NationStates Jolt Archive

Did not want mindless automatons that would do his will because they were forced...

So - "do as I say, or burn forever"...

DID want mindless automatons that would do his will because they were coerced...?

Thats not what the Bible says. The Bible says that God has saved you, and if you accept that salvation, then you can enter heven. Its not wheter or not you sin, its your reaction to that sin.

well it certainly devalues life.

How?

If anything, entirely the contrary, I would say...

I am an Atheist... I do NOT expect an afterlife.

Therefore, EVERYTHING I EVER WANT TO DO, I have to fit into my meager allotment on Earth.

Not ONE day goes by, where I do not tell my family how much they mean to me.

Not ONE day goes by where I do not try to contribute something to those around me.

Not ONE day goes by, where I do not attempt to create SOMETHING of a legacy for those I will leave behind me, when I go.

If anything, my Atheism gives me a value to my life beyond compare.

Thats not what the Bible says. The Bible says that God has saved you, and if you accept that salvation, then you can enter heven. Its not wheter or not you sin, its your reaction to that sin.

God makes man
Man does something god won't stand for, and are damned
Man multiplies
God sends Jesus to be molested by man, so they can potentially save themselves
One guy asks himself just what he did to deserve that crap? Because he's not really inclined to bow down to something he doesn't believe, and he's even less prepared to recognise that anything can ever claim the right to his life/spirit/whatever

He deserved the pain. He claimed to be what he was not.

He was FAR from the only person ever to give their life in such a fashion... and certainly not the only person to die a martyr for a cause, or die rather than recant.

Unlike others, though... we are expected to believe that THIS crucifixion victim KNEW it was temporary, and that he would be okay again, a few days later.

Hardly the 'ultimate' sacrifice, when you know it's temporary...

he derserved it? :eek: you think someone who claims to be something that you don't believe he is deserves to be beaten within an inch of his life and then nailed to a cross? I'm certainly glad I don't live in your tyrannical little world.

we are expected to believe this because He predicted He'd return in 3 days and there were well over 5000 eye-witnesses from different places at different times that attest that He did it.

You completely forget that GnI's child can appeal to others for help for/against and even rescue from GnI.

An unbeliever can't.

An EXCELLENT pont.

In the 'institutional' version of Christianity, we are all suffering the cruel ministrations of a vengeful god, with no intercessor.

(Except, allegedly, for that same vengeful god, just wearing different PJ's).

An EXCELLENT pont.

In the 'institutional' version of Christianity, we are all suffering the cruel ministrations of a vengeful god, with no intercessor.

(Except, allegedly, for that same vengeful god, just wearing different PJ's).
Cheers.

Anyway, things like that is why I have a tough time accepting religions like Christianity (or any other monotheism I know of).
That I somehow owe god anything - god that to my knowledge has never done squat for anyone - doesn't strike me as very fair.
Especially when that god goes on to claim ownership over my being, regardless of my own wishes.
And then the God has the balls to ask that I love and worthship it?

Oh well. If I actually believed it, I think I'd be highly militant anti-god.

No offence to believers. I don't hold your religion against you at all, and would rather try understanding it than just conclude on my own that it must be dangerous to people's general wellbeing.

he derserved it? :eek: you think someone who claims to be something that you don't believe he is deserves to be beaten within an inch of his life and then nailed to a cross? I'm certainly glad I don't live in your tyrannical little world.


It isn't MY tyrannical little world, my friend... try reading the bible.

He claimed to be the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, and ALSO claimed to be able to amend the word of god.

According to Hebrew law, he got what he deserved.

Maybe you feel differently, because you view him as some kind of 'god'... but that is actually irrelevent to how appropriate the Hebrew punishments were.

Or are you equally venomous about all the (probable) thousands of blasphemers that were executed over the Hebrew history?


we are expected to believe this because He predicted He'd return in 3 days and there were well over 5000 eye-witnesses from different places at different times that attest that He did it.

And MILLIONS of people have seen Elvis.

People see what they want to see.

There is as little evidence for the return post-mortem of Jesus, as their is for Elvis or Lord Lucan.

Too many people nowadays believe that because something is "old" it must go. One day the ideas you so treasure will be considered out of date, and you will be a "mystical old fool", but religion will still be there. You always assume they will disprove the existence of God, but I believe one day it will be proven by the science you always seek comfort with and your theories will be thrown out in favor of the old "myths" you were so eager to throw out and accept new inferior ideas.
/me *doesn't have to wait for someday* :)

Free will necessitates self-determination. This simply means that we do things. No-one else, no-thing else, does them. If the cause of our determinations is external to ourselves, then that is not an instance of free will. If God determines that we shall do a thing, then it was not us who did it, because we are not responsible for that action. If God determines every action, as in the case where he would make us entirely sin-less, then we have no free will.

Free will requires that you actually decide to do something. It does not require that you do not bring all your prior experiences into the decision, that the decision is not completely brought about by the mixture of your experiences and your biology.

Determinism does not require that the program (your mind) is not capable of another output (free will means you can make a choice between A, B, C... etc). Given different inputs you might pick B or C but as the inputs have been fixed since the beginning of time then you were always going to pick A. That is determinism.

Free will and determinism can coexist. Those inputs on you were also the result of free will but their input were also fixed. Again, determinism simply means there are no random events. Free will is not random.

I don't believe in Fate, or predestination. I believe in will, because I have it.

See above.

We are coerced by other consciousnesses, not by genetics or circumstances. In those instances you use as example, free will exists.

Genetics, circumstances and the people we interact with are huge factors in our decisions. I didn't say free will does not exist. I just have a problem with your definition of free will. 'Coerced' decisions are still the result of free will. You're right in my example free will exists. Apparently, you have a problem with your definition of free will, much like I do.

You suggested that if we are coerced in any way into making a decision that is different than we would normally make then we are not permitted free will. And you defined 'coercion' as 'forces' that are beyond our control. You can't simply that say that only God and Fate counts. If your parent says do this or you will be severely punished and you choose to do it, you have been coerced by your parents, but your free will still exists as you still technically had the ability to choose not to do it. Your parents are forces outside of your control.

I think you are trying to say that free will is about having the cognitive choice, which is much different then what you actually said.

It's you who is re-wording, putting words in my mouth. :)

The will of my parents will not forever affect my decision-making. I make my own decisions, thanks. I am influenced by their ideas, their love, their circumstances, their presence, but they do not impose their will on me. Are you speaking in a more general "you"? Well then, the person who chooses to acquiesce to their parent's will is exercising their own free will. The person who acquiesces against their will (is coerced) to their parents (fellow consciousnesses) is not wholly responsible for their actions. I did not say that person ever loses free will.

The will of your parents affects your decision-making every day unless you have some kind of mental condition that makes it so you can't remember anything that occurred in their presence. You may make your own decisions but you are not capable of excluding all influence of your parents on your decision-making process. They not impose their will on you, but they can, have and likely will continue to coerce you into doing things that would otherwise be against your will.

The statement I bolded above -

Will is the activity of a consciousness; a conscious mind asserting itself. If it does this "freely," with an action it itself determines, then that is will freely exercised (as opposed to a destiny determined by god or fate, or coercion by another).

You actually said that coercion by another negates 'free will' while being forced to do something by God or fate negates will altogether.

Alright. Emotions have a physical and a mental aspect to them; they are produced by the body, and can be controlled by the mind. The variation in different people in different places, or even the same place, is not an indication of a fixed "predisposition." Some people have more self-control than others, some have more active hormones than others. Still others can learn self-control, or take drugs to control the hormones. The physical aspect has nothing to do with free will, as it is apart from us (objective) and therefore it is circumstance acting upon us. The latter, the trigger or mental aspect of the emotions that can be controlled by us, by the consciousness... *that* is an act of free will, not determined by something apart from us.

Active hormones are affected by genetics. Self-control is affected by genetics. All mental faculties are affected by genetics. The effect of drugs on your system is affected by genetics. Again you can argue the line between nature, nurture (genetics versus environment), but you can't deny that both exist on some level. You talk about learning, but isn't learning just using your genetic capabilities (intelligence, reasoning, logic and even emotion) to incorporate your experiences (knowledge) into your mind.

This time I won't reword myself, I'll ask - Are you trying to say that if I took two genetically identical individuals and placed them in the exact same environment (they have the exact same sum of experiences) that the outcome would be random, completely unpredictable (provided we had all the information). If so, where does this randomness come from?

Determinism is not about predicting the future, it is about cause-and-effect. It serves to adequately describe the objective world, apart from our consciousness, but the fact that we have free will does not allow it to govern inside our consciousness, where we firmly place our "selves."

Yes, cause-and-effect is exactly right. I, and in fact many others, hold that your consciousness is a result of genetics and environment. It's not some magical force that exists outside of nature and thus is held to same cause and effect as everything else. Your consciousness is housed and controlled by your brain that is created and then influenced by causes (genetics and environment).

The idea that determinism is applicable to that mental (will) level entirely frees us from responsibility for our actions. That's why I oppose the philosophy. If it is not us determining things, but circumstance, then we have no free will.

Determinism does not negate responsibility and we've discussed this before. Free will does not require that the outcome of your action is not predefined and determinism does not require that you didn't make a cognitive decision.

An EXCELLENT pont.

In the 'institutional' version of Christianity, we are all suffering the cruel ministrations of a vengeful god, with no intercessor.

(Except, allegedly, for that same vengeful god, just wearing different PJ's).

No, we are suffering from our own ministration!

Eve choose to eat the fruit, and courced adam to eat of it also, even though they knew that God said not to.

God could have just killed them then and there and that would have been the end of it, but in His mercy, He let them live.

Too many people nowadays believe that because something is "old" it must go. One day the ideas you so treasure will be considered out of date, and you will be a "mystical old fool", but religion will still be there. You always assume they will disprove the existence of God, but I believe one day it will be proven by the science you always seek comfort with and your theories will be thrown out in favor of the old "myths" you were so eager to throw out and accept new inferior ideas./me *doesn't have to wait for someday* :)
That's odd. I've never once heard that argument used against religion.
I have, however, heard that millions of people over thousends of years, can't possibly be wrong.

Which I think is hillarious really. Just look at how we employ propaganda now a days. Just because the majority believes something to be true, they aren't by default right.

A good example would be our lovely round planet, don't you think?

That's odd. I've never once heard that argument used against religion.
I have, however, heard that millions of people over thousends of years, can't possibly be wrong.

Which I think is hillarious really. Just look at how we employ propaganda now a days. Just because the majority believes something to be true, they aren't by default right.

A good example would be our lovely round planet, don't you think?

Personally, I can't wait to be a mystical, old fool.

Woman: Hey, you just walked into the woman's locker room!
Me: Don't mind me, I'm just a mystical, old fool.
Woman: Oh, look, he's a mystical, old fool. I'm sorry I yelled at you. You can stay throw bread to invisible ducks in the showers if you like.

No, we are suffering from our own ministration!

Eve choose to eat the fruit, and courced adam to eat of it also, even though they knew that God said not to.

God could have just killed them then and there and that would have been the end of it, but in His mercy, He let them live.

I didn't eat the fruit, did I? So I am not suffering from MY ministrations.

And, as I have shown before (if you care to read the thread) it is HIGHLY debatable that the fruit-incident is as cut-and-dry as most like to make it.

God COULD have killed them... sure. But he chose to inflict pain on them, and their children, forever.

Where is the mercy?

Personally, I can't wait to be a mystical, old fool.

Woman: Hey, you just walked into the woman's locker room!
Me: Don't mind me, I'm just a mystical, old fool.
Woman: Oh, look, he's a mystical, old fool. I'm sorry I yelled at you. You can stay throw bread to invisible ducks in the showers if you like.

Hey... I want to be a mystical old fool, too... now that I've seen the job description...

Is there a course you have to take, or something?

:)

I was totally following this debate until all this talk of eating fruit will assist my menstruations. Now a most puzzled poultry pagan am I... :D

Hey... I want to be a mystical old fool, too... now that I've seen the job description...

Is there a course you have to take, or something?

:)

Nope, sorry. We're full up. But we do have some openings in our young punks department. I got promoted out of there not too long ago and it left a major hole.

EDIT: I am so going to get locked up, because I'm going to do stuff like that all the time when I get really old. I'll also do stuff like forget and go out with no pants on and boxers with a flap that just won't stay closed. Or just start singing really loudly while I shop for motor oil and condoms. Oh, that's a great idea. When I'm like eighty I'm going to get one of my female counterparts to go down to the local drugstore and buy like fifty boxes of condoms with me.

Clerk: Um, we don't have fifty boxes of Extra Extra Large condoms, sir.
Me: How many DO you have?
Clerk: Only like fifteen.
Me: But that's only forty-five condoms. When will you have more?
Clerk: Two weeks?
Me: Sorry, Gertrude, but we're going to have to slow it down for the next fourteen days if we want to make them last.

And I'll make sure the woman I choose is using a walker. (Psst... Clerky boy, she didn't need a walker when we met.)

No, we are suffering from our own ministration!

Eve choose to eat the fruit, and courced adam to eat of it also, even though they knew that God said not to.

God could have just killed them then and there and that would have been the end of it, but in His mercy, He let them live.
I think you should go back a couple of pages and read the quotes I posted.
I don't see how you can have the opinion you do. There seems to be no basis for it.

Anyway, I'll break down my interpretation of the what transpired.

A&E walks around like a couple of sheep. God tells them "Don't touch that fruit over there, ok? I'm off my beasts". A&E answers "Uhm... Gnnnh... Ok?", because really, they aren't aware of themselves.
A snake walks by and says "Hey drooling gits, this way!". They of course follow, like the beasts they are. Over by the fruit tree, the walking, talking snake (we don't know if there were a lot of those about, or if this one's special and maybe not a snake at all) let's them in on some shocking news.
"You tho are dumb as snot. There's no point to your live, other than to trod around and take orders or listen to monologues from God or myself."
They look at the odd snake...
"Uh... Ok?" E manages to utter a good 5 minutes later.
So the sname says "Damn woman, if you eat this fruit here, you'll actually be able to talk with God & Adam. Wouldn't that be nice? Don't you think Adam and God would be really pleased if you didn't just stare into space?"
Eve tries to chew on her left foot for a bit, but suddenly recalls she's involved in one of those pesky, meaningless monologues again. In an effort to either make it stop, or become someone more able to be like God and the snake, and thus be better company, she answers the only thing she really can: "Guuurg? Yea? Ok."

In the words of another poster, she then goes *Munch* "...Oh Arse!"

Not me, my friend... you are the one supporting a view that states the children of children of children (many times removed) somehow have to suffer eternal torment because of their great ancestors parents, UNLESS they carry out some bizarre ritual of ego-boosting to some distant icon.

I have authority over my daughter, but I'm not going to burn her to death for disobeying me... which view is more 'absurd'?

I'm not suggesting you burn her to death. We're talking scale here Grave. I didn't suggest anything about children of children of children. I'm using an analogy. Do you allow consequences of her actions to play their course? Or do you run and sheild her from all possible unpleasantness? God doesn't burn us to death for disobeying Him either. We do not go to hell for our sins. We either choose to be with God, or we choose the opposite. The opposite has a negative consequence. The reason for this is not some sadistic egotistical plot to destroy sinners, when its all said and done, those who chose to be with God will be with God. Those who rejected God will have the choice they made honored by being removed from God. He loves you, He is giving you a choice, if you choose the negative road, then the consequences are on your head, not His. Unfortunately, this will also mean removed from all that is Good, because all that is good belongs with God.

Nope, sorry. We're full up. But we do have some openings in our young punks department. I got promoted out of there not too long ago and it left a major hole.
Oi! Don't you think you should check that with the resident punkers first?!

Bugger... :mad:

God makes man
Man does something god won't stand for, and are damned



you can't get past this one can you? How many times has this stupid statement been responded to in the last two days?

Genocide.

I don't feel I need to say any more about the idea of a 'loving, all powerful, all knowing, all good god'
Humanity.

There, now you need to say somemore.

An EXCELLENT pont.

In the 'institutional' version of Christianity, we are all suffering the cruel ministrations of a vengeful god, with no intercessor.

(Except, allegedly, for that same vengeful god, just wearing different PJ's).

well that exception is THE biggie. pay attention.

Oi! Don't you think you should check that with the resident punkers first?!

Bugger... :mad:

Don't worry, GnI will be a mystical, old fool before he (is it he? I have the worst memory for that crap.) will be a young punk again, methinks.

I'm not suggesting you burn her to death. We're talking scale here Grave. I didn't suggest anything about children of children of children. I'm using an analogy. Do you allow consequences of her actions to play their course? Or do you run and sheild her from all possible unpleasantness? God doesn't burn us to death for disobeying Him either. We do not go to hell for our sins. We either choose to be with God, or we choose the opposite. The opposite has a negative consequence. The reason for this is not some sadistic egotistical plot to destroy sinners, when its all said and done, those who chose to be with God will be with God. Those who rejected God will have the choice they made honored by being removed from God. He loves you, He is giving you a choice, if you choose the negative road, then the consequences are on your head, not His. Unfortunately, this will also mean removed from all that is Good, because all that is good belongs with God.
Although I don't quite believe that's the real Christian veiw, I still don't think it's very fair.

It's back to the "Love me or despair" shite again. We're not removed from all things good while we're alive. Why should we be denied having a laugh when we're dead, just because we don't care about God? I mean, if it's that bad not to love him, couldn't (and wouldn't and shouldn't) he just go ahead and smite me now?

Besides, it doesn't quite explain the aparent vendetta going on. I mean, why do we have to pay for A&E's percieved slights? - I didn't eat any magic fruit. Not did anyone else I've ever met. So why shouldn't we be allowed to frolic in Eden? Do note that I know plenty of Christians. Even if I shouldn't be allowed to run around in Eden, I can't think of any justification for why they shouldn't.

you're taking the point to an absurd end. Are you suggesting that we should allow our 5 year old kids to dictate the rules they will and won't follow? Do you suggest that a parent has ultimately no authority over a child? If not, then what the hell does your question have to do with anything? :confused:
That's just it. We are not children, we are adults. The analogy no longer works.

It isn't MY tyrannical little world, my friend... try reading the bible.

He claimed to be the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, and ALSO claimed to be able to amend the word of god.

According to Hebrew law, he got what he deserved.

Maybe you feel differently, because you view him as some kind of 'god'... but that is actually irrelevent to how appropriate the Hebrew punishments were.

Or are you equally venomous about all the (probable) thousands of blasphemers that were executed over the Hebrew history?



And MILLIONS of people have seen Elvis.

People see what they want to see.

There is as little evidence for the return post-mortem of Jesus, as their is for Elvis or Lord Lucan.

Nope, not true. Well over 5000 eye-witnesses over a 3 day period. Some of which were enemies, non-believers, and even Romans. Why would Jewish people who were not followers suddenly change their mind AFTER He was dead? Explain that. Why did this 30 year old guy who claimed he was somebody he wasn't, flourish into a world wide faith and continue to flourish dispite all odds? Why did all 12 of the disciples go willingly to their death and refuse to admit it was all a lie? Who in history has ever knowingly died for a lie? These men all experienced gruesome deaths proclaiming they'd seen Him resurrected. Don't you think at least ONE of them woulda cracked and admitted to the truth?

you can't get past this one can you? How many times has this stupid statement been responded to in the last two days?
Sorry about that, but every time it get's put more or less to rest, someone starts making claims that contradicts whatever conclusion we've reached.

But just ignore it. You don't have to answer everything I ask ;)

Nope, not true. Well over 5000 eye-witnesses over a 3 day period. Some of which were enemies, non-believers, and even Romans. Why would Jewish people who were not followers suddenly change their mind AFTER He was dead? Explain that. Why did this 30 year old guy who claimed he was somebody he wasn't, flourish into a world wide faith and continue to flourish dispite all odds? Why did all 12 of the disciples go willingly to their death and refuse to admit it was all a lie? Who in history has ever knowingly died for a lie? These men all experienced gruesome deaths proclaiming they'd seen Him resurrected. Don't you think at least ONE of them woulda cracked and admitted to the truth?

One of them hung himself, so not 'all 12'. But for the rest, can you show the documentation that supports this idea? Where is the list of 5000 eye-witnesses or even a non-canonical text that supports the 'fact' that there were 5000 eye-witnesses. I hold the divinity of Christ to be true, but do so on faith. You suggest that people should decide on the facts, so can you show the evidence of these facts.

How?

If anything, entirely the contrary, I would say...

I am an Atheist... I do NOT expect an afterlife.

Therefore, EVERYTHING I EVER WANT TO DO, I have to fit into my meager allotment on Earth.

Not ONE day goes by, where I do not tell my family how much they mean to me.

Not ONE day goes by where I do not try to contribute something to those around me.

Not ONE day goes by, where I do not attempt to create SOMETHING of a legacy for those I will leave behind me, when I go.

If anything, my Atheism gives me a value to my life beyond compare.
:fluffle: I'm a theist in your boat. Just as long as it floats.

Although I don't quite believe that's the real Christian veiw, I still don't think it's very fair.

It's back to the "Love me or despair" shite again. We're not removed from all things good while we're alive. Why should we be denied having a laugh when we're dead, just because we don't care about God? I mean, if it's that bad not to love him, couldn't (and wouldn't and shouldn't) he just go ahead and smite me now?

Besides, it doesn't quite explain the aparent vendetta going on. I mean, why do we have to pay for A&E's percieved slights? - I didn't eat any magic fruit. Not did anyone else I've ever met. So why shouldn't we be allowed to frolic in Eden? Do note that I know plenty of Christians. Even if I shouldn't be allowed to run around in Eden, I can't think of any justification for why they shouldn't.

well you seem to think along the same lines as my teenage son then. Its only fair if all possible outcomes line up to your thinking. My son doesn't think its fair when I threaten him with being grounded either but that doesn't mean it isn't. You're not removed from all things good while you're alive because God is here. Goodness still prevails because He is here. You're not paying for A&E's slights. You'll be paying for YOUR OWN rejection of God. That's not someone else's fault there little buddy, its yours.

That's just it. We are not children, we are adults. The analogy no longer works.

yes we're adults, but we're not Gods. The analogy works because comparing us to Him, is like comparing a 5 year old to an adult.

