to see. If you believe God created the option of sin then yes, he gave us free will, but that does not ammount to creating sin.
Yes it does ... because he created everything
if sin exists he had to have created it (dont think direct indirect creation works as well)

(again exception if you dont believe he created everything)

Yes it does ... because he created everything
if sin exists he had to have created it (dont think direct indirect creation works as well)

(again exception if you dont believe he created everything)

Sin does not exist independently of people so he did not "create" it as you claim. If things exist, that does not mean he created them (EG the computer I am using now). Aside from the obvious man made points, sin is not an object. It is not a thing to be created. It is an action. In the case of eden sin was to eat the tree which God had not allowed them to. God created the capacity for us to sin, but he did not create the sin itself. If you argue by creating the capicty he does ineed create the sin, you must also beleive that he created this computer since he gave humans the ability to be intellegent enough to create such things.

Sin does not exist independently of people so he did not "create" it as you claim. If things exist, that does not mean he created them (EG the computer I am using now). Aside from the obvious man made points, sin is not an object. It is not a thing to be created. It is an action. In the case of eden sin was to eat the tree which God had not allowed them to. God created the capacity for us to sin, but he did not create the sin itself. If you argue by creating the capicty he does ineed create the sin, you must also beleive that he created this computer since he gave humans the ability to be intellegent enough to create such things.
But with the computer analogy he made humans and the materials needed for it … he may not have assembled it in that order but in general it could be see he “made” it

Same with sin if he made all parts of it … we may have changed things but he gave us all the building blocks (and if he is all knowing then he knew what would happen if he gave us the building blocks and he had foreknowledge of the fall … but that’s a different arguemen)

You cannot prove it is fiction. I cannot prove its fact beyond certian levels of historical accuracy. You cannot claim it is fiction for certianty so kindly withdraw your statement unless you have some actuall serious proof.

I place the idea that some deity parted the Red Sea, nuked two cities, and fit a couple of billion animals in a boat as believable as Santa and the Easter Bunny.

BTW, if only "clean " animals went into the ark, how did the rest of them survive?

But with the computer analogy he made humans and the materials needed for it … he may not have assembled it in that order but in general it could be see he “made” it

Same with sin if he made all parts of it … we may have changed things but he gave us all the building blocks (and if he is all knowing then he knew what would happen if he gave us the building blocks and he had foreknowledge of the fall … but that’s a different arguemen)

Ok, yes he gave us the ability. He did not however make the computer, nor did he make sin. If you are trying to blame God for sin, dont. He specificly gave a command not to do it. Sin is not God's fault.

Ok, yes he gave us the ability. He did not however make the computer, nor did he make sin. If you are trying to blame God for sin, dont. He specificly gave a command not to do it. Sin is not God's fault.
He did not organize it but he created all the nessisary components for humans to make it a computer in essence he created it (along with our ability to reazon and work out HOW to build a computer)

If god created everything even if it was not in his final state he created all the potential he created all the nessisary parts everything needed for sin

He created the mechanics for creating sin
The rules for what sin is

he created disobediance and the ability disobay
if you are going to give him creadits for the good parts and deny that it was his fault for the sin you are mistaken

only he could have created the universe in such a way that sin comes about (unless he is not all knowing in which case thats another arguement) he makes the rules and holds all the cards
and has the complete ability and knoledge

Dont see a way he couldent have created or caused the creation of sin and all that is bad along with all that is good

This is about free will. God will not force you to choose him. You have to do it yourself. This is about maturity and self conscience. You should be mature enough to make your own decision about yourself. The "God saves everyone line" is basicly no one taking responsablity for their actions. To those who say "I though works/actions were of no importance" they themselves are not but it is our attitudes and our sinceriy in them which does count. If you are genuinely making a sincere effort to stop sinning but cant then God will not say "You didn't stop sinning! Nasty man". All you can do is try your best and God knows this.

No. You misunderstand my point. Not, "do we have the freedom to choose?", or "does God expect us to exercise our free will responsibly?", but "why is it that God requires us to make this illogical and counter-intuitive choice?" God is requiring us to choose him, but not giving us the tools to make this choice.

Faith is all well and good, but you've still failed entirely to address those who do not have the necessary information to make this leap of faith of yours. Even if it doesn't need to be under Jesus' name (which is possibly the only thing you've said in this discussion that I can agree with, although I would take it farther), even if the simple acknowledgement of some sort of father-figure of a loving creator is all it takes, there're still bazillions of people who will fail to meet your 5 points for simple, cultural reasons.

Take a 12th century Bella Bella artisan, a painter, maybe, who lives his life in the ways prescribed by his culture, which lacks pretty much any conception of sin or a God to forgive it, does his spiritual duties as best he can, is generally kind and compassionate, and eventually dies of old age. He finds himself being tortured for failing to choose to believe in things that he's never even heard of, and is still being tortured today, and will still be being tortured when everything on this planet is dust. How did God give him any conceivable way to avoid this? How is this just, let alone merciful?

(using the Bella Bella as a generic example of a culture which lacks the concepts you're talking about, as I'm almost certain they did.)

I dont see much morraly wrong with the 5 points. Are you trying to make Christianity work so that the maximum number of people fit into it or that it fits general moral conscious. What exactly is wrong with the 5 points. Can you say?

Yes, I'm trying to make Christianity work so that it doesn't punish (or whatever you're calling the unbelievably horrible torture of Hell) people for being born in the wrong place or at the wrong time. I'm trying to phrase your brand of Christianity so that its God is actually loving and mericiful, and actually giving every single human being the chance to avoid the worst thing that could conceivably happen.

And in doing so, I'm becoming almost as repetitive as you are (babbling on about conceivably worst this, unjust that, squillions of basically blameless people suffering so horribly that any moral person would do everything in their power to prevent it happening to their worst enemy on Earth squibble, etc). This is upsetting.

He did not organize it but he created all the nessisary components for humans to make it a computer in essence he created it (along with our ability to reazon and work out HOW to build a computer)

If god created everything even if it was not in his final state he created all the potential he created all the nessisary parts everything needed for sin

He created the mechanics for creating sin
The rules for what sin is

he created disobediance and the ability disobay
if you are going to give him creadits for the good parts and deny that it was his fault for the sin you are mistaken

only he could have created the universe in such a way that sin comes about (unless he is not all knowing in which case thats another arguement) he makes the rules and holds all the cards
and has the complete ability and knoledge

Dont see a way he couldent have created or caused the creation of sin and all that is bad along with all that is good

I'd second the call for an answer to this. It's a good question. And don't give us another semi-coherent answer saying that God's plan and God's will are seperate, but you "don't want to get into it". For one, God is omniscient and omnipotent: his plans do not go wrong, things happen precisely as he expects unless he chooses to allow them to go otherwise (free will). And even then, unless he chooses to cease being omnipotent or omniscient (something that scripture has certainly never hinted at), he will always know the outcome of everything, will always know how the dice are going to fall before he casts them.

Or, if you have something useful to say about the difference between God's plan and God's will that acknowledges the difficulty of him being omni-everything, then by all means, "get into it". We're listening :)

Ok, yes he gave us the ability. He did not however make the computer, nor did he make sin. If you are trying to blame God for sin, dont. He specificly gave a command not to do it. Sin is not God's fault.

He also gave a very specific command not to touch this tree, I'm sure you've heard of it, and had to know exactly what would come of his warnings. And could've nipped it in the bud right there by, say, moving the tree somewhere else, or kicking the serpent out of the Garden, or making it so the serpent never spoke to Eve, or turning the fruit of knowledge of good and evil this disgusting purple colour so that nobody in their right mind would ever want to eat it, or....

And he's been punishing the descendants of those clueless people in the garden (sins of the father) for the past however the fuck long you believe humans have been on earth (probably between a few million and 6000 years). Punishing (and I maintain that this is what he's doing: withholding a surcease to pain that is within your power to end effortlessly is punishment) us for his decision to allow Eve and Adam to have a go at that apple.

He did not organize it but he created all the nessisary components for humans to make it a computer in essence he created it (along with our ability to reazon and work out HOW to build a computer)

If god created everything even if it was not in his final state he created all the potential he created all the nessisary parts everything needed for sin

He created the mechanics for creating sin
The rules for what sin is

he created disobediance and the ability disobay
if you are going to give him creadits for the good parts and deny that it was his fault for the sin you are mistaken

only he could have created the universe in such a way that sin comes about (unless he is not all knowing in which case thats another arguement) he makes the rules and holds all the cards
and has the complete ability and knoledge

Dont see a way he couldent have created or caused the creation of sin and all that is bad along with all that is good

It is not his fault sin happend. You can say that he created the conditions in which sin could happen but that is hardly an arguement to say he created sin. He also created the conditions whereby Adam and Eve could have lived forever without sin. It was a balance. He did not "create" the sin. He created the posibility by giving us free will (the ablity to choose) and the command. But beyond that no. He did not "create" sin. By that logic if a child is kept behind in detention for say half an hour after school and then when leaving the school is knocked down by the car of a differnt teacher leaving the school then you would blame the first teacher for creating the scenerio whereby she was knocked down (in heinsight knowing that had she not had detention that day she would have left at normal time, before the teachers left)

It is not his fault sin happend. You can say that he created the conditions in which sin could happen but that is hardly an arguement to say he created sin. He also created the conditions whereby Adam and Eve could have lived forever without sin. It was a balance. He did not "create" the sin. He created the posibility by giving us free will (the ablity to choose) and the command. But beyond that no. He did not "create" sin. By that logic if a child is kept behind in detention for say half an hour after school and then when leaving the school is knocked down by the car of a differnt teacher leaving the school then you would blame the first teacher for creating the scenerio whereby she was knocked down (in heinsight knowing that had she not had detention that day she would have left at normal time, before the teachers left)
But unlike god she is not all knowing she did not have the forsight (not to mention she was enforcing the rules not a rule maker like god)

If she had known before hand what would happen but still chose to let the kid be hit then yes she would be guilty

If there were no mistakes (what you call 'sinning'), there would be no life. We would all be dead.

Life is good.

I'd second the call for an answer to this. It's a good question. And don't give us another semi-coherent answer saying that God's plan and God's will are seperate, but you "don't want to get into it". For one, God is omniscient and omnipotent: his plans do not go wrong, things happen precisely as he expects unless he chooses to allow them to go otherwise (free will). And even then, unless he chooses to cease being omnipotent or omniscient (something that scripture has certainly never hinted at), he will always know the outcome of everything, will always know how the dice are going to fall before he casts them.

Or, if you have something useful to say about the difference between God's plan and God's will that acknowledges the difficulty of him being omni-everything, then by all means, "get into it". We're listening :)

Omnisient and omnipotent are both clearly supported by the Bible, see Psalm 139.

Ok, so you want to know about free will and the nature of God. This will now become a fruitless discussion as I have had this same discussion several times before and no one on the other side has backed down from their point (Omnicient God=Free will do not exist). I will explain

First there is the significent diffrence between God's will and God's plan. God's will is that everyone becomes Christians, everyone will lead holy lives etc. Now obvioulsy that doesnt happen as we can clearly see by analyising the world around us even on a very small level .God's plan is more complicated. Basicly this concept is what he will allow/not allow humans to do. Some of the time he will manipulate events towards his goals. This can come in various forms. Whether it be answering prayer or moving the piceces into position for his final goal, the end. The complicated part is we don't know when God is/isn't intervening for some benefit. Whilst we may see no logic in a certian event having a postivie benefit, it may do in the long term or in the extreme short term, or in some way completely invisable to us. Or it could just be God allowing humans to do what they want to do and not interfearing at all.

Now for free will and omniscience. The fact that God knows all does not detract from free will. Because although God knows all the choices you will make in your life, you will still make those choices. You will still be that same one making the decsion about what subjects to do at A-level, what Uni to go to, what course to take, what Job to apply for, when you propose to your long time girl/boy friend etc. The fact that God knows about the choices does not mean he caused you to do so (though he may influence events to stear you in a certian path, but that is a diffrent issue). The best metaphor I came up with was watching a video. I may now watch the last episode of ST:Voyager. I know precisely what happens as I have seen it before. I know everything about it in a high level of detail. However my knowlegde of the episode does not detract from the fact that the directors and producers made decisions about how the episode would play out and that the actors portrayed the charachters in the way they knew best. I had no input on any of those things, despite knowing in detail what happens.

But unlike god she is not all knowing she did not have the forsight (not to mention she was enforcing the rules not a rule maker like god)

If she had known before hand what would happen but still chose to let the kid be hit then yes she would be guilty

Your taking another slant now. Originally you were saying it was about did God set up the conditons for sin and thus create sin. He did not create sin. Now your arguing that God is to blame as he was aware of the sin before it happend. To which I will respond with two words. "Free will". Now can you please keep your points coheriant.

You cannot prove it is fiction. I cannot prove its fact beyond certian levels of historical accuracy. You cannot claim it is fiction for certianty so kindly withdraw your statement unless you have some actuall serious proof.


innocent until proven guilty.

i can say that you broke into my house, but the burdeon falls on me to prove it true, and not on you to prove it false.

so it's not us that have to prove it false, it's you that has to prove it true

Omnisient and omnipotent are both clearly supported by the Bible, see Psalm 139.

Ok, so you want to know about free will and the nature of God. This will now become a fruitless discussion as I have had this same discussion several times before and no one on the other side has backed down from their point (Omnicient God=Free will do not exist). I will explain

Thank you. Sorry if I've been a bit snippy: posting at odd hours makes for strange results, and I've always been over-fond of hyperbole.

First there is the significent diffrence between God's will and God's plan. God's will is that everyone becomes Christians, everyone will lead holy lives etc. Now obvioulsy that doesnt happen as we can clearly see by analyising the world around us even on a very small level .God's plan is more complicated. Basicly this concept is what he will allow/not allow humans to do. Some of the time he will manipulate events towards his goals. This can come in various forms. Whether it be answering prayer or moving the piceces into position for his final goal, the end. The complicated part is we don't know when God is/isn't intervening for some benefit. Whilst we may see no logic in a certian event having a postivie benefit, it may do in the long term or in the extreme short term, or in some way completely invisable to us. Or it could just be God allowing humans to do what they want to do and not interfearing at all.

Gotcha: God's will = what God hopes would happen in a perfect world (one that is within his power to create at any point, but which he doesn't so as to preserve free will). God's plan = what he actually does/allows to happen. This aids my understanding of some of your previous points a bit. I'll address it with my take on your free will thing:

Now for free will and omniscience. The fact that God knows all does not detract from free will. Because although God knows all the choices you will make in your life, you will still make those choices. You will still be that same one making the decsion about what subjects to do at A-level, what Uni to go to, what course to take, what Job to apply for, when you propose to your long time girl/boy friend etc. The fact that God knows about the choices does not mean he caused you to do so (though he may influence events to stear you in a certian path, but that is a diffrent issue). The best metaphor I came up with was watching a video. I may now watch the last episode of ST:Voyager. I know precisely what happens as I have seen it before. I know everything about it in a high level of detail. However my knowlegde of the episode does not detract from the fact that the directors and producers made decisions about how the episode would play out and that the actors portrayed the charachters in the way they knew best. I had no input on any of those things, despite knowing in detail what happens.

So we actually agree on how free will works, for the most part, and given an omniscient God. What I and the others are trying to get across, though, is that God is different from some guy watching a video because he has the power to change anything and everything at any point in time, and because he knows what is going to happen before it happens (i.e. predicts with perfect accuracy the results of free will). He is not a helpless watcher of events already set in stone.

I don't really like metaphorical analysis of this stuff, but to stick with the Voyager thing: you are an omniscient, omnipotent fan of Voyager. Ten thousand years before the show is made, you realize that it's going to suck, because the woman playing Janeway is a worshipper of idols, and also cannot act, and moreover the suckage of this episode of Voyager will cause trillions of people to suffer in unspeakable ways. Now, it would violate free will to make this woman not be a crappy heretic actress, and you don't like violating free will, because it makes you feel insecure in your omnipotence to manipulate people to overtly. However, you have no problem whatsoever with interfering with Earthly affairs in an indirect manner. And thus, as an omnipotent Voyager fan, there are innumerable ways in which you could conceivably give matters a little nudge so that instead of sucking utterly, the show is pretty good. You're omniscient, understand, so it shouldn't be all that hard to come up with a way that free will is not violated, trillions of people don't suffer, and the final episode of Voyager merits at least a B-. Keep in mind that it's only 'cause you've been so occupied building the Delta Quadrant that it didn't occur to you a few billion years earlier (when you created a universe to watch Voyager in) that this would be a problem, which would have given your omniscient brain a bit more time to think of ways in which you could prevent this whole universe creating exercise from being a bit of a farce, what with the human condition, I mean Voyager, sucking so much. You have the knowledge and the means to prevent this from ever happening, and even if you were to wait until after you'd seen the final episode of Voyager (hoping against hope that you're not actually omniscient and that humans will surprise you with their ability to create coherent television shows), you're still omnipotent, and could still fix everything, effortlessly, immediately, retroactively, and invisibly. Free will would not be violated, only the stage in which free will takes place would be changed.