:fluffle: I'm a theist in your boat. Just as long as it floats.
Room for me in that boat? - I promise the both of you can throw breadcrums at invisible ducklings when I shower :p

One of them hung himself, so not 'all 12'. But for the rest, can you show the documentation that supports this idea? Where is the list of 5000 eye-witnesses or even a non-canonical text that supports the 'fact' that there were 5000 eye-witnesses. I hold the divinity of Christ to be true, but do so on faith. You suggest that people should decide on the facts, so can you show the evidence of these facts.

well since you only seem to be arguing against the side of the debate you claim to be on, I'm not so sure I believe you anymore. You mention how those on the For-Christianity side aren't doing such a good job of making their points and yet the only points you refute come from this side nor do I see you making any of your own points to support it either. I don't see THAT helping the side of the debate you claim to be on.

well you seem to think along the same lines as my teenage son then. Its only fair if all possible outcomes line up to your thinking. My son doesn't think its fair when I threaten him with being grounded either but that doesn't mean it isn't. You're not removed from all things good while you're alive because God is here. Goodness still prevails because He is here. You're not paying for A&E's slights. You'll be paying for YOUR OWN rejection of God. That's not someone else's fault there little buddy, its yours.
Kindly refrain from calling me little buddy, unless you're trying to piss me off.

Anyway, I'll restate my comment on Grave's kid. I can't appeal to anyone. If you treat your son badly, especially if you put him in danger or otherwise actively seek to ruin his life, your son can both fight you and he can seek aid from others and refuge with others.
I do not see how these things are comparable at all.

Besides, if I can live my life without god, yet be happy, productive and have a positive impact on the world, why should I be condemned to missery on death? If the deal is eternal life after death for people who love god, but the same life for all, why deny unbelievers a stab at eternal life?

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how it's fair. And I fail to see why anyone would obey an incomprehensible authority. People fight oppressive regimes if they can, right? Why should god be any different?

Also, eternal misery - whether actual torture is involved or not - seems a hideous punishment to me. Is that really how a loving entity treats the object of their love?
I'd much prefer just ceasing to exist in that case.

I don't believe my religion sounds ridiculous at all. I just find it funny when kids reach that age where they have this personal vendetta against Christianity and believe they are enlightened and the rest of the world is full of neanderthalic sheep. I give it a year or two before his common sense is restored.


You're implying that these people started out as Christians...
I was raised atheist...

well you seem to think along the same lines as my teenage son then. Its only fair if all possible outcomes line up to your thinking. My son doesn't think its fair when I threaten him with being grounded either but that doesn't mean it isn't. You're not removed from all things good while you're alive because God is here. Goodness still prevails because He is here. You're not paying for A&E's slights. You'll be paying for YOUR OWN rejection of God. That's not someone else's fault there little buddy, its yours.

Don't get me wrong; I'm no athiest. But the Christian God has been described to me by many devout followers as a Jealous one, and that to me is most certainly not Good. I mean, a man whose girlfriend no longer feels an attraction to him generally does not hunt the girl down and make her regret it for the rest of her life.

Steve: "Oh... ho ho... I'll make that Claire pay for rejecting me... I'll keep making her suffer until she comes back..."

There is a scenario in which God and Good very definately collide. With no God here, that Good would be no more or less adequate than it is now. So how can you say that all good comes from God?

Kindly refrain from calling me little buddy, unless you're trying to piss me off.

Anyway, I'll restate my comment on Grave's kid. I can't appeal to anyone. If you treat your son badly, especially if you put him in danger or otherwise actively seek to ruin his life, your son can both fight you and he can seek aid from others and refuge with others.
I do not see how these things are comparable at all.

Besides, if I can live my life without god, yet be happy, productive and have a positive impact on the world, why should I be condemned to missery on death? If the deal is eternal life after death for people who love god, but the same life for all, why deny unbelievers a stab at eternal life?

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how it's fair. And I fail to see why anyone would obey an incomprehensible authority. People fight oppressive regimes if they can, right? Why should god be any different?

Also, eternal misery - whether actual torture is involved or not - seems a hideous punishment to me. Is that really how a loving entity treats the object of their love?
I'd much prefer just ceasing to exist in that case.

sorry

Its comparable because when I ground my son, its a consequence for something he did wrong. It isn't treating him badly, although he may feel it is at the time, it isn't physically harming him and it isn't actively seeking to ruin his life, although, again, he may fell it is at the time. On the contrary, I'm doing it to teach him discipline, which he needs, I'm doing ti to teach him right and wrong, which he needs, and I'm doing it to teach him to respect authority which he SORELY needs. If, when the time comes, my son moves out and rejects me and makes it known that he wants nothing to do with me, then I will honor his choice and let him live his life with my absence. In the same way, God is not actively seeking to ruin anyone's life. He's actively seeking to make it better. He's actively seeking to bestow blessings on all of us. But He refrains when you, or someone else, actively reject Him. How is that oppresive?

How are you gonna fight God? You can rebel against Him, but I don't see how that's going to help you in the end. The outcome will be the same, rebellion and rejection will be the same thing. That's like my son starving himself because he doesn't like what his mom fixed for dinner. Its only hurting himself.

Well if torture is not involved, and I really don't believe it is but that's my belief, what else would you have Him do? You make it plain you don't want Him in life, but you want to rethink it after you're dead? Basically, you don't like the idea of faith and refuse to play the game by His rules. He wants you to accept Him on faith. That's what He wants, you don't want to do that but feel there should be no consequence when its over. My son does that one too.

Don't get me wrong; I'm no athiest. But the Christian God has been described to me by many devout followers as a Jealous one, and that to me is most certainly not Good. I mean, a man whose girlfriend no longer feels an attraction to him generally does not hunt the girl down and make her regret it for the rest of her life.

Steve: "Oh... ho ho... I'll make that Claire pay for rejecting me... I'll keep making her suffer until she comes back..."

There is a scenario in which God and Good very definately collide. With no God here, that Good would be no more or less adequate than it is now. So how can you say that all good comes from God?

well for one you're misunderstanding the jealous God part and for two that's not the way it works. See 15 posts on the last 4 pages and you'll see why.

well since you only seem to be arguing against the side of the debate you claim to be on, I'm not so sure I believe you anymore. You mention how those on the For-Christianity side aren't doing such a good job of making their points and yet the only points you refute come from this side nor do I see you making any of your own points to support it either. I don't see THAT helping the side of the debate you claim to be on.

I apologize, this one is a bit rude. But seriously, you supposedly have this superior knowledge of the subject yet the only people you are arguing with are those of us on the Christian side of the debate. Instead of tearing your fellow christians down in the debate, why not use that superior knowledge to boost us up, to help make our case AND maybe teach us something we don't know while doing it?

well for one you're misunderstanding the jealous God part and for two that's not the way it works. See 15 posts on the last 4 pages and you'll see why.

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm lost as to firstly where I've misunderstood and secondly where to look for comprehension, despite having read through the last good few pages.

Jealous God refers to the idea that "Thou shalt have no other Gods than me" and that "None get to the father save through me", yesh? That by turning away from God to other or no gods, even if we have sound emotional reasons to do so, we open ourselves up to his wrath?

I point again to my Steve/Claire analogy and look for some sort of correction on that point. An unrequited love is, in my opinion, not grounds enough for eternal damnation, which seems to be the grounding for the Jealous God statements, but perhaps I've missed something there.

And if that's not what you mean by Good exists through God, then would you care to elaborate a little on what it does mean?

Free will requires that you actually decide to do something. It does not require that you do not bring all your prior experiences into the decision, that the decision is not completely brought about by the mixture of your experiences and your biology.
I'm always confused by double-negatives. Are you saying that it requires that you bring all your prior experiences into the decision? I have no objection, then, as long as the decision is still yours.

Free will and determinism can coexist. Those inputs on you were also the result of free will but their input were also fixed. Again, determinism simply means there are no random events. Free will is not random.

See above.
As long as determinism purports to invade on the subjective, they cannot co-exist. If it leaves the subjective alone, I have no problem with it.

Will, by definition, is us determining things we do/are.

I have to learn more about determinism some day: it may not be what people profess it to be.

Genetics, circumstances and the people we interact with are huge factors in our decisions. I didn't say free will does not exist. I just have a problem with your definition of free will. 'Coerced' decisions are still the result of free will. You're right in my example free will exists. Apparently, you have a problem with your definition of free will, much like I do.
I have no problem with my definition of free will, and I do not know what your problem with it is.

You suggested that if we are coerced in any way into making a decision that is different than we would normally make then we are not permitted free will. And you defined 'coercion' as 'forces' that are beyond our control. You can't simply that say that only God and Fate counts. If your parent says do this or you will be severely punished and you choose to do it, you have been coerced by your parents, but your free will still exists as you still technically had the ability to choose not to do it. Your parents are forces outside of your control.
I used 'coercion' as an example of how we do not lose our free will, even in such a circumstance. Responsibility for the action is then shared, but free will is not lost by that. I defined 'coercion by forces beyond our control' as specifically God and Fate interferences, "Fate" being personified in this context as a conscious force.

Parental control is not control 'beyond our control,' not by a long shot. Kids run away from home everyday.

I think you are trying to say that free will is about having the cognitive choice, which is much different then what you actually said.
Considering how you have misinterpreted the words I used, I'm not surprised. :)

The will of your parents affects your decision-making every day unless you have some kind of mental condition that makes it so you can't remember anything that occurred in their presence. You may make your own decisions but you are not capable of excluding all influence of your parents on your decision-making process. They not impose their will on you, but they can, have and likely will continue to coerce you into doing things that would otherwise be against your will.

The statement I bolded above -
Yes, my parent's have influenced me in their time, as have other people, teachers in particular. Even Grave_n_idle. Even you. That does not have anything to do with free will. They do not coerce me.

You actually said that coercion by another negates 'free will' while being forced to do something by God or fate negates will altogether.
Perhaps I failed to separate ideas within a paragraph into sepatate sentences? If so, I apologize (it happens a lot). I do not believe that coercion negates free will, but I do believe that interference by God or Fate negates free will.

Active hormones are affected by genetics.
They are, indeed. Go genetics!

Self-control is affected by genetics.
It is not. It is a wilful act; otherwise, it is not "self control," it is "genetics control".

All mental faculties are affected by genetics. The effect of drugs on your system is affected by genetics. Again you can argue the line between nature, nurture (genetics versus environment), but you can't deny that both exist on some level. You talk about learning, but isn't learning just using your genetic capabilities (intelligence, reasoning, logic and even emotion) to incorporate your experiences (knowledge) into your mind.
Ah, you're a determinist. I'm not familiar with this "nature-nurture" line; what is it? Nature and nurture both exist, in the standard definition of those words.
:confused:

Mental faculties can be affected by the physical, since they are dependent upon it. However, will is a concept that requires consciousness; so to rob one of conscious mental faculties can rob one of will. To drug a person up says nothing about their will; it just affects the circumstances. Will is the activity of a conscious mind, in control of its faculties.

So if you decide, right now, to control your breathing and make it slow and steady for the next few minutes, was the decision of that event predetermined by genetics? I think not.

This time I won't reword myself, I'll ask - Are you trying to say that if I took two genetically identical individuals and placed them in the exact same environment (they have the exact same sum of experiences) that the outcome would be random, completely unpredictable (provided we had all the information). If so, where does this randomness come from?
I would say in response to this question that there are no two identical individuals; astrology teaches me this. Even if they are clones, they would be separate individuals, and I would expect they have separate responses to things, since they had separate experiences. The "exact same environment" is not the same for each individual, because they are individuals; they each have an unique perspective on the world. The outcome would be random to the individual, if it is unpredictable to the individual. But from our objective perspective, it would not be random. It would, however, be different for each, simply because they experience the outcome from a unique perspective.

I tend to see things from a subjective perspective (a result of an astrological philosophy).

Yes, cause-and-effect is exactly right. I, and in fact many others, hold that your consciousness is a result of genetics and environment. It's not some magical force that exists outside of nature and thus is held to same cause and effect as everything else. Your consciousness is housed and controlled by your brain that is created and then influenced by causes (genetics and environment).
To hold the consciousness responsible for itself is not "magic"; on the contrary, to hold something apart from ourselves as the cause for things that happen to ourselves is the very definition of "magical." Samantha twiches her nose, draws on "some power," and does magic.

Your consciousness is 'housed' in your brain, and in control of itself, it that it is the faculty of self-control.

Determinism does not negate responsibility and we've discussed this before. Free will does not require that the outcome of your action is not predefined and determinism does not require that you didn't make a cognitive decision.
We have? I don't recall, sorry.

Free will requires that the outcome of your action is your own.

Hope this clears it up.

No, we are suffering from our own ministration!

Eve choose to eat the fruit, and courced adam to eat of it also, even though they knew that God said not to.

God could have just killed them then and there and that would have been the end of it, but in His mercy, He let them live.

That mercy condemned billions of others. Damn nice of him.

sorry
No problem.
Its comparable because when I ground my son, its a consequence for something he did wrong. It isn't treating him badly, although he may feel it is at the time, it isn't physically harming him and it isn't actively seeking to ruin his life, although, again, he may fell it is at the time. On the contrary, I'm doing it to teach him discipline, which he needs, I'm doing ti to teach him right and wrong, which he needs, and I'm doing it to teach him to respect authority which he SORELY needs. If, when the time comes, my son moves out and rejects me and makes it known that he wants nothing to do with me, then I will honor his choice and let him live his life with my absence. In the same way, God is not actively seeking to ruin anyone's life. He's actively seeking to make it better. He's actively seeking to bestow blessings on all of us. But He refrains when you, or someone else, actively reject Him. How is that oppresive?
You compare this to an entity that would doom me to (and this your own, dumbed down version) an eternity of despair?!
I hope this isn't news to you, but even if you compare it to you locking up your son in a closet untill he dies of old age, it doesn't prevent authorities (who hopefully will notice his absense) from freeing your son, removing the poor kid from your care, and throwing you in jail.
Because unlike god, you answer for your actions, whether you like it or not.

I certainly don't hope you find such conduct acceptable. And I hope you realize why it's oppressive beyond compare.

How are you gonna fight God? You can rebel against Him, but I don't see how that's going to help you in the end. The outcome will be the same, rebellion and rejection will be the same thing. That's like my son starving himself because he doesn't like what his mom fixed for dinner. Its only hurting himself.

Well if torture is not involved, and I really don't believe it is but that's my belief, what else would you have Him do? You make it plain you don't want Him in life, but you want to rethink it after you're dead? Basically, you don't like the idea of faith and refuse to play the game by His rules. He wants you to accept Him on faith. That's what He wants, you don't want to do that but feel there should be no consequence when its over. My son does that one too.
Torture is a tricky term. I think I said physical torture, but regardless, that's what I meant. Dooming people to an eternity of despair is - in my mind at least - more horrible than any torture man can ever devise.

Anyway, I dislike the biblical idea of Christianity. The above illustarates why quite aptly. I dismiss religion because I don't think the concept is plausible. However, I have a pretty good idea of how the notion came to be, and I'm gradually beginning to understand why modern, educated humans sometimes find it appealing enough to believe in it.
There's no question of faith involved on my part. It's not a credible concept in my mind, hence the only reason for me to think twice about it, is to understand the motives of my fellow human beings. Religion per se has nothing to do with it. That said, I do sometimes fall into the trap of trying to argue against faith - a failure on my part, since I'm perfectly aware it's pointless.

So the reason we're currently debating this - from my point of veiw at least - is so I can grasp how Christians think. Both about themselves, me, random fellow humans, and ethics. Since I'm fairly interested in this, and it really boggles my mind, I find it quite natural to examine your ideas about the ethics of god and your own ethics in comparison.

I like your reply that I refuse to play by his rules in life, but suddenly want to after death. But it's not quite what I was trying to say.
I don't play by his rules in life. You may or may not think it's refusal on my part. I, of course, don't. Otherwise I wouldn't call myself an Atheist ;)
Anyway, the point is that Atheists, unbelievers, believers in wrong things, and believers in diametrically opposed things, live life exactly like you do.
Why then, when it makes no difference in life, should it matter in death?

I hope you'll grant me that religion (any) is all about what goes on in your head or your heart. If you agree, I hope you'll also agree that it's perfectly natural not to ever notice 'it' or find it credible enough to let it influence your life.
If you do agree with all that, don't you think it's both unwarrented and pretty damn harsh, to damn people (whatever the consequence), just because they fail to recognise religion as something real?

I do. I am fairly sure many people do. But there's no way I can influence God. There's no way to appeal. Noone can rescue me, or even just put me out of my misery.
And that I find even worse.

Anyway, I have no clue how one would fight god. If God turns out to be real, I would have a shitload of questions. I'd also become an instant believer, since I don't deny things I know to be true. I'm sure it wouldn't save me, and I'm far from sure I'd accept god as my lord and Jesus as my saviour. It would depend on whether God could explain himself in a - to me - satisfying manner.

I'm not great on realizing the consequences of my actions, and I doubt I'll ever accept authority on face value... So unless God actually demonstrated why things are as they are and how exactly he's a good guy, I'd probably spend eternity in despair - or hell.
And chances are I'd hate myself for not just going along with it. If indeed he is real, he'll know perfectly well it wouldn't be the first time I've shot myself in the foot for not going along with something I didn't like :p

Originally Posted by WillamenaToo many people nowadays believe that because something is "old" it must go. One day the ideas you so treasure will be considered out of date, and you will be a "mystical old fool", but religion will still be there. You always assume they will disprove the existence of God, but I believe one day it will be proven by the science you always seek comfort with and your theories will be thrown out in favor of the old "myths" you were so eager to throw out and accept new inferior ideas.
/me *doesn't have to wait for someday*
That's odd. I've never once heard that argument used against religion.
It requires an understanding of myth.

I have, however, heard that millions of people over thousends of years, can't possibly be wrong.

Which I think is hillarious really. Just look at how we employ propaganda now a days. Just because the majority believes something to be true, they aren't by default right.

A good example would be our lovely round planet, don't you think?
I do, too.

The example, is that a response to the so-called Earth-religions?

I was totally following this debate until all this talk of eating fruit will assist my menstruations. Now a most puzzled poultry pagan am I... :D
ROTFL!!!!!!

It requires an understanding of myth.


I do, too.

The example, is that a response to the so-called Earth-religions?
So-called Earth religions? Not a term I'm familiar with, I'm afraid. Tell tell, please :)
Anyway, it was a reference to the innumerable multitudes of humans that have lived and died, firmly believing that our nice little planet was actually flat :p

Anyway, what myth are you talking about? I don't think I quite got that one either...?

Room for me in that boat? - I promise the both of you can throw breadcrums at invisible ducklings when I shower :p
LOL :)

You're implying that these people started out as Christians...
I was raised atheist...
Good first post!

And cool handle.

Its comparable because when I ground my son, its a consequence for something he did wrong. It isn't treating him badly, although he may feel it is at the time, it isn't physically harming him and it isn't actively seeking to ruin his life, although, again, he may fell it is at the time.
Okay, perhaps it's me, but this analogy only works as an analogy of reincarnation, as the belief that through multiple life-times (which would be necessary, since realisation of the non-believer's sins only occurs after death) he can affect some change in himself.

Kindly refrain from calling me little buddy, unless you're trying to piss me off.
Gilligan is a valid and signficant archetype!
:)

Okay, perhaps it's me, but this analogy only works as an analogy of reincarnation, as the belief that through multiple life-times (which would be necessary, since realisation of the non-believer's sins only occurs after death) he can affect some change in himself.
Exactly ... I tried to point that out a few times in other threads and such ... punishing a kid teaches him not to commit the same act or act badly again ... where as the Christian hell is the end of the road ... there IS no “after” the punishment ... so they only learn their lesson too late

You would have to be a bad parent to only punish you kid after his mistake kills him ... he will hardly have anything to gain from that

Jealous God refers to the idea that "Thou shalt have no other Gods than me" and that "None get to the father save through me", yesh? That by turning away from God to other or no gods, even if we have sound emotional reasons to do so, we open ourselves up to his wrath?
The former is not "jealous god" but "ensuring my soverenity god." The latter is not "jealous god" but "this is the way to be it."

No... jealous god is when he says to the people of Sodom, "if you can't have me, you can't have anyone."

No, we are suffering from our own ministration!

Eve choose to eat the fruit, and courced adam to eat of it also, even though they knew that God said not to.

God could have just killed them then and there and that would have been the end of it, but in His mercy, He let them live.
I did not do shit ... god has put billions of people through suffering and billions more through death for actions we did not commit

That is not just

Punishment for sins of the father is not just by my book and is not deserving of worship and hardly mercefull

So-called Earth religions? Not a term I'm familiar with, I'm afraid. Tell tell, please :)
Anyway, it was a reference to the innumerable multitudes of humans that have lived and died, firmly believing that our nice little planet was actually flat :p

Anyway, what myth are you talking about? I don't think I quite got that one either...?
Ooh! Flat-Earthers.

I am talking about the myth that god incarnated as a physical human and died for our sins.

I'd be interested to know if Christians actually thinks it's just and fair to let a human suffer because of it's ignorance?
Or if it's fair and just to let all of humanity suffer because of the acts of a couple of humans?

Or is it simply just the way it has to be, because that's the way of god?

The former is not "jealous god" but "ensuring my soverenity god." The latter is not "jealous god" but "this is the way to be it."

No... jealous god is when he says to the people of Sodom, "if you can't have me, you can't have anyone."
It sort of reminds me of current events. I've seen incredibly many Americans who seemingly really believe that the reason why they're universally hated and feared (not as a people, as a political & military power), is because people are jealous of their nation...
Still, to me it seems more reasonable to conclude they must be the jealous ones. They're the ones actively trying to harm people and go live in their countries... Ok it's nonsensical and not terribly related. Sorry.

Anyway, a God that wants to own every possible worthshipper, isn't that really the definition of jealousy? What else can it be? Do disbelief threaten the continued existence of god or something?

And when God excludes people from a happy eternity, simply on the grounds that they fail to love him (ignoring the probable punishment), isn't that what humans normally calls Really-Damn-Freako-Insano-Jealousy?

I do anyway...

well since you only seem to be arguing against the side of the debate you claim to be on, I'm not so sure I believe you anymore. You mention how those on the For-Christianity side aren't doing such a good job of making their points and yet the only points you refute come from this side nor do I see you making any of your own points to support it either. I don't see THAT helping the side of the debate you claim to be on.

You guys are arguing for a literal translation of the Bible, that I don't agree with. I also hold that God cannot and will not ever be proven until the apocolypse. Given that, I totally disagree with almost every point you've made here. I don't think you are arguing for Christianity. I think you are arguing for fundamentalism and you're completely right, I'm not on your side. You are trying to prove God and the attempt is laughable. The garden of Eden never happened. It's a parable. The tower of Babylon never happened. It's a parable. I sincerely doubt the Great Flood was a flood of the entire world. I don't believe in Hell as a place that non-believers go.

You can find threads where I make much better arguments for faith than have been made here in the last thirty pages or so. Grave could support that, along with others here.

Your not going to win an argument with GnI or Willamena unless you're a lot more educated on the Bible and what it actually says.

Or maybe I'm just not you're kind of Christian. Forgive me if I take that as a compliment.

It sort of reminds me of current events. I've seen incredibly many Americans who seemingly really believe that the reason why they're universally hated and feared (not as a people, as a political & military power), is because people are jealous of their nation...
Still, to me it seems more reasonable to conclude they must be the jealous ones. They're the ones actively trying to harm people and go live in their countries... Ok it's nonsensical and not terribly related. Sorry.

Anyway, a God that wants to own every possible worthshipper, isn't that really the definition of jealousy? What else can it be? Do disbelief threaten the continued existence of god or something?

And when God excludes people from a happy eternity, simply on the grounds that they fail to love him (ignoring the probable punishment), isn't that what humans normally calls Really-Damn-Freako-Insano-Jealousy?

I do anyway...
I have only my experience with jealousy to go by, and even that I am solely responsible for.

If God is a jealous god, then he suffers for the one he loves loving someone else.

This does not include "something" else.

God dispised the people of Sodom because they loved another concept of god.

You guys are arguing for a literal translation of the Bible, that I don't agree with. I also hold that God cannot and will not ever be proven until the apocolypse. Given that, I totally disagree with almost every point you've made here. I don't think you are arguing for Christianity. I think you are arguing for fundamentalism and you're completely right, I'm not on your side. You are trying to prove God and the attempt is laughable. The garden of Eden never happened. It's a parable. The tower of Babylon never happened. It's a parable. I sincerely doubt the Great Flood was a flood of the entire world. I don't believe in Hell as a place that non-believers go.

You can find threads where I make much better arguments for faith than have been made here in the last thirty pages or so. Grave could support that, along with others here.

Your not going to win an argument with GnI or Willamena unless you're a lot more educated on the Bible and what it actually says.

Or maybe I'm just not you're kind of Christian. Forgive me if I take that as a compliment.
Well, even in this thread you've made several very informative posts. It's true though. We are kind of arguing literal Biblical stuff. But it's actually not too easy to break that cycle for an unbeliever.
I don't have a very clear idea of what non-literal Christianity is like. I know you believe we'll all face Jesus, and that we'll both have a chance to get an explanation from the guy, and to be judged by our lives instead of our degree of faith. A very appealing idea to me.
But that's about what I know.

I guess your brand of Christianity revolves more around being at peace with yourself and trying to make a positive impact on your sorroundings, than it relies on scripture and conformity?

We have? I don't recall, sorry.

Free will requires that the outcome of your action is your own.

Hope this clears it up.

Actually reading your responses I might have you confused with some other poster. I would love to continue the discussion but I fear we are hijacking with GIGANTIC posts. I leave you with this, keep in mind that determinism is another absolute reality postulate, as is God and other beliefs. God, determinism and free will can all peacefully coexist. Think of it this way, free will is the events of our life viewed from our perspective and determinism is the events of our life viewed from God's perspective.

Did you notice I'm not a 'good Christian' again, because I don't automatically side with other Christians making arguments that are not based on logic or facts? Apparently we Christians always have to attack the atheists together or we're doomed to be seperated from God.

Actually reading your responses I might have you confused with some other poster. I would love to continue the discussion but I fear we are hijacking with GIGANTIC posts. I leave you with this, keep in mind that determinism is another absolute reality postulate, as is God and other beliefs. God, determinism and free will can all peacefully coexist. Think of it this way, free will is the events of our life viewed from our perspective and determinism is the events of our life viewed from God's perspective.

Did you notice I'm not a 'good Christian' again, because I don't automatically side with other Christians making arguments that are not based on logic or facts? Apparently we Christians always have to attack the atheists together or we're doomed to be seperated from God.
You have my complete support with the hijack. I haven't commented, because I've had a little trouble making heads or tails of some of it.

That said, determinism (to the best of my knowledge) is perfectly plausible. And I agree it can coexist with what you define as free will.

However, I wouldn't myself define free will as something that can be predetermined or completely defined in advance. So according to what I consider free will, those two things are mutually exclusive.

Does an omniscient god nessecitate predetermination by the way? I can't quite agree with myself on that one..

About your religion vs. other Christians: I doubt I know anyone personally, who wouldn't side with you here. Fundiism isn't big outside the US & the Vatican State :p

Well, even in this thread you've made several very informative posts. It's true though. We are kind of arguing literal Biblical stuff. But it's actually not too easy to break that cycle for an unbeliever.
I don't have a very clear idea of what non-literal Christianity is like. I know you believe we'll all face Jesus, and that we'll both have a chance to get an explanation from the guy, and to be judged by our lives instead of our degree of faith. A very appealing idea to me.
But that's about what I know.

I guess your brand of Christianity revolves more around being at peace with yourself and trying to make a positive impact on your sorroundings, than it relies on scripture and conformity?

That's close. I read scripture as a skeptic. The scripture has been in the hands of the Catholic church for 2000 years. I have a little heartache with that point. I'm not afraid to question scripture as I don't worship the Bible, I worship God and I expect to be reunited with him thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I know that it's not required that I understand all of the motivations of God or have all the secrets of the universe. There is only one point that must be gotten correct is that Jesus is the savior.

I do however hold that scripture has much to offer about our history, my faith and our future. I enjoy reading it. However, if scripture conflicts with I know of reality I suspect that I'm either intrepreting it wrong or someone else injecting something into the text that doesn't belong.

Jesus pointed out that the laws of man had been added to the text at the time he was around. It's not hard to believe that it happened again in the hands of the Church. For example, "The Case for Christ" that has been mentioned here several times admits that canonical texts were rejected based on certian criteria. Do you know what that criteria was? Well, one of them was does it conform with currently (at the time the Bible was compiled) held Christian ideals. That doesn't make for a very accurate document.

My beliefs can be summed up pretty simply, I try to look at the life of Jesus Christ as an example for my own life. How do I know what kind of life he led? I use scripture (the parts that are quotes of Jesus) and I listen to what makes sense in my heart and my head.

Actually reading your responses I might have you confused with some other poster. I would love to continue the discussion but I fear we are hijacking with GIGANTIC posts. I leave you with this, keep in mind that determinism is another absolute reality postulate, as is God and other beliefs. God, determinism and free will can all peacefully coexist.
Ohh.... but you mean the Christian god. You must mean. :)

God, determinism and free will can all peacefully coexist. Think of it this way, free will is the events of our life viewed from our perspective and determinism is the events of our life viewed from God's perspective.
Yes, they can! If god doesn't interfere in us. Free will can only ever be from our perspective.

Did you notice I'm not a 'good Christian' again, because I don't automatically side with other Christians making arguments that are not based on logic or facts? Apparently we Christians always have to attack the atheists together or we're doomed to be seperated from God.
A "good Christian" in my book would be one who understood the mythology on which he bases his beliefs. It has nothing to do with loyalty.

You have my complete support with the hijack. I haven't commented, because I've had a little trouble making heads or tails of some of it.

That said, determinism (to the best of my knowledge) is perfectly plausible. And I agree it can coexist with what you define as free will.

However, I wouldn't myself define free will as something that can be predetermined or completely defined in advance. So according to what I consider free will, those two things are mutually exclusive.

Does an omniscient god nessecitate predetermination by the way? I can't quite agree with myself on that one..

About your religion vs. other Christians: I doubt I know anyone personally, who wouldn't side with you here. Fundiism isn't big outside the US & the Vatican State :p

Look at it like this. You make a decision we will call D1 between R1, R2 and R3. Now in making D1 you consider all of your experiences (nurture) and, of course, in considering your genetics (nature) also play in. Now you choose R1. You chose R1 as a result of the inputs, nature and nurture. If I change your genetics or your experiences, the inputs, then you would make a different decision but that would be changing the inputs. Basically what determinism says on a singular basis is that with the same inputs you always get the same output. On a general basis every input is simply an output of something else until you go all the way back to the beginning of time when it was all set into motion by some act (where the first inputs were the materials that existed at the beginning and the action of setting it into motion). I hold that it was God that set it all into motion.

If you want more detail than that, start a thread and I'll be happy to jump in.

well since you only seem to be arguing against the side of the debate you claim to be on, I'm not so sure I believe you anymore. You mention how those on the For-Christianity side aren't doing such a good job of making their points and yet the only points you refute come from this side nor do I see you making any of your own points to support it either. I don't see THAT helping the side of the debate you claim to be on.

Also, remember that you're arguing with people who don't believe that Jesus Christ was divine and some even don't believe he existed at all. Given this, you need to show evidence for your arguments or you might as well not make it. Can you show any evidence for your arguments? If not, they aren't going to be very convincing to someone who doesn't already agree with you.

I apologize, this one is a bit rude. But seriously, you supposedly have this superior knowledge of the subject yet the only people you are arguing with are those of us on the Christian side of the debate. Instead of tearing your fellow christians down in the debate, why not use that superior knowledge to boost us up, to help make our case AND maybe teach us something we don't know while doing it?

I don't think the case you're arguing can be made. This thread wasn't designed around explaining faith. It was designed around proving it and that cannot and will not ever happen. I have several times pointed out the world and a loving God can coexist. The non-loving God argument is the only worthwhile argument (worth combatting) that's been made here and only in a very few cases, so it's the only one I've replied to.

It sort of reminds me of current events. I've seen incredibly many Americans who seemingly really believe that the reason why they're universally hated and feared (not as a people, as a political & military power), is because people are jealous of their nation...
Still, to me it seems more reasonable to conclude they must be the jealous ones. They're the ones actively trying to harm people and go live in their countries... Ok it's nonsensical and not terribly related. Sorry.

Anyway, a God that wants to own every possible worthshipper, isn't that really the definition of jealousy? What else can it be? Do disbelief threaten the continued existence of god or something?

And when God excludes people from a happy eternity, simply on the grounds that they fail to love him (ignoring the probable punishment), isn't that what humans normally calls Really-Damn-Freako-Insano-Jealousy?

I do anyway...
Jealousy is not about worship ....though maybe about worthship. ;)

Jealousy isn't about revenge. And worship isn't a reward we give to god for being a good little god. He doesn't demand we worship, he demands that we acknowledge (knowledge) his Will. It's not an ownership thing; it's a "say, what?" thing. It's like, "You don't love me? How can you not love me? What does she/he have that I don't have?"

I'm not a believer in the Chrisian God, but at least I understand this. Jealousy is not active, it's passive. Action as a result of it is anger ....or fear. Fear of losing the one you love.

The concept of the ever-after is a separate issue. It's not the same god. One is a god of life, and how you must live it; the other is an after god, a god of the afterlife. There is different symbolism associated with them.

And MILLIONS of people have seen Elvis.

I suppose you mean seen Elvis after he died (otherwise your comparison does not hold). You don't actually believe that 'MILLIONS' have claimed to have seen Elvis since he died? That seems like a bit of an exaggeration.

I did not do shit ... god has put billions of people through suffering and billions more through death for actions we did not commit

That is not just

Punishment for sins of the father is not just by my book and is not deserving of worship and hardly mercefull

its perfectly natural and it happens all the time. You have a father who's an alcholic, the son has a very good chance of being one as well. The mother does heroin in her pregnancy, the child comes out deformed. The father punches his boss in the mouth and loses his job and lives on welfare for 10 years, the little girl grows up without nice clothes to wear or without joining the cheerleaders. People are not suffering because A&E ate an apple, there is readily available forgiveness for that. Its like small pox, no one dies from that anymore, we have a vaccine.

:) Its not that God is cruel or anything, far from it. People are in a bad condition because they don't go looking for God. God cares for us, and thats wh y he gave us the choice to follow him, or not to, he's not forcing us to, and thats because cares. Gods will is given to us in the bible, i didn't make it up, he wants us to go to him and admit we do things wrong, but he gave us the choice. I'm not claiming to speak for God at all, its in the bible, and it's what I believe to be true. I'm not making it up. God is working in the world all the time, he sends us, his people out to tell "non - christians" about Him and what he has done for us, and what he could do for you. I'm not sure if you have had any contact with a christian before, but if you have any questions about God, I am more than happy to try and answer the question, or go to http://www.gotquestions.org/ it's a really great website that gets back to you as soon as possible with great answers, and is always glad to help.


For Willamena, I wanted to thank you for your commetn on the analogy and I am glad you liked it, hoped it helped.

For those who do not know what I am talking about when I say analogy, here it is.......

If God exists…
Why is there so much pain and suffering?
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut. As the barber set to work, they began discussing various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said, “I don’t believe that God exists.” “Why do you say that?” asked the customer.

“Well, you just have to go out into the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things.”

The customer thought for a moment, but didn’t respond because he didn’t want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left, when he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair. The customer turned back and re-entered the barber shop, saying to the barber: “You know what? Barbers do not exist.”

“How can you say that?” asked the surprised barber. “ I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!”
“No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair, like that man outside.”

“But barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me.”
“Exactly!” affirmed the customer.
“That’s the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens is people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him. That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”


Hope it helps you...... :)

I'd be interested to know if Christians actually thinks it's just and fair to let a human suffer because of it's ignorance?
Or if it's fair and just to let all of humanity suffer because of the acts of a couple of humans?

Or is it simply just the way it has to be, because that's the way of god?

No I don't think its fair for people to suffer because of ignorance. Not even intentional ignorance . But I don't know the mind of God and I can't know why He does everything He does. He may have an angle that eludes me. All of humanity is not suffering because of the acts of a couple of humans. Every man and woman will give an account of his or her life. They will not be judged compared to others but solely on themselves.

I leave you with this, keep in mind that determinism is another absolute reality postulate, as is God and other beliefs. God, determinism and free will can all peacefully coexist. Think of it this way, free will is the events of our life viewed from our perspective and determinism is the events of our life viewed from God's perspective.
Then, that's either not determinism, or not free will.

Pain and suffering coexist with God for now because of the presence of sin. Don't say you didn't sin. Everybody sins.

Anyway, a God that wants to own every possible worthshipper, isn't that really the definition of jealousy? What else can it be? Do disbelief threaten the continued existence of god or something?




No, He wants to own every possible soul because He desires that none shall perish. He wants everyone because He wants no one to fail.

I'm not afraid to question scripture as I don't worship the Bible, I worship God and I expect to be reunited with him thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Question: do you seriously think that people just went without "reunion" with god for a period of so-many-millennium?

Anyway, a God that wants to own every possible worthshipper, isn't that really the definition of jealousy? What else can it be? Do disbelief threaten the continued existence of god or something?

Imagine God as a loving mother. If she sees her children in front of fast-moving racing car she would do anything to rescue that child. Is she jealous that the car will take away the child's life so she can't have it?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Look at it like this. You make a decision we will call D1 between R1, R2 and R3. Now in making D1 you consider all of your experiences (nurture) and, of course, in considering your genetics (nature) also play in. Now you choose R1. You chose R1 as a result of the inputs, nature and nurture. If I change your genetics or your experiences, the inputs, then you would make a different decision but that would be changing the inputs. Basically what determinism says on a singular basis is that with the same inputs you always get the same output. On a general basis every input is simply an output of something else until you go all the way back to the beginning of time when it was all set into motion by some act (where the first inputs were the materials that existed at the beginning and the action of setting it into motion). I hold that it was God that set it all into motion.

If you want more detail than that, start a thread and I'll be happy to jump in.
It was my understanding that determinism goes one step further than that.
Namely that any given situation can only have one certain - and should all relevant information be known, predeterminable - outcome.

Perhaps I should start a new thread on it. I keep equating determinism with predetermination.

Question: Why is God jealous? (Exodus C20:V5)

Answer: It is important here to understand how the word jealous is used; to understand differences in how we use this word as compared to how it used in Exodus 20:5 to describe God. When we use the word jealous, we use it in the sense of being envious of someone who has something we don't have. A person might be jealous or envious of another person because he or she has a nice car or home (possessions). Or a person might be jealous or envious of another person because of some ability or skill that other person has (such as athletic ability). Another example would be that one person might be jealous or envious of another because of his or her beauty.
When we look at this verse, we find that it is not that God is jealous or envious because someone has something He wants that He does not possess. Exodus 20:4-5 says "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God...” Notice that in this verse God is talking about being jealous if someone gives something that belongs to Him to another.
In these verses, God is speaking of people making idols and bowing down and worshiping those idols instead of giving God the worship that belongs to Him. God is possessive of the worship and service that belongs to Him. It is a sin (as God points out in this commandment) to worship or serve anything other than Him. So, in summary, it is a sin when we desire or we are envious or we are jealous of someone because he has something that we do not have and that does not belong to us. It is a different use of the word jealous when God says He is jealous. What He is jealous for belongs to Him; Worship and service belong to Him alone and are to be given to Him alone.”
:)

It was my understanding that determinism goes one step further than that.
Namely that any given situation can only have one certain - and should all relevant information be known, predeterminable - outcome.

Perhaps I should start a new thread on it. I keep equating determinism with predetermination.
That's what I'm saying. It is predetermined because you can't change the inputs because they are the outputs of another determined event, and so on all the way back to the beginning of time.

No, He wants to own every possible soul because He desires that none shall perish. He wants everyone because He wants no one to fail.

funny how people claim to know the will of god. like jihadists.

What happens is people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him. That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.

I was under the impression that famine, war and poverty were bigger causes of pain and suffering than not looking for god. But I guess victims of famine, war etc are not looking for god sufficiently and it is therefore their own fault.

Sorry, I don't buy it. God is not a cure for pain and suffering, religion is more like a pain-killer that blinds you to reality and disassociates you from the cause. This is why religious extremists come from regions of poverty and oppression.

Time for a little more personal responsibility in the world.

Question: do you seriously think that people just went without "reunion" with god for a period of so-many-millennium?

Yes. I don't hold that they are cognizant of that distance of time though. So you die and then you immediately meet with Jesus but I might die after you and be ahead of you in line (not literally, but you get the point). So basically, the answer is yes, I do and no, I don't. They were never without except when they were alive.

funny how people claim to know the will of god. like jihadists.



It was written in His book and it has been consistent ever since.

It was written in His book and it has been consistent ever since.

Oh, come on. It has not. What man believed to be the Will of God changed DRAMATICALLY when Jesus arrived on the scene for one thing. But even discounting that event, man has evolved their view of the view God for thousands of years. Was the entire Bible written on one day? If not, then you've oversimplified the point.

Oh, come on. It has not. What man believed to be the Will of God changed DRAMATICALLY when Jesus arrived on the scene for one thing. But even discounting that event, man has evolved their view of the view God for thousands of years. Was the entire Bible written on one day? If not, then you've oversimplified the point.

Not to mention the various translations and interpretations that you can make.

And if your only backup is the bible, how do you discount the teachings of the Qu'ran, Buddha, Hinduism - all of which rely on exactly the same basis: this is what we say is true, therefore it must be.

Oh, come on. It has not. What man believed to be the Will of God changed DRAMATICALLY when Jesus arrived on the scene for one thing. But even discounting that event, man has evolved their view of the view God for thousands of years. Was the entire Bible written on one day? If not, then you've oversimplified the point.

The entire character of God can be summarised with two words: just and loving. Everything else that He does revolves around these two character traits. He has been consistent throughout our entire history. He realises that humans are going to sin, and therefore He will be just and judge our sins. However, He has also left a way for sinners to return to Him by accepting His love.

Look at it like this. You make a decision we will call D1 between R1, R2 and R3...
R2D1!

Then, that's either not determinism, or not free will.

Again, that's simply not true. Determinism says that result is determined. It says nothing about whether or not you freely made a choice on the information given. The outputs are only fixed because the inputs are fixed. You still make a choice and if the inputs were different, the outputs would also be different. Free will only relies on you making a decision freely. It says nothing about the result being determined by the inputs. I know that we as humans have a problem with the two ideas existing simultaneously, but they are not really in opposition.

Jealousy is not about worship ....though maybe about worthship.

Jealousy isn't about revenge. And worship isn't a reward we give to god for being a good little god. He doesn't demand we worship, he demands that we acknowledge (knowledge) his Will. It's not an ownership thing; it's a "say, what?" thing. It's like, "You don't love me? How can you not love me? What does she/he have that I don't have?"

I'm not a believer in the Chrisian God, but at least I understand this. Jealousy is not active, it's passive. Action as a result of it is anger ....or fear. Fear of losing the one you love.

The concept of the ever-after is a separate issue. It's not the same god. One is a god of life, and how you must live it; the other is an after god, a god of the afterlife. There is different symbolism associated with them.

Awww! Being a good little god - that sounds incredibly cute :p
Anyway, isn't it basically saying "Wtf? What's (insert whatever) got that I don't?! Well fuck you too. Here's some everlasting punishment you lousy ingrate/faithless whore".
I agree it's vengrance, but isn't it born out of jealousy? It's not like people intentionally PO god - barring the odd Satanist etc.

About the death aspect... I think I'm done trying to grasp it. No offence, but Jacobia is the only one who've made sense about that so far. And noone else seems to share his veiw.



its perfectly natural and it happens all the time. You have a father who's an alcholic, the son has a very good chance of being one as well. The mother does heroin in her pregnancy, the child comes out deformed. The father punches his boss in the mouth and loses his job and lives on welfare for 10 years, the little girl grows up without nice clothes to wear or without joining the cheerleaders. People are not suffering because A&E ate an apple, there is readily available forgiveness for that. Its like small pox, no one dies from that anymore, we have a vaccine.