Am I being sufficiently obscure?

innocent until proven guilty.

i can say that you broke into my house, but the burdeon falls on me to prove it true, and not on you to prove it false.

so it's not us that have to prove it false, it's you that has to prove it true

And proving it true is impossible. In fact, proving it true would invalidate the doctrine of faith, which some Christians take very seriously (they like the idea of God playing a cosmic guessing game, with the consequence for an incorrect guess being endless pain).

But cynicism aside, faith is unprovable, by definition. The Bible cannot be proven, and its presence or lack of historical accuracy (which we debated fairly throughly in the Jesus thread) seems in many ways unimportant. Religious belief is a choice one makes, and it's not a choice backed by any sort of reasoned or logical argument. The factuality of the Bible is unimportant because that is not what faith is born from: faith comes from belief and acceptance of unprovable ideals, which resonate with ones personal ethics and aid one in understanding the world.

However. Whether or not Christianity makes sense as a religion is not under discussion here. It is enough for us to know that there are people who believe in these things. What is being questioned is the validity of their beliefs, especially as it concerns a view of the universe that implies a God who is neither just nor merciful. Religious belief is a choice one makes, and what we, the cynical atheist types (although I myself am not an atheist), are asking is that those Christians who follow the doctrine of exclusive salvation explain how they can believe something that seems to run so counter to the image of God expressed in the Bible, as well as human moral sensibilities.

This is an argument not about whether Christian beliefs are true or false (because that is an endless and fruitless discussion that need not be repeated here), but whether they are right or wrong. Which is why I don't feel that scriptural quotes justifying exclusive salvation are particularily helpful: we all know that this is what the Bible can be interpreted as saying. We're asking whether this is a moral thing to believe, or whether it's grounded in the xenophobia, selfishness and self-righteousness of another age. Whether this interpretation has any business still existing, or if it should be allowed to slip gently into the history of the faith (especially given that many Christians no longer hold to it already).

Whew. Long response that repeats a lot of what I've said earlier.

This makes me think there is a HUGE discrepancy due the population of the Amish to the rest of the "progressive" world. Someone who supposedly knows as much should elaborate the differences of worldly pursuits and equitable faith.I don't understand much about the Amish, but to say they lack ambition or godly production isn't true I don't think. Maybe that wasn't the point you were trying to make- I'm not sure I'm understanding you 100%. Maybe it'll help if I put my comment in context:

Me: Humans are by nature born sinfully dead.
UpwardThrust(I think?): If that's true, then what's the point of ambition? What's the point of anything?
Me: Insert quote from way before about the law acting as curb, mirror, and guide.

When considering the pessimism that crops up when dealing with God's Law, we have to remember both Law and Gospel. The Law tells us that we need a savior. The gospel tells us who that is. Paul put it like this:

Romans 7:12-13
"12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful."

Hope that helps on this subject.
***************
Obviously in the view of the Jewish power at the time, he committed heresy QUITE A FEW times, which is wrong ... and he also cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit, which is cursing a creation of his god. So how much do you know about the book, anyway?He was accused of heresy and blasphemy because he claimed to be the Son of God. Claiming to be the Son of God is blasphemy- unless you really ARE the Son of God. Some other accusations were thrown his way, like when he performed miracles on the Sabbath. As he pointed out, this was a misinterpretation of the Sabbath rules on the part of the religious leaders of the time. As he said, "Man was not created for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for Man." It was the religious leaders of the time that wer ethe heretics, not Jesus.

As for the fig tree, it is a story about divine judgement, not that Jesus got really ticked off one day and spitefully cursed a tree. The point was that Jesus has the power to judge. Some view this in the metaphorical sense, while others add that it refers to the sacking of Jerusalem a few years later by the Romans. I guess I see a mix of these views, but Jesus is not sinning here.
******

Certainly some Christians work as a Response while others work to get favor. But not all. I've known many many Christians who work just to get in good with their local congregation, to get attention, to get awards. And I don't take with that.

And guess what. I'm anti-theistic and I work not because I want attention, but because it needs to be done. You don't have to be a Christian to do good with pure motives.It's true that many Christians don't live up to snuff with their own beliefs. We're all human, it's bound to happen. As I said to someone else, it's great that you do good things for purely altruistic reasons. I wish everyone acted the way you do. But if one is doing good purely for the sake of doing good, why should it count towards their salvation?

If doing good has intrinsic value, why cheapen it by saying, "Holy Cow am I cool! I give to charity, I help other people, I rule!" Recall Jesus' teaching about the Pharisee and the tax collector. The Pharisee prayed where everyone could see him, thanking God for making him a better man than all the rest. He boasted about the things he had done. The tax collector, on the other hand, wouldn't even look to Heaven, instead praying, "Have mercy on me, a sinner." The tax collector went away with his sins forgiven, not the Pharisee.
*******


This still makes no sense to me. Why would God set impossible standards to get into Heaven, knowing full well that there would be substantial parts of humanity who would never have the chance to hear about his son? I mean, I s'pose I can handle the damnation of those, like me, who conciously reject his message, but the eternal suffering being inflicted on people who never had any idea one way or another seems pretty indefensible.

Anyone care to take a stab at defending it?

(On a side note, I did have a conversation with a Christian friend, a good conservative Anglican, earlier today: his response to the whole subject was that he believed non-Christians can get into Heaven. Says he finds it easier to believe that the passages declaring Jesus to be the only path to God were being misinterpreted than to believe that passages declaring God to be merciful and good are incorrect. Doesn't believe in anything specific like Purgatory, no evidence in scripture, but has faith that God sorts it all out in an acceptable fashion anyhow.)The standard IS impossible if we try to work our way to Heaven. To date, one guy in the history of the world has had the muster to do that. For the rest of us, it takes faith in this man, because he did it for us.

As for how many people are damned without having been given a chance, I know that's hard. I've thought about it a lot. To me, it makes the message of salvation all the more powerful and needed. The Great Commission is very motivating. That's why we do missionary work. That's why we spread this message.
*******
You do realize that this is paramount to saying that atheists are silly for trying to be good people, yes? Care to rephrase or elaborate?As atheists by definition refuse to acknowledge God, they also refuse to acknowledge God's Law. As God's Law forms the foundation of morality for me and other Christians, this is where it gets silly, at least to us. It's probably a perspective thing. I'm not trying to hack on athiests or say they don't do good things or that they're all baby-eating donkey raping monsters, just that from my perspective reletive morality destroys the concept of morals in the first place. And that's silly. Like having a protest against protests.

That said, reletive morality is a whole different topic, and while it's one that is applicable here, I think it's been discussed to death.
*******
Justice is not punishment. Punishing innocents is unjust. Punishing beyond the scope of the crime is unjust.

It is unjust to behead someone for stealing a loaf of bread. It is unjust to allow someone to suffer eternal torment for any crime not of commensurate gravity.

If you're about to whip out the God is infinitely better than us card, thus any punishment is justified, then stop. Holding someone to impossible standards is unjust. It is unjust to expect a gerbil to write an SAT, and punish it for a failing grade. It is unjust to expect a human to match God's perfection.

If God had wanted equals, he would have made them.Emphasis mine. God did create equals- humans were originally flawless and without sin. The standard back then was perfection. The standard now is perfection. Which is more fair, changing the rules for a cosmic mulligan, or keeping them the same? What's more, God gave us even more help than he had to- he gave his only Son to redeem us. God has been very much more than fair.
*******
However. Whether or not Christianity makes sense as a religion is not under discussion here. It is enough for us to know that there are people who believe in these things. What is being questioned is the validity of their beliefs, especially as it concerns a view of the universe that implies a God who is neither just nor merciful. Religious belief is a choice one makes, and what we, the cynical atheist types (although I myself am not an atheist), are asking is that those Christians who follow the doctrine of exclusive salvation explain how they can believe something that seems to run so counter to the image of God expressed in the Bible, as well as human moral sensibilities.

This is an argument not about whether Christian beliefs are true or false (because that is an endless and fruitless discussion that need not be repeated here), but whether they are right or wrong. Which is why I don't feel that scriptural quotes justifying exclusive salvation are particularily helpful: we all know that this is what the Bible can be interpreted as saying. We're asking whether this is a moral thing to believe, or whether it's grounded in the xenophobia, selfishness and self-righteousness of another age. Whether this interpretation has any business still existing, or if it should be allowed to slip gently into the history of the faith (especially given that many Christians no longer hold to it already).

Great post, by the way. As a Christian who follows the doctrine of exclusive salvation (or as Paul frames it, Election), I believe that this idea on the contrary DOES mesh with the image of God expressed in the Bible. As for human moral sensibilities, this'll get tough to prove as morality, to a Christian, is not determined by humans but by God.

So we actually agree on how free will works, for the most part, and given an omniscient God. What I and the others are trying to get across, though, is that God is different from some guy watching a video because he has the power to change anything and everything at any point in time, and because he knows what is going to happen before it happens (i.e. predicts with perfect accuracy the results of free will). He is not a helpless watcher of events already set in stone.

I don't really like metaphorical analysis of this stuff, but to stick with the Voyager thing: you are an omniscient, omnipotent fan of Voyager. Ten thousand years before the show is made, you realize that it's going to suck, because the woman playing Janeway is a worshipper of idols, and also cannot act, and moreover the suckage of this episode of Voyager will cause trillions of people to suffer in unspeakable ways. Now, it would violate free will to make this woman not be a crappy heretic actress, and you don't like violating free will, because it makes you feel insecure in your omnipotence to manipulate people to overtly. However, you have no problem whatsoever with interfering with Earthly affairs in an indirect manner. And thus, as an omnipotent Voyager fan, there are innumerable ways in which you could conceivably give matters a little nudge so that instead of sucking utterly, the show is pretty good. You're omniscient, understand, so it shouldn't be all that hard to come up with a way that free will is not violated, trillions of people don't suffer, and the final episode of Voyager merits at least a B-. Keep in mind that it's only 'cause you've been so occupied building the Delta Quadrant that it didn't occur to you a few billion years earlier (when you created a universe to watch Voyager in) that this would be a problem, which would have given your omniscient brain a bit more time to think of ways in which you could prevent this whole universe creating exercise from being a bit of a farce, what with the human condition, I mean Voyager, sucking so much. You have the knowledge and the means to prevent this from ever happening, and even if you were to wait until after you'd seen the final episode of Voyager (hoping against hope that you're not actually omniscient and that humans will surprise you with their ability to create coherent television shows), you're still omnipotent, and could still fix everything, effortlessly, immediately, retroactively, and invisibly. Free will would not be violated, only the stage in which free will takes place would be changed.

Am I being sufficiently obscure?

Before I respond to this, can I just clarify your arguement. You are saying the following I think. God is oblidged to use his ability to stop the fall and all of the horrible stuff that ever happened afterwards from happening because he knows it will happen? Is that it? And that he should be able to do so in such a manner that would not harm free will. Is that it?

Before I respond to this, can I just clarify your arguement. You are saying the following I think. God is oblidged to use his ability to stop the fall and all of the horrible stuff that ever happened afterwards from happening because he knows it will happen? Is that it? And that he should be able to do so in such a manner that would not harm free will. Is that it?

Well, the free will stuff is your contribution, but it's one I can live with: God likes that we can think for ourselves. Makes a certain degree of sense.

But I was making a muddled point about the responsibility that accompanies great power, especially when one knows to the most minute detail every consequence of one's actions. But more than responsibility: were he only somewhat just, only a little bit loving, he might feel obligated to prevent people from suffering endlessly. If, on the other hand, he is infinitely merciful and just, there would be no feeling of obligation, he just would. That's what my Anglican friend was getting at: God is merciful, therefore God doesn't allow people who don't deserve it (which by many opinions is everybody who ever lived) to be tormented endlessly in the fires of hell. Doctrine be damned, if God is merciful, this is how he is, and we are misinterpreting the Bible if we think it claims otherwise.

I'm saying that a system run by a just, omnipresent, loving, highly adjectivised, merciful, omnipotent, omniscient God will be free of flaws and injustices. There will be no flaws, moral or otherwise, in the inner workings of his universe (and I'm not talking sin, but rather systems like salvation which humanity has no control over, things which are exclusively his province).

And yet I and most of the rest of the world (exclusive salvation being largely a characteristic of American fundamentalism these days) find huge issues with the idea of a God who loves us boundlessly, yet allows most of us to suffer forever because he doesn't feel like saving us. Why does God not appear to follow to the moral sense he gave us, or the moral guidelines written down in his book? (example of moral guidelines: turn the other cheek. Example of basic moral sensibilities: allowing people to be tortured for all of eternity is bad.)

On the issue of obligation, it's a word I throw around a lot, but all I really mean is that an infinitely just and loving God who has the knowledge and power to prevent 99% of humanity over the course of history from suffering horribly (the end result of the system you are proposing), would do so. Especially as doing this is absolutely effortless for him. The day-to-day evils that we inflict on each other are a product of free will, and I'm willing to believe that this is an important part of reality, that he's not willing to interfere with our autonomy. But what happens to us after death is entirely and absolutely in his hands: we don't choose where we go, this infinitely merciful God of yours does, by instituting a system of judgement which you claim is independant of works and damns the vast majority of humanity. This makes no sense to me. It does not account for all the facts.

It's not that since he has the ability and the foreknowledge to do so, he should save us. It's that he will, if he is as loving and just as you claim he is.

Okay, here's a metaphor to go on before I leave for the weekend.

A man is hanging onto a ledge by the tips of his fingers. Another man walks over to him and extends his hand, and though he could easily take the first man's arm and bring him up, he instead chooses not to. The man hangs there with the other man's hand before him. The second man says "You must reach and take my hand." The first man is afraid, or does not trust the second man, or has any other reason to not reach. He slips and falls. The second man could have prevented this had he just grabbed the man's arm, but he did not. Instead, he chose to force the first man to come to him. Because the first man did not, or could not, he fell.
The first man is the sinner, the second is God.
Now, to modify this metaphor to fit the world we live in, there are a number of men at the top of the cliff, though all but one are illusions. Should the first man make the requisite leap of faith but grab for the wrong arm, he will still fall.

Okay, here's a metaphor to go on before I leave for the weekend.

A man is hanging onto a ledge by the tips of his fingers. Another man walks over to him and extends his hand, and though he could easily take the first man's arm and bring him up, he instead chooses not to. The man hangs there with the other man's hand before him. The second man says "You must reach and take my hand." The first man is afraid, or does not trust the second man, or has any other reason to not reach. He slips and falls. The second man could have prevented this had he just grabbed the man's arm, but he did not. Instead, he chose to force the first man to come to him. Because the first man did not, or could not, he fell.
The first man is the sinner, the second is God.
Now, to modify this metaphor to fit the world we live in, there are a number of men at the top of the cliff, though all but one are illusions. Should the first man make the requisite leap of faith but grab for the wrong arm, he will still fall.

how did the first man get on the ledge in the first place? maybe this happened first:

the first man wanders too close to the edge, the second man says "dont get so close or your fall over." the first man doesnt listen and falls over and is stuck hanging on the ledge. all he has to do is reach out and grab hold of the second man's hand, which is the only way back up.

What about original sin? That would state that we are born on the ledge.
not to mention that we've already sinned before we ever heard of God or knew what he wanted, so we fell off before we heard any warning.

Also, to complicate things, we cannot see any of these men, we just have to trust that they are there.

Also, even if it were true that the second man warned the first, it is an incalculably cold thing to do to require that he trust his life to him.

Also, the second man shares even more responsibility, as he created the ledge and the chasm.

So since the second man could, with no effort, save the first man, why does he not? Is it an act of love to lay this requirement upon him?

We're asking whether this is a moral thing to believe, or whether it's grounded in the xenophobia, selfishness and self-righteousness of another age. Whether this interpretation has any business still existing, or if it should be allowed to slip gently into the history of the faith (especially given that many Christians no longer hold to it already).

I would say that there is very little room for intepretation and so I can't see any reason why a Christian would believe otherwise. The Bible seems to make it very clear that it is by faith we are saved.