That's not what he was talking about at all. He was talking about the millions of people who're in deep shit because they either lived before Jesus came along and got himself killed, or because they fail to recognise him as their saviour, for whatever reason. According to what you've previously posted, both Willamena, UpwardThrust, Graves and myself are doomed.
I fail to see how it's our fault. None of us loves Jesus or accept him as our personal saviour, and as far as I can tell, we all have different reasons for not feeling that way.

Its not that God is cruel or anything, far from it. People are in a bad condition because they don't go looking for God. God cares for us, and thats why he gave us the choice to follow him, or not to, he's not forcing us to, and thats because He cares. God's will is given to us in the bible, i didn't make it up, he wants us to go to him and admit we do things wrong, but he gave us the choice. I'm not claiming to speak for God at all, its in the bible, and it's what I believe to be true. I'm not making it up. God is working in the world all the time, he sends us, his people out to tell "non - christians" about Him and what he has done for us, and what he could do for you. I'm not sure if you have had any contact with a christian before, but if you have any questions about God, I am more than happy to try and answer the question.

I sincerely doubt any of us here are in a bad way. At least I live exactly the life I want to. Sure, I'd love to win the lottery, have a hot lover and not sit around with an itchy, smelly broken leg, but as far as I can tell, religious people have the same little problems.

Do you believe people who don't accept God & Jesus are damned?
Do you believe even non-christians will have a chance to be redeemed after death?
Do you believe in the afterlife at all?
Do you believe people go there based on their deeds or based on their religion?
Would you care to share what exactly God does in the world of the living?
Does he actually do physical stuff or is it more of a 'inner peace' thing?
Am I asking too many questions? :p

I dislike your barber analogy intensely. It's silly. A barber demands something in return for his services. Do God? A barber is also plainly obvious. And I can confront the guy. If I question his work, I can go ask him about it.
A barber doesn't love the human population on planet earth unconditionally, and he doesn't claim responsibility for having created people's hair.

... It's inane.

No I don't think its fair for people to suffer because of ignorance. Not even intentional ignorance . But I don't know the mind of God and I can't know why He does everything He does. He may have an angle that eludes me. All of humanity is not suffering because of the acts of a couple of humans. Every man and woman will give an account of his or her life. They will not be judged compared to others but solely on themselves.

Thanks for answering. Your apologetics were giving me a quite different impression. I'm more than a little pleased I misinterpreted your opinion.



No, He wants to own every possible soul because He desires that none shall perish. He wants everyone because He wants no one to fail.

Hmm... But if he really wanted me not to 'fail', why condem me for not realizing he's real? Sorry, you clearly state you can't answer that above. I just can't help thinking it doesn't sound very loving at all.

Imagine God as a loving mother. If she sees her children in front of fast-moving racing car she would do anything to rescue that child. Is she jealous that the car will take away the child's life so she can't have it?

That doesn't sound quite right to me. Wouldn't it be more correct that mommy has a blind & deaf kid, sends it out to play on the highway, and then stands somewhere on the sidewalk, expecting the kid to come to her instead of being flattened by traffic?
By the way, please consider that I'm not asking to piss you off. If I do it anyway, just tell me.

The entire character of God can be summarised with two words: just and loving. Everything else that He does revolves around these two character traits. He has been consistent throughout our entire history. He realises that humans are going to sin, and therefore He will be just and judge our sins. However, He has also left a way for sinners to return to Him by accepting His love.

Again, that's not true. The God of Christianity is viewed with differing levels of vengefulness depending on the sect. The God of Judaism the same way. The God of Islam, also. And they're all the same God. I don't hold that a God that sends everyone who is not saved to Hell is either Just or Loving so that is a major discrepency. If Loving and Just is all that really matters, are you willing to convert to Judaism or even my type of Christianity? Hmmm... then I guess there's a little more to the story.

The entire character of God can be summarised with two words: just and loving. Everything else that He does revolves around these two character traits. He has been consistent throughout our entire history. He realises that humans are going to sin, and therefore He will be just and judge our sins. However, He has also left a way for sinners to return to Him by accepting His love.
But it is not simple acceptance it is belief ... faith something that can not be forced or consciously decided ... you can seek it but you cant force it

(its ironical that a god that is supposed to be the champion of free will chooses a method of salvation that is not possible to concously decide)

That's not what he was talking about at all. He was talking about the millions of people who're in deep shit because they either lived before Jesus came along and got himself killed
Obviously, prior to the existence of Jesus Christ the rules by which we were judged were different. Christ came to change the law (the rules). Before Jesus there was such a thing as a spiritual leader with a special connection to God. Now, the spiritual leader is replaced by Jesus so our relationship with Jesus is personal and requires no human, living spiritual leader. Jesus was a replacement for the previous laws. This is partly why the leaders of the time got so mad. I think GnI (I think it was GnI) explains this better than I do.

There IS no plausible theory for universal origins, we cannot explain how the matter present in the big bang originated. Every theory so far posited has been shot down.

There are actually many theories that obey the current understanding of the laws of physics that possibly explain how the universe was created.

You should put down the bible sometime and read some other books.

Again, that's simply not true. Determinism says that result is determined. It says nothing about whether or not you freely made a choice on the information given. The outputs are only fixed because the inputs are fixed. You still make a choice and if the inputs were different, the outputs would also be different. Free will only relies on you making a decision freely. It says nothing about the result being determined by the inputs. I know that we as humans have a problem with the two ideas existing simultaneously, but they are not really in opposition.

I just wanted to jump in, quantum physics tells us that it is not possible to gain all the knowledge required to absolutely predict the outcome of any event. Even with no input (ie, in a vacuum of nothing, with no electro-magnetic flux or force of any kind whatsoever) particles spontaniously come into being at random time intervals. The important point is that when I say "not possible"... I don't just mean that we lack the ability to measure it, I mean that it is an impossibility for any being with any amount of prior knowledge to determine the properties required.

This has deep consequences for the concept of a omniscient god - as omniscience seems to be precluded by very fundamental way the universe works.

There are actually many theories that obey the current understanding of the laws of physics that possibly explain how the universe was created.

You should put down the bible sometime and read some other books.

Seconded: spontanious creation of particles in a vacuum is an observable fact of the universe.

This is a very touchy subject, seeing as we're dealing with peoples beliefs. Anyway, I'll just discuss my own, rather than disown someone else's.

It has come to my attention that there MUST be a higher power, of a sort. Our very creation and consciousness of our existance are proof of that. Somthing unhindered by space and time took this action. The only way to make sense of this would be to describe this "body" as the one and many infinities within and without our finite universe. This universe and existence was just a "piece" if you will, of this blob of infinite possibilities, molded with the thoughtless thought of everything as we know it. I know much of what I say doesn't make sense, but the human brain was never meant to fully comprehend anything before and after our life, simply because it doesn't exist there and then. Although an interesting subject, most religions don't take much time out of their day to touch down on this subject.

Most religions deal with ground rules in life. That's why they are a "Way of Life." Now these laws and restrictions are very much believed by the people who were brought up with, inspired by, introduced to, ect. ect. them, and thats cool. If it works for them, then they should go ahead and keep on keepin on. Never interfere with another mans beliefs. #1 Cause of all conflict right there. In case you haven't noticed, that was an oxymoron. Anway, because all this was created by an infinity, there has to be a balance within this universe. Not a balance that keeps things stable, but one that keeps things moving. There are a few religions that deal with these things, such as Buddhism. This balance is also hard to comprehend, but at least it's self explanatory. Think of it as ruthless karma. Every action you take will effect you (this makes sense no matter how you look at it). For all the good out there, there's some bad happening or waiting to occur. These also multiply very easily, which is why we tend to have swings through time toward good times and bad ones. Take a look at an argument. Both people usually start out talking calmly to each other, trying to get their point across to the other one. As they grow frustrated they begin to talk louder as they vent their anger out on the other. There anger feeds on the others until each person is totally consumed. Further elaboration doesn't seem to be needed. Now look at another situation. Someone stuck out on a lake is rescued by a fellow boater. Most of the time they will be compelled to give that person somthing in exchange for their deed, even if it's only a thankyou. The cause is the same as in the previously explained negative situation. The good fed upon the good.





And now, from being active all day I am compelled to be inactive all night.

goodnight to al those insane enough to read that brief touch of my mind

Again, that's simply not true. Determinism says that result is determined. It says nothing about whether or not you freely made a choice on the information given. The outputs are only fixed because the inputs are fixed. You still make a choice and if the inputs were different, the outputs would also be different. Free will only relies on you making a decision freely. It says nothing about the result being determined by the inputs. I know that we as humans have a problem with the two ideas existing simultaneously, but they are not really in opposition.
And this is why it's not reconcilable with my definition of Free Will.
Free will, to me, means I can change what would otherwise be the logical next step. Instead of D1, or any of the other options, I break the frame of options and pick 'Glenda'.
Sadly I can't find any sensible reason for why determinism should be wrong, but as the impulsive and emotional guy that I am, I hope my idea of Free Will holds water.
It's impossible to say one way or the other at present though. So for now, I'm gonna assume my romantic idea is the right one :p

There are actually many theories that obey the current understanding of the laws of physics that possibly explain how the universe was created.

You should put down the bible sometime and read some other books.
Forget about it. I've actually explained a couple of them several times to her. It's a waste of time

Oh, come on. It has not. What man believed to be the Will of God changed DRAMATICALLY when Jesus arrived on the scene for one thing. But even discounting that event, man has evolved their view of the view God for thousands of years. Was the entire Bible written on one day? If not, then you've oversimplified the point.

and so did the other guy with his sarcastic "knowing the will of God" statement. Its written in the book. Regardless how long it took to write the book, its in there.

Pain and suffering coexist with God for now because of the presence of sin. Don't say you didn't sin. Everybody sins.
I haven't sinned.

I don't believe in the Christian god, so I can hardly "turn away from him" (as is the common definition of sin).

Imagine God as a loving mother. If she sees her children in front of fast-moving racing car she would do anything to rescue that child. Is she jealous that the car will take away the child's life so she can't have it?
Why a mother?

Is the change of gender supposed to make "her" care more for her offspring?

That's not what he was talking about at all. He was talking about the millions of people who're in deep shit because they either lived before Jesus came along and got himself killed, or because they fail to recognise him as their saviour, for whatever reason. According to what you've previously posted, both Willamena, UpwardThrust, Graves and myself are doomed.
I fail to see how it's our fault. None of us loves Jesus or accept him as our personal saviour, and as far as I can tell, we all have different reasons for not feeling that way.



The people before Jesus' death are not accountable to Jesus, they will be judged according to their faith.

I haven't sinned.

I don't believe in the Christian god, so I can hardly "turn away from him" (as is the common definition of sin).
cant turn away from someone that does not exist :)

The people before Jesus' death are not accountable to Jesus, they will be judged according to their faith.
Oh any biblical support? or just a feeling you have on that

The people before Jesus' death are not accountable to Jesus, they will be judged according to their faith.

They dealt in sacrifices back then. Jesus changed all that and removed the need for a scarifice.

funny how people claim to know the will of god. like jihadists.
Do you realise, that's flamebait? :)

Again, that's simply not true. Determinism says that result is determined. It says nothing about whether or not you freely made a choice on the information given. The outputs are only fixed because the inputs are fixed. You still make a choice and if the inputs were different, the outputs would also be different. Free will only relies on you making a decision freely. It says nothing about the result being determined by the inputs. I know that we as humans have a problem with the two ideas existing simultaneously, but they are not really in opposition.
I admit I have yet to read about determinism, but it has been suggested by others that it determines us as well as everything else. If our "inputs" determine our "outputs", then we are not in control. They are.

Awww! Being a good little god - that sounds incredibly cute :p
Anyway, isn't it basically saying "Wtf? What's (insert whatever) got that I don't?! Well fuck you too. Here's some everlasting punishment you lousy ingrate/faithless whore".
I agree it's vengrance, but isn't it born out of jealousy? It's not like people intentionally PO god - barring the odd Satanist etc.
Yes, that is vengence born of jealousy, but vengence is not jealousy. They are not the same thing.

The jealous god is the one who only says, "WTF".

Anything more is the vengeful god. Just as it would be in humans.

I just wanted to jump in, quantum physics tells us that it is not possible to gain all the knowledge required to absolutely predict the outcome of any event. Even with no input (ie, in a vacuum of nothing, with no electro-magnetic flux or force of any kind whatsoever) particles spontaniously come into being at random time intervals. The important point is that when I say "not possible"... I don't just mean that we lack the ability to measure it, I mean that it is an impossibility for any being with any amount of prior knowledge to determine the properties required.

This has deep consequences for the concept of a omniscient god - as omniscience seems to be precluded by very fundamental way the universe works.

Quantum physics didn't tell us that, logic did. We know that we can't and never will be able to observe all factors in every event in order to predict the outcome. To be able to do so would be to be able to witness objective reality which almost all people accept as impossible while living.

Now as far as what Quantum physics did show was that there are specific factors that we cannot measure simultaneously because measuring one changes the other. It claims that those factors are impossible to measure simultaneously, but every time we've made such a pompous statement we've had to eat those words. I suspect this is no exception. Stephen Hawking sounds no different than many of the chemists and physicists of the 1800's talking about the atom. You cannot possibly break matter down further than molecules. Then you cannot possibly break down matter further than atoms. Then you cannot possibly break down matter further than neutrons, protons and electrons. Etc.

and so did the other guy with his sarcastic "knowing the will of God" statement. Its written in the book. Regardless how long it took to write the book, its in there.

So the conception of God didn't change at all with the introduction of the New Testament? Why is the Jewish conception is so different than the Christian conception since we both use the same book? Why is the conception of God that was taught by the predominant Church of 1000 years ago so different than the predominant churches of today? Why is there so much variation in the predominant churches of taday? Again, you are oversimplifying the point. The book isn't a simple work and has spawned thousands of variations on the worship of God and the conception of that God.

I admit I have yet to read about determinism, but it has been suggested by others that it determines us as well as everything else. If our "inputs" determine our "outputs", then we are not in control. They are.

Well, technically, it's really not possible to say that your brain and mind consist of more than the sum of your experiences and environment and your genetics. What else can you add in there? Your personality? A result of your genetics and your experiences and environment. Your intellegence. Same. Your beliefs. Same. Your hormones. Same. Show me something that makes up your mind that didn't come from one of these things. Even your imagination is controlled by your brain that influences of your environment. Regardless, even though this is true, you still make cognative decisions and those decisions represent free will. But they occur within a framework where the inputs are fixed and thus so are the outputs. That is what you're referring to as far as determining us. It means that you would decide differently with different things to consider in the choice but you can never have different things to consider because they are themselves the result of more determinism.

Again, that's simply not true. Determinism says that result is determined. It says nothing about whether or not you freely made a choice on the information given. The outputs are only fixed because the inputs are fixed. You still make a choice and if the inputs were different, the outputs would also be different. Free will only relies on you making a decision freely. It says nothing about the result being determined by the inputs. I know that we as humans have a problem with the two ideas existing simultaneously, but they are not really in opposition.
The result of determinism is determined by something other than ourselves, exterior to the self. If this is untrue, then we are not talking about determinism as I know it. I could be mistaken; however, "the outputs are fixed because the inputs are fixed" indicates that I am not. If the "inputs" of our conscious decisions are fixed, and "the outputs" similarly fixed, then they are not conscious decisions at all; they are determined by something other than ourselves ("fixed"). We have no choice but to choose as we do. That is not free will. Similarly, if the output is not really determined solely by the inputs, then it is not determinism.

I think people who protest this are people who simply don't understand what a consciousness is, even though they actively use it to protest this very point. I think if you believe that the two things --determinism and predestination --can coexist, you do not understand one or the other.

It claims that those factors are impossible to measure simultaneously, but every time we've made such a pompous statement we've had to eat those words. I suspect this is no exception. Stephen Hawking sounds no different than many of the chemists and physicists of the 1800's talking about the atom. You cannot possibly break matter down further than molecules. Then you cannot possibly break down matter further than atoms. Then you cannot possibly break down matter further than neutrons, protons and electrons. Etc.
Actually, based on our current understanding, it's much more likely that we can't - and most likely will never be able to - observe particles on a level where we can make anything but halfarsed speculation. This is what M theory (the collective string theories) is about.
As long as we cannot fully apreciate how the stuff works, we can't really say anything coherrent about it. But let's leave Schrödinger, Stephen Hawking, and high energy physics out of this debate.
If anything, it's better suited for the Determinism thread I just started [/plugging]

Why a mother?

Is the change of gender supposed to make "her" care more for her offspring?

To be perfectly clear, technically, God does not have a gender.

(its ironical that a god that is supposed to be the champion of free will chooses a method of salvation that is not possible to concously decide)
...or even logically decide.

So the conception of God didn't change at all with the introduction of the New Testament? Why is the Jewish conception is so different than the Christian conception since we both use the same book? Why is the conception of God that was taught by the predominant Church of 1000 years ago so different than the predominant churches of today? Why is there so much variation in the predominant churches of taday? Again, you are oversimplifying the point. The book isn't a simple work and has spawned thousands of variations on the worship of God and the conception of that God.

how exactly does all this relate to my statement that God doesn't want anyone to perish?

I just wanted to jump in, quantum physics tells us that it is not possible to gain all the knowledge required to absolutely predict the outcome of any event. Even with no input (ie, in a vacuum of nothing, with no electro-magnetic flux or force of any kind whatsoever) particles spontaniously come into being at random time intervals. The important point is that when I say "not possible"... I don't just mean that we lack the ability to measure it, I mean that it is an impossibility for any being with any amount of prior knowledge to determine the properties required.

This has deep consequences for the concept of a omniscient god - as omniscience seems to be precluded by very fundamental way the universe works.
Bingo. This is the very definition of randomness; that man cannot predict the outcome. And it in no way indicates that there is no reason or pattern to its being.
EDIT: I mean by that that the pattern is not inherent, but that we assign it to the thing.

And this is why it's not reconcilable with my definition of Free Will.
Free will, to me, means I can change what would otherwise be the logical next step. Instead of D1, or any of the other options, I break the frame of options and pick 'Glenda'.
Sadly I can't find any sensible reason for why determinism should be wrong, but as the impulsive and emotional guy that I am, I hope my idea of Free Will holds water.
It's impossible to say one way or the other at present though. So for now, I'm gonna assume my romantic idea is the right one :p
Booya!

how exactly does all this relate to my statement that God doesn't want anyone to perish?

I didn't reply to that idea, now did I? You brought it up. You tell me.

Well, technically, it's really not possible to say that your brain and mind consist of more than the sum of your experiences and environment and your genetics.
Of course it's possible, don't be silly. If you are talking physical reality, though, then you are limiting yourself. The mind is metaphysical.

What else can you add in there? Your personality? A result of your genetics and your experiences and environment. Your intellegence. Same. Your beliefs. Same. Your hormones. Same. Show me something that makes up your mind that didn't come from one of these things. Even your imagination is controlled by your brain that influences of your environment. Regardless, even though this is true, you still make cognative decisions and those decisions represent free will. But they occur within a framework where the inputs are fixed and thus so are the outputs. That is what you're referring to as far as determining us. It means that you would decide differently with different things to consider in the choice but you can never have different things to consider because they are themselves the result of more determinism.
Me! I am the thing that I would show you, that makes up my mind, that didn't come from body or circumstance.

My existence is dependent upon body, but my determination does not come from body.

I make cognative decisions. Not my body, me. Not circumstances, me.

I determine things.

If this is so, then determinism is false.

...or even logically decide. that as well :p

Of course it's possible, don't be silly. If you are talking physical reality, though, then you are limiting yourself. The mind is metaphysical.


Me! I am the thing that I would show you, that makes up my mind, that didn't come from body or circumstance.

My existence is dependent upon body, but does not come from body.

I make cognative decisions. Not my body, me. Not circumstances, me.

I determine things.

If this is so, then determinism is false.

Move to the determinism thread. I replied there.

Move to the determinism thread. I replied there.
Aye-aye, Capt'n.

This is the very definition of randomness; that man cannot predict the outcome. And it in no way indicates that there is no reason or pattern to its being.


Wait.. you're saying.. "Randomness... ...in no way indicates there is no pattern to its being"

I looked up randomness at dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=randomness) : "Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective."

Wait.. you're saying.. "Randomness... ...in no way indicates there is no pattern to its being"

I looked up randomness at dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=randomness) : "Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective."
Okay, I qualified that (see the post).

There are two thoughts of "significance."

I spoke long with Alien Born on this, or I would not even know there was another way of thinking.

One way is that the symbol itself contains meaning, that it is the cause of meaning generated in the human mind.

The other way suggests that the human assigns meaning to symbols. It views a symbol, recognizes it, and assigns meaning.

I am of the latter schooling, but I respect and do not discount those of the former schooling.

Randomness is a "meaning" we assign to events.

:snip:


El Porro, I love you.

El Porro, I love you.
I'm tempted, too, to be a groupie of a few posters.

I'm tempted, too, to be a groupie of a few posters.
Heh, I'm way ahead of you two. I'm a faithless Fass groupie, and I've already proposed to another poster today :p

Haha, the religious side has no comeback....

Why dont we continue this with all other religions. Who wants to draw the short straw and be erroneously considered a racist by discussing islam :p


Aww man. Guys, leave off the other religions. You don't see them here trying to kill all us agnostic-atheists, do you?

Hope you don't mind if I move back to the Jealousy issue, which seems like quite a big one here.

No, He wants to own every possible soul because He desires that none shall perish. He wants everyone because He wants no one to fail.

Okay. Fundamental point to make here.

Why, if not explicitly for the purpose of unleashing divine punishment upon the rejected spirits, was Hell created? What other purpose could it possibly serve?

Here's the thing. You have a point in that God seems to be saying, very simply, "Okay, I'm here. You can be with me or not; up to you". However, the consequences of not being with him are most certainly negative, and very arguably created as a direct consequence of his actions (if not actually by him).

It's a bit like Claire having been tied up over a pit of bubbling lava by Steve, along with James, Chris and John (representing other religions). Steve is saying to Claire "Be with me, submit to my every request, and I'll let you down from there. Otherwise, you can stay with them and the lot of you will fall into the pit".

Of course, Steve doesn't want her to fall. He still loves her. But when the capacity to fall is given to her, and Claire thinks twice about being with this quite possibly pathologic individual, can he really be surprised if she opts to stay with those who are doomed either way?

So, boiling it down (rimshot added in for effect) to two questions:

(If hell is a creation of God) Why create the means by which people perish then hold them for ransom?

(If hell is the result of some other creator) When you have a lifeline that you can use more than once, why not throw it to everyone as opposed to just your family and the ones who explicitly love you?


Incidentally, there is a way for Claire to manipulate the situation. She can use herself as a bargaining tool; Let the others free too and I'll be with you. Otherwise, I'm staying. Perhaps, for those of you disenfranchised with God, there's your answer.

Hope you don't mind if I move back to the Jealousy issue, which seems like quite a big one here.



Okay. Fundamental point to make here.

Why, if not explicitly for the purpose of unleashing divine punishment upon the rejected spirits, was Hell created? What other purpose could it possibly serve?

Here's the thing. You have a point in that God seems to be saying, very simply, "Okay, I'm here. You can be with me or not; up to you". However, the consequences of not being with him are most certainly negative, and very arguably created as a direct consequence of his actions (if not actually by him).

It's a bit like Claire having been tied up over a pit of bubbling lava by Steve, along with James, Chris and John (representing other religions). Steve is saying to Claire "Be with me, submit to my every request, and I'll let you down from there. Otherwise, you can stay with them and the lot of you will fall into the pit".

Of course, Steve doesn't want her to fall. He still loves her. But when the capacity to fall is given to her, and Claire thinks twice about being with this quite possibly pathologic individual, can he really be surprised if she opts to stay with those who are doomed either way?

So, boiling it down (rimshot added in for effect) to two questions:

(If hell is a creation of God) Why create the means by which people perish then hold them for ransom?

(If hell is the result of some other creator) When you have a lifeline that you can use more than once, why not throw it to everyone as opposed to just your family and the ones who explicitly love you?


Incidentally, there is a way for Claire to manipulate the situation. She can use herself as a bargaining tool; Let the others free too and I'll be with you. Otherwise, I'm staying. Perhaps, for those of you disenfranchised with God, there's your answer.
Not a bad idea, but I doubt it would work. We're talking about a being with more slaves/subjects than anyone can even imagine.

However, you forget that Hoberbudt doesn't believe Hell was created by God and that he believes hell is reserved for satan and the demonic host.

Us poor faithless bastards, and the people who have the wrong idea, are just condemned to spend eternity without 'goodness'. I've taken the liberty of interpreting that as an eternity of misery, and he's yet to object to that definition.

Hope you don't mind if I move back to the Jealousy issue, which seems like quite a big one here.



Okay. Fundamental point to make here.

Why, if not explicitly for the purpose of unleashing divine punishment upon the rejected spirits, was Hell created? What other purpose could it possibly serve?

Here's the thing. You have a point in that God seems to be saying, very simply, "Okay, I'm here. You can be with me or not; up to you". However, the consequences of not being with him are most certainly negative, and very arguably created as a direct consequence of his actions (if not actually by him).

It's a bit like Claire having been tied up over a pit of bubbling lava by Steve, along with James, Chris and John (representing other religions). Steve is saying to Claire "Be with me, submit to my every request, and I'll let you down from there. Otherwise, you can stay with them and the lot of you will fall into the pit".

Of course, Steve doesn't want her to fall. He still loves her. But when the capacity to fall is given to her, and Claire thinks twice about being with this quite possibly pathologic individual, can he really be surprised if she opts to stay with those who are doomed either way?

So, boiling it down (rimshot added in for effect) to two questions:

(If hell is a creation of God) Why create the means by which people perish then hold them for ransom?

(If hell is the result of some other creator) When you have a lifeline that you can use more than once, why not throw it to everyone as opposed to just your family and the ones who explicitly love you?


Incidentally, there is a way for Claire to manipulate the situation. She can use herself as a bargaining tool; Let the others free too and I'll be with you. Otherwise, I'm staying. Perhaps, for those of you disenfranchised with God, there's your answer.

The answer to that is the Old Testament.

In the OT, the Bible sint really regarded as a palce of suffering and torture.
Thats becuase the Jews pretty much believe that Hell, is simply "Being without the presence of God".
By thier definitions, EARTH, may as well be Hell, for we are without God in a large sense.

Now the modern concept of Hell..the one with the torture and misery, and the fire...that comes from the New Testament.

See...back then, they were trying to indoctrinate everyone they could into this new religion, and one of the ways to do that..was to convince people that if they did not join up....they would go to Hell..and suffer eternally...Hot coals in the ass....etc.....

So basically..it was the Christian Church, who changed the conception of what hell was, to attract more followers, who were scared of the "Fire and Brimstone" speeches they would make.

However, you forget that Hoberbudt doesn't believe Hell was created by God and that he believes hell is reserved for satan and the demonic host.

God, creator of all things, blah blah... Overused statement I know, but whatever.

Even if someone else strung those guys up over the lava, Steve isn't going to get Claire down if she doesn't submit to him. Some of you may argue he's entirely justified in doing so; after all, he's the one who is going to be doing the rescuing. I don't agree. I think Steve, if he was at heart a good person, would let her and all the others down if he could anyway, thinking about embettering his relationship with her after the danger to her has passed rather than as his core motivation for doing so.

God, creator of all things, blah blah... Overused statement I know, but whatever.

Even if someone else strung those guys up over the lava, Steve isn't going to get Claire down if she doesn't submit to him. Some of you may argue he's entirely justified in doing so; after all, he's the one who is going to be doing the rescuing. I don't agree. I think Steve, if he was at heart a good person, would let her and all the others down if he could anyway, thinking about embettering his relationship with her after the danger to her has passed rather than as his core motivation for doing so.
Heh, you're not gonna hear me disagree. I think you misunderstood my reply. I'm an Atheist, and I don't for a second believe in the supernatural.

I have a feeling most of the Americans have gone to bed though, which is why I tried to outline Hoboburt's faith a little.

Heh, you're not gonna hear me disagree. I think you misunderstood my reply. I'm an Atheist, and I don't for a second believe in the supernatural.

I have a feeling most of the Americans have gone to bed though, which is why I tried to outline Hoboburt's faith a little.

All I was saying was that my point was valid regardless of who created Hell. "God didn't make hell" isn't a valid argument for "God isn't going to save those who don't requite his love from it".

Of course, I can see entirely how a God like that could exist. My point is simply that I want clarification as to the personal traits of the God that Christianity follows, and that there may be certain aspects of that personality that contradict some of what the faith has attributed to him.

I didn't read this whole thread. But I think I should point something out anyways.

On the belief of a god(s), there are two stances:

Theist
Atheist

Note: Agnostic is not a choice.

A theist is one who has belief in a god or gods. An atheist is one who does not have a belief in a god or gods.

Again, I did not say an atheist does not believe a god or gods exist- I said an athiest does not have a belief in a god or gods. The two terms are mutually exhaustive, there is no "in-between" or 3rd choice.

You have to ask yourself "Do I believe in a god or gods?" If you answered yes, then you are a theist. If you answered no, then you are an atheist. That being said, most people claiming to be agnostic are actually atheist. If you are "withholding" belief or you claim you "dont know", then you don't have a belief in god, and are thus atheist.

However there is also weak and strong atheism. Weak simply means you don't have a belief in a god or gods, for whatever reason. Strong means you actually deny the existance of a god or gods.

Sorry, people claiming to be "agnostic" in regards to deities is a pet peeve of mine :p

All I was saying was that my point was valid regardless of who created Hell. "God didn't make hell" isn't a valid argument for "God isn't going to save those who don't requite his love from it".

Of course, I can see entirely how a God like that could exist. My point is simply that I want clarification as to the personal traits of the God that Christianity follows, and that there may be certain aspects of that personality that contradict some of what the faith has attributed to him.
Since the guy you asked doesn't seem to be around, I'll give you the answer he gave me to a very similar question.

I asked him whether he thought the situation you just outlined was in accordance with his own moral values.

His answer was that God has knowledge we don't have. So what appears as horribly evil crimes, may actually be fair and just. He trusts God's wisdom in the matter.

That, by the way, is the plainest no-bullshit answer I've gotten to the question since I joined in on the thread (around p.1).
I guess it makes sense to trust someone you love, regardless of how insane it's acts may appear. I'd tolerate quite a lot of shit from my friends.
I'm not sure how wise I think it is to blindly follow something that seems to be monstrously amoral, which motives can't be questioned, and which can't be held responsible for it's actions. But that's prolly to be expected from an unbeliever

Atheism is russian roulette with six bullets.

*prepares to duck incoming projectiles*

(If hell is a creation of God) Why create the means by which people perish then hold them for ransom?

Hell is the creation of God, but its intention was not to send people too but the devil and his rebel angels.

"the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels"
Matthew 25:41

And God is not "holding people to ransom" as you put it. You see, hell is the natural destination for all those who attempt to rebel against God. Sin is rebellion against God and thus all humans (if nothing was done to stop them) will go to hell. God is not actively sending them there, its like droping a ball. It will hit the ground unless you catch it. Fortunetly for us, God can catch us. Via his sons death we can now all be saved.


(If hell is the result of some other creator) When you have a lifeline that you can use more than once, why not throw it to everyone as opposed to just your family and the ones who explicitly love you?


This is about free will. You see God cannot force you into heaven. You have to accept his love for yourself. The life line is open to all, every human on the planet. But as with a real life line (a rope) it only works when people grab it. God's offer of salvation is open to all, its just not everyone accepts it.

Atheism is russian roulette with six bullets.

*prepares to duck incoming projectiles*

Russian Roulette with Six bullets? There's an obvious solution to that; shoot everyone else.

Incidentally, as to the typical bipartitianism post of Nilhilism here, there are different ways in which God could exist according to your interpretation of the word. I for one don't believe that any sort of extra-dimensional overlord creates and governs, but that's just one way of looking at the concept. I hate to keep coming back to this, but what about the universal force theory? Buddhists are often called Athiest, but the Ultimate in which they put their faith could be very easily described in a manner very similar to a Deity.

The issue of whether something is Theistic or Athiestic is not necessarily clear cut. In fact, as long as the concept of "God" is semantically vague, such a distinction is in many cases wrong to make.

Hell is the creation of God, but its intention was not to send people too but the devil and his rebel angels.

"the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels"
Matthew 25:41

And God is not "holding people to ransom" as you put it. You see, hell is the natural destination for all those who attempt to rebel against God. Sin is rebellion against God and thus all humans (if nothing was done to stop them) will go to hell. God is not actively sending them there, its like droping a ball. It will hit the ground unless you catch it. Fortunetly for us, God can catch us. Via his sons death we can now all be saved.



This is about free will. You see God cannot force you into heaven. You have to accept his love for yourself. The life line is open to all, every human on the planet. But as with a real life line (a rope) it only works when people grab it. God's offer of salvation is open to all, its just not everyone accepts it.

It was mentioned a few times in the earlier pages (I can't read them all :D) that most people don't have a good enough understanding of Christainity to analyse it. I have a very decent understanding, so let me ask this:

Isn't God all-powerful? The old poser, could God create a container so big he could not fill it? If so, could he fill it? If God is all-powerful, why should he have to comply to a higher power - i.e the concept of free will?

I didn't read this whole thread. But I think I should point something out anyways.

On the belief of a god(s), there are two stances:

Theist
Atheist

Note: Agnostic is not a choice.

A theist is one who has belief in a god or gods. An atheist is one who does not have a belief in a god or gods.

Again, I did not say an atheist does not believe a god or gods exist- I said an athiest does not have a belief in a god or gods. The two terms are mutually exhaustive, there is no "in-between" or 3rd choice.

You have to ask yourself "Do I believe in a god or gods?" If you answered yes, then you are a theist. If you answered no, then you are an atheist. That being said, most people claiming to be agnostic are actually atheist. If you are "withholding" belief or you claim you "dont know", then you don't have a belief in god, and are thus atheist.

However there is also weak and strong atheism. Weak simply means you don't have a belief in a god or gods, for whatever reason. Strong means you actually deny the existance of a god or gods.

Sorry, people claiming to be "agnostic" in regards to deities is a pet peeve of mine :p

Athiesm is not no belief in god, rather a belief that there is no god. It's this subtle difference which allows the "agnostic" answer - people who are unsure of whether there is a god or not. They are not an athiest because they are not of the belief there is no god but they are not a thiest because they are not of the belief that there is a god.

Isn't God all-powerful? The old poser, could God create a container so big he could not fill it? If so, could he fill it?

By the very nature of being "all powerful" there are things that he cannot do. Now the description of him being all powerful does (as has been said before here) have some logical problems, but that doesnt detract from his existance, it merely means there are problems in the English language when it comes to describing God.


If God is all-powerful, why should he have to comply to a higher power - i.e the concept of free will?

Because it was how he created us. He didnt want mindless robots that just did whatever he wanted, he wanted free thinking people who would love him out of choice.

Well, surely language should be no problem for God? He should surely be able to get his point across clearly, after all he is God.

I haven't sinned.

I don't believe in the Christian god, so I can hardly "turn away from him" (as is the common definition of sin).

I dont believe in gravity, so I shouldn't fall out of bed in the morning if I roll over too far

This is rather stupid logic.

Well, surely language should be no problem for God? He should surely be able to get his point across clearly, after all he is God.

God himself is not the one who wrote the Bible. It is divinely inspired but its not him himself writing it. As yet, the English language (devised by Humans) has not come up with a way of describing the all powerful that deals with the lingusitcal and logical falacies that are implicit with such a description.

"At least I live exactly the life I want to. Sure, I'd love to win the lottery, have a hot lover and not sit around with an itchy, smelly broken leg, but as far as I can tell, religious people have the same little problems."

Yes, we all have the same problems, we're all the same. But being a christian means that we don't live for ourselves, like you. You say that you want to win the lottery and have a hot girlfriend, but christians aren't materialistic like that because they know it doesn't matter what they build up here on earth.


1)Do you believe people who don't accept God & Jesus are damned?
2)Do you believe even non-Christians will have a chance to be redeemed after death?
3)Do you believe in the afterlife at all?
4)Do you believe people go there based on their deeds or based on their religion?
5)Would you care to share what exactly God does in the world of the living?
6)Does he actually do physical stuff or is it more of a 'inner peace' thing?
7)Am I asking too many questions?



1) I believe that they will never be with God, yes.
2) No, no one has a chance to be redeemed after death, if we don't know God on earth, then we shall not know him after death.
3) Yes, I believe in heaven and hell.
4) Based on there religion. But, I believe that you go if ou admit to God you do wrong and that your sorry, and that you will change.
5) He gave us the world that we live on, he gave us the air that we breath and the food that we eat.
6)Yes, he does do physical stuff. He changes people, both inwardly and outwardly. Before I came to trust God, I was rude, vindictive at times, and I've changed.
7) No, ask as many as you want :)


God demands that we love him and obey him, but he gives us a choice, just like the barber does in the analogy, he doesn't make you come to him. God is plainly obvious, if you want to know about him, go to a church, read the bible, pray and you shall be answered. It may seem that your prays are not answered, but they will be, when God decides the time is right. I've been praying for the last 3 years for something to happen, and it is only just happening, within the last few weeks! But its worth it, God is worth it. We all have two ways to live, either with us ruling our lives, or God.


God loves everyone, and he is waiting for you, but he's not going to force you, because he loves you, he is giving you a choice, do you think it makes him happy when people say, "I don't want you in my life?"

That's hardly the point, 'devine inspiration' wasn't good enough - he must be able to better than that re: communication?

That's hardly the point, 'devine inspiration' wasn't good enough - he must be able to better than that re: communication?

Aimed at Mike btw

sorry?

This is about free will. You see God cannot force you into heaven. You have to accept his love for yourself. The life line is open to all, every human on the planet. But as with a real life line (a rope) it only works when people grab it. God's offer of salvation is open to all, its just not everyone accepts it.

My point (perhaps I didn't make it enough) is that that condition, "You have to accept his love", is an incredibly difficult one to make when you see what happens to those who don't accept it. The very fact that things within the power of the God you love have become the fear you have of not loving him back is, in itself, reason enough to reconsider such a relationship.

Let's go back to the Claire scenario again. Steve refuses to throw the line out to the other guys because they prevent Claire from loving him. This is to parallel the idea that God does not want other religions to be worshipped because they divert love away from him, and has therefore said that only followers of the way Jesus brought can be roped to safety. Thus, Buddhist monks have been denied salvation for as long as they are Buddhist monks.

In fact, for the purpose of the analogy, let's call one of the men Brian, who symbolises a universal religion in the sense that he believes that what we believe does not impact our outcome, but would encourage people who want to believe it for their own reasons (and perhaps an acceptance that they could be right). Brian, who also loves Claire, has told her that he doesn't mind if she wants to take the rope that Steve throws her, because it will in the end help her survive, and there's always a chance that Brian may yet be rescued by other means. Not all of them are that pleasant, of course, and Claire probably wouldn't mind too much seeing some of them in the lava, but Brian has come across as a caring and thoughtful individual.

Claire now is left with the choice of taking the rope Steve throws her and being with a man who has condemned several others do death, even to save her own life, bargaining with Steve over the release of the others (especially Brian, who she reckons is a pretty nice guy at the end of it all) or refuting Steve for his callousness, selfishness and Jealousy and pick death over returning his love.

So you're right. It is Free Will. But I believe that given the rope, I would rather refuse it than be told that I could not take the righteous with me, even if they didn't love God back. After all, what could heaven possibly be that someone who didn't love God could not possibly find it rewarding?

o ok, whos mike?

o ok, whos mike?


Mikheilistan, misread the name.

<snip>
1) I believe that they will never be with God, yes.
2) No, no one has a chance to be redeemed after death, if we don't know God on earth, then we shall not know him after death.
3) Yes, I believe in heaven and hell.
4) Based on there religion. But, I believe that you go if ou admit to God you do wrong and that your sorry, and that you will change.
5) He gave us the world that we live on, he gave us the air that we breath and the food that we eat.
6)Yes, he does do physical stuff. He changes people, both inwardly and outwardly. Before I came to trust God, I was rude, vindictive at times, and I've changed.
7) No, ask as many as you want :)


God demands that we love him and obey him, but he gives us a choice, just like the barber does in the analogy, he doesn't make you come to him. God is plainly obvious, if you want to know about him, go to a church, read the bible, pray and you shall be answered. It may seem that your prays are not answered, but they will be, when God decides the time is right. I've been praying for the last 3 years for something to happen, and it is only just happening, within the last few weeks! But its worth it, God is worth it. We all have two ways to live, either with us ruling our lives, or God.


God loves everyone, and he is waiting for you, but he's not going to force you, because he loves you, he is giving you a [COLOR=YellowGreen]choice, do you think it makes him happy when people say, "I don't want you in my life?"

Are you Catholic?

No, evangelist

Let's go back to the Claire scenario again. Steve refuses to throw the line out to the other guys because they prevent Claire from loving him. This is to parallel the idea that God does not want other religions to be worshipped because they divert love away from him, and has therefore said that only followers of the way Jesus brought can be roped to safety. Thus, Buddhist monks have been denied salvation for as long as they are Buddhist monks.

What would be more accurate to say is that Steve does throw the line out to the other guys but the other guys refuse to take it as they dont believe that the line can save them.


So you're right. It is Free Will. But I believe that given the rope, I would rather refuse it than be told that I could not take the righteous with me, even if they didn't love God back. After all, what could heaven possibly be that someone who didn't love God could not possibly find it rewarding?

There arnt any rightous left. You see your using your own perception of rightous but your opinion is not the one that matters. The only opinion that matters in terms of how good we may be/not be is God's, and by God's standards, because we have all sinned, we are all massive failures. However, God being aware of this, created a system where failures can be saved still. Thats Jesus's death. His death and the salvation it offers is open to all. You are not judged by God at the end by how much good/bad you have done in your life, since by God's standards you have done too much bad to get into heaven already. What you are judged on is your reaction to the good/bad you have done in your life.

No, evangelist

Good, talk like that is a heresy where I come from.

What would be more accurate to say is that Steve does throw the line out to the other guys but the other guys refuse to take it as they dont believe that the line can save them.
Then God is offering you a chance to be saved and Buddhist? If so, great; if not, the analogy stands.

There arnt any rightous left. You see your using your own perception of rightous but your opinion is not the one that matters.
My standards of righteousness are based on the concept of Human Empathy, and if your faith thinks that that doesn't matter then, my friend, your church is lucky to have any followers at all.

The only opinion that matters in terms of how good we may be/not be is God's, and by God's standards, because we have all sinned, we are all massive failures. However, God being aware of this, created a system where failures can be saved still. Thats Jesus's death. His death and the salvation it offers is open to all. You are not judged by God at the end by how much good/bad you have done in your life, since by God's standards you have done too much bad to get into heaven already. What you are judged on is your reaction to the good/bad you have done in your life.
Okay, fair enough. God makes the afterlife, it's his call. That being the case, I think it's reasonable to assume that if God's standards are such that empathetic and caring individuals are allowed to perish because they wear a different logo on their shirt, most people would want nothing to do with him.

why? where do you come from?

why? where do you come from?

That kind of "only Christians can be saved" nonsense has been a heresy for Roman Catholics since Vatican II in 1967.

Then God is offering you a chance to be saved and Buddhist? If so, great; if not, the analogy stands.

You have to accept Jesus's sacrifice too if thats what you mean, but your analogy still doesnt stand. God offers salvation to everyone, but its up to individual people to accept it. He doesnt take the offer away just because you are a Muslim or a Hindu. The offer stands but you have to take him up on it. Once you do take him up on it of course you are not a Hindu or Muslim any more, but my point is that the offer is open to everyone, its just a question of people who accept it or not.


My standards of righteousness are based on the concept of Human Empathy, and if your faith thinks that that doesn't matter then, my friend, your church is lucky to have any followers at all.

Of course those standards matter, but they dont matter in terms of salvation, which is what we are discussing here. If your talking about who God lets in to heaven and why then how good/bad you are ultimately is not what its about. Its about your response to how good/bad you are.


Okay, fair enough. God makes the afterlife, it's his call. That being the case, I think it's reasonable to assume that if God's standards are such that empathetic and caring individuals are allowed to perish because they wear a different logo on their shirt, most people would want nothing to do with him.