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. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do (Ephesians 2:8-10)

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand (Romans 5:1-2)

Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses (Acts 13:39)

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus (Romans 3:23)

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him (Romans 5:6-9)

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law (Romans 3:27-29)

All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name (Acts 10:43)

he purified their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9)

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins (John 8:24)

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him (John 3:36)

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life (John 5:24)

These verses offer very little room for interpretation, and the parables that people often quote as being support for the idea of salvation by works (ten virgins, talents, sheep and goats) are incongerous with these passages. I would therefore see it as the mistake of those who interpret these parables as being wrong. These parables do not deal with salvation

- ten virgins = preparedness for the end, living on posibility of end comming at any time

- talents = simmilar to ten virgins, diffrence being an ergency emphesis, make the most of the time now to do the best you can, attacks lazynes

- sheep and goats = the ease of Jesus to seperate out those who believe from those who dont, value of works in Jesus eyes. Jesus using works to show his people to other people. Not to himself.

This is a mistake many people make about the parable of the sheep and goats. They think Jesus is letting them in BECAUSE of what they did. However Jesus is letting them in because of what they believe, what they did and how they demonstrated their faith through their works. They identify themselves to the world via the works they do.

This is not to say however that the Bible considers works a lack of importance when it comes to faith. See here

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder.

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

So I dont think the Bible can be seriously interpreted to supporting the idea of salvation through works anyway (this isnt it by the way, there is loads more). So why would anyone have the idea of salvation through works in the first place

What about original sin?

Moral beings have never needed a sinful nature to make them sin. The first sin ever committed was committed by the devil. He did not have a sinful nature to make him sin. Then both Adam and Eve sinned. They did not have a sinful nature to make them sin. Then, why should it be thought necessary for men to be born with a sinful nature to account for their sins? The Bible does not teach that men must have a sinful nature in order to sin. God has created men upright, but they have sinned in spite of an upright nature. This truth is taught directly, and by implication, throughout the whole Bible.
God has created man upright and without sin. He has created man in his own image and likeness with sensibility, intellect, reason, conscience, and free will. Man has all the faculties and powers of moral agency. He knows right from wrong. The law of God is written in his heart. He is free and knows himself to be free and able to obey the law of God. His conscience approves his right conduct and condemns his wrong conduct. the fact remains that all men know intuitively that they are responsible and accountable for their actions. An absolute standard of right and wrong is revealed and apparent to all men. Man's moral agency and his responsibility and accountability are so apparent that he cannot rationally deny them. He can no more deny them than he can deny his existence.

It is a solemn fact that sinners will be punished for ever and ever in hell. This fact is a fearful illustration of the boundless guilt and ill-desert of sinners. But if it were really true that men were born sinners, they could not be guilty in the least for their sins. They would be unfortunate, yes, but not guilty. However, sin is not a misfortune. It is the greatest outrage in the universe. It is a crime against man's nature and rebellion against the Creator of our nature.

What about original sin? That would state that we are born on the ledge.
not to mention that we've already sinned before we ever heard of God or knew what he wanted, so we fell off before we heard any warning.


Original sin is a contentious issue. As far as I understand it, it is only the sin that causes us to physically die. I don't think it has any relevence to justification, though I may be wrong. Also, even without knowing the Bible, you can tell what a sin is and isn't at a basic level (the sins to other people, not the sins to God)


Also, to complicate things, we cannot see any of these men, we just have to trust that they are there.

Thats why its called FAITH


Also, the second man shares even more responsibility, as he created the ledge and the chasm.


Untrue. As I have said, all God did was give us the possibility to sin. That just means giving us free will and a choice. Free will and no choice is the same as a prision and no free will but choice is valueless, as it would not be you making the decision.


So since the second man could, with no effort, save the first man, why does he not? Is it an act of love to lay this requirement upon him?

The metaphor ends here. God has fufilled his responsablity to this person. He has reached out his had. All the other person has to do is to reach back. You cannot blame God for someone elses decision.

innocent until proven guilty.

i can say that you broke into my house, but the burdeon falls on me to prove it true, and not on you to prove it false.

so it's not us that have to prove it false, it's you that has to prove it true

BUZZ WRONG! Asguard made the claim it was fiction. He now has to prove it. Speicificly he has to prove

- One person wrote it

- It was published as fiction, with the intention of being fiction

- None/few of the envents in it actually happened

after all those qualify fiction.

BUZZ WRONG! Asguard made the claim it was fiction. He now has to prove it. Speicificly he has to prove

- One person wrote it

- It was published as fiction, with the intention of being fiction

- None/few of the envents in it actually happened

after all those qualify fiction.

Or, alternatively - since 'christians' have been claiming for nearly two millenia that the bible is the collected words of god... and are not only inspired, but also some kind of code of laws upon which western 'civilization' should be based...

Perhaps, the onus REALLY lies on the 'christians' to prove that THEIR book is somehow less of a fiction than any other?

Also, even if it were true that the second man warned the first, it is an incalculably cold thing to do to require that he trust his life to him.

The first man must accept the responsibility of not listening to the second mans warning. His sin is a criminal act, and all criminals are punished. Thats justice. But the second man is also loving, he says "i will save you if you let me, trust me."


So since the second man could, with no effort, save the first man, why does he not? Is it an act of love to lay this requirement upon him?

because the first man has seperated himself from the second. The first man must accept the consequences of his choice to disobey. All he has to do is repent. Repentence is saying he is sorry for disobeying. If he repents then the second man will grab onto the first, and pull him up.

Original sin is a contentious issue. As far as I understand it, it is only the sin that causes us to physically die. I don't think it has any relevence to justification, though I may be wrong.

I posted this a few pages ago on justification:
Doctrine of justification in Christian theology. This doctrine presents in summary form the entire point of the Christian faith: that through the saving work of Jesus, the broken relationship between God and humans is restored, with the result that those redeemed by God in this way come to share his presence in heaven. The philosophical task of the doctrine traces to St. Paul's argument of the first chapters of Romans that God is both just and a justifier of sinners; that there is no logical conflict inherent in this conjunction, in spite of the fact that a classic example, both in ordinary thought and, pertinent to the mindset of St. Paul, in the Hebrew Bible of an unjust judge is one who lets the guilty go free. The doctrine of justification, that is, undertakes to show that there is no contradiction between the claims that God is perfectly righteous, just, and holy, that human beings are sinners, and that God justifies such human beings, i.e., grants them heaven in spite of their not deserving it.

Or, alternatively - since 'christians' have been claiming for nearly two millenia that the bible is the collected words of god... and are not only inspired, but also some kind of code of laws upon which western 'civilization' should be based...

Perhaps, the onus REALLY lies on the 'christians' to prove that THEIR book is somehow less of a fiction than any other?

Asguard claimed it was fiction. He made the claim first. Ergo it is now up to him to prove it is. I believe it is fact, but I have no way of proving for certianty. I never claimed I did, I was just angry at the assumption it was fiction without any proof or support. To claim something like the bible is entirely fictional you would have to have a lot of evidence. This was not a debate about the whole proof of the Bible. I was just angry at Asguard's insistance it was fiction and now I demand of him some kind of proof.

Looking back, I think that analogy from way back when can be expanded on...

A man is blindfolded, walking along. He's been blindfolded as far back as he can remember. He can sense his surroundings, through touch and hearing, get along okay.

To him, it seems like he's on solid ground, walking along.

There are people around him that say "No! Walk THAT way! In five years this ground will fall away from under you if you don't walk the direction I tell you to! That's the direction to go if you want to be saved by the all-loving God!"

He'd be glad to walk that way, except that there are dozens of people around, all pushing him in different directions, as well as some that say that there's really no reason to go in any direction at all, since clearly the ground is solid and isn't going anywhere, and this place is as good as any other.

Now, sure he has "free will" to choose which direction to walk in. But he has no way of knowing which one is right - from around him he hears shouts for one direction, shouts for another direction, shouts for jumping around in circles, shouts for sitting down in place. Everyone around gives their advice, saying that "surely it's obvious I'M right and they're all lying or misguided!" If he goes to one place, people (mostly) point in one direction, and give reasons why they're right; somewhere else, different groups of people point in different directions, and all seem sure that they're right.

Sure, he has "free will" to make a choice. But how is he to make the right one? A coin flip seems as good a way of deciding as any, or maybe he'll just go in the direction he's walking in the first place, or maybe he'll go OPPOSITE the direction he was walking in just to spite the people that pushed him that way, or maybe he'll just go in the direction that the people with the most convincing arguments are pointing to. Or maybe he'll just go in the direction that seems simplest. Or maybe he'll just go with his gut feeling.

But all of those ways of choosing how to exercise his free will necessarily correlate to which direction is the right way to go.

That's what the world seems like to me.

Now, to me, it seems that if the God was omnipotent and all-loving, he would have shown the blindfolded men the "right direction" - he can make the ground have a clear slope, or could make the inside of the blindfold have a nice bright sign that lights up when you go in the right direction or hear people showing you the right direction, or something like that. None of those would violate the free will of the man to walk in any direction he wished, but it would let him know which one is the one that leads to the good place and which one leads to eternal suffering.

What's the flaw in my analogy? (I'm sure there are some, but maybe I can fix them...)

Mi amigo, maybe its me. Or maybe its the fact that its 1AM. Or maybe I have too many breast, prostate, kidney, ovarian, cervical, and uterine disorders and neoplasias running through my head in preparation from the most awful test of a very hellish week (you guess it, pathology in eight hours!), but I can't understand waht you are saying.

Maybe its your form, maybe its my mind. However, I would appreciate it if you tried to restate it--because I have a feeling that what you are saying is something I would find very interesting.
My apologies, mon amis. I'm sure there's plenty to think 'bout for pathology. I'm at least half-culpable in my form, i'll try to think differently about it. (I think) i'm trying to say that from the beginning, in the garden, Adam was lonely and hence god sprouted eve from his ribs for companionship since the beasts and all weren't enough to "share" with ... but it was the act of eating the apple so graciously provided that required god to curse eve with bearing children in the first place. And all who came of that line would always want for the garden. So essentially the plan of the human race only included an actual RACE by the sin of disobeying god .. ie, god didn't seem to have much plan for them in the first place, at least not visibly or, in a distinct fashion, deceptively .... so the event of the human race as a race itself unfolded as such specifically due to that event. So, in creating a longing Adam, he also had been created imperfect. As, of course, all along the line since owing to lack of perfection. I believe there is Adam, then Seth, then Enos (Dukes of Hazzard new movie w/Daisy being Jessica Simpson, who's Enos!?!?) and then everyone in that direct link until you get to .... Noah. And all the born and shorn 'tween apparently also were imperfect enough to slay in god's eyes.
So as far as the fairness of the whole thing, the good and the bad, we are only this far along on this forum on this internet and in our happy-and-less homes debating the good will and intent of a being who apparently only began the species in the first place as punishment.
I think that sums it. You're welcome to telegram me, i appreciate your input and comments.
Buena suerte, as well, on the tests. ;)

Asguard claimed it was fiction. He made the claim first. Ergo it is now up to him to prove it is. I believe it is fact, but I have no way of proving for certianty. I never claimed I did, I was just angry at the assumption it was fiction without any proof or support. To claim something like the bible is entirely fictional you would have to have a lot of evidence. This was not a debate about the whole proof of the Bible. I was just angry at Asguard's insistance it was fiction and now I demand of him some kind of proof.


where are we, thrid grade?

"no, HE started it"


if i accused you of murder before you pleaded your innocence, the responsibility falls on me to prove it true, regardless of who said what first.

i am angry at your insistance that it is the truth and I now demand of you some proof

Justice is not punishment. Punishing innocents is unjust. Punishing beyond the scope of the crime is unjust.

It is unjust to behead someone for stealing a loaf of bread. It is unjust to allow someone to suffer eternal torment for any crime not of commensurate gravity.

If you're about to whip out the God is infinitely better than us card, thus any punishment is justified, then stop. Holding someone to impossible standards is unjust. It is unjust to expect a gerbil to write an SAT, and punish it for a failing grade. It is unjust to expect a human to match God's perfection.

If God had wanted equals, he would have made them.
Good post. Reminds me of somethin' i typed ....
as for the last line, very good point. As is "revealed" in the bible, god has this table where it holds others of the human and angelic pursuits in reverence, in companionship, of course on the other side of the table ....
and i note of course that between humans and god, of all the apparent "evidence" available, even a few of its greater creations in the echelon above humanity got sick of its bullsh*t and rebelled. I heard somewhere it got worse than that but i don't put any $ on it.

So not everything god created is perfect ... he created free will which seems to be the cause of flaws therefore he created flaws

intresting
KaPOW!
(insert other sound effect references from old Batman TV series here)
:confused: :sniper:

My apologies, mon amis. I'm sure there's plenty to think 'bout for pathology. I'm at least half-culpable in my form, i'll try to think differently about it. (I think) i'm trying to say that from the beginning, in the garden, Adam was lonely and hence god sprouted eve from his ribs for companionship since the beasts and all weren't enough to "share" with ... but it was the act of eating the apple so graciously provided that required god to curse eve with bearing children in the first place. And all who came of that line would always want for the garden. So essentially the plan of the human race only included an actual RACE by the sin of disobeying god .. ie, god didn't seem to have much plan for them in the first place, at least not visibly or, in a distinct fashion, deceptively .... so the event of the human race as a race itself unfolded as such specifically due to that event. So, in creating a longing Adam, he also had been created imperfect. As, of course, all along the line since owing to lack of perfection. I believe there is Adam, then Seth, then Enos (Dukes of Hazzard new movie w/Daisy being Jessica Simpson, who's Enos!?!?) and then everyone in that direct link until you get to .... Noah. And all the born and shorn 'tween apparently also were imperfect enough to slay in god's eyes.
So as far as the fairness of the whole thing, the good and the bad, we are only this far along on this forum on this internet and in our happy-and-less homes debating the good will and intent of a being who apparently only began the species in the first place as punishment.
I think that sums it. You're welcome to telegram me, i appreciate your input and comments.
Buena suerte, as well, on the tests. ;)
To be even more specific, the bible points out the lineage all the way THROUGH to Jesus. There was some argument about Jesus' perfection in such a way ....
Also to clarify further, i didn't and don't see Adam alone being any more than an isolated mammal until the issue of god making he and Eve have kids, therefore qualifying them as a species ... maybe i'm wrong ....

where are we, thrid grade?

"no, HE started it"


if i accused you of murder before you pleaded your innocence, the responsibility falls on me to prove it true, regardless of who said what first.

i am angry at your insistance that it is the truth and I now demand of you some proof

I never made the claim it was "true" as you put it. Asguard made the claim it was fiction, and more to the point he put no doubt. I am not making the claim, he is. Its standard debating practise. If you make a claim you must support it with proof. I never claimed I could be certian of the Bibles validity, thats what faith is. He said he was sure of the Bibles invalidity, and I asked for proof.

Asguard claimed it was fiction. He made the claim first. Ergo it is now up to him to prove it is. I believe it is fact, but I have no way of proving for certianty. I never claimed I did, I was just angry at the assumption it was fiction without any proof or support. To claim something like the bible is entirely fictional you would have to have a lot of evidence. This was not a debate about the whole proof of the Bible. I was just angry at Asguard's insistance it was fiction and now I demand of him some kind of proof.

Actually - since I have read texts that were written long before the Hebrew scribes had a canon of texts, I PERSONALLY lean toward the idea that the claims of biblical inspiration, and biblical truth, are claims of 'non-fictional-ality', in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In this particular instance you are correct - the person making the assertion here MAY have insufficient evidence to claim that the ENTIRE bible is intrinsically fictional.... but - christians have been claiming biblical-accuracy for centuries - without ANY evidence to support THEIR claims, either.

Actually - since I have read texts that were written long before the Hebrew scribes had a canon of texts, I PERSONALLY lean toward the idea that the claims of biblical inspiration, and biblical truth, are claims of 'non-fictional-ality', in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In this particular instance you are correct - the person making the assertion here MAY have insufficient evidence to claim that the ENTIRE bible is intrinsically fictional.... but - christians have been claiming biblical-accuracy for centuries - without ANY evidence to support THEIR claims, either.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

-Christopher Hitchens

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.

If there IS a god.

The whole thing hinges on the assumption that the christian view of god is true...

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

-Christopher Hitchens

Seems fair... personally, I don't place any value in an assertion that can't be supported.

If there IS a god.

The whole thing hinges on the assumption that the christian view of god is true...

The thread is discussing God and the reasoning behind what the Bible says. I am not saying "this is true" I am simpley describing what I believe to be true. I am not certian, and never will be. Thats why its called faith

Actually - since I have read texts that were written long before the Hebrew scribes had a canon of texts, I PERSONALLY lean toward the idea that the claims of biblical inspiration, and biblical truth, are claims of 'non-fictional-ality', in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In this particular instance you are correct - the person making the assertion here MAY have insufficient evidence to claim that the ENTIRE bible is intrinsically fictional.... but - christians have been claiming biblical-accuracy for centuries - without ANY evidence to support THEIR claims, either.