Dont trivialise salvation. You dont get saved just because you claim to be a Christian. Being a Christian is not about wearing a "logo" as you put it. Its about a response to sin. How do you deal with the fact that you have done things wrong in your life. You either ignore it or deal with it. You keep on about these 'caring' and 'empathetic' people, but you are talking about human standards. God's standards are radically diffrent, no matter how 'caring' or 'empathetic' you are you still have sin. Fortunetly God made a way to deal with sin, through his empathy to the entire human race. He sent his son to die so that people could live with him. God knows because of sin that we could never meet his standards, which is why he sent Jesus to met them for us. Its up to us to accept what Jesus did for us or not. God isnt the head of some kind of fan club who lets his members in only. He's the host of a great feast where everyone is invited, but not everyone comes to.

the differene between us and catholics is that they worship mary and we worship jesus

the differene between us and catholics is that they worship mary and we worship jesus

Ah, so your an ignorant, fundamentalist, anti-catholic evangelist. Tell me, do you believe that only Protestants can be saved, or do you believe in the damnation of everyone who is not an evangelist?

Personally I could read 50 books and it wouldn't sway me.

ID is xians strongest argument and even that isn't a very good one.

Even though you read all of those books, were you trying to see the ( what I call truth ) in religion. Or were are you just trying to find flaws to try to prove that it doesn't make sense.

I just want to add how much I enjoy the excellent mysticism talk in this forum. All of these 'scenerios' are just fantastic!! :headbang:

Though most people overlook the basis behind religions, especially that long historical monologue guy from page one. Religions began as an answer to death. What happens once we die? Those which have better options on the life after death deal seem to be more popular (sorry atheists). Though we all must keep in mind what religions actually do (or at least were once meant to). It is a search for truth in the world, no different from science or philosophy. It is one method of answering questions with no answers, such as 'Why are we here?' Whereas religion says God wanted it so, scientists say some freak accident where atoms began forming CHON chains, and as a great philosopher once said, 'I think therefore I am.' This I tell everyone: All three are methods of finding the truth, though all three are required to find it. And this I ask everyone: Do you want to be ignorant and naive or do you want to find the truth?

I just want to add how much I enjoy the excellent mysticism talk in this forum. All of these 'scenerios' are just fantastic!! :headbang:

Though most people overlook the basis behind religions, especially that long historical monologue guy from page one. Religions began as an answer to death. What happens once we die? Those which have better options on the life after death deal seem to be more popular (sorry atheists). Though we all must keep in mind what religions actually do (or at least were once meant to). It is a search for truth in the world, no different from science or philosophy. It is one method of answering questions with no answers, such as 'Why are we here?' Whereas religion says God wanted it so, scientists say some freak accident where atoms began forming CHON chains, and as a great philosopher once said, 'I think therefore I am.' This I tell everyone: All three are methods of finding the truth, though all three are required to find it. And this I ask everyone: Do you want to be ignorant and naive or do you want to find the truth?

Someone has to say it:

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

the differene between us and catholics is that they worship mary and we worship jesus

??!!?? WTF mate. Read your books on other religions before speaking! My goodness. I just enjoy that people who typically wish to insult are the least educated on the matter they are insulting.

Someone has to say it:

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!


TRUTH? You dare speak of truth? Do you know why the apple falls to the earth, or that it just does? (That was something Isaac Newton didn't even know.) Can you say 100% sure what happens after death? (Something Socrates refused to make comment.) You speak this ridiculous line from a movie thinking you may be intelligent. NAIVE PEOPLE SPEAK NAIVE THINGS

Is it that Athiests don't want to believe and spend there time looking for contradictions and illogical references.

Religion isnt based on logic, its based on faith.

Either you believe or you don't, and most "contradictions" in the bible are mere misinterepretations. :D

TRUTH? You dare speak of truth? Do you know why the apple falls to the earth, or that it just does? (That was something Isaac Newton didn't even know.) Can you say 100% sure what happens after death? (Something Socrates refused to make comment.) You speak this ridiculous line from a movie thinking you may be intelligent. NAIVE PEOPLE SPEAK NAIVE THINGS

Those who judge could also be called naive, but I try not to judge. :D

I didn't reply to that idea, now did I? You brought it up. You tell me.

I said God doesn't want anyone to perish, the other guy made a comment about my knowing the will of God, I said its written in the book and you started in about changes of the book and how long it took. I guess I'm not following your reply

You have to accept Jesus's sacrifice too if thats what you mean, but your analogy still doesnt stand. God offers salvation to everyone, but its up to individual people to accept it. He doesnt take the offer away just because you are a Muslim or a Hindu. The offer stands but you have to take him up on it. Once you do take him up on it of course you are not a Hindu or Muslim any more, but my point is that the offer is open to everyone, its just a question of people who accept it or not.
What I mean is that you must be a professed Christian at the exclusion of all other religious doctrine.

And, perhaps you didn't notice, but I was personifying religious organisations, not religious people, as the other figures hanging from the ceiling. Buddhism is Brian, not a group of Buddhists. I believe that Christianity is not the be-all and end-all of helpful religious practice in the world today, and I personally have learned a lot of helpful personal lessons through my study of other faiths that I would not have under the Church. To see that and those who practice those faiths go under would cut me and many Christians to the bone, regardless of my own inclination at any given point.

God seeks the destruction of those faiths, even at the expense of those who follow them. Therein is my problem; without the labels, many people could be said to be doing God's work through the genuine aid and teaching of mankind. And yet, we hear that even despite this, because they do not consider themselves followers of Christ, they will be allowed to drop into the fire.

When God lets a Buddhist into heaven, and when Christianity accepts the liklihood of that happening, I will join you. Until then, you will not be able to convince me that by accepting a logo other than "Christ", we are deserving of whatever punishment befalls us.

Of course those standards matter, but they dont matter in terms of salvation, which is what we are discussing here. If your talking about who God lets in to heaven and why then how good/bad you are ultimately is not what its about. Its about your response to how good/bad you are.
Ultimately, the best response to how good or bad you are is to fight back the evil within you and encourage the good within you to grow and be shared with those around you, and that response is not the sole property of Christianity. If you have a better response than that, I'd be glad to consider it.

Dont trivialise salvation. You dont get saved just because you claim to be a Christian. Being a Christian is not about wearing a "logo" as you put it. Its about a response to sin. How do you deal with the fact that you have done things wrong in your life. You either ignore it or deal with it. God isnt the head of some kind of fan club who lets his members in only. He's the host of a great feast where everyone is invited, but not everyone comes to.
I don't think "Kill, repent, kill, repent, kill, repent" is what would be called a decent response to sin. And yet, by all accounts, that's an entirely accepted one; Someone can keep tearing up his invitations and asking for new ones in the expectation that he'll be able to go to the party anyway, and in the end he's completely right. However, the feast is only open to those who aren't going to any other parties that night, even those parties that occur at different times in the evening and would normally go together quite well with God's one, so anyone wanting to attend God's feast must do so at the exclusion of all other forms of entertainment that night.

So, someone who tore up reams of paper before getting in does get in, while the casual soiree nearby is refused entry because they've already had some fun this evening.

Those who judge could also be called naive, but I try not to judge. :D


Judge?? Have you not read any of this thread? That's what everyone here has done. I offer people a new outlook and you have made an naive joke without any thought at all. I call that judging. So again, I can declare you naive, given your definition. So with just cause for my judgement of you, I myself am not naive. Thanks for your support in my claim. Its nice having backup claims ;)

I dont believe in gravity, so I shouldn't fall out of bed in the morning if I roll over too far

This is rather stupid logic.

Lack of belief in God is in no way the same thing as a lack of belief in gravity. This is a very poor analogy. Gravity is detectable and predictable, and you get to see its absolute, definite, cause-and-effect workings around you every waking moment of your life. It's not a question of faith.

I think some of the arguments here have been getting a bit too tied up with Christianity. Atheists are not just non-Christians: it's the whole mixed bag of supernatural stuff we don't get. I'm going to make some statements here which I'm sure many of you will disagree with, but these are I suppose the foundations of my opinion on the whole question of the Divine:

1) There is no evidence for a God or Gods. This is the big one. Books of scripture, Holy Writ and so on are not evidence. They are often mutually contradictory if not self-contradictory, and what they say can be shown to be either actively false, or unproven, or written and edited after the fact. There are no demonstrably supernatural religious words, relics or objects: great claims are made for this ritual or that bone or some piece of stick but they never stand up to rigourous enquiry -- let alone the fact that they often come from different and mutually exclusive religious traditions.

Claims that the complexity of this or that biological or chemical or physical event is evidence for God or Gods is simply finding gaps in current knowledge and sticking a supernatural explanation over it. Since human beings have been doing this for tens of thousands of years with regard to lightning, earthquakes and anything else we didn't understand at the time, the God-of-the-gaps argument can be dismissed.

The existence of the universe itself is not evidence for the existence of a Creator, either -- the claim that "God made everything" fails to answer the question "where did everything come from?", since any God must itself be a part of "everything".

2) The idea of God or Gods, and the concept of an afterlife, seems to me to be wish-fulfilment. People want to believe. This automatically makes me suspicious. I never like ideas that people want to believe. Critical thought is all too often abandoned, uncomfortable and contrary facts pushed aside, unbelievers forcibly silenced, reason and logic thrown out the window in an effort to preserve some happy little notion, no matter how crazy it might be. I honestly can't see much difference between comet-hitching loonies like the Heaven's Gate mob in San Diego a few years back and people who believe they are going to Heaven when they die because they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. Sorry if this offends anybody, but: what is the difference?

3) The arbitrary nature of existence, the utter absense of any justice or kindness or mercy in life except that which is made by human beings themselves indicates to me that we live in a universe which lacks any moral sense of its own. Morality varies from time to time, place to place and person to person: it is a purely human construct, the result of historical, cultural and familial pressures. Bad things happen to good people, vile individuals prosper and live long, comfortable and happy lives. The universe is not moral. What's the practical difference between an intangible, invisible, inactive God and no God at all? This brings me to

4) Ockham's Razor: entities should not be multiplied without cause. The simplest explanation is usually the best. This is a rule of thumb, not a law of nature, but it's a good one. What is simpler: a universe with God, or a universe without God? Is God required to explain anything? No, because "God did it" is not an explanation, it's an abandonment of effort. It negates any futher possible enquiry. It is a cop-out.

5) The question "What senses do we lack that we cannot see another world all around us?" remains valid. I have experienced no spiritual awakening, but other people have. It's possible that I lack a sense posessed by religious visionaries. I think it's probable that "religious experiences" are adequately explained as neurological and electrochemical events wholly within the brains of the visionaries. But maybe not: there might be a God.

6) Given what we know about the universe, fundamental belief in the literal truth of this or that scripture can be dismissed outright. It is intellectually offensive, and indicative to me of a lack of faith. It shows that the individual cannot cope with true belief but instead demands "solid ground" on which to stand. It is obvious that no religion is based on such solid ground. If there was any hard and fast evidence for the truth of any one particular religion, we wouldn't have competing faiths: one would be true, and the rest would not. ALL religions MUST be held up in midair by their own bootlaces of belief, as it were, and those people who profess absolute faith in obvious hooey, in my opinion, lack any real confidence in their religions, as well as exhibiting a certain intellectual dishonestly when faced with contrary evidence. Sadly, these people are also the ones who are determined that they are right, that they know the mind of their god, what it wants, why it does this or that, what will happen to everybody when they die with fixed and glassy certainty. I find myself wondering why they need a God, since they seem to have encompassed so many of the mysteries of creation themselves. The fact that they are obviously, manifestly and demonstrably wrong never seems to worry them.

7) Any God will so surpass the merely human that the concepts of it so far achieved by our species -- especially the stunted, crippled, all-too-human "Angry Daddy in the Sky" type favoured by the fundamentalists -- cannot hope to begin to describe it. In fact, attempts to force the idea of such a being into the narrow confines of one rigid belief or another is the closest thing that I, as an atheist, can think of to sacrelige. The act of experiencing even a tiny fragment of such an entity would be, I would imagine, a deeply humbling experience. Yet the fundamentalist believers are not humble: far from it, they spout off absolute judgement after absolute judgement as if they sat on the throne of the world, with a breathtaking arrogance in their own rectitude. I therefore suspect that no fundamentalist has ever had a true religious experience.

8) Therefore, if there is a God or an afterlife, the chances of it matching up with or depending upon belief in one or other temporary and transient human belief system seems to me to be so infinitesimally small as to be non-existent. Mumbling in this building, knocking your head on the floor in that one, burning this, drinking that, not cutting these, shaving those... it's all a waste of time to me. If there is a universal creator, it will swallow up any human attempt to explain it, or circumscribe it, or define it. That, surely, is self-evident. Try to be a decent human being for as long as the electrochemical activity in your brain that you call "you" keeps going, because in the long run that's the smart percentage play for a better physical life, and leave the worrying about what happens after you cease to exist for when you cease to exist.

Not a bad idea, but I doubt it would work. We're talking about a being with more slaves/subjects than anyone can even imagine.

However, you forget that Hoberbudt doesn't believe Hell was created by God and that he believes hell is reserved for satan and the demonic host.

Us poor faithless bastards, and the people who have the wrong idea, are just condemned to spend eternity without 'goodness'. I've taken the liberty of interpreting that as an eternity of misery, and he's yet to object to that definition.

Hell was created by God for Satan and the fallen angels.

I don't object to your definition because I don't have a better one. sorry. Its not how I want to look at it, its just how I see it.

Hope you don't mind if I move back to the Jealousy issue, which seems like quite a big one here.



Okay. Fundamental point to make here.

Why, if not explicitly for the purpose of unleashing divine punishment upon the rejected spirits, was Hell created? What other purpose could it possibly serve?

Here's the thing. You have a point in that God seems to be saying, very simply, "Okay, I'm here. You can be with me or not; up to you". However, the consequences of not being with him are most certainly negative, and very arguably created as a direct consequence of his actions (if not actually by him).

It's a bit like Claire having been tied up over a pit of bubbling lava by Steve, along with James, Chris and John (representing other religions). Steve is saying to Claire "Be with me, submit to my every request, and I'll let you down from there. Otherwise, you can stay with them and the lot of you will fall into the pit".

Of course, Steve doesn't want her to fall. He still loves her. But when the capacity to fall is given to her, and Claire thinks twice about being with this quite possibly pathologic individual, can he really be surprised if she opts to stay with those who are doomed either way?

So, boiling it down (rimshot added in for effect) to two questions:

(If hell is a creation of God) Why create the means by which people perish then hold them for ransom?

(If hell is the result of some other creator) When you have a lifeline that you can use more than once, why not throw it to everyone as opposed to just your family and the ones who explicitly love you?


Incidentally, there is a way for Claire to manipulate the situation. She can use herself as a bargaining tool; Let the others free too and I'll be with you. Otherwise, I'm staying. Perhaps, for those of you disenfranchised with God, there's your answer.

its more like Claire decides to leave Steve, so Steve says I love you and I want you to stay but if you go, you leave everything about me behind. All Steve's stuff (God's goodness) being gone is the consequence for leaving Steve. Claire will be choosing to live a life void of all Steveness. Which will be Hell because Steve is so very good.

the differene between us and catholics is that they worship mary and we worship jesus


You really should know what you're talking about before you speak, you know.Just because you Fundies are fond of saying that doesn't make it true. Do yourself a favor; get a dictionary and look up the words "worship" and "reverence" you ididot.

I just love it when people base their ideas of heaven and hell on such writers as Milton! And for all these years I thought the Gospels was referring to a bad area around Jeruselem, called Gehenna. What an idiot I am for believing historical notes!

It was mentioned a few times in the earlier pages (I can't read them all :D) that most people don't have a good enough understanding of Christainity to analyse it. I have a very decent understanding, so let me ask this:

Isn't God all-powerful? The old poser, could God create a container so big he could not fill it? If so, could he fill it? If God is all-powerful, why should he have to comply to a higher power - i.e the concept of free will?

free will isn't a higher power, it was simply how He wanted us made.

Well, surely language should be no problem for God? He should surely be able to get his point across clearly, after all he is God.

The problem of the language isn't God's problem, its ours. I'm sure He understands it quite well.

TRUTH? You dare speak of truth? Do you know why the apple falls to the earth, or that it just does? (That was something Isaac Newton didn't even know.) Can you say 100% sure what happens after death? (Something Socrates refused to make comment.) You speak this ridiculous line from a movie thinking you may be intelligent. NAIVE PEOPLE SPEAK NAIVE THINGS
Amazing in my experience it is religious people that claim they know the truth of what happens after death … glad you point out the folly of their ways

its more like Claire decides to leave Steve, so Steve says I love you and I want you to stay but if you go, you leave everything about me behind. All Steve's stuff (God's goodness) being gone is the consequence for leaving Steve. Claire will be choosing to live a life void of all Steveness. Which will be Hell because Steve is so very good.
Maybe a life without Steve, who prevents her from befriending other men and getting to know them, will do Claire good. Maybe Claire's expectations of Steve are too high. Or maybe, just maybe, Claire feels that she needs to love someone one who can accept responsibility for his mistakes rather than directing it elsewhere, and who she can talk to without being looked down on as the object of his love. Maybe Steve's Ego problem is the biggest fault in the relationship...

Okay, okay, my analogising is getting a little out of hand. Sorry about that! But I still question the idea that God is Goodness, and that without him all is wrong, bad and sad. I think we could all get along pretty well if the Tibetan monks spread across the globe and their ideas became the world's leading religion in the absence of the Christian God.

My point (perhaps I didn't make it enough) is that that condition, "You have to accept his love", is an incredibly difficult one to make when you see what happens to those who don't accept it. The very fact that things within the power of the God you love have become the fear you have of not loving him back is, in itself, reason enough to reconsider such a relationship.

Let's go back to the Claire scenario again. Steve refuses to throw the line out to the other guys because they prevent Claire from loving him. This is to parallel the idea that God does not want other religions to be worshipped because they divert love away from him, and has therefore said that only followers of the way Jesus brought can be roped to safety. Thus, Buddhist monks have been denied salvation for as long as they are Buddhist monks.

In fact, for the purpose of the analogy, let's call one of the men Brian, who symbolises a universal religion in the sense that he believes that what we believe does not impact our outcome, but would encourage people who want to believe it for their own reasons (and perhaps an acceptance that they could be right). Brian, who also loves Claire, has told her that he doesn't mind if she wants to take the rope that Steve throws her, because it will in the end help her survive, and there's always a chance that Brian may yet be rescued by other means. Not all of them are that pleasant, of course, and Claire probably wouldn't mind too much seeing some of them in the lava, but Brian has come across as a caring and thoughtful individual.

Claire now is left with the choice of taking the rope Steve throws her and being with a man who has condemned several others do death, even to save her own life, bargaining with Steve over the release of the others (especially Brian, who she reckons is a pretty nice guy at the end of it all) or refuting Steve for his callousness, selfishness and Jealousy and pick death over returning his love.

So you're right. It is Free Will. But I believe that given the rope, I would rather refuse it than be told that I could not take the righteous with me, even if they didn't love God back. After all, what could heaven possibly be that someone who didn't love God could not possibly find it rewarding?

The thing about your scenario is that Steve would be sending the rope for each and every person. The choice to grab the rope would be made by each person. You're making Steve out to be the guy who chooses FOR THEM to be condemned. Steve has equal hopes to save everyone, but Brian may decide he doesn't like Steve enough to accept his help.

Then God is offering you a chance to be saved and Buddhist? If so, great; if not, the analogy stands.


My standards of righteousness are based on the concept of Human Empathy, and if your faith thinks that that doesn't matter then, my friend, your church is lucky to have any followers at all.


Okay, fair enough. God makes the afterlife, it's his call. That being the case, I think it's reasonable to assume that if God's standards are such that empathetic and caring individuals are allowed to perish because they wear a different logo on their shirt, most people would want nothing to do with him.

Yes, Buddhists have the same chance at being saved. Everyone has that chance. That is the point of Jesus' sacrifice.

the differene between us and catholics is that they worship mary and we worship jesus

Catholics don't worship Mary, although it really seems that way a lot. They see Mary as an medium between themselves and Jesus. I don't know why they feel they need Mary for that but they don't actually worship her.

Ah, so your an ignorant, fundamentalist, anti-catholic evangelist. Tell me, do you believe that only Protestants can be saved, or do you believe in the damnation of everyone who is not an evangelist?

how rude

Yes, Buddhists have the same chance at being saved. Everyone has that chance. That is the point of Jesus' sacrifice.
And god could not do that without killing someone? He is the only one that required the blood of an innocent be spilled . its really on his head that Jesus died … he created someone with the sole intent of placing him in a place and a time with an attitude that would get him killed, not only that with the requirement that he be killed. (I am not removing the responsibility for Jesus death from those that acted but god shares some of the responsibility)

Does anyone think it is funny that he had to sacrifice a part of himself to appease … himself.

What I mean is that you must be a professed Christian at the exclusion of all other religious doctrine.

And, perhaps you didn't notice, but I was personifying religious organisations, not religious people, as the other figures hanging from the ceiling. Buddhism is Brian, not a group of Buddhists. I believe that Christianity is not the be-all and end-all of helpful religious practice in the world today, and I personally have learned a lot of helpful personal lessons through my study of other faiths that I would not have under the Church. To see that and those who practice those faiths go under would cut me and many Christians to the bone, regardless of my own inclination at any given point.

God seeks the destruction of those faiths, even at the expense of those who follow them. Therein is my problem; without the labels, many people could be said to be doing God's work through the genuine aid and teaching of mankind. And yet, we hear that even despite this, because they do not consider themselves followers of Christ, they will be allowed to drop into the fire.

When God lets a Buddhist into heaven, and when Christianity accepts the liklihood of that happening, I will join you. Until then, you will not be able to convince me that by accepting a logo other than "Christ", we are deserving of whatever punishment befalls us.


Ultimately, the best response to how good or bad you are is to fight back the evil within you and encourage the good within you to grow and be shared with those around you, and that response is not the sole property of Christianity. If you have a better response than that, I'd be glad to consider it.


I don't think "Kill, repent, kill, repent, kill, repent" is what would be called a decent response to sin. And yet, by all accounts, that's an entirely accepted one; Someone can keep tearing up his invitations and asking for new ones in the expectation that he'll be able to go to the party anyway, and in the end he's completely right. However, the feast is only open to those who aren't going to any other parties that night, even those parties that occur at different times in the evening and would normally go together quite well with God's one, so anyone wanting to attend God's feast must do so at the exclusion of all other forms of entertainment that night.

So, someone who tore up reams of paper before getting in does get in, while the casual soiree nearby is refused entry because they've already had some fun this evening.

Well that part doesn't quite work in your analogy. If the other people in the scenario are other religions rather than other people OF other religions, then Claire can't really consider Brian a nice guy. But if they are poeple OF other religions, then the line is still there for them to accept.

God says to have no other gods before Him. That's His rule. However, I imagine there are quite a lot of Buddhists in heaven already. Buddha was a man, not a god. Buddhists know this. They follow his teaching. I believe you are free to follow the teachings of Buddha and still be a Christian AS LONG AS those teachings do not contradict the teachings of Jesus. I believe you can be a Buddhist (for the most part) and a Christian at the same time.

Previous posts

Yes, Buddhists have the same chance at being saved. Everyone has that chance. That is the point of Jesus' sacrifice.

Okay, a double-whammy of misunderstanding there. Firstly, the guys up on the rope represent different religious organisations. Not religious people, but the group to whom those people belong. I said that when I introduced Brian; he is symbolic of a certain type of religion. Similarly, Claire represents the humanity to whom the choice is being offered. Claire is being told by Steve - who represents the Christian God - that he can offer her a way out, but will not offer Brian - the Organisation of Buddhism - the rope because Steve wants Claire to love Him, not let Brian take any of that. Both Christians and their scripture/teachings are very clear, as far as I can tell, that you cannot be saved as long as you hold to your Buddhist Doctrine.

Whenever you say "Buddhists can be saved", I get the feeling what you mean is "Buddhists can become Christians". That's not what I mean, but I may be reading wrongly into it. The thing is that God seems to have some sort of grudge against the other philosophies of the world even when what they have to teach may be incredibly uplifting and entirely compatible with his own message, that the only way to be saved is to turn away from these non-Godly ideas, and that he is willing to sacrifice any followers of these ideas just to get rid of them. That is the point I have tried repeatedly to make and question, and it seems as though the way in which the Salvation idea has been spread tries to bury over other messages that human civilisation has a very real need for.

If you can say, quite confidently, that Buddhists can receive the same reward as Christians in the life hereafter without surrendering the Buddhist philosophy, then I will have no problem joining and even advertising your organisation. It's your problem with the alternate, viable and beneficial philosophies of the world that I have a problem with, and if you realise that your problem is entirely unnecessary, my problem will no longer exist.


EDIT: I'm responding to the one you made in response to my most recent post now; feel free to comment on this one in the meantime if you like. ^^;

I believe you can be a Buddhist (for the most part) and a Christian at the same time.
Ditto. The two are very much compatible. However, that train of thought seems to be generally rejected by the church. I'd quite like to see a few other responses to that, in fact.

That doesn't change my point, though, that other cultures and faiths may well have interesting and useful ideas that would be lost in a complete conversion to Christianity. The idea that Nature is something wonderous and perhaps even praiseworthy has been practically levelled by the targetting of Paganism, as an example. It seems a shame that the Church's way is to totally replace rather than emalgamate with compatible ideas in the modern world (though certainly many Historians may argue about the role of that in the past).

Well that part doesn't quite work in your analogy. If the other people in the scenario are other religions rather than other people OF other religions, then Claire can't really consider Brian a nice guy. But if they are poeple OF other religions, then the line is still there for them to accept.
Incidentally, the idea that she thinks Brian is a pretty nice guy works within the analogy; since Brian is a personification, it's fair enough to apply human terms to him. What I of course mean is that she feels some sense of goodness coming from both Brian and what he personifies at a personal level, and wouldn't like to see him/it be destroyed. Does that work for you?

Okay, a double-whammy of misunderstanding there. Firstly, the guys up on the rope represent different religious organisations. Not religious people, but the group to whom those people belong. I said that when I introduced Brian; he is symbolic of a certain type of religion. Similarly, Claire represents the humanity to whom the choice is being offered. Claire is being told by Steve - who represents the Christian God - that he can offer her a way out, but will not offer Brian - the Organisation of Buddhism - the rope because Steve wants Claire to love Him, not let Brian take any of that. Both Christians and their scripture/teachings are very clear, as far as I can tell, that you cannot be saved as long as you hold to your Buddhist Doctrine.

Whenever you say "Buddhists can be saved", I get the feeling what you mean is "Buddhists can become Christians". That's not what I mean, but I may be reading wrongly into it. The thing is that God seems to have some sort of grudge against the other philosophies of the world even when what they have to teach may be incredibly uplifting and entirely compatible with his own message, that the only way to be saved is to turn away from these non-Godly ideas, and that he is willing to sacrifice any followers of these ideas just to get rid of them. That is the point I have tried repeatedly to make and question, and it seems as though the way in which the Salvation idea has been spread tries to bury over other messages that human civilisation has a very real need for.

If you can say, quite confidently, that Buddhists can receive the same reward as Christians in the life hereafter without surrendering the Buddhist philosophy, then I will have no problem joining and even advertising your organisation. It's your problem with the alternate, viable and beneficial philosophies of the world that I have a problem with, and if you realise that your problem is entirely unnecessary, my problem will no longer exist.


EDIT: I'm responding to the one you made in response to my most recent post now; feel free to comment on this one in the meantime if you like. ^^;

If Brian is just another organization, and not people, then when Claire (humanity) leaves it behind, its not going to fall and burn, it will just be empty without followers. It will just cease to exist as an entity. An organization can't be damned to hell. Organizations are just groups of people. People will be judged individually.

i dont' believe God has a grudge against other philosophies. Only other idols of worship. I sincerely believe you are free to follow any philosophy you choose as long as it does not contradict the teaching of Jesus.

Having read the bible more than most christians I've met (including 3 times cover to cover of NT and once for OT) it is readily apparent that it is full of contradictions and errors. Prophecies unfufilled and as generic as a palm reading charlatan's, blatant contradictions, obvious errors and uncorroberated major historical events abound.
in there defense this is mostly because the bible has been translated,edited and retranslated so many times it barely resembles the true text it came from. many things were left out dureing the darkages because they didnt paint god and christ in a perfect light, and it is heracy to believe that god can have flaws.


I'm an atheist because there has been no reasonable evidence to suggest gods exist. I cannot assent to the baseless theist claims without violating my intellectual integrity and on the miniscule possibility they are correct, I'll be able to say I didn't believe because I was honest and if god(s) prefer otherwise I couldn't worship them anyway.
God respects your honesty to your self. but dont stop looking for the truth just because of the christians have stopped

I first of all want to apologose for the way I last worded my last post. I didn't mean to say that they worshipped mary, I was just trying to make a ponit that there are diferrences.

What is a fundie?

No, I am not an ignorant, fundamentalist, anti-catholic evangelist, I have no problems at all with Catholics. I believe that those that believe in God will survive and go to Heaven. I'd love to know where you got the idea that I am an evil Catholic hater, I'm not, one of my best friends is a Catholic.

I don't want to insult anyone at all, I'm not really sure what your going on about.....

What is a fundie?
Fundie is a not-entirely flattering slang for "fundamentalist Christian."

I feel as though I've been painted as a bible worshipping fundamentalist who hopes to see all non believers suffer an eternity in hell. This is so far from the truth it hurts. For one I believe the bible, I don't worship it. I believe and worship Jesus Christ and I believe His teachings. I believe the bible to be the word of God but I follow Jesus' teaching when it differs from the bible. Jesus' words were "I am the way, the truth, and the life. None may get to the Father except through me". Since I believe His words as truth, I'm unfortunately in the position to have to believe anything that contradicts them is false. I don't believe this qualifies me as a fundamentalist but if it does, then so be it. As far as seeing anyone suffer an eternity in hell, I'd prefer nobody ANYWHERE find that as their fate. My belief tells me there is only one way for me to make a difference in those regards and that is to make the attempt to share the truth "as I know it" to others. It hasn't anything to do with ego and wanting "my religion" to win out over everyone elses. I can't control God's wishes anymore than I can choose a fate for anyone else. I can only attempt to be an influence to some who are looking for one.

I'm aware that I don't have all the answers, or even a lot of them. I'm still trying to figure it all out myself. I'm still seeking answers too. My faith in Jesus is not blind. I've spent a lot of time developing my faith and I still have quite a lot to learn. But I have faith that my fate is in Jesus' hands WHILE I'm searching for more understanding.

I dont believe in gravity, so I shouldn't fall out of bed in the morning if I roll over too far

This is rather stupid logic.
Not the same; sin is a religious concept, gravity is a measurable physical force.

It would be stupid if the statement I made had been about gravity. Fortunately, it was not. It was about a concept that only exists within a very limited framework of beliefs.

Willamena, are you a christian? And I'm glad you liked the analogy

i dont' believe God has a grudge against other philosophies. Only other idols of worship. I sincerely believe you are free to follow any philosophy you choose as long as it does not contradict the teaching of Jesus.

Why do you think that a putative God, the Creator of the Universe, has any sort of "grudge" about anything? Why do you insist that your divinities have to be so pathetic and limited, barking out contradictory and ill-phrased orders and laying down rewards and punishments for what a whole lot of poor schmoes do in their miniscule flickering less-than-eyeblink lives?

See if you can answer this short series of questions for me. I've tried getting believers to give me answers on these before but no joy to date:

1) Do you believe that infants who die with no understanding of Jesus or God go to Heaven or Hell?

2.1) If you think they go to Hell, please explain how this fits in with a) a loving, just God, and b) Matthew 19:14, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

2.2) If you think they go to Heaven, please explain why loving parents should not kill their babies at birth and secure for them a place in Heaven, in case they grow up and convert to another religion, deny the divinity of Christ, commit terrible unrepentant sins, or any of the other things that apparently get you sent to Hell/cut off from God's grace for all eternity. OK, the parents might be damned for killing their babies, but surely to sacrifice one's own immortal soul for the benefit of another would be an act of love far greater than Jesus's sacrifice on the cross.

I first of all want to apologose for the way I last worded my last post. I didn't mean to say that they worshipped mary, I was just trying to make a ponit that there are diferrences.

What is a fundie?

No, I am not an ignorant, fundamentalist, anti-catholic evangelist, I have no problems at all with Catholics. I believe that those that believe in God will survive and go to Heaven. I'd love to know where you got the idea that I am an evil Catholic hater, I'm not, one of my best friends is a Catholic.

I don't want to insult anyone at all, I'm not really sure what your going on about.....

Originally posted by Hoberbudt
I feel as though I've been painted as a bible worshipping fundamentalist who hopes to see all non believers suffer an eternity in hell. This is so far from the truth it hurts. For one I believe the bible, I don't worship it. I believe and worship Jesus Christ and I believe His teachings. I believe the bible to be the word of God but I follow Jesus' teaching when it differs from the bible. Jesus' words were "I am the way, the truth, and the life. None may get to the Father except through me". Since I believe His words as truth, I'm unfortunately in the position to have to believe anything that contradicts them is false. I don't believe this qualifies me as a fundamentalist but if it does, then so be it. As far as seeing anyone suffer an eternity in hell, I'd prefer nobody ANYWHERE find that as their fate. My belief tells me there is only one way for me to make a difference in those regards and that is to make the attempt to share the truth "as I know it" to others. It hasn't anything to do with ego and wanting "my religion" to win out over everyone elses. I can't control God's wishes anymore than I can choose a fate for anyone else. I can only attempt to be an influence to some who are looking for one.

I'm aware that I don't have all the answers, or even a lot of them. I'm still trying to figure it all out myself. I'm still seeking answers too. My faith in Jesus is not blind. I've spent a lot of time developing my faith and I still have quite a lot to learn. But I have faith that my fate is in Jesus' hands WHILE I'm searching for more understanding.

Perhaps my language was too harsh.I apologize, but really, the way you phrased it, it sounded like you were levelling that same old criticism against us. For the record, we worship God -- as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We reverence the Holy Mother, we do not worship her. Admittedly sometimes this has been taken too far, but John Paul II was definitely emphasizing Jesus, not Mary in Catholic doctrine. Hopefully, Benedict XVI will do the same. Nor do we worship a "cult of saints". What we refer to as "communion of the saints" is not praying to them, but more asking them to pray to God along with us. As for other faiths, as I believe was pointed out elsewhere in this thread, The Catholic Church no longer teaches that only we can get into Heaven, and that's all for the better, IMHO.

Why do you think that a putative God, the Creator of the Universe, has any sort of "grudge" about anything? Why do you insist that your divinities have to be so pathetic and limited, barking out contradictory and ill-phrased orders and laying down rewards and punishments for what a whole lot of poor schmoes do in their miniscule flickering less-than-eyeblink lives?

See if you can answer this short series of questions for me. I've tried getting believers to give me answers on these before but no joy to date:

1) Do you believe that infants who die with no understanding of Jesus or God go to Heaven or Hell?

2.1) If you think they go to Hell, please explain how this fits in with a) a loving, just God, and b) Matthew 19:14, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

2.2) If you think they go to Heaven, please explain why loving parents should not kill their babies at birth and secure for them a place in Heaven, in case they grow up and convert to another religion, deny the divinity of Christ, commit terrible unrepentant sins, or any of the other things that apparently get you sent to Hell/cut off from God's grace for all eternity. OK, the parents might be damned for killing their babies, but surely to sacrifice one's own immortal soul for the benefit of another would be an act of love far greater than Jesus's sacrifice on the cross.

I believe He has a grudge against other idols of worship because The Scripture says He said so Himself. (I realize if you're a non-believer the scripture thing doesn't work for you but it does for me and that is why I believe it). I'll give your questions a shot.

1. I believe children, who have not come of an age where a real understanding can be reached to make the right decision are saved by virtue of their innocence. I don't know what that age is, I leave that part up to God, He might go on a case by case basis. I don't know.

2.2 Well I think killing their infants to save their place in heaven is pure insanity. That makes the parents murderers, it takes away the free will God had planned for the children, it attempts to play God, and destroys the plans God may have had for those children's lives. I hope that is sufficient cause that's really all I can say on that.

Perhaps my language was too harsh.I apologize, but really, the way you phrased it, it sounded like you were levelling that same old criticism against us. For the record, we worship God -- as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We reverence the Holy Mother, we do not worship her. Admittedly sometimes this has been taken too far, but John Paul II was definitely emphasizing Jesus, not Mary in Catholic doctrine. Hopefully, Benidict XVI will do the same. Nor do we worship a "cult of saints". What we refer to as "communion of the saints" is not praying to them, but more asking them to pray to God along with us. As for other faiths, as I believe was pointed out elsewhere in this thread, The Catholic Church no longer teaches that only we can get into Heaven, and that's all for the better, IMHO.

I grew up in the Catholic Church, I'm aware of the roll of Mary and the Saints. I'm not a big fan of praying to them, but I understand the concept behind it. I made mention of that a few posts back.

Yea by the way for anyone following my posts. I am a Catholic taught in pre-Vatican ways. I just disregard, and hate, the ignorance of 'civilized societies' when it comes to religion. What good does fighting religions do? What good does a atheist vs. religious bout do? If all religions are correct, we all are doomed, thus all religions, at best, are partly correct. So where I come in is that I propose the question about where the other correct parts come from. And heaven and hell may exist in corporal form, or it may not. We may never be able 'to go' there after we die. But anyways, while alive why worry, and if it does, well we will be judged by our actions for the sheer logic that belief and religion comes typically from our backgrounds, and we cannot be judged by others decisions nor our lineage. Thus our actual faith cannot have any influence over salvation. For all we know, some small tribal faith in the middle of the jungle may be the real one. Our lack of exposure to it prevents our conversion, thus eliminating the capability for 99.9% of the population to be saved. So it would be illogical for any god to create a population with the desire that next to none would be saved.
ERGO::: Why worry about religion when we all can just be good people. If we want to be religious, alright, why should anyone else care?

To Maineiacs: Would you mind telling me what your belief is, about things such as purgatory? (sorry if the spelling is wrong)

[QUOTE=Hoberbudt]

1. I believe children, who have not come of an age where a real understanding can be reached to make the right decision are saved by virtue of their innocence. I don't know what that age is, I leave that part up to God, He might go on a case by case basis. I don't know.

QUOTE]

For Support. (Scriptures must be believed to mean anything else skip)

Jesus tells us that we must be innocent like the child to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Willamena, are you a christian? And I'm glad you liked the analogy
Nope :) (I know the answer hehehe at least some of the answer)

More of a “deist” where we ourselves contain god … that little spark that glow she thinks it may be god itself … all of us a part of it (I hope I did not mess it up too much wilimena ….)
Makes for an intresting arguement

I grew up in the Catholic Church, I'm aware of the roll of Mary and the Saints. I'm not a big fan of praying to them, but I understand the concept behind it. I made mention of that a few posts back.

As always, only for those who care.

Praying to saints and Mary, whom (Mary) might I add (Catholic doctrine is needed) was born without sin thus deemed worthy of praise, is only customary as a method of intervention in the corporal beliefs of olden Catholicism. The belief is not necessarily for them to help you, but being in God's presence to pray also on your behalf.

2.2 Well I think killing their infants to save their place in heaven is pure insanity. That makes the parents murderers, it takes away the free will God had planned for the children, it attempts to play God, and destroys the plans God may have had for those children's lives. I hope that is sufficient cause that's really all I can say on that.

This is why i dont understand christianity in a way, God gave us free will so we can do whatever we want, and then when we dont do what he wants, he sends us to hell; but if God has a plan for our life, then why doesnt he make it so that we follow his rules and end up going to heaven?

This is why i dont understand christianity in a way, God gave us free will so we can do whatever we want, and then when we dont do what he wants, he sends us to hell; but if God has a plan for our life, then why doesnt he make it so that we follow his rules and end up going to heaven?
That or just say fuck the rules and just accept us all anyways weather we choose to disobey him or not

:) Its not that God is cruel or anything, far from it. People are in a bad condition because they don't go looking for God. God cares for us, and thats wh y he gave us the choice to follow him, or not to, he's not forcing us to, and thats because cares. Gods will is given to us in the bible, i didn't make it up, he wants us to go to him and admit we do things wrong, but he gave us the choice. I'm not claiming to speak for God at all, its in the bible, and it's what I believe to be true. I'm not making it up. God is working in the world all the time, he sends us, his people out to tell "non - christians" about Him and what he has done for us, and what he could do for you. I'm not sure if you have had any contact with a christian before, but if you have any questions about God, I am more than happy to try and answer the question, or go to http://www.gotquestions.org/ it's a really great website that gets back to you as soon as possible with great answers, and is always glad to help.


For Willamena, I wanted to thank you for your commetn on the analogy and I am glad you liked it, hoped it helped.

For those who do not know what I am talking about when I say analogy, here it is.......

If God exists…
Why is there so much pain and suffering?
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut. As the barber set to work, they began discussing various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said, “I don’t believe that God exists.” “Why do you say that?” asked the customer.

“Well, you just have to go out into the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things.”

The customer thought for a moment, but didn’t respond because he didn’t want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left, when he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair. The customer turned back and re-entered the barber shop, saying to the barber: “You know what? Barbers do not exist.”

“How can you say that?” asked the surprised barber. “ I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!”
“No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair, like that man outside.”

“But barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me.”
“Exactly!” affirmed the customer.
“That’s the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens is people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him. That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”


Hope it helps you...... :)

Jack and Jill live in a world without barbers. Everyone has long stringy hair, and while most people really don't like their hair they put up with it, because they realize that everyone's hair is like that. Then one day Jill shows up tossing her hair around looking very excited. Jack can't understand because her hair looks the same to him.

"What are you so excited about?"

"I've met the barber, and he gave me a haircut that will last for eternity."

Jack is skeptical. "Where is this barber, what does he look like?"

"Oh, he's everywhere, but you can't see him. You just have to feel his presence."

"Oooooook. How do you do that?"

"Well, first you have to have complete faith that he exists. You have to give your hair to him and he will come and cut it."

"Hmmm. I don't know about this Jill."

Not a bad idea, but I doubt it would work. We're talking about a being with more slaves/subjects than anyone can even imagine.

[...]

Us poor faithless bastards, and the people who have the wrong idea, are just condemned to spend eternity without 'goodness'. I've taken the liberty of interpreting that as an eternity of misery, and he's yet to object to that definition.

I know what you mean, but, well he's God, right? If he can create the universe in seven days, he can handle a couple of slaves. He's handlingthem pretty well, if that is what he is doing, because they're here on this forum sticking up for their beliefs and trying to convert others with books, they go to Sunday mass, if they're Catholic or Orthodox they go to Confession.

Kamsaki's analogy is great. I absolutely love it and I will stand by the two of you -- you for what your last paragraph.

As for my main contribution to this thread, I think it's wrong for those of you who are Christian and think we atheists have a personal vendetta against you. First, many of us may be atheist because we are schooled in Buddhism. Second, you should notice that we don't believe in God -- we're not saying your Christian ways are wrong, we're saying we don't follow hundreds or even thousands of the religions that are out there.

I am agnostic. I don't know if God is up there, I don't know if he's not. I don't even know which religion could possibly be right. Even if I were a Christian, I would not go around saying "hey you, non-believer, you're wrong! Read these books and convert yourselves before it's too late." Why? Because I've stood in the background, and I've studied all three of the main monotheist religions. They all believe in the same God, but strange thing is that one is waiting for their Messiah to come, one says it's already here. One says Jesus is the main prophet, the other says Mohammed is the main prophet while Jesus is just... a prophet. You've got a one in three chance of getting God's main will right.

And then there are the fights between these people who believe in the same God. There are the Northern Ireland battles between Christians, there were the Crusades, there is the battle for the Gaza Strip.You'd think God would try to end the bloodshed and the anger by setting people straight, somehow. Or maybe he's just sitting back,happy that people are fighting over him, even if they just worship him differently.

Then, say if I did decide Christianity is the right way to go, which denomination do I follow? Do I try Orthodox because that's the way Christ founded the Church, or do I go with the Catholics because there's a reason why there was reform? Or should I go with the Protestants (that would lead to another debate) who follow the five solas who pretty much don't acknowledge the Pope's authority. God knows there are millions of people on this Earth worshipping him, so why hasn't he cleared up how exactly they should go about worshipping him, or how they should be understanding the Bible, amongst other questions.