Yes, but in this debate now, Asguard made a claim that the entire thing was fictional. So being a debate, I asked him for proof. I never made said claim, I never proclaimed myself to be certian of the Christian beliefs being true (I believe them to be, though I can't prove it). I am just describing what Chrisitan beliefs state and defending them from those who seem to think they portray a horrible God.

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.

Ok, let's put it in your perspective. If you had a son or daughter, you raised them all your life and you have unconditional love for them. Then let's say your son or daughter started doing drugs, would you abandon them and say "tough" or would you try to help them as long as they "believe" you can help? It's the same with God, he made us, so why would he abandon his children? That's worse than letting a child molester into heaven. Now, about the atheist, if you went to college and there was a profesor teaching something you don't believe in, would you sign up for his class? Same with God, if they don't believe in him why should he let them into heaven? That makes no logical sense.

I never got that ... people who propose he is omnipotent seem to put the most restrictions on his abilities
Hallelujah on that one!

That is why its called "FAITH". God never promises that you can prove what he said as true. And it is hardly God's fault if many humans come up with their own ideas and start portraying them as religion, which confuses him.



M'kay, many are going to take issue, some even probably have, with this statement. Omniscience = NO CONFUSION.
Ya might be tired .... you sure as heck have had a long run on this one.
And this still supplements the idea of a deceitful god, or at least one that if it is omniscient certainly makes itself out to be so.

Same with God, if they don't believe in him why should he let them into heaven? That makes no logical sense.

Exactly. When someone for any reason does not believe in God he should be sent to eternal torture. Shouldn't that be obvious?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UpwardThrust
He did not organize it but he created all the nessisary components for humans to make it a computer in essence he created it (along with our ability to reazon and work out HOW to build a computer)

If god created everything even if it was not in his final state he created all the potential he created all the nessisary parts everything needed for sin

He created the mechanics for creating sin
The rules for what sin is

he created disobediance and the ability disobay
if you are going to give him creadits for the good parts and deny that it was his fault for the sin you are mistaken

only he could have created the universe in such a way that sin comes about (unless he is not all knowing in which case thats another arguement) he makes the rules and holds all the cards
and has the complete ability and knoledge

Dont see a way he couldent have created or caused the creation of sin and all that is bad along with all that is good



I'd second the call for an answer to this. It's a good question. And don't give us another semi-coherent answer saying that God's plan and God's will are seperate, but you "don't want to get into it". For one, God is omniscient and omnipotent: his plans do not go wrong, things happen precisely as he expects unless he chooses to allow them to go otherwise (free will). And even then, unless he chooses to cease being omnipotent or omniscient (something that scripture has certainly never hinted at), he will always know the outcome of everything, will always know how the dice are going to fall before he casts them.

Or, if you have something useful to say about the difference between God's plan and God's will that acknowledges the difficulty of him being omni-everything, then by all means, "get into it". We're listening




He also gave a very specific command not to touch this tree, I'm sure you've heard of it, and had to know exactly what would come of his warnings. And could've nipped it in the bud right there by, say, moving the tree somewhere else, or kicking the serpent out of the Garden, or making it so the serpent never spoke to Eve, or turning the fruit of knowledge of good and evil this disgusting purple colour so that nobody in their right mind would ever want to eat it, or....

And he's been punishing the descendants of those clueless people in the garden (sins of the father) for the past however the fuck long you believe humans have been on earth (probably between a few million and 6000 years). Punishing (and I maintain that this is what he's doing: withholding a surcease to pain that is within your power to end effortlessly is punishment) us for his decision to allow Eve and Adam to have a go at that apple.
Excellent. We are indeed listening ... why do you think we're up to th page # we're at?

Thank you. Sorry if I've been a bit snippy: posting at odd hours makes for strange results, and I've always been over-fond of hyperbole.



Gotcha: God's will = what God hopes would happen in a perfect world (one that is within his power to create at any point, but which he doesn't so as to preserve free will). God's plan = what he actually does/allows to happen. This aids my understanding of some of your previous points a bit. I'll address it with my take on your free will thing:



So we actually agree on how free will works, for the most part, and given an omniscient God. What I and the others are trying to get across, though, is that God is different from some guy watching a video because he has the power to change anything and everything at any point in time, and because he knows what is going to happen before it happens (i.e. predicts with perfect accuracy the results of free will). He is not a helpless watcher of events already set in stone.

I don't really like metaphorical analysis of this stuff, but to stick with the Voyager thing: you are an omniscient, omnipotent fan of Voyager. Ten thousand years before the show is made, you realize that it's going to suck, because the woman playing Janeway is a worshipper of idols, and also cannot act, and moreover the suckage of this episode of Voyager will cause trillions of people to suffer in unspeakable ways. Now, it would violate free will to make this woman not be a crappy heretic actress, and you don't like violating free will, because it makes you feel insecure in your omnipotence to manipulate people to overtly. However, you have no problem whatsoever with interfering with Earthly affairs in an indirect manner. And thus, as an omnipotent Voyager fan, there are innumerable ways in which you could conceivably give matters a little nudge so that instead of sucking utterly, the show is pretty good. You're omniscient, understand, so it shouldn't be all that hard to come up with a way that free will is not violated, trillions of people don't suffer, and the final episode of Voyager merits at least a B-. Keep in mind that it's only 'cause you've been so occupied building the Delta Quadrant that it didn't occur to you a few billion years earlier (when you created a universe to watch Voyager in) that this would be a problem, which would have given your omniscient brain a bit more time to think of ways in which you could prevent this whole universe creating exercise from being a bit of a farce, what with the human condition, I mean Voyager, sucking so much. You have the knowledge and the means to prevent this from ever happening, and even if you were to wait until after you'd seen the final episode of Voyager (hoping against hope that you're not actually omniscient and that humans will surprise you with their ability to create coherent television shows), you're still omnipotent, and could still fix everything, effortlessly, immediately, retroactively, and invisibly. Free will would not be violated, only the stage in which free will takes place would be changed.

Am I being sufficiently obscure?
Again, i quote the old Batman show:
KaPOW!!!! :sniper:
lmao

[Originally Posted by Straughn]This makes me think there is a HUGE discrepancy due the population of the Amish to the rest of the "progressive" world. Someone who supposedly knows as much should elaborate the differences of worldly pursuits and equitable faith.
I don't understand much about the Amish, but to say they lack ambition or godly production isn't true I don't think. Maybe that wasn't the point you were trying to make- I'm not sure I'm understanding you 100%. Maybe it'll help if I put my comment in context:



Romans 7:12-13
"12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful."

Hope that helps on this subject.
***************
He was accused of heresy and blasphemy because he claimed to be the Son of God. Claiming to be the Son of God is blasphemy- unless you really ARE the Son of God. Some other accusations were thrown his way, like when he performed miracles on the Sabbath. As he pointed out, this was a misinterpretation of the Sabbath rules on the part of the religious leaders of the time. As he said, "Man was not created for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for Man." It was the religious leaders of the time that wer ethe heretics, not Jesus.

As for the fig tree, it is a story about divine judgement, not that Jesus got really ticked off one day and spitefully cursed a tree. The point was that Jesus has the power to judge. Some view this in the metaphorical sense, while others add that it refers to the sacking of Jerusalem a few years later by the Romans. I guess I see a mix of these views, but Jesus is not sinning here.

******

As for the first reference to the Amish, that response was about pursuits of faith and works and not being distracted by the motivations of a "progressive" society, which in itself is not an insult, as the point would be that the Amish in a puritan perspective seem to accomplish more of the original point than many other faiths do. That of course is arguable to preferred text and communicable morality. I don't dis the Amish.
I appreciate you attempting a good example from Romans, but the last part of it is a little glib - "so that through the commandment sin"-(What?)-"might become utterly sinful" ... okay, it seems established here that sin is sin and there is no particular grading of it ... in fact that's one of the biggest arguments on this thread. So what's this "utterly" stuff? Maybe a better context is needed, i haven't read that since '95 and have of course forgotten quite a bit.
Also, i don't see the logic in maintaining that Jesus of Nazareth was god' only "begotten" son that completely ignores Adam, unless you folk are insinuating Adam wasn't really a "man" until he sinned and started making babies ("begotting" about) ... as well as it being a little strange that a god who imagined and hence put forth everything in existence (..?..) would suddenly decide to digress from ALL THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE UNIVERSE to make it with a mere mortal (see Greek/Roman deific interference mythos) and therefore have some kind of corporal appreciation in a sick way with its own creation. Ick, incest again, like there wasn't enough of it .... but you'd think god'd be above that kind of thing .... still Adam was the other begotten son. See dictionary, BEGOTTEN ... BEGET, meaning father, procreate, cause. Criterion.
As for the heresy part, it was obvious to the ruling parties who up to a point were, not only being god's chosen people, RIGHT in their power to claim the right and wrong of the society they were keeping. Obviously not everyone saw it that way or Barabus (sp?) never would've walked after Pontias washed his hands. Also, Jesus was supposed to FULFILL THEIR PROPHECY, that's what the name "Christ" is referenced to, not his birthname (although i'm sure many argue, his "death"name). As judgment goes, this was WAY DOWN THE LINE of sin and accomplishment in history and right and wrong had indeed been encapsulated, however erroneously, into Jewish law and custom more than any other, 'lest you would argue all the other influential societies of the time had equitability in their justice and means.
And for Jesus and the fig tree, sheesh. I HAVE THE POWER TO JUDGE TOO. THAT IS THE WEIGHT OF MY SOUL. But to be more specific, this was a terrible parable (rhymes) since exactly what judicious consequences were laid upon a TREE which had, by the dictum of text itself, no basis on which to judge itself having done bad or good? Really? What would Jesus' "judgment" be that was any more significant than anyone else hangin' with him at the time? All it really did was allow more intolerance of ... plants ... by the already hopeful-if-not-intrepid followers of Jesus' teachings and good points. I really don't see ANY redemption for that part.

So ya know, i appreciate your post though, as i do Neo's and Aiera's.

God has created man upright and without sin. He has created man in his own image and likeness with sensibility, intellect, reason, conscience, and free will.

However, sin is not a misfortune. It is the greatest outrage in the universe. It is a crime against man's nature and rebellion against the Creator of our nature.
God has created man upright and without sin? Sorry, by the obvious hanging of this thread that cannot be consistant AT ALL with BEING BORN WITH ORIGINAL SIN. As in, being born WITHOUT CONSCIOUS ABILITY TO MAKE ANY JUDICIOUS ACTION is already circumvented erroneously with that statement, certainly disagreeable with the line "god created man upright and without sin". More appropriate would be "god attempted to create ADAM alone, without sin, but even failed in that respect since god tried to appease an obviously lacking ADAM by tearing something out of him that would accompany him better than the very grace of god, AND THEN DAMNED ADAM into procreation on his and EVE's own for which everyone else would carry the mark until god gets f*cking sick of it and kills 'em off."
And if that doesn't sum it up, read the book again, whichever version you want, most of them seem to say the same thing.

To be fair, i kinda agree with your last lines though. I think it more appropriate/specific to say that the misunderstanding of the true nature of god, not the works of a few priests and obviously flawed humans, is the greatest outrage to the appreciation of the universe (and its scope) and of course by that nature its creator. Time to get out of the mindset of "man in god's image" being man = godlike. Obviously there's some flaw in that thinking. Try "in the imagination of god" and it makes MUCH MORE SENSE.
Shalom

Original sin is a contentious issue. As far as I understand it, it is only the sin that causes us to physically die.


M'kay, point here .....?
Genesis 5:5 (KJV) - And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Is it that you mean to say that upon being a willing participant in the "deception debacle" of the apple, the conscious choice of sin is death? Although everyone who would follow died anyway, as marked from the beginning from someone else's choice, regardless of their redemption in life, ....since they still die anyway?
?

COME GET ME ANYONE HUH???o I RULE U ALLL REALLY COSNIM DA BEST AND TROOLL AND ORC AND BESYT AND DRUNK:::

God has created man upright and without sin? Sorry, by the obvious hanging of this thread that cannot be consistant AT ALL with BEING BORN WITH ORIGINAL SIN. As in, being born WITHOUT CONSCIOUS ABILITY TO MAKE ANY JUDICIOUS ACTION is already circumvented erroneously with that statement, certainly disagreeable with the line "god created man upright and without sin". More appropriate would be "god attempted to create ADAM alone, without sin, but even failed in that respect since god tried to appease an obviously lacking ADAM by tearing something out of him that would accompany him better than the very grace of god, AND THEN DAMNED ADAM into procreation on his and EVE's own for which everyone else would carry the mark until god gets f*cking sick of it and kills 'em off."
And if that doesn't sum it up, read the book again, whichever version you want, most of them seem to say the same thing.


The words 'Original Sin' are familiar ones, but they are not found in the Bible. The expression refers to the first sin ever committed – 'the' original sin. It was introduced by Adam and Eve through a wilful act of disobedience against the revealed will of God. Their sin had a global effect contaminating everything created by God. (The full account can be read in Genesis 3.)

As a result of Adam and Eve's sin, all of us suffer the consequences of their behaviour as distinct from (1) inheriting their sin or (2) being punished for what they did. The prophet Ezekiel makes clear that each person is responsible for his own sin. 'The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.' (Ezekiel 18:20)

While each of us must bear personal responsibility for our own sins, we still have to live with the consequences of what Adam and Eve did. Let me explain this by way of an illustration. A nuclear explosion occurred in Russia in the late 1980s. The 'fall out' affected everyone living in that region. Innocent people suffered the consequences of something they were not responsible for.

In the same way, the sin of Adam and Eve has a 'fall out' effect on us, their descendants. For example, we are born with what is called 'a fallen nature', that is a nature prone to sin. Wherever we look in our world, we see the evidence that our planet is inhabited by people who sin. Whether people are living in what we describe as 'a primitive culture' or in an advanced society, sin is present. People behave in evil ways. The history of mankind is stained with many acts of evil: wars, injustice, corruption, sexual abuse, etc. Why has there always been evil in every century? Though we are separated from people who lived in the past, and they from us, yet a common denominator links us together. It is undeniable - we all possess a fallen nature. We are indeed the children of Adam. Though we have a fallen nature, we are not born separated from God.

hey justi guy! you may be affected by the actions of adam & eve but somehow im not! explain!

hey justi guy! you may be affected by the actions of adam & eve but somehow im not! explain!


"For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God." Romans 3:23

The words 'Original Sin' are familiar ones, but they are not found in the Bible. The expression refers to the first sin ever committed – 'the' original sin. It was introduced by Adam and Eve through a wilful act of disobedience against the revealed will of God. Their sin had a global effect contaminating everything created by God. (The full account can be read in Genesis 3.)

As a result of Adam and Eve's sin, all of us suffer the consequences of their behaviour as distinct from (1) inheriting their sin or (2) being punished for what they did. The prophet Ezekiel makes clear that each person is responsible for his own sin. 'The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.' (Ezekiel 18:20)

While each of us must bear personal responsibility for our own sins, we still have to live with the consequences of what Adam and Eve did. Let me explain this by way of an illustration. A nuclear explosion occurred in Russia in the late 1980s. The 'fall out' affected everyone living in that region. Innocent people suffered the consequences of something they were not responsible for.

In the same way, the sin of Adam and Eve has a 'fall out' effect on us, their descendants. For example, we are born with what is called 'a fallen nature', that is a nature prone to sin. Wherever we look in our world, we see the evidence that our planet is inhabited by people who sin. Whether people are living in what we describe as 'a primitive culture' or in an advanced society, sin is present. People behave in evil ways. The history of mankind is stained with many acts of evil: wars, injustice, corruption, sexual abuse, etc. Why has there always been evil in every century? Though we are separated from people who lived in the past, and they from us, yet a common denominator links us together. It is undeniable - we all possess a fallen nature. We are indeed the children of Adam. Though we have a fallen nature, we are not born separated from God.
Yeah, i read it. However the whole propegation of the species was due an act of god and NOT Adam and therefore the "sin" consequences were a propegation of intent of god, with the intent of seperating humans from god by living, suffering (in no uncertain terms, i did read it, how bout eating dust?) and of course dying. So, though i liked some of Ezekiel, his definition of the son not carrying the sin is inconsistant with the very defined situation in genesis of the race only being propegated BECAUSE OF THE SIN. Although in the living sense i don't argue with Zeke much since i believe in personal responsibility for one's soul, and not anyone else attempting to lift said responsibility.
As for Chernobyl (Wormwood) that was a case of inconsistant maintanence and poor planning in the event of a cascade and subsequent overheat of the reactor, curious how that is really too pertinent to sin. But closer to the point that Heikoku made (as well as many others) it isn't a burden of responsibility to the individual's soul (sin, Zeke, remember) what everyone else did or does, it is of course the responsibility of the soul to be held accountable for choices and actions following. In the case of damnation INTO humanity from the garden, god is forcing an unjust circumstance and expecting a rational being to appreciate it.
I can't agree that we all possess a fallen nature, only that we misinterpret many things based on what serves our faculty and sense of self to whatever degree we appreciate the best. This of course includes widely varying and horrific theories about what god is and what god wants.
Maybe again that is what whatever god is wanted was an imperfection upon which to lavish derisive attention, not very different than the inspiration for the fall of "Satan". Conversely, maybe that's exactly what perfect is for what purpose it serves, NO ONE would ACTUALLY know that except the god or creator of it. Meaning of course, all other attempts are futile and ego-serving. ;)

So, though i liked some of Ezekiel, his definition of the son not carrying the sin is inconsistant with the very defined situation in genesis of the race only being propegated BECAUSE OF THE SIN.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Before Adam and Eve sinned God already told them to 'increase in number.' It was not a result of sin. God created them to be 'fruitfull and multiply,' this was before they sinned. Genesis 3:16 God said he would 'increase the pain of childbearing,' because of the sin.


As for Chernobyl (Wormwood) that was a case of inconsistant maintanence and poor planning in the event of a cascade and subsequent overheat of the reactor, curious how that is really too pertinent to sin.

I explained the example to show how the sin of adam and eve effect the rest of us.

I have a question now for all those who oppose the so called "exclusive" salvation idea. Do you not like it because it actually is a definte yes or no? Because not everyone makes it to hevaen. Because we were talking about this in Church this morning and it seems to me that a lot of the reason people dont like this message is because it is definitive. It is certian. It says yes or no to people and people don't like that. So do you want a situation where everyone makes it into heaven. Becuase that seems

A) Realistic

B) Postmodern

Everyone wants everything to be reletive and nothing to be certian. Thing is that God does not change his policy for societies benefit.

M'kay, many are going to take issue, some even probably have, with this statement. Omniscience = NO CONFUSION.
Ya might be tired .... you sure as heck have had a long run on this one.
And this still supplements the idea of a deceitful god, or at least one that if it is omniscient certainly makes itself out to be so.

God did not try to hide what he did. He did it. But because he is God you cant explain it fully. God did it, and he shouldnt have to prove it beyond doing it.

[Originally Posted by Straughn]

And for Jesus and the fig tree, sheesh. I HAVE THE POWER TO JUDGE TOO. THAT IS THE WEIGHT OF MY SOUL. But to be more specific, this was a terrible parable (rhymes) since exactly what judicious consequences were laid upon a TREE which had, by the dictum of text itself, no basis on which to judge itself having done bad or good? Really? What would Jesus' "judgment" be that was any more significant than anyone else hangin' with him at the time? All it really did was allow more intolerance of ... plants ... by the already hopeful-if-not-intrepid followers of Jesus' teachings and good points. I really don't see ANY redemption for that part.

OK, a few thoughts here:

1. Straughn, I think you answered your own question there. Think about it: you have the power to judge, but do you have the power to judge rightly? Are you able to see all sides of an issue so objectively and understand them so thoroughly that you could determine damnation or salvation for each of us? The tree is a metaphor for a limited human understanding.

2. To all the people that keep saying "Oh, that isn't fair!" to the basic tenets of Christianity, here's a thought: Those who accept the gracious salvation of Christ are not perfect. We are still sinners. All sins have the same consequence, regardless of the seriousness thereof: they separate humans from God. Jesus came not to condemn the world, but to save it; and we are saved by grace through faith. It's a gift - God's grace doesn't make us "not guilty" of our sins; God pardons the sinful who seek Him and accept his grace. It's not about being fair.

3.Props to Neo Cannon for your lucid explanations. I think you are absolutely correct about the post-modenist thing. Welcome to the tyranny of the self, created by socialization which is overly concerned about self esteem. We now have a world full of people so bloody wrapped up in justifying their own personal freedoms, they couldn't give a rat's ass about right, wrong, or consequences. :rolleyes:

The thread is discussing God and the reasoning behind what the Bible says. I am not saying "this is true" I am simpley describing what I believe to be true. I am not certian, and never will be. Thats why its called faith

So - in this post, what you are saying is:

You don't necessarily believe that the bible IS true, but you have decided to 'believe' it anyway?

So - in this post, what you are saying is:
You don't necessarily believe that the bible IS true, but you have decided to 'believe' it anyway?
no, i think he's saying there's no way to conclusively prove that it is or isn't...which is why faith exists. In much the same way we can't conclusively prove where the universe began. we simply have evidence and, depending on which evidence you chose to believe, you either end up with something like the big bang or evolution, or you end up wit the idea that someone or something created everything.

Yes, but in this debate now, Asguard made a claim that the entire thing was fictional. So being a debate, I asked him for proof. I never made said claim, I never proclaimed myself to be certian of the Christian beliefs being true (I believe them to be, though I can't prove it). I am just describing what Chrisitan beliefs state and defending them from those who seem to think they portray a horrible God.

The bible DOES portray a horrible god, Neo.

Any deity that claims that he is the only route for salvation from an eternity of torment - but ALSO, is the ONLY reason that such an eternity of torment EXISTS...

Well, I don't think you win humanitarian awards for actions like those.

That'd be like Hitler being given a Noble Peace Prize for his kindness to all the Jews he DIDN'T put into concentration camps.

The bible DOES portray a horrible god, Neo.
Any deity that claims that he is the only route for salvation from an eternity of torment - but ALSO, is the ONLY reason that such an eternity of torment EXISTS...

Well, I don't think you win humanitarian awards for actions like those.

That'd be like Hitler being given a Noble Peace Prize for his kindness to all the Jews he DIDN'T put into concentration camps.

Hell was in fact created by God for the punishment of Satan, and the fallen angels that followed him in his uprising against God. At which point, satan decided if he was gonna have to go, he was gonna take as many people as he could take with him. Since God gave humanity free will, they could choose whether or not to follow Him(he wanted more than a mindless following, he wanted people who really wanted to serve him), and those who chose not to follow Him, after man's first sin, were sentenced to hell, but you can(and many do) change your mind at any time for any reason.

no, i think he's saying there's no way to conclusively prove that it is or isn't...which is why faith exists. In much the same way we can't conclusively prove where the universe began. we simply have evidence and, depending on which evidence you chose to believe, you either end up with something like the big bang or evolution, or you end up wit the idea that someone or something created everything.

I was not aware there was ANY evidence that supported the claim that 'something created everything'.

Hell was in fact created by God for the punishment of Satan, and the fallen angels that followed him in his uprising against God. At which point, satan decided if he was gonna have to go, he was gonna take as many people as he could take with him. Since God gave humanity free will, they could choose whether or not to follow Him(he wanted more than a mindless following, he wanted people who really wanted to serve him), and those who chose not to follow Him, after man's first sin, were sentenced to hell, but you can(and many do) change your mind at any time for any reason.

First: even if this WERE true, and not just a religious 'excuse', it would not make the horrible nature of the action any less horrible.

Second: Not scriptural - you are confusing the later 'christian' mangling of Hebrew myth with the origins of the religion, and are further confusing the modern 'pop' religion vision of Satan with anything scripturally supported.

I don't recall it saying in scripture that 'hell' was created for 'satan' - nor do I actually recall any mention of satan being 'there', apart from "Revelation".

Third: You may want to question the source of your religious instruction if you think 'man' was hell-bound as a result of Adamic sin. Careful review of the Old Testament shows that the Hebrews recorded no 'hell' at that time - just "Sheol", the 'nothingness without end'... what we would refer to as death... no afterlife of heaven OR hell.

I have a question now for all those who oppose the so called "exclusive" salvation idea. Do you not like it because it actually is a definte yes or no? Because not everyone makes it to hevaen. Because we were talking about this in Church this morning and it seems to me that a lot of the reason people dont like this message is because it is definitive. It is certian. It says yes or no to people and people don't like that. So do you want a situation where everyone makes it into heaven. Becuase that seems

A) Realistic

B) Postmodern

Everyone wants everything to be reletive and nothing to be certian. Thing is that God does not change his policy for societies benefit.

The very existence of the Christ (if you believe that kind of thing) would make a liar of you, there.

I don't recall it saying in scripture that 'hell' was created for 'satan' - nor do I actually recall any mention of satan being 'there', apart from "Revelation".

Matthew 25:41 "Then he [Jesus] 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."

Careful review of the Old Testament shows that the Hebrews recorded no 'hell' at that time - just "Sheol", the 'nothingness without end'... what we would refer to as death... no afterlife of heaven OR hell.

The meaning of Sheol moves between the ideas of the grave, the underworld and the state of death. The OT sees earthly life as the arena for the service of God; it is there that his word can be received, his sacrifices offered, his interventions experienced. Therefore in a real sense to be in Sheol is to be cut off from his hand (Ps. 88:3-5). However, God is both present in Sheol (Ps. 139:8) and able to deliver from it (Ps. 16:10). In other Jewish literature we meet with divisions within Sheol for the wicked and the righteous. This idea appears to underlie the imagery of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Lk. 16:19-31.

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".

Note that unless the child-molester repents his sins then he end up in the same hell as the non-christian.

Note that unless the child-molester repents his sins then he end up in the same hell as the non-christian.

Are being an unrepentant child-molester and being a non-christian morally equivalent?

Then why are they being punished equally?

Are being an unrepentant child-molester and being a non-christian morally equivalent?

of course. living a good and generous life for no reason other than your own joy in giving to others is a horrible crime; all people are meant to be moral out of a desire to get into Heaven and please a diety for which we have no evidence, not because of any personal strength or humanist morality. if somebody is a wonderful person but cannot let go of the reasoning abilities that God gave them, then God will send them to a torture dimension for all eternity.

however, if a person spends their life tormenting and hurting other humans but then decides, at the last moment, to be a celestial kiss-ass, God will love them and reward them with paradise.

I have a question now for all those who oppose the so called "exclusive" salvation idea. Do you not like it because it actually is a definte yes or no? Because not everyone makes it to hevaen. Because we were talking about this in Church this morning and it seems to me that a lot of the reason people dont like this message is because it is definitive. It is certian. It says yes or no to people and people don't like that. So do you want a situation where everyone makes it into heaven. Becuase that seems

A) Realistic

B) Postmodern

Everyone wants everything to be reletive and nothing to be certian. Thing is that God does not change his policy for societies benefit.

I don't even follow the argument, to be honest. "Everyone gets into Heaven" and "Only good Christians get into Heaven" seem equally certain.

Unless you can find me a society where it was permisable to torture people you love for all eternity, I'm also unconvinced that the objections to exclusive salvation are based in societal mores.

(Although come to think of it, I guess that the idea was more palatable 200 years ago because it was acceptable in Europe to consider non-caucasians sub-human. Less need to worry about the gajillions of heathens suffering in eternal fire, ya know?)

of course. living a good and generous life for no reason other than your own joy in giving to others is a horrible crime; all people are meant to be moral out of a desire to get into Heaven and please a diety for which we have no evidence, not because of any personal strength or humanist morality. if somebody is a wonderful person but cannot let go of the reasoning abilities that God gave them, then God will send them to a torture dimension for all eternity.

however, if a person spends their life tormenting and hurting other humans but then decides, at the last moment, to be a celestial kiss-ass, God will love them and reward them with paradise.

Oh. I guess that makes sense, then. My mistake.

Every religion is good, just people practice them wrongly. I dont understand why your going against christians. :rolleyes:

Really, it's odd to me that all of the christians in this forum talk about heaven and that it's not God's responsibility to let us in, while the nonchristians talk about Hell and how it's God's responsibility to not let us wind up there.

Think about my previous metaphor. Now think if it was your son or daughter. Let's even then take the most Pro-God bent we can take on the situation.

Your child is walking next to a cliff. You tell them to stay away from the cliff and they ignore you. They fall and catch themselves by their fingertips. You walk over to them. You extend your arm, and say "You must reach to me." You do nothing else, regardless of whether the child reaches to you. If the child does not reach to you, they fall and die. You could have, with no effort, reached down and brought them up. You did not.
Do you have no responsibility for this?

Really, it's odd to me that all of the christians in this forum talk about heaven and that it's not God's responsibility to let us in, while the nonchristians talk about Hell and how it's God's responsibility to not let us wind up there.

Think about my previous metaphor. Now think if it was your son or daughter. Let's even then take the most Pro-God bent we can take on the situation.

Your child is walking next to a cliff. You tell them to stay away from the cliff and they ignore you. They fall and catch themselves by their fingertips. You walk over to them. You extend your arm, and say "You must reach to me." You do nothing else, regardless of whether the child reaches to you. If the child does not reach to you, they fall and die. You could have, with no effort, reached down and brought them up. You did not.
Do you have no responsibility for this?

When the kid says, "No, I'll do it myself," then no. How can God be counted as responsible if people refuse His help?

So because the kid is stupid enough to think they can get up themselves, you let them die.
I hope they keep you from ever having children.

The child just needs to ask for help because he cant do it alone. When the child says i dont want your help, why should God reach out? God wants to save him, but instead he lets the child decide. Its the childs free will to reject the one that can help him.

God does not force himself upon them against their will. As C.S. Lewis said, "the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo" (Lewis, Screwtape Letters, 38). Hence, those who do not choose to love God must be allowed to be separated from Him. Hell allows separation from God.

Since God cannot force people into heaven against their free will, human free choice demands a hell. Jesus cried out, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matthew 23:37). As Lewis said, "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done'" (Screwtape Letters, 69).

People go to hell because they are born with a bent to sin, and they choose to sin. They are born on a road that leads to hell, but they also fail to heed the warning signs along the way to turn from destruction (Luke 13:3; 2 Peter 3:9). While human beings sin because they are sinners (by nature), their sin nature does not force them to sin. As Augustine correctly said, "We are born with the propensity to sin and the necessity to die." Notice, he did not say we are born with the necessity to sin. While sin is inevitable, since we are born with a bent in that direction, sin is not unavoidable. The ultimate place to which sinners are destined is also avoidable. All one needs to do is to repent (Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9). All are held responsible for their decision to accept or reject God's offer of salvation.

So why does hell have to be a place of eternal torment?
Why can't it just be an endless expanse upon which all those who rejected God play card games for all of eternity?

Because hell is punishment for sin.

"It is a most unreasonable thing to suppose that there should be no future punishment, to suppose that God, who had made man a rational creature, able to know his duty, and sensible that he is deserving punishment when he does it not; should let man alone, and let him live as he will, and never punish him for his sins, and never make any difference between the good and the bad How unreasonable it is to suppose, the He who made the world, should leave things in such confusion, and never take any care of the governing of His creatures, and that He should never judge His reasonable creatures." (J.Edwards)

So you admit that God is letting people go to hell as punishment?
And you say that every human in the world, with the exception of Jesus Christ deserves to be burned in hell for all eternity?
And then you say that God lets some people not go to hell because they believed that a man died 2000 years ago and gave them a free pass?

God loves us and wants us to be saved. God is also just and righteous, He cannot allow sin to go unpunished. That is why God sent Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for our sins. Jesus death was an infinite death, paying our infinite sin debt, so that we would not have to pay it in Hell for eternity. By placing our faith in Him and we are saved, forgiven, cleansed and promised an eternal home in heaven. God loved us so much to provide for our salvation. If we reject His gift of eternal life, we will face the eternal consequences of that decision.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

So why is it the proper punishment of any sin (Including, some would argue, having a wet dream) to be tortured forever?

So you admit that God is letting people go to hell as punishment?
And you say that every human in the world, with the exception of Jesus Christ deserves to be burned in hell for all eternity?
And then you say that God lets some people not go to hell because they believed that a man died 2000 years ago and gave them a free pass?

Think of it this way. We're all guilty. At death, we get caught by the cops. We then have to pay the full price for our crimes. But Christ came and told us that if we turned ourselves in before we died that it would be easier for us. We still have to account for our actions, but we get spared the worst punishment of seperation from God. It's not a license to screw up as much as we want, and it's not just a "Get Out of Hell Free" card. It's mercy from the judge who has seen that we are ready to go straight.

Think of it this way. We're all guilty. At death, we get caught by the cops. We then have to pay the full price for our crimes.
Which of course has to be torture for all of eternity.

but we get spared the worst punishment of seperation from God
Why does seperation from God have to include eternal torture?
It's mercy from the judge who has seen that we are ready to go straight.
and why does this mercy have to only be doled out to those who happened to read the right book and be born in the right area, etc. Why is it not simply necessary to want to be a better person, and to work to better the lives of your neighbors?

Hi I'm Jordan...and I'm a Roman Catholic...

I am curious as to what your challange will prove...

That there are indeed stupid people in this world that think they can follow only the "religious laws" they want or like...

Sorry to tell you but someone beat you to the punch...

You must be a very patient person to listen to winey "Christian" people all day....

Cheers to you!

Which of course has to be torture for all of eternity.

Why does seperation from God have to include eternal torture?

and why does this mercy have to only be doled out to those who happened to read the right book and be born in the right area, etc. Why is it not simply necessary to want to be a better person, and to work to better the lives of your neighbors?

A and B) Seperation from God is torture enough. That is the part that the Bible makes clear. I'm pretty sure that the other stuff about burning and whatnot is metaphorical, but it does seem to indicate that it's pretty bad. Beyond that, I'm not willing to say a whole lot. I'll find out when I'm dead.

C) Mercy is given to all who are willing to accept it. You are correct in that some people are lucky enough to be born in areas where the Gospel is pretty widespead and hence have it pretty easy. But that does not exclude the rest of the world. I have heard a couple of stories of missionaries going overseas and meeting someone who hears the Gospel and says, "Oh, I know that. Jesus showed Himself to me in a dream once, and I have been following Him ever since." This is also why we are commanded to go preach the Gospel into the rest of the world, so that other people get the chance of hearing it.

A and B) Seperation from God is torture enough. That is the part that the Bible makes clear. I'm pretty sure that the other stuff about burning and whatnot is metaphorical, but it does seem to indicate that it's pretty bad. Beyond that, I'm not willing to say a whole lot. I'll find out when I'm dead.
So hell doesn't necessarily include eternal torment? It COULD be poker night forever! or chess, or backgammon. That's all I really require of an afterlife.


C) Mercy is given to all who are willing to accept it. You are correct in that some people are lucky enough to be born in areas where the Gospel is pretty widespead and hence have it pretty easy. But that does not exclude the rest of the world. I have heard a couple of stories of missionaries going overseas and meeting someone who hears the Gospel and says, "Oh, I know that. Jesus showed Himself to me in a dream once, and I have been following Him ever since." This is also why we are commanded to go preach the Gospel into the rest of the world, so that other people get the chance of hearing it.
So why arn't we all visited by Jesus in a dream? Why are these people so lucky? They get the supposed truth read out to them, and don't have to go through all of this nasty uncertainty the rest of us have to deal with.

So hell doesn't necessarily include eternal torment? It COULD be poker night forever! or chess, or backgammon. That's all I really require of an afterlife.

So why arn't we all visited by Jesus in a dream? Why are these people so lucky? They get the supposed truth read out to them, and don't have to go through all of this nasty uncertainty the rest of us have to deal with.

A) Sorry, but the Bible also seems to make it pretty clear that hell is etermally alone, too. Think of it as eternal solitary confinement.

B) Not everyone seeks ernestly. Most of the people who get visited in a dream are also the people who are very unhappy with whatever system they have used up to that point. Most seem content to just go with what they have always done. I should also point out that the rest of us Christians will have to answer to God why we didn't do anything to spread the Gospel to those who haven't heard it yet. It shows a serious lack of love on our part when we are willing to allow others to spend eternity in hell because we couldn't be bothered to do anything about it.

Doesn't it then show a serious lack of love that God himself is unwilling to make the miniscule effort required to show us what we did not realize? He is unwilling to save us.

Doesn't it then show a serious lack of love that God himself is unwilling to make the miniscule effort required to show us what we did not realize? He is unwilling to save us.

He did that a couple thousand years ago, and still the majority of the population did not believe Him. What makes you think that people would be any better?

however, if a person spends their life tormenting and hurting other humans but then decides, at the last moment, to be a celestial kiss-ass, God will love them and reward them with paradise.

I dont think you understand what salvation is. It is not being a "celestial kiss-ass" as you so unelequently put it.

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.

That is salvation, neetly wraped up for you. For more detail see the full post here

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8137438&postcount=306

My point is this. If you can be sincere about all those 5 things on your deathbed then yes you will get to heaven. However for many people, as they get older this is far harder for them to do. This is not because as they get older God is raising the standards, but because they have a longer life to look at, and so it is harder to admit that you have done so much wrong. The "person spends their life tormenting and hurting other humans" I would think would find it hard to be genuinely sincere about point 1 let alone the other points, purely because of what they have done

Your child is walking next to a cliff. You tell them to stay away from the cliff and they ignore you. They fall and catch themselves by their fingertips. You walk over to them. You extend your arm, and say "You must reach to me." You do nothing else, regardless of whether the child reaches to you. If the child does not reach to you, they fall and die. You could have, with no effort, reached down and brought them up. You did not.
Do you have no responsibility for this?

A more accurate metaphor. Your child is playing with bubble liquid. You tell them thats fine as long as they don't drink it as it is poisionous. They decide to drink it anyway. You run over to them and have a large jug of water in your hand which you tell them will wash the liquid out of their system. They ignore you, saying they can vomit the liquid out themselves. They keep trying to vomit the liquid out themselves and pushing you away while they are trying. They try and try but in the end they die.

He did that a couple thousand years ago, and still the majority of the population did not believe Him. What makes you think that people would be any better?
what he cant be bothered to try and help us every few thousand years (besides he did a pretty piss poor job of being omnipotent if he couldent manage to be able to convince people)

"what is called generosity is really compassion. In the Shin'ei it is written, 'Seen from the eye of compassion, ther is no one to be disliked.On e who has sinned is to be pitied all the more.' There is no limit to the breadth and limit of one's heart.There is room enough for all. That we still worship the sagesof the three ancient kingdoms is because their compassion reaches us yet today...The wisdom and courage that come from compassion are real wisdom and courage. When one punishes or strives with the heart of compassion, what he does will be limitless in strength and correctness. Doing something for one's own sake is shallow and mean, and turns into evil."

-Yamamoto Tsunetomo, Nabeshima Clan

The meaning of Sheol moves between the ideas of the grave, the underworld and the state of death. The OT sees earthly life as the arena for the service of God; it is there that his word can be received, his sacrifices offered, his interventions experienced. Therefore in a real sense to be in Sheol is to be cut off from his hand (Ps. 88:3-5). However, God is both present in Sheol (Ps. 139:8) and able to deliver from it (Ps. 16:10). In other Jewish literature we meet with divisions within Sheol for the wicked and the righteous. This idea appears to underlie the imagery of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Lk. 16:19-31.

You are confusing the latter translations of what the word was believed to have meant... with what the word meant when it was first commited.

Text book mistake - don't be embarrassed.

You are confusing the latter translations of what the word was believed to have meant... with what the word meant when it was first commited.

Text book mistake - don't be embarrassed.
:fluffle: :fluffle: hello gravy!

:fluffle: :fluffle: hello gravy!

Well, good afternoon, stranger!

Just never seem to be around at the same time anymore.... :)

:fluffle:

Well, good afternoon, stranger!

Just never seem to be around at the same time anymore.... :)

:fluffle:
I knoticed! :) :fluffle: I have been busy geting prepped for a trivia contest that took place this weekened though. now it is over with :)

I knoticed! :) :fluffle: I have been busy geting prepped for a trivia contest that took place this weekened though. now it is over with :)

The Cause of Good and Right has been awaiting your return... :)

How'd you do?

The Cause of Good and Right has been awaiting your return... :)

How'd you do?
Middle of the pack but our team is relitivly small (around 12 people where the winning team was at 50 + people) and new (only been around 5 years so far) so we are workin our way up by a spot or 2 every year

(I will make a thread with sample question when I retrive my unix server from the house we were at with some sample questions (they are in a database on there))

what he cant be bothered to try and help us every few thousand years (besides he did a pretty piss poor job of being omnipotent if he couldent manage to be able to convince people)

He saved us once, thats all he needed to do. Just because humans are so unable to believe something that they cant fully understand does that mean that God needs to stoop to our level. He doesnt want mindless followers becuase they are affraid of his power. He wants loving people to live as he showed them to live and for them to accept his gift to them not out of fear but out of gratefulness.

He saved us once, thats all he needed to do. Just because humans are so unable to believe something that they cant fully understand does that mean that God needs to stoop to our level. He doesnt want mindless followers becuase they are affraid of his power. He wants loving people to live as he showed them to live and for them to accept his gift to them not out of fear but out of gratefulness.
yes ... because he designed us that way ... if that is not what he wished to do he could have done differently

You are confusing the latter translations of what the word was believed to have meant... with what the word meant when it was first commited.

Text book mistake - don't be embarrassed.

Dont worry im not because i know what sheol means.

Sheol is a Hebrew word used for the abode of the dead. It is thought of as a place situated below the ground (e.g. Ezek. 31:15), a place of darkness, silence and forgetfulness (Job 10:21; Ps. 94:17, 88:12). Although the dead in sheol are apparently cut off from God (Ps. 88:3-5), he is not absent (Ps. 139:8), and is able to deliver souls from sheol (Ps. 16:10).

Look at each instance that the word Sheol is in, use an actual Hebrew bible. These are FROM the old testament and not some form of interpretation to what it is thought to mean. There are 66 references to sheol to look at.

EDIT::
A Hebrew Lexicon of the Old Testament define Sheol as: "the underworld... whither man descends at death," defines Sheol as 'netherworld, realm of the dead,' defines Sheol as 'the unseen world, the state or abode of the dead, and is the equivalent of the Greek: Hades.' 'Sheol denotes the place where departed souls are gathered after death; it is an infinitive form from sha-al, to demand, the demanding, applied to the place which inexorably summons all men into its shade.'

B. B. Warfield, stated that with modern Hebrew scholars, there is no 'hesitation to allow with all heartiness that Israel from the beginning of its recorded history cherished the most settled conviction of the persistence of the soul in life after death...The body is laid in the grave and the soul departs to Sheol.' Modern scholarship understands the word Sheol to refer to the place where the soul or spirit of man goes at death. None of the lexicographical literature defines Sheol as referring to the grave or to passing into nonexistence.

It seems that Sheol has different sections. There is the contrast between 'the lowest part' and 'the highest part' of Sheol (Deut 32:22). This figurative language implies that there are divisions or distinctions within Sheol. Perhaps the Old Testament's emphatic distinction between the righteous and the wicked in this life indicates that this distinction continues on in the afterlife. Thus the wicked are said to be in 'the lowest part,' while the righteous are in 'the higher part' of Sheol.

yes ... because he designed us that way ... if that is not what he wished to do he could have done differently

1) You cant prove that he designed us with the intention of being unable to believe in something we cant prove.

2) To design us to make it easier to believe in him is not a long step from making us automatons programmed to believe in him. He doesnt want robots who love him because its the way they are programed to do so. He also doesnt want cowering yesmen who only believe in him because they are afraid. He wants real loving people who are grateful for what he has given them (salvation) and for them to come to him of their own accord.

3) Over 1 Billion people on this planet do believe in him so I think there is no significent flaw.

1) You cant prove that he designed us with the intention of being unable to believe in something we cant prove.

Maybe he has faith in the idea? :p

1) You cant prove that he designed us with the intention of being unable to believe in something we cant prove.

2) To design us to make it easier to believe in him is not a long step from making us automatons programmed to believe in him. He doesnt want robots who love him because its the way they are programed to do so. He also doesnt want cowering yesmen who only believe in him because they are afraid. He wants real loving people who are grateful for what he has given them (salvation) and for them to come to him of their own accord.

3) Over 1 Billion people on this planet do believe in him so I think there is no significent flaw.

1) so you are saying the human thinking process ... probably the most individual and in my opinion beautiful part about humanity (just the complexity to be able to think is amazing) was not designed by god?

2)Why? why does he need people that love him ... why create billions nay trillions of people that go to hell just to come up with a few that "love" him

3) 16.666% roughly believe in him(if Christianity got it right) (even less if you are picky on which denomination of Christianity is right) not exactly a good record for a supposedly all powerful god not to mention the growth of Islam (eventually will surpass Christianity) (though by your logic if having a lot of people believe the same thing makes you right soon as they do then Islam will be the correct religion to believe in)

1) You cant prove that he designed us with the intention of being unable to believe in something we cant prove.

Well, no, we can't say anything about his intentions, but we can say that we are exactly as he designed us. That's what omnipotence and omniscience mean.

3) Over 1 Billion people on this planet do believe in him so I think there is no significent flaw.

Five billion people are insignificant?

Well, no, we can't say anything about his intentions, but we can say that we are exactly as he designed us. That's what omnipotence and omniscience mean.

There is nothing to suggest that his design for us was anything less than perfect. Its just our actions that screwed it up.

1) so you are saying the human thinking process ... probably the most individual and in my opinion beautiful part about humanity (just the complexity to be able to think is amazing) was not designed by god?

No, I said you cannot prove that the human thinking process was created with the speicific intention of having a flaw of a level which made it hard for us to believe in God.


Five billion people are insignificant?

I put it to you that if you examined a Chrisitan and a non-Christian biologically you would not find anything in one that you do/dont in the other that enables them to believe/disables their ablity to believe in God.


2)Why? why does he need people that love him ... why create billions nay trillions of people that go to hell just to come up with a few that "love" him


He does'nt NEED people. I said want. We all want people to love us, but we dont force them into it.

3) 16.666% roughly believe in him(if Christianity got it right) (even less if you are picky on which denomination of Christianity is right) not exactly a good record for a supposedly all powerful god not to mention the growth of Islam (eventually will surpass Christianity) (though by your logic if having a lot of people believe the same thing makes you right soon as they do then Islam will be the correct religion to believe in)

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that it was true because lots of people followed it. What I said was that if there was some kind of flaw which disabled people from believing it cant be doing its job properly since over a sixth of the earth believe in Jesus. I never said there was a flaw, nor did I say that Chrisitanity was right based on its numbers.

snip

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that it was true because lots of people followed it. What I said was that if there was some kind of flaw which disabled people from believing it cant be doing its job properly since over a sixth of the earth believe in Jesus. I never said there was a flaw, nor did I say that Chrisitanity was right based on its numbers.
Ok besides right 16.666% not exactly a glaring show of his power of conveying information to people in a form they can each understand

There is nothing to suggest that his design for us was anything less than perfect. Its just our actions that screwed it up.

If his design for us had been perfect, there would have been no fall. His design was obviously, thus, imperfect. As he is omniscient (knows everything) and omnipotent (can do anything), this imperfection can only be intentional.


I put it to you that if you examined a Chrisitan and a non-Christian biologically you would not find anything in one that you do/dont in the other that enables them to believe/disables their ablity to believe in God.

You're avoiding the issue. Of course there's nothing biologically different between Christians and non-Christians. I am attacking your assertion that 1 billion people on earth, 15% or so (likely the highest percentage of Christians in human history ) is in any way a significant figure. It's a sizable minority of best, and yet you're using it to assert God's boundless love for all of humanity? Because 15% of us are being saved from the worst fate imaginable?

I allege that there's something wrong with your "universal solution" to sin. A 15% success rate would be pretty lousy for even a sorta middlingly competent and moderately genial God, let alone one that is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving.

(by the by, where are you getting your numbers from? CIA world factbook gives 33% of the world's population as Christian, mostly Roman Catholic. Not that the specific numbers mean much... Or perhaps you're assuming that the majority of Christians are going to Hell as well?)

If his design for us had been perfect, there would have been no fall. His design was obviously, thus, imperfect. As he is omniscient (knows everything) and omnipotent (can do anything), this imperfection can only be intentional.

Then it is obviously not a biological flaw. More likely it is to do with sin or free will


You're avoiding the issue. Of course there's nothing biologically different between Christians and non-Christians. I am attacking your assertion that 1 billion people on earth, 15% or so (likely the highest percentage of Christians in human history ) is in any way a significant figure. It's a sizable minority of best, and yet you're using it to assert God's boundless love for all of humanity? Because 15% of us are being saved from the worst fate imaginable?

I allege that there's something wrong with your "universal solution" to sin. A 15% success rate would be pretty lousy for even a sorta middlingly competent and moderately genial God, let alone one that is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving.


How exactly is God's love any less if only a small number of people love him back. God's love has never been reletive to the number of believers.

How exactly is God's love any less if only a small number of people love him back. God's love has never been reletive to the number of believers.

I guess we're hitting back up against the central objection: I still don't see how it's possible to allow someone you love to be tortured for all eternity. And I don't see how a solution to this problem can be considered valid if it only succeeds in saving a small portion of the population.

If the world were 99% Christian, and a small, backwards portion of society stubbornly refused to accept God's love, then, well... I'd still have major problems with the idea of Hell, but it would be less blatantly, outrageously, monstrouly evil.

The faith thing I also have severe problems with: it's like a perverse guessing game, or, to quote (from memory; don't have a copy in front of me) a work of unbridled genuis:

"like a game of poker in a pitch black room with blank cards for infinite stakes with a dealer who won't tell you the rules and smiles all the time."

Why should God insist that not only do we need to believe in him (petty), but we need to believe in him in the face of a thousand other choices all equally valid on the surface, in the face of much scientific evidence (especially if you're a creationist), and with only a dated, self-contradictory, muddled, obscure, mistranslated book for backing? (cruel)

Not only that, but the book has been corrupted throughly and exists in hundreds of (currently extant) editions, only a couple of which are valid, allegedlyl. And if we somehow "choose" to get caught by one of the red-herrings, in one the double-blinds, or even if we guess correctly but fail to live up to his standards otherwise, then we suffer for all eternity, a fate worse than the worst thing that a human can do to another human.

With all due respect, Neo Cannen, your God's a big asshole.

So WHY is faith necessary? Why must we believe that this is true, despite everything else? Why can't God reveal himself? Keep in mind that choosing to reveal himself could save billions of people from eternal damnation.

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.

God loves evreyone and he will not let a child molester into heaven just for believing he must reform, repent, and witness before he is allowed into heaven.
:headbang:

With all due respect, Neo Cannen, your God's a big asshole.

So in the calm cool darkness that is 3 in the morning, looking at this post, I realize I may've been a bit outta line with this last bit. Not that it isn't what I think, when it comes down to it, but it fails utterly on the non-flamy criterium. So, mebbe only read the post as far as the line above this one? :)

God loves evreyone and he will not let a child molester into heaven just for believing he must reform, repent, and witness before he is allowed into heaven.

So cleansing one's sins is a more elaborate process. Fair enough. What's your take on non-Christians? Up shit creek, or do they have a chance to avoid Hell too?

Et cetera.

Next attempt.

:golfclap:

A child molester can call himself a christian.

A madman can call himself God.

a liar can call himself a saint.

It doesnt matter.
You can call yourself an "occultist" and be as bitter and accusory at all the other hippocrites that call themselves Christians that you want to.
In the end...it doesnt matter.

Let me put it to you this way...

The most holy of men, and the worst of men may call themselves whatever they want to.
What matters, are the actions each of them take in life.

If the action you take, is to point the finger of the worst of one group, that pretty much qualifies you as the worst of another.

Shitheads come in all shapes, colors and faiths.

If your an "occultist", and that floats your boat..cool.
But make sure that you dont harbor a grudge against a god that your not supposed to believe in.

As a present..I give you my favorite Chinese Proverb.

(also..the only one I know)

"Take two birds, and tie them together, even though they have four wings...
...they cannot fly."

I think it means "Sometimes, people dont mix well."

I think it applies to religion, and politics as well.

I put it to you that if you examined a Chrisitan and a non-Christian biologically you would not find anything in one that you do/dont in the other that enables them to believe/disables their ablity to believe in God.


actually, i would be more than willing to take that challenge (once i get my degree and am qualified to work with human subjects)! there is some amazing new evidence coming forth that is narrowing down the brain regions responsible for religiosity, and several experiments have been able to induce spiritual feelings and meditative states through direct stimulation of specific regions of the cortex. there is also a significant collection of evidence suggesting that heightened brain activity in such regions will be directly correlated with increased religiosity.

obviously the first step in research will be to determine the biological predisposition and the structural/chemical/electrical differences related to belief. determining if somebody is actually unable to believe in God will be a ways down the road, because there may be several regions that regulate God-belief and therefore different neurological "level" of God-belief, so definitions could get fuzzy. however, i believe that within our lifetimes we will be able to identify the regions of the brain from which God-belief arises, and we will have beginning knowledge in how such belief is biologically regulated.

remember, God-belief, like all human thoughts and feelings, is a physical phenomenon in an organ of our bodies. damage to the brain has been shown to have instant and unequivocal impact on God-belief, showing that there definitely IS a physical component to God-belief. it is not unreasonable to think that some people may have brains better designed to experience God-belief while others do not. only time (and research) will tell...

God did not try to hide what he did. He did it. But because he is God you cant explain it fully. God did it, and he shouldnt have to prove it beyond doing it.
That's the whole point of this thread. Maybe go back ot Heikoku's post, consider. The integrity of the argument of suffering and judgment on god's part is the whole point, we're just meandering around it. That's why there are many instances where Heikoku can rightly say the argument doesn't hold water.

OK, a few thoughts here:

1. Straughn, I think you answered your own question there. Think about it: you have the power to judge, but do you have the power to judge rightly? Are you able to see all sides of an issue so objectively and understand them so thoroughly that you could determine damnation or salvation for each of us? The tree is a metaphor for a limited human understanding.



We now have a world full of people so bloody wrapped up in justifying their own personal freedoms, they couldn't give a rat's ass about right, wrong, or consequences. :rolleyes:
Well, i may give examples of both, but i stand exactly by what i wrote. I'll simplify it for you. What exactly is the right judgment about a fig tree that doesn't produce fruit? That is the exact context and the point followed. Maybe you should reread it. As far as judging rightly, i again ask what exactly the consequence was to the fig tree (did Jesus or his followers chop it down and burn it for non-deific compliance? Are they all gone? Or is that just a very peculiar and obviously unclear case of askew judgment? I haven't heard ONE good explanation yet, just that excuse that god doesn't have to explain itself, even if jesus wasn't god at the time. What kind of example is that? As far as it being a metaphor for poor human understanding, there are plenty of obviously bigoted interpretations of things in the bible and the fig tree was an example of how to make no sense while still acting self-righteous. It seems to apply a sense of stupidity about the nature of a plant.
Really, what was the consequence you speak of?

As for the last line, i somewhat agree with you but i do not agree that it is the responsibility of the individual to shuffle off their judgment to any literature that instead of determining a level ground of judgment for understanding and consequence, it instead portrays a sense of bigotry misunderstanding and delusion as the path towards a salvation you can't know in the living. It betrays your life for a promise of something that NO ONE has proven follows. Call it faith or call it gullibility, it's the same life you're betraying if the focus isn't on being a better person while you're alive and experiencing it.

Because hell is punishment for sin.

"It is a most unreasonable thing to suppose that there should be no future punishment, to suppose that God, who had made man a rational creature, able to know his duty, and sensible that he is deserving punishment when he does it not; should let man alone, and let him live as he will, and never punish him for his sins, and never make any difference between the good and the bad How unreasonable it is to suppose, the He who made the world, should leave things in such confusion, and never take any care of the governing of His creatures, and that He should never judge His reasonable creatures." (J.Edwards)
Duty = free will?
?
So the free will we're concerned with is our duty? Our duty to exercise free will? Assuming we're all familiar with our obligations (ha) we are contracted into performing something for someone else our entire f*cking lives and when we neglect someone else's theme of said duty then i earn the consequence of hell? F*ck that.
I did not and do not subscribe to that. There is no contractual obligation i have to anyone else's words and deeds from before i time i could consciously ascertain a choice. That's f*cked thinking and you know it.
Free will just as well means a lack of duty in this case. Prove the duty and prove my obligation to it. That doesn't mean you don't have to subscribe to it, but like it's been said here, how is it hell for someone to be out of the sphere of influence of some kind of god when that's exactly the way that person chose?

Duty = free will?
?
So the free will we're concerned with is our duty? Our duty to exercise free will? Assuming we're all familiar with our obligations (ha) we are contracted into performing something for someone else our entire f*cking lives and when we neglect someone else's theme of said duty then i earn the consequence of hell? F*ck that.
I did not and do not subscribe to that. There is no contractual obligation i have to anyone else's words and deeds from before i time i could consciously ascertain a choice. That's f*cked thinking and you know it.
Free will just as well means a lack of duty in this case. Prove the duty and prove my obligation to it. That doesn't mean you don't have to subscribe to it, but like it's been said here, how is it hell for someone to be out of the sphere of influence of some kind of god when that's exactly the way that person chose?


Yeah seems kind of weird to me

“you got the choice to do anything you want … you are free … it is my gift to you”
“but if you decide wrong you get to suffer for all eternity” *said in very quiet tones*

Not to mention having ambiguous messages and not telling everyone the same thing (or at all)
Not everyone got the memo that exercising your “god given” right to free will has punishments that go beyond time :P

Yeah seems kind of weird to me

“you got the choice to do anything you want … you are free … it is my gift to you”
“but if you decide wrong you get to suffer for all eternity” *said in very quiet tones*

Not to mention having ambiguous messages and not telling everyone the same thing (or at all)
Not everyone got the memo that exercising your “god given” right to free will has punishments that go beyond time :P
Agreed. I appreciate your posts, btw.
To be fair, some parts of me think about how insecure this god must be about having to have the willing sacrifice of my living soul (the only proving ground i have for my spirit and justification/refinement of my soul) .... something i relinquish to NO ONE since I'm the one who deals with everything to it ....
i at the same time consider that as impetuous and childish the god is represented to be so long on a personal level may be the one that, in human terms, would like to have a special place in my existence for some kind of unity ...
So i consider :
It's possible for a fragile-ego god to want me to appreciate it and share the emotional aspects of spirituality (very strong) - but that god shouldn't have the same lack of emotional and psychological integrity to attempt to destroy me for my own personal integrity through means of hell suffering and torment - that simply isn't love by any real definition.
It's also possible that the god referred to strongly with tempestous bouts in the OT might have recessed into a crumbly existance of self-imposed exile from its own creation (why?) for only the select few to seek out to share in its experience ... but again that lends itself to being a deceitful nature like a very small dinner bell in a huge and resonant shell spanning for miles. Under the assumption it created everything, it would be just playing hide-and-seek and putting all pursuers at odds with other aspects of its creation. That sets up a duplicity of appreciation/reprehension. I understand that the argument of the apple will apply here for those who subscribe to Genesis. Nonetheless it wouldn't have been a duplicity i would have chosen as a loving and providing individual unless i intended for my subject to espouse the characteristics of both.
If the emotional integrity of this god is as it is espoused in the bible then i am more convinced then ever that it is not actually omniscient nor omnipotent since it is apparently incapable of conquering its own shortcomings, in small terms, and it may be just trying to eke out significance in a much larger sense of being and responsibility that it may not like dealing with. And honestly, a huge group of like-minded humans with the stroke of a pen have since already accomplished a mindset that can resonate with the loneliness and gullibility of the general swings of the populace, and hence wouldn't really need at any time to have a god to pursue in the first place since enough rules have been set in play by biblical literature that one can only pursue an irrational and self-delusive mindset in order to ACHIEVE (note: not subscribe to) salvation that is only accomplished after death, after any conscious choice you make with YOUR SOUL has already been bereaved of you. So to subscribe i would betray my living soul and the love that god would want, unless god just wants someone to adore it (and i will hug him and pet him and call him George).
I also am aware that a person can have a kind of epiphany and have it alter their spiritual attitude towards such, which i have had MANY, for which i do not dismiss the truly loving aspects of the bible .... i simply don't see those as the characteristics of the god of the bible. Instead i see them as the better characteristics of the people who are trying their hardest to appreciate what they see as gods creations and the ones most capable of appreciating pity, mercy, compassion, and love. And a god that would allow ANY eternal suffering and lack of mercy, pity, and compassion is therefore not above the same characteristics that it blames on its subjects. That is not love and therefore that being receives no love from me on same conditions. I don't think i'm alone on this.
Hope that wasn't too long for those readers with slightly-shorter attention spans.

He saved us once, thats all he needed to do. Just because humans are so unable to believe something that they cant fully understand does that mean that God needs to stoop to our level. He doesnt want mindless followers becuase they are affraid of his power. He wants loving people to live as he showed them to live and for them to accept his gift to them not out of fear but out of gratefulness.

See - here's the problem Neo.... you assume that just because someone doesn't buy the 'story', they don't understand it....

Dont worry im not because i know what sheol means.

Sheol is a Hebrew word used for the abode of the dead. It is thought of as a place situated below the ground (e.g. Ezek. 31:15), a place of darkness, silence and forgetfulness (Job 10:21; Ps. 94:17, 88:12). Although the dead in sheol are apparently cut off from God (Ps. 88:3-5), he is not absent (Ps. 139:8), and is able to deliver souls from sheol (Ps. 16:10).

Look at each instance that the word Sheol is in, use an actual Hebrew bible. These are FROM the old testament and not some form of interpretation to what it is thought to mean. There are 66 references to sheol to look at.

EDIT::
A Hebrew Lexicon of the Old Testament define Sheol as: "the underworld... whither man descends at death," defines Sheol as 'netherworld, realm of the dead,' defines Sheol as 'the unseen world, the state or abode of the dead, and is the equivalent of the Greek: Hades.' 'Sheol denotes the place where departed souls are gathered after death; it is an infinitive form from sha-al, to demand, the demanding, applied to the place which inexorably summons all men into its shade.'

B. B. Warfield, stated that with modern Hebrew scholars, there is no 'hesitation to allow with all heartiness that Israel from the beginning of its recorded history cherished the most settled conviction of the persistence of the soul in life after death...The body is laid in the grave and the soul departs to Sheol.' Modern scholarship understands the word Sheol to refer to the place where the soul or spirit of man goes at death. None of the lexicographical literature defines Sheol as referring to the grave or to passing into nonexistence.

It seems that Sheol has different sections. There is the contrast between 'the lowest part' and 'the highest part' of Sheol (Deut 32:22). This figurative language implies that there are divisions or distinctions within Sheol. Perhaps the Old Testament's emphatic distinction between the righteous and the wicked in this life indicates that this distinction continues on in the afterlife. Thus the wicked are said to be in 'the lowest part,' while the righteous are in 'the higher part' of Sheol.

Once again - you are falling into the text-book trap of assuming that the latter incarnations of the word, the latter understandings... have ANY relation to the origins.

Reading the Old Testament, it is pretty clear that Sheol was originally written into the text to be a nothingness - the end of all things. The kind of revisionist reading you are allowing yourself to do, is the same kind of revisionism that allows 'christians' to try to claim that the 'elohiym' of Genesis actually represents the 'trinity'.

But, I can see where you are getting it from... the same kind of revisionism that tries to claim an 'eternal soul', in the Hebrew...

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Before Adam and Eve sinned God already told them to 'increase in number.' It was not a result of sin. God created them to be 'fruitfull and multiply,' this was before they sinned. Genesis 3:16 God said he would 'increase the pain of childbearing,' because of the sin.



I explained the example to show how the sin of adam and eve effect the rest of us.
I'm extending my appreciations to you for pointing out one of the first inconsistancies in the bible, pertinent to the timing..
Okay, read that passage CAREFULLY. 1:28 is in the 6th day. God didn't create Adam until when? The only specific mention of Adam is already after the 7th day, which is later than the passages you provide, which are actually pertinent to the beasts on the earth. Indeed it does mention man and image, but certainly whom it was referring to wasn't Adam since specifically Eve hadn't even been created yet. So who was he (pre-Adam?) going to propegate with? Lilith (look it up...)?
2:19 is the first time that Adam is named as such. Then the naming of the animals (can i get a witness? yeah!) Then when there was "no one" for Adam to share his dominion with, god technically date-raped him and Adam woke up with the ol' ball & chain.

Before Adam and Eve sinned God already told them to 'increase in number.' It was not a result of sin. God created them to be 'fruitfull and multiply,' this was before they sinned. Genesis 3:16 God said he would 'increase the pain of childbearing,' because of the sin.

Eve, in that course of events, didn't exist yet. So god didn't call upon her to be fruitful and multiply. Supposedly god called upon man and woman before woman actually existed, since it does say that in the passage of the 6th day that god did that, although it took Adam to already have been through the naming process and his subsequent loneliness for Eve to be created.
If one were to assume there were other progenitors of the human race here, the bible obviously leaves such pursuits sorely lacking in the their literature to follow up on.
Yes as a further consequence, god wanted to inflict pain upon its own creation in the living and not even waiting until the eternal suffering later for the non-repentant. Thanks for pointing that out too.

No, I said you cannot prove that the human thinking process was created with the speicific intention of having a flaw of a level which made it hard for us to believe in God.


Curious... you are implying that elements of human creation were OUTSIDE of god's will?

He was incapable of building a non-flawed human?

So which is it? He accidentally made us flawed? Or he couldn't do any better?

Curious... you are implying that elements of human creation were OUTSIDE of god's will?

He was incapable of building a non-flawed human?

So which is it? He accidentally made us flawed? Or he couldn't do any better?

I actually belive that there is no flaw in the design. The flaw comes from sin and the abuse of free will. Any design feture which makes it "easier" for us to believe in God is akin to God creating robots which just believe in him because thats the way they are made.

An intersting chapter of the Bible to read in regards to salvation by works is Romans 4.

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about–but not before God. What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring–not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed–the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead–since he was about a hundred years old–and that Sarah's womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness–for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

I actually belive that there is no flaw in the design. The flaw comes from sin and the abuse of free will. Any design feture which makes it "easier" for us to believe in God is akin to God creating robots which just believe in him because thats the way they are made.

So - by your own admission, now: You are a more flawed creation then I AM, because you have the 'robot' feature which enables you to believe, because that is how you were made.

So - by your own admission, now: You are a more flawed creation then I AM, because you have the 'robot' feature which enables you to believe, because that is how you were made.

No, what I said was "IF" we were made in any way to somehow make it easier for us to have faith in God then it would be a small jump to God just making robots. I didn't say there was one. I was just indicating the flaw in the thinking of some people who believe Christians have some kind of biological advantage.

No, what I said was "IF" we were made in any way to somehow make it easier for us to have faith in God then it would be a small jump to God just making robots. I didn't say there was one. I was just indicating the flaw in the thinking of some people who believe Christians have some kind of biological advantage.

Actually, I think it would be more of a disadvantage... I don't see that a set of senses that favours imagination over observation would be a very good survival attribute.

Actually, I think it would be more of a disadvantage... I don't see that a set of senses that favours imagination over observation would be a very good survival attribute.

Well it would be considered an advantage if it increased your liklyhood of asking for salvation and getting it (and before you say it, yes I know thats on the basis that the idea of salvation is acurate and that God exists and that cannot be proved/disproved either way). However there is no biological difrence between Christians and non-Christians that is proven.

Well it would be considered an advantage if it increased your liklyhood of asking for salvation and getting it (and before you say it, yes I know thats on the basis that the idea of salvation is acurate and that God exists and that cannot be proved/disproved either way). However there is no biological difrence between Christians and non-Christians that is proven.

However, since the 'religious' psychology enables an individual to make assumptions based on no evidence... the possibility of that individual surviving to be old enough to comprehend salvation is greatly reduced.

Well it would be considered an advantage if it increased your liklyhood of asking for salvation and getting it (and before you say it, yes I know thats on the basis that the idea of salvation is acurate and that God exists and that cannot be proved/disproved either way). However there is no biological difrence between Christians and non-Christians that is proven.
Actually Bottle has posted circumstances qualifying that theme, that there is a biological difference between an individual who subscribes to a faith (living/doing) and one who doesn't, it's in the brain. There is more than Bottle's word to go on with that, btw. Type a science journal for the last year, or even when Time and Newsweek covered the topic.

However, since the 'religious' psychology enables an individual to make assumptions based on no evidence... the possibility of that individual surviving to be old enough to comprehend salvation is greatly reduced.
(Quote old Batman show)
KaPOW! :sniper:
Very good post.

I've read studies that point to hyper religiousity as a major sign of mental illness. Especially prevalent in schizoprenics.

I've read studies that point to hyper religiousity as a major sign of mental illness. Especially prevalent in schizoprenics.
i don't know about that, but i know for a fact that there is a documented organic brain disorder called temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) that is directly related to religiosity. TLE is a dangerously elevated level of activity in the temporal lobe or lobes of the brain, usually the left temporal, but sometimes right lobe or both. people who suffer from TLE have symptoms beyond the seizures, and one of the most fascinating is hyper-religiosity. people who weren't particularly religious before the onset of TLE will suddenly become fervently religious, consumed with spirituality and superstition, and will often report "feeling God's presence" in a very intimate and immediate manner.

an interesting speculation has arisen from studies of TLE, that Saul/Paul from the Bible was actually experiencing TLE; his experience on the road, where he saw a bright flash and fell down, is a perfect description of a seizure experience, and other symptoms (such as his following lack of appetite) also match perfectly with the symptoms of TLE. obviously this is pure speculation, but it's still an intriguing notion.

i don't know about that, but i know for a fact that there is a documented organic brain disorder called temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) that is directly related to religiosity. TLE is a dangerously elevated level of activity in the temporal lobe or lobes of the brain, usually the left temporal, but sometimes right lobe or both. people who suffer from TLE have symptoms beyond the seizures, and one of the most fascinating is hyper-religiosity. people who weren't particularly religious before the onset of TLE will suddenly become fervently religious, consumed with spirituality and superstition, and will often report "feeling God's presence" in a very intimate and immediate manner.

an interesting speculation has arisen from studies of TLE, that Saul/Paul from the Bible was actually experiencing TLE; his experience on the road, where he saw a bright flash and fell down, is a perfect description of a seizure experience, and other symptoms (such as his following lack of appetite) also match perfectly with the symptoms of TLE. obviously this is pure speculation, but it's still an intriguing notion.
Even more specific than i remember the last one being. Thanks! I'm glad i'm not apparently misrepresenting you.
I agree about the characteristics you speak of about Saul/Paul.

(Quote old Batman show)
KaPOW! :sniper:
Very good post.

Why, thank you! :)

I remember seeing something on the Discovery Channel about a guy with epilepsy. He'd have periods where he got very into spirituality and thought he knew all the secrets of the universe. His dad had a hard time keeping him on his medication, because he really liked the times when he felt secure in having all the answers.

i don't know about that, but i know for a fact that there is a documented organic brain disorder called temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) that is directly related to religiosity. TLE is a dangerously elevated level of activity in the temporal lobe or lobes of the brain, usually the left temporal, but sometimes right lobe or both. people who suffer from TLE have symptoms beyond the seizures, and one of the most fascinating is hyper-religiosity. people who weren't particularly religious before the onset of TLE will suddenly become fervently religious, consumed with spirituality and superstition, and will often report "feeling God's presence" in a very intimate and immediate manner.

an interesting speculation has arisen from studies of TLE, that Saul/Paul from the Bible was actually experiencing TLE; his experience on the road, where he saw a bright flash and fell down, is a perfect description of a seizure experience, and other symptoms (such as his following lack of appetite) also match perfectly with the symptoms of TLE. obviously this is pure speculation, but it's still an intriguing notion.

Further evidence in the case of Saul, might be the fact that there is a difference of opinion (even in the 'innerrant' scripture) about whether or not anyone else could sense what Saul was 'sensing'.

Actually Bottle has posted circumstances qualifying that theme, that there is a biological difference between an individual who subscribes to a faith (living/doing) and one who doesn't, it's in the brain. There is more than Bottle's word to go on with that, btw. Type a science journal for the last year, or even when Time and Newsweek covered the topic.
So what about religious people who don't subscribe to a faith?

So what about religious people who don't subscribe to a faith?

Perhaps there are different degrees... I haven't met many 'eclectic pagans' or non-denominationalists, who had the same 'fervour' so often found in the organised religions.

Perhaps it is that ability to willfully surrender reality, to wholeheartedly leap on to an idea.... maybe THAT is what marks the differentiation.

Even more specific than i remember the last one being. Thanks! I'm glad i'm not apparently misrepresenting you.
I agree about the characteristics you speak of about Saul/Paul.
i have done a lot of reading on the neurobiological processes involved in religiosity, so there's plenty more where that came from :).

i find myself no more able to believe in God than i am able to believe that Santa Claus is literally real. however, i meet people every day who tell me that they are certain of the existence of a particular god (or gods), and most of these people are not raving lunatics in any conspicuous sense. in the vast majority of cases, they aren't mentally handicapped, they aren't insane, they aren't biologically ill in any way that i can perceive, so there must be some way that a "normally" functioning brain can produce religiosity. yet my "normally" functioning brain does not.

(please note: "normal" is a very relative term, especially due to how little we know about standard human brain function, but i trust you all will understand the general notion i am getting at when i use that term.)

i am interested in how or why they believe while i do not, and i have explored this question on philosophical, psychological, and biological levels. the best answers currently tend to be provided in the psychological field, and the worst in the philosophical field, but i think the most promise for the future lies with the biological. we simply don't have enough information, yet, to answer questions about complex human brain functions, but i firmly believe that we WILL have such information if science is allowed to progress. i think the biological answers will be the most concrete, the most irrefutable, and ultimately the most useful in this subject area.

and that's enough of me and my soapbox for the day...stay in school, kids!

So what about religious people who don't subscribe to a faith?
Interesting choice of words ... in my experience, i can't find anything to qualify that circumstance. I don't know any supporter of any particular religion or religion in general who don't already have somewhat of a subscription of faith and standard they already hold in regard for that/those religions to meet, even if the religion(s) doesn't meet as many standards as necessary to become devout. So i don't misunderstand you, maybe you could give me an example of what you mean. I personally am a very faithful and faith-oriented person but i have yet to see a religion qualify the faith.

Perhaps it is that ability to willfully surrender reality, to wholeheartedly leap on to an idea.... maybe THAT is what marks the differentiation.
Do you think there are any people who lack this ability?

I see it demonstrated every time I enter/exit a movie theatre.

i have done a lot of reading on the neurobiological processes involved in religiosity, so there's plenty more where that came from :).

i find myself no more able to believe in God than i am able to believe that Santa Claus is literally real. however, i meet people every day who tell me that they are certain of the existence of a particular god (or gods), and most of these people are not raving lunatics in any conspicuous sense. in the vast majority of cases, they aren't mentally handicapped, they aren't insane, they aren't biologically ill in any way that i can perceive, so there must be some way that a "normally" functioning brain can produce religiosity. yet my "normally" functioning brain does not.

(please note: "normal" is a very relative term, especially due to how little we know about standard human brain function, but i trust you all will understand the general notion i am getting at when i use that term.)

i am interested in how or why they believe while i do not, and i have explored this question on philosophical, psychological, and biological levels. the best answers currently tend to be provided in the psychological field, and the worst in the philosophical field, but i think the most promise for the future lies with the biological. we simply don't have enough information, yet, to answer questions about complex human brain functions, but i firmly believe that we WILL have such information if science is allowed to progress. i think the biological answers will be the most concrete, the most irrefutable, and ultimately the most useful in this subject area.

and that's enough of me and my soapbox for the day...stay in school, kids!

Personally, I am more inclined to believe that religion is one of many 'coping mechanisms'.

To my view, some people seem unable to accept "I just don't know" as a possible response to any question - and seek to find an answer no matter where... whether that is obtained by blind faith in a 'spirit' form, or the same blind faith as applied by SOME people, to the scientific disciplines.

Maybe there is a propensity towards that particular 'coping mechanism' in some people? Due to some stimuli?

To my thinking, admitting there are NOT always answers... admitting how much you DON'T know.... that is the start of enlightenment.

i have done a lot of reading on the neurobiological processes involved in religiosity, so there's plenty more where that came from :).

i find myself no more able to believe in God than i am able to believe that Santa Claus is literally real. however, i meet people every day who tell me that they are certain of the existence of a particular god (or gods), and most of these people are not raving lunatics in any conspicuous sense. in the vast majority of cases, they aren't mentally handicapped, they aren't insane, they aren't biologically ill in any way that i can perceive, so there must be some way that a "normally" functioning brain can produce religiosity. yet my "normally" functioning brain does not.

(please note: "normal" is a very relative term, especially due to how little we know about standard human brain function, but i trust you all will understand the general notion i am getting at when i use that term.)

i am interested in how or why they believe while i do not, and i have explored this question on philosophical, psychological, and biological levels. the best answers currently tend to be provided in the psychological field, and the worst in the philosophical field, but i think the most promise for the future lies with the biological. we simply don't have enough information, yet, to answer questions about complex human brain functions, but i firmly believe that we WILL have such information if science is allowed to progress. i think the biological answers will be the most concrete, the most irrefutable, and ultimately the most useful in this subject area.

and that's enough of me and my soapbox for the day...stay in school, kids!
Keep up the good deeds, then!
What do you think of trans-cranial magnetic stimulation then? There's a few cases of use where the subject experienced said cognitive dissonance and "presence sense" to the degrees listed in clinical schizophrenia? Would that mean an average person exposed to the proper magnetic stimulation environment could become more zealous and religious, and then have it shut off without them even knowing, maybe even without much of an actual change to brain physiology? I suppose you were already headed down such a topic path ...

I remember seeing something on the Discovery Channel about a guy with epilepsy. He'd have periods where he got very into spirituality and thought he knew all the secrets of the universe. His dad had a hard time keeping him on his medication, because he really liked the times when he felt secure in having all the answers.
i think there is a critical problem with our modern mental health system, in that there is no explanation for why religious beliefs are granted special status when compared to similar beliefs.

for instance: if you are utterly convinced that there is an all-pervasive conspiracy of magical beings seeking to harm you, you are considered mentally ill. but if you believe there is an all-powerful diety or dieties who loves you and helps you to win your basketball games, you are not considered mentally ill.

Do you think there are any people who lack this ability?

I see it demonstrated every time I enter/exit a movie theatre.

There is a difference between a temprary, voluntary suspension of disbelief... and the condition that enables someone to bomb abortion clinics.

Extreme example, I know.

Just trying to make a point, though. I have been told by Southern Baptists that, if they believed 'god' wished it, they would sacrifice their own child - just as the biblical example demands.

I lack the ability to make THAT kind of mental leap.

Keep up the good deeds, then!
What do you think of trans-cranial magnetic stimulation then? There's a few cases of use where the subject experienced said cognitive dissonance and "presence sense" to the degrees listed in clinical schizophrenia? Would that mean an average person exposed to the proper magnetic stimulation environment could become more zealous and religious, and then have it shut off without them even knowing, maybe even without much of an actual change to brain physiology? I suppose you were already headed down such a topic path ...

Reminds me of an article I read once, which discussed the results of experiments where direct stimulation of certain areas of the brain, resulted in 'religious visions'.

That's about the extent of what I recall, unfortunately.... which makes it hard for me to track down anything to cite....

Keep up the good deeds, then!
What do you think of trans-cranial magnetic stimulation then? There's a few cases of use where the subject experienced said cognitive dissonance and "presence sense" to the degrees listed in clinical schizophrenia? Would that mean an average person exposed to the proper magnetic stimulation environment could become more zealous and religious, and then have it shut off without them even knowing, maybe even without much of an actual change to brain physiology? I suppose you were already headed down such a topic path ...
transcranial magnetic stimulation is one of the most interesting areas of modern psychological/physiological research (in my humble opinion). i think the studies you refer to are quite telling in many ways, since they prove that it is possible to artificially induce "spirituality" using mundane equipment, and therefore establish a physical foundation for the experience of "God."

so far, nobody has really tested the idea of long-term brain alteration using TMS, because (obviously) you don't get to monkey about with living human brains in that way. we do know that brain connectivity and structure change based on activity, though that effect decreases hugely as we age; if you exposed a child's brain to TMS stimulation of this sort, it would probably have a more lasting impact than it would on an adult's brain, because the child's brain is still working out how it's going to hook everything together.

this is one of the reasons i believe religiosity is so hereditary...children of religious parents tend to not only remain religious but also to belong to exactly the same sect as their parents reared them in, and i think that may be due at least in part to the way in which their brains learn to process information.

i think TMS would have a more transient impact on adults, though extreme changes in activity (like in TLE patients) can obviously have more lasting effects. however, increases in activity can also be seriously damaging and can bring a host of other problems along for the ride, so it's not something i think we should be testing out on human subjects.

Reminds me of an article I read once, which discussed the results of experiments where direct stimulation of certain areas of the brain, resulted in 'religious visions'.

That's about the extent of what I recall, unfortunately.... which makes it hard for me to track down anything to cite....
there have been several such studies. several research teams have recorded brain activity from nuns, monks, and "ordinary" religious persons during prayer or meditation, focusing on the time spans when the participants report feeling "close to God" or at the height of the meditative experience. the researchers then attempt to recreate these brain patterns artificially in other randomly selected participants. there have been some notable successes, wherein the participants report feelings "as though they are not alone" or "spiritual." i will try to find citations that are available to the public, but right now all i have is access through a site that requires paid subscription.

but here's a fun tidbit from an article i was reading a few months back:

Dr. Vilayanur Ramachandran, director of the Center for Brain and Cognition at the University of California, has studied TLE patients and has found that their Galvanic Skin Responses are disproportionately aroused by presentation of religious words. The word Jesus will make their palms sweat as much as those of normal people do when presented by sexual terms. Once again it appears that brain processes (and possibly pathological ones?) are the cause of religious experience.