I don't understand how we're said to have been given free will if we have to confess our sins and go to mass. I don't see how he can allow such attempts at converting non-Christians. We have a free will, don't we? So why are we God's lambs-sheep, and why are there people chasing after me telling me I'll be sent to hell because I don't believe?

That is if God actually exists.

Basically,to me,it's a lot of brain effort, it's a lot of thought, but ultimately, it's a lot of mumblejumble hoo-ha that I'm so skeptic of that I am almost an atheist. So endorse my free will, guys, because that's what God gave me.

I, and many others as atheists, am not saying God can't exist. We aren't saying supernaturality is impossible. You can stop treating it as such now.

Religion began as a scapegoat for phenomena not understood and it has evolved to extreme capacities over time. There are so many of them and they're all similar in so many ways. Others, like Buddhism just seem to be a bit more logical, so if I do decide to become religious, you'll excuse me if I don't choose to become a Christian.

By the way, since I haven't expressed this yet:

I call myself and atheist, even though I suppose I could be called agnostic (a term I really don't like) in a shallow, uninteresting way. Basically I think that if god or gods really do exist, we have no way of knowing what their intentions are (short of direct revelation) and therefore his existence or nonexistence is irrelevant to our lives.

To Maineiacs: Would you mind telling me what your belief is, about things such as purgatory? (sorry if the spelling is wrong)


Yes, I believe in the concept of Purgatory. If I give more detail than that, I'll run afoul of both Catholic and Protestant theology and start a flame war. Suffice it to say, I have some unorthodox beliefs.

First off, Josh McDowell's arguments are paper thin and have little in the way of convincing evidence - he might as well just write Pascal's Wager over and over again until he fills 200 pages then try to sell it.

Secondly, my "skepticism", as you so eloquently put it, has nothing to do supernatural beliefs or logical fallacies. My non-belief exists for the same reason that, I assume, your belief exists.

This is why i dont understand christianity in a way, God gave us free will so we can do whatever we want, and then when we dont do what he wants, he sends us to hell; but if God has a plan for our life, then why doesnt he make it so that we follow his rules and end up going to heaven?

I dont know how many times I have to explain the concept of free will to you people. God did not want mindless drones who just loved him because they were programed to. Real love can only exist when there is a choice.

I dont know how many times I have to explain the concept of free will to you people. God did not want mindless drones who just loved him because they were programed to. Real love can only exist when there is a choice.
Nope he did not want drones
he wanted slaves

And god could not do that without killing someone? He is the only one that required the blood of an innocent be spilled . its really on his head that Jesus died … he created someone with the sole intent of placing him in a place and a time with an attitude that would get him killed, not only that with the requirement that he be killed. (I am not removing the responsibility for Jesus death from those that acted but god shares some of the responsibility)

Does anyone think it is funny that he had to sacrifice a part of himself to appease … himself.

Its a break of a cycle. Sin = death, you see (the wages of sin are death). And not just the physical death but spiritual death (hell) because sin is by definiton rebellion against God, and the result of that is you like the Devil go to hell. But Jesus never sinned and yet still (physically) died. He broke the cycle, so no others can too. Not in terms of physical death but spiritual death.

Nope he did not want drones
he wanted slaves


What have you got to support this one? We aren't slaves

Nope he did not want drones
he wanted slaves

Explain? Oh you mean how he wanted everyone to do his will. Perhaps I should explain what "his will" means. You see a human concept of will means that its doing things for your own benefit. However thats not what God's will is. All God wants is for us to love him and each other.

What have you got to support this one? We aren't slaves
We follow gods will or else

We do it his way or are punished … sure we can choose to disobey but are punished eternally for it

Fairly slave like to me

Explain? Oh you mean how he wanted everyone to do his will. Perhaps I should explain what "his will" means. You see a human concept of will means that its doing things for your own benefit. However thats not what God's will is. All God wants is for us to love him and each other.
That’s not what he wants he wants worship and belief and faith something I don’t have to give him … and when I fall short he punishes me for eternity (or allows me to be punished for falling short)

That’s not what he wants he wants worship and belief and faith something I don’t have to give him … and when I fall short he punishes me for eternity (or allows me to be punished for falling short)

Your arguement doesn't make sense. One, God doesn't punish you for falling short. Falling short isn't a sin. All of us fall short. Every one of us. You aren't falling short, you're rejecting. There's quite a difference you know. Refusing and falling short are not synonmomous. But since you don't believe anyway, I suppose you have nothing to worry about. I wish you'd stop insulting us believers though by calling us slaves or anything else derrogatory. Why worry about what we think will happen to you if you don't believe it anyway?

ok, thanks

To Jah Bootie: Why is Jack holding back? Whats he worried about?

Not the same; sin is a religious concept, gravity is a measurable physical force.

It would be stupid if the statement I made had been about gravity. Fortunately, it was not. It was about a concept that only exists within a very limited framework of beliefs.

You see this is what gets me annoyed. People say "I havent sinned because I dont believe in sin" is like saying "I dont believe in walking hence I have never walked" while stolling down the road. You cant not believe in a word. You might not believe in what the word implies but it doesnt mean you haven't done it.

Your arguement doesn't make sense. One, God doesn't punish you for falling short. Falling short isn't a sin. All of us fall short. Every one of us. You aren't falling short, you're rejecting. There's quite a difference you know. Refusing and falling short are not synonmomous. But since you don't believe anyway, I suppose you have nothing to worry about. I wish you'd stop insulting us believers though by calling us slaves or anything else derrogatory. Why worry about what we think will happen to you if you don't believe it anyway?
Wrong I have never been able to have faith … don’t you think I have fucking tried … but in the end I fall short I just CANT believe the story with the current evidence

If he is going to punish me for doing my best but still not being able to have true faith too bad there is nothing I can do about it
I am not calling you believers slaves necessarily but it really does seem at least from the outside a valid comparison

He doesn’t control us directly he just uses the carrot and the stick method … believe or else

That’s not what he wants he wants worship

Firstly, God does not nessecealy want worship. Worship is simpley a natural response to how great God is to us. Theres no point in the Bible where God says to his people "You must worship me" as if worship is some kind of apesemnt of God

You see this is what gets me annoyed. People say "I havent sinned because I dont believe in sin" is like saying "I dont believe in walking hence I have never walked" while stolling down the road. You cant not believe in a word. You might not believe in what the word implies but it doesnt mean you haven't done it.
It's simple. No God, no way of turning against or away from God. You can't "turn away" from something that's not there.

It is not disbelief in a word, as you suggest. Sin, for the non-believer in the Abrahamic God, is a non-issue.

Wrong I have never been able to have faith … don’t you think I have fucking tried … but in the end I fall short I just CANT believe the story with the current evidence

If he is going to punish me for doing my best but still not being able to have true faith too bad there is nothing I can do about it
I am not calling you believers slaves necessarily but it really does seem at least from the outside a valid comparison

He doesn’t control us directly he just uses the carrot and the stick method … believe or else

two reasons why you havn't been able to. One, there's nothing to try. You simply ask Him. You are saved by ASKING Jesus ... wait wait wait, I need to interject "I believe" in front of this or someone will claim I'm forcing my version of truth down their throats. I believe if you sincerely ASK Jesus to come into your heart, you will feel it happen. He stands at the door and knocks, if you open the door, He WILL come in. That's the easy part. That is getting saved and getting past the hell business. Faith comes over time, but you'll never find it if you require full understanding first. If you must know every answer to every question then you don't have faith. Blessed are those who believe and have not seen. I tell you this because you say you've tried your best. It doesn't take your best...it takes your heart...it takes sincerity.

Firstly, God does not nessecealy want worship. Worship is simpley a natural response to how great God is to us. Theres no point in the Bible where God says to his people "You must worship me" as if worship is some kind of apesemnt of God
oh?
John 4:24, "God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."

two reasons why you havn't been able to. One, there's nothing to try. You simply ask Him. You are saved by ASKING Jesus ... wait wait wait, I need to interject "I believe" in front of this or someone will claim I'm forcing my version of truth down their throats. I believe if you sincerely ASK Jesus to come into your heart, you will feel it happen. He stands at the door and knocks, if you open the door, He WILL come in. That's the easy part. That is getting saved and getting past the hell business. Faith comes over time, but you'll never find it if you require full understanding first. If you must know every answer to every question then you don't have faith. Blessed are those who believe and have not seen. I tell you this because you say you've tried your best. It doesn't take your best...it takes your heart...it takes sincerity.
I have but inside of me something just feels “wrong”
Whatever the reasons my past (and that’s DEFFINATLY a possibility) the way my mind is .

Just because it works that way with you does not mean it is as easy for some of us … specially when the past comes to haunt me at nights

Willamena, are you a christian? And I'm glad you liked the analogy
No, I am not a Christian.

NOTE: I have only read the first five posts of this thread so if I repeat anything or what I say is no longer relevant then sorry already.

NOTE 2: I am a 14 year old kid with no knowledge of either religion or science past KS3 level, so if my post is ignorant and childish well thats because I'm ignorant and a child.

OK then,

As I see it there is no way of knowing if there is or isn't a God so why bother? No matter how much we think about it we'll still never know. Even if a plausible scientific theory is made we don't know it happened so God could still have made the universe. Even if a so called miracle occurs scientists will come up with a theory for it so God can't be proved either.

Finding contradictions in holy books can never disprove God as there could still be a God just not the one in that book. Finding flaws in scientific theorys can never disprove science as there could always be another theory that's not found yet.

It is impossible to prove or disprove God.

Therefore all 99 pages of this thread or anything else will never decide anything.

My opinion? I think humans need an explanation for there existence, and so will make one that satisfys them. Just find an explanation that satisfys you and be happy.

I look at it this way God and any other kind of practices was created to control the masses. I have seen alot of christians and catholics and muslims and all other faithes. One thing they had in common was that they can't keep them self from lieing, cheating and stealing. And that makes me sick, when some one calls themself a born again christian and they go ahead and still lie about stuff. I don't think that helps that faith at all. And then the catholic's (not saying all do but) touch little boys in a sick manner costing them millions of dollars, just ain't right. I think people are born a certain way and to control them something has to be made up.

oh?
John 4:24, "God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."
That does not say, "You must worship me." It says, those who do so should do so 'in this manner'.

Personally i do not believe in god for two reasons:
First: If I were to be religious, I would have to choose from a series of different religions that all claim to be the only true religion, I would have to go through tons of books and tales in order to find th religion which suits me best. This is not only unpractical but only i have no evidence whatsoever that the religion really is what it promises to be.
Second: Religion is an easy excuse for any sort of crime.(as history proves)
Many sensible people have been transformed in maniacal killers because of their beliefs.
So I don't see how anyone can embrace religion as a choice of life, it is the easiest solution to the question of life and all dificult questions are answered by: only god knows.
there, that is why I am an atheist

Personally i do not believe in god for two reasons:
First: If I were to be religious, I would have to choose from a series of different religions that all claim to be the only true religion, I would have to go through tons of books and tales in order to find th religion which suits me best. This is not only unpractical but only i have no evidence whatsoever that the religion really is what it promises to be.
Second: Religion is an easy excuse for any sort of crime.(as history proves)
Many sensible people have been transformed in maniacal killers because of their beliefs.
So I don't see how anyone can embrace religion as a choice of life, it is the easiest solution to the question of life and all dificult questions are answered by: only god knows.
there, that is why I am an atheist

A combination lock has many numbers on it. There is almost an infinite number of combinations that can be dialed into it. Only one combination, though, will open it. Does this mean you would read books and decide which combination best suited you? Or would you research to figure out which one actually opened it?

And no, religion doesn't answer all hard questions with "only God knows". Christians believe in science too.

Indeed, we Christians find simple ways of accepting both religious ideals and scientific principles. We might not accept everything scientists throw at us. Who does? Many scientific theories contradict themselves. The point is, believe what makes sense to you. That's why there are so many Christians and even more people who believe in science.

I dont know how many times I have to explain the concept of free will to you people. God did not want mindless drones who just loved him because they were programed to. Real love can only exist when there is a choice.

But why punish people then when they don't act as you wanted them to act?

Whoo! Page 100!

Kamsaki's analogy is great. I absolutely love it and I will stand by the two of you -- you for what your last paragraph.
Thanks! Oh, by the way, feel free to use it, but if you could keep the names Steve, Claire and Brian in, that would be awesome. Hehe...

As for the rest of your post, I see nothing to argue with save to point out, yet again, that the Northern Ireland issue is Cultural, not Religious. They simply take the names Catholic and Protestant because those are the official denominations of the countries they claim to represent. 'cept Ian Paisley. And he thinks he is God.

Just keep checking things out. Even if you don't decide, you'll be a highly informed Agnostic, which is a benefit in itself. Goes down well at parties, I'll tell you. Or maybe that's just the sort of parties I go to. ^^;


I'll be back in the morning... it's been fun! I've got a few more analogies worth poking at, and no doubt the topic of conversation will have changed by then too.

I said God doesn't want anyone to perish, the other guy made a comment about my knowing the will of God, I said its written in the book and you started in about changes of the book and how long it took. I guess I'm not following your reply

Wrong. You replied to me when I pointed out the changes in the book to someone else. They suggested that once the book came into being it has always been the same, which is fundamentally untrue. I was making that point and you argued against it. If you intended to reply to somone else then this was just a misunderstanding. Here is the path of the conversation.

funny how people claim to know the will of god. like jihadists.

It was written in His book and it has been consistent ever since.

Notice the wording. "It has been consistent ever since" and I replied with "it has not". Had I been refuting that it was written in the Bible I would have said it IS not.

Oh, come on. It has not. What man believed to be the Will of God changed DRAMATICALLY when Jesus arrived on the scene for one thing. But even discounting that event, man has evolved their view of God for thousands of years. Was the entire Bible written on one day? If not, then you've oversimplified the point.

and so did the other guy with his sarcastic "knowing the will of God" statement. Its written in the book. Regardless how long it took to write the book, its in there.

You tried to temper my point, so I made it again more fully.

So the conception of God didn't change at all with the introduction of the New Testament? Why is the Jewish conception is so different than the Christian conception since we both use the same book? Why is the conception of God that was taught by the predominant Church of 1000 years ago so different than the predominant churches of today? Why is there so much variation in the predominant churches of taday? Again, you are oversimplifying the point. The book isn't a simple work and has spawned thousands of variations on the worship of God and the conception of that God.

how exactly does all this relate to my statement that God doesn't want anyone to perish?

There's the path of the conversation. Where did I reply to or say anything about your statement about God doesn't want anyone to perish. I only pointed out that the message has not been "consistent ever since." I see that if I go back far enough that Teh DeaDiTeS was arguing against that point, but I never addressed Teh DeaDiTeS' argument or yours. I only addressed Dragons Bay. Is this one of them your either for me or against me things? Dragons Bay was defending you so my pointing out that his argument was untrue is an attack on your original argument? The logic behind such a claim is not very solid.

There's the path of the conversation. Where did I reply to or say anything about your statement about God doesn't want anyone to perish. I only pointed out that the message has not been "consistent ever since." I see that if I go back far enough that Teh DeaDiTeS was arguing against that point, but I never addressed Teh DeaDiTeS' argument or yours. I only addressed Dragons Bay. Is this one of them your either for me or against me things? Dragons Bay was defending you so my pointing out that his argument was untrue is an attack on your original argument? The logic behind such a claim is not very solid.

No I see where I made the mistake. I apologize

My point (perhaps I didn't make it enough) is that that condition, "You have to accept his love", is an incredibly difficult one to make when you see what happens to those who don't accept it. The very fact that things within the power of the God you love have become the fear you have of not loving him back is, in itself, reason enough to reconsider such a relationship.

Let's go back to the Claire scenario again. Steve refuses to throw the line out to the other guys because they prevent Claire from loving him. This is to parallel the idea that God does not want other religions to be worshipped because they divert love away from him, and has therefore said that only followers of the way Jesus brought can be roped to safety. Thus, Buddhist monks have been denied salvation for as long as they are Buddhist monks.

In fact, for the purpose of the analogy, let's call one of the men Brian, who symbolises a universal religion in the sense that he believes that what we believe does not impact our outcome, but would encourage people who want to believe it for their own reasons (and perhaps an acceptance that they could be right). Brian, who also loves Claire, has told her that he doesn't mind if she wants to take the rope that Steve throws her, because it will in the end help her survive, and there's always a chance that Brian may yet be rescued by other means. Not all of them are that pleasant, of course, and Claire probably wouldn't mind too much seeing some of them in the lava, but Brian has come across as a caring and thoughtful individual.

Claire now is left with the choice of taking the rope Steve throws her and being with a man who has condemned several others do death, even to save her own life, bargaining with Steve over the release of the others (especially Brian, who she reckons is a pretty nice guy at the end of it all) or refuting Steve for his callousness, selfishness and Jealousy and pick death over returning his love.

So you're right. It is Free Will. But I believe that given the rope, I would rather refuse it than be told that I could not take the righteous with me, even if they didn't love God back. After all, what could heaven possibly be that someone who didn't love God could not possibly find it rewarding?

The analogy is flawed as was pointed out before. God does not save entire institutions but instead individuals. All individuals of any belief are offered the rope (Christ). It comes down to whether they take the rope. Seperate beliefs that do not amount to contradicting Christianity would not affect whether people took the rope or not. Seperate beliefs that conflict with Christianity would be like a seperate rope that one cannot hold onto while taking the rope that is Christ. Therefore alternative religions would be ropes that do not lead Claire to safety (God), not other people that also need saving.

Indeed, we Christians find simple ways of accepting both religious ideals and scientific principles. We might not accept everything scientists throw at us. Who does? Many scientific theories contradict themselves. The point is, believe what makes sense to you. That's why there are so many Christians and even more people who believe in science.

Just out of interest which scientific theories contradict themselves?

No I see where I made the mistake. I apologize

Once I travelled far enough back I realized what had happened. Had I read that the original reply about jihadists was to you, I would likely have replied differently, but I thought you were jumping on me for correcting Dragons Bay's overstatement of the facts. Seems like we're on the same page now.

Just out of interest which scientific theories contradict themselves?
That would depend entirely on how you define that question.

It's not at all wrong to say the theory of gravity is self-contradicting, for example. Nor is it wrong to say it contradicts quantum mechanics.

Still, it depends on what you mean. Scientific contradictions are usually either a result of lack of understanding or lack of the ability to observe (whatever). Theories are refined, and sometimes redefined, all the time for this very reason ;)

Here we go again. :rolleyes:


Is this life for some of you? Because where I'm at, there is sun outside. Religion is a bet - you won't *know* whether it is true or false until the light at the end of the tunnel.

For me, I picked Pascall's wager, and now I'm going back to doing something besides flex my e-penis.

Here we go again. :rolleyes:


Is this life for some of you? Because where I'm at, there is sun outside. Religion is a bet - you won't *know* whether it is true or false until the light at the end of the tunnel.

For me, I picked Pascall's wager, and now I'm going back to doing something besides flex my e-penis.
Good for you. You probably didn't notice some of us have been trying to learn something about eachother's veiws, in order to understand eachother better as people.
Pissing contests are futile, but there's plenty of very good reasons to try to get a better understanding of your fellow humans.

I feel as though I've been painted as a bible worshipping fundamentalist who hopes to see all non believers suffer an eternity in hell. This is so far from the truth it hurts. For one I believe the bible, I don't worship it. I believe and worship Jesus Christ and I believe His teachings. I believe the bible to be the word of God but I follow Jesus' teaching when it differs from the bible. Jesus' words were "I am the way, the truth, and the life. None may get to the Father except through me". Since I believe His words as truth, I'm unfortunately in the position to have to believe anything that contradicts them is false. I don't believe this qualifies me as a fundamentalist but if it does, then so be it. As far as seeing anyone suffer an eternity in hell, I'd prefer nobody ANYWHERE find that as their fate. My belief tells me there is only one way for me to make a difference in those regards and that is to make the attempt to share the truth "as I know it" to others. It hasn't anything to do with ego and wanting "my religion" to win out over everyone elses. I can't control God's wishes anymore than I can choose a fate for anyone else. I can only attempt to be an influence to some who are looking for one.

I'm aware that I don't have all the answers, or even a lot of them. I'm still trying to figure it all out myself. I'm still seeking answers too. My faith in Jesus is not blind. I've spent a lot of time developing my faith and I still have quite a lot to learn. But I have faith that my fate is in Jesus' hands WHILE I'm searching for more understanding.

I'll admit we're not as far apart as I thought when you started into this thread. I think you weren't voicing your beliefs very well early on, perhaps due to an aggitation at some of the unreasonable attacks that were flying, but you've definitely done much better of late. I know when to admit I'm wrong and I suspect we agree on more than we disagree related to our beliefs regarding God, Christ and the Bible.

Here we go again. :rolleyes:


Is this life for some of you? Because where I'm at, there is sun outside. Religion is a bet - you won't *know* whether it is true or false until the light at the end of the tunnel.

For me, I picked Pascall's wager, and now I'm going back to doing something besides flex my e-penis.

Interesting that you're so busy enjoying the sun, yet found the time to add nothing to the thread other than you're disdain for those of us who are enjoying exploring ideas. I have found a reason to respect the beliefs of people like Hoberbudt, The Similized World, Willamena (though this isn't really our first interaction) and others. I wouldn't call that a waste of time.

But why punish people then when they don't act as you wanted them to act?

Its not a punishment. You go to hell as a result of sin not because God sends you there, but because its the natural result of sin. A ball falls to the ground naturally if dropped. It only is stoped if you put something there to catch it. In this case God did put something there to catch it. He extended his offer of salvation to us. However, it is not automatic, we have to accept it. He drops us the rope, we have to grab it.

oh?
John 4:24, "God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."

Your version is a bit odd, mine says "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth" basicly its saying that if you do worship him, do it sincerely. Its still not saying you have to do it or that its nessecary as part of salvation.

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

Is this life for some of you? Because where I'm at, there is sun outside. Religion is a bet - you won't *know* whether it is true or false until the light at the end of the tunnel.

For me, I picked Pascall's wager, and now I'm going back to doing something besides flex my e-penis.

Really intellegent. Now perhaps you can offer something a little more low brow to the debate, something the rest of us will understand... :rolleyes: