NationStates Jolt Archive

1) Hell is infinite punishment (since you are sent their for eternity), finite sins can not be justly punished by infinite punishment. If they can, there is no justice


For me, hell is a state of mind where one undergoes suffering to the point where one wishes to destroy themself and everything around them. One does not hope for things to get better. One simply suffers.

As far as finite sins not being justly punished by infinite punishment, consider what happens when one kills their own parents. For the rest of one's life, one is deprived of their parents. Finite sin: killing one's parents. Infinite punishment: deprivation of parents forever. Now, how much one suffers depends on the individual, but I can't see any way for one's parents to return to life after a set period of time.

what we think about God doesn't matter... the anus is not upon God to change for us; he calls the shots.

Fixed.

So God sent Jesus to deal with this problem, through his death, humans can be made right in God's eyes and thus can enter heaven.
You know, I was in a church Kindergarten for four years, but I never ever got that bit.

1) Hell is infinite punishment (since you are sent their for eternity), finite sins can not be justly punished by infinite punishment. If they can, there is no justice.

Even our current judicall system doesnt function like this. Firstly, see what someone wrote about killing parents already (Its a very good point). Secondly, say I steal a car and joy ride in it for an hour and then get caught by the police. My crime lasted an hour or so yet I am given 3 years for car theft. The punishment and the crime are not nessecarly time related


2) God has the ability to punish limited sins in a limited sense, and redeem everyone.

He is punishing you reletive to your existance (IE your life). If you spent your entire life ignoring God, disobeying him and not doing anything about it, then no wonder you will spend your entire afterlife recieving punishment.

3) God has made it known his opinion to me: "God is Love and there is no Hell." We can argue Revelation if you want, but we probably won't get very far.

I dont know where that quote comes from. I'd like you to verify it


But God controls the rules. God's salvatoin does have a firm grasp on me and you and everyone.

God makes the rules fair. They are just and fair according to his nature. He doesn't save everyone because not everyone wants to be saved. He can save everyone but you have to reciprecate to save yourself. He cannot force you to love him back. Thats not what love is.

You know, I was in a church Kindergarten for four years, but I never ever got that bit.

It basicly means that if we

- Admit to God we have sinned
- Ask him to fogive us through Jesus's life, death and resurection
- Try our best to lead the life he set out

Then God removes our old records, fogives our sin and its like it never happend, and whenever he looks at us, he sees the perfectness of Jesus. He knew we could never acomplish such perfectness, which is why Jesus had to instead

Admit to God we have sinned
Check, I can do that. But I could've done that without Jesus getting nailed to the cross.

Ask him to fogive us through Jesus's life, death and resurection
:confused:

Try our best to lead the life he set out
Well, yes, I guess that's fairly obvious. If it didn't tell me to live my life a certain way, I guess it wouldn't be a religion.

Then God removes our old records, fogives our sin and its like it never happend, and whenever he looks at us, he sees the perfectness of Jesus. He knew we could never acomplish such perfectness, which is why Jesus had to instead.
And again I don't get the link between me and Jesus. If Jesus was the son of god, and Mary never actually had him (what with still being a virgin and all), then he's not human, is he?
And even if he was, what's he got to do with my sins?

:confused:

And again I don't get the link between me and Jesus. If Jesus was the son of god, and Mary never actually had him (what with still being a virgin and all), then he's not human, is he?
And even if he was, what's he got to do with my sins?

For God to fogive our sins, he needed to send Jesus to the Earth to die in the way he did. He needed a just way to forgive our sins so Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. Dieing in our place. You see, the wages of sin are death, in otherwords everyone who sin's will die. But Jesus died and yet did not sin??? He broke the sin death cycle and made a 'loophole' in the system (I use the word loophole for want of a better word). Now if we choose to, we can be forgiven of our sin because of Jesus's death.

For God to fogive our sins, he needed to send Jesus to the Earth to die in the way he did.
Oh? he did did he? even god could not find a way to do it without killing someone?

Oh? he did did he? even god could not find a way to do it without killing someone?

He had to be just. This was the only just way of doing it.

He had to be just. This was the only just way of doing it.
So there is a limit to gods power and inventiveness …

Though you proclaiming it as just does not make it so

So there is a limit to gods power and inventiveness …

Ok lets get all the omnipotence paradoxes over with. Could X OE (omniptent entity) do Y without using his OE powers? No. Omnipotence is not something we can properly comprehend in this universe.


Though you proclaiming it as just does not make it so

Me proclaiming it no. God proclaiming it yes. And I believe that if it were not the just and nessecary thing to do to save us then God wouldnt have done it.

Ok lets get all the omnipotence paradoxes over with. Could X OE (omniptent entity) do Y without using his OE powers? No. Omnipotence is not something we can properly comprehend in this universe.



Me proclaiming it no. God proclaiming it yes. And I believe that if it were not the just and nessecary thing to do to save us then God wouldnt have done it.
That’s all good and fine but by my definition of just killing off someone that you did not have to is not just

And I am not able to worship someone who does not in my eyes deserve it

What part of the life and death cycle of existence are you having the most problem with? Death comes after life.

He couldn’t be resurrected without dying first. He had to die so that we might live because he IS the Resurrection he had to break the bonds of death.

He couldn’t be resurrected without dying first. He had to die so that we might live because he IS the Resurrection he had to break the bonds of death.
So why didn't he slit his wrists on a road-side?

So why didn't he slit his wrists on a road-side?

Because suicide is killing and killing is a sin

So why didn't he slit his wrists on a road-side?



Romans 4:23-25
23 Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, 24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

The cross may seem as foolishness to some of us, but it shows us the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:18-25 * below). It was a stroke of genius, a brilliant maneuver really, it simultaneously shows how ugly sin is, and how beautiful God’s love is. It positively punishes sin and simultaneously offers us forgiveness. It breaks the power of death via sin and gives us the ability to overcome our own death in Sin.

The cross gives us visible evidence that our sins have been dealt with, once and for all, that our struggles are not in vain, and that a crown of glory awaits us through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as evidenced by the resurrection.

1 Corinthians 1:18-25
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

What part of the life and death cycle of existence are you having the most problem with? Death comes after life.

He couldn’t be resurrected without dying first. He had to die so that we might live because he IS the Resurrection he had to break the bonds of death.
The only one requiring him to do so was god himself there was no reason he had to be resurected (therefore die) other then gods will

As far as finite sins not being justly punished by infinite punishment, consider what happens when one kills their own parents. For the rest of one's life, one is deprived of their parents. Finite sin: killing one's parents. Infinite punishment: deprivation of parents forever. Now, how much one suffers depends on the individual, but I can't see any way for one's parents to return to life after a set period of time.

This just doesn't work like you put it. You are assuming that your parents no longer exist after you kill them. If you believe in a hell and heaven, aka an afterlife, if you kill your parents, you are deprived of your parents for the rest of your mortal life, not forever as they go on existing in said afterlife. So, you are still comparing a mortal finite 'sin' with an infinite.

Because suicide is killing and killing is a sin
Then by standard christian dogma god did the next best thing … he put “himself” knowingly in a position to be killed

Its like me tying an anchor to my leg then dropping into a lake
Would you consider that suicide? I would

Then by standard christian dogma god did the next best thing … he put “himself” knowingly in a position to be killed

Its like me tying an anchor to my leg then dropping into a lake
Would you consider that suicide? I would

Yes, but you actually did that. Jesus was killed by other people. He did nothing wrong to instigate that, so his death was completely unjust as human standards go. Yet ultimately it was nessecary to save us all.

Yes, but you actually did that. Jesus was killed by other people. He did nothing wrong to instigate that, so his death was completely unjust as human standards go. Yet ultimately it was nessecary to save us all.
Ok then more akin to god placing him in the middle of a busy highway

Either way god knowingly placed Jesus in harm with full knowledge of the outcome of his actions … he is guilty of at least accessory to murder

Ok lets get all the omnipotence paradoxes over with. Could X OE (omniptent entity) do Y without using his OE powers? No. Omnipotence is not something we can properly comprehend in this universe.

Here's a parodox for you; When people claim that a certain quality of their God is beyond comprehension and yet convey an apparent understanding of God's very personality on the basis of some book. Oh well, I hate to nitpick and it's not like you have anything else to go on. I would say "Consider the bigger picture!" but the problem is would we be able to comprehend it?

Here's a parodox for you; When people claim that a certain quality of their God is beyond comprehension and yet convey an apparent understanding of God's very personality on the basis of some book. Oh well, I hate to nitpick and it's not like you have anything else to go on. I would say "Consider the bigger picture!" but the problem is would we be able to comprehend it?
Exactly … those who believe in their omni-everything of their god is real are often the ones that seem to put the most limits its powers

Even our current judicall system doesnt function like this. Firstly, see what someone wrote about killing parents already (Its a very good point). Secondly, say I steal a car and joy ride in it for an hour and then get caught by the police. My crime lasted an hour or so yet I am given 3 years for car theft. The punishment and the crime are not nessecarly time related

They don't have to be time related they have to be severity related. It is not just to torture someone for stealing a TV. Hell, being infintely long, is infinitely sever.



He is punishing you reletive to your existance (IE your life). If you spent your entire life ignoring God, disobeying him and not doing anything about it, then no wonder you will spend your entire afterlife recieving punishment.

1) my entire life is probably going to be about 80 years, my entire afterlife would be infinte which is infinitely longer than 80 years. If you argue I would get 80 years in Hell, I could understand.

2) But I don't, I spend my life in communion with God, doing my best to obey Him and atoning when I fail. And according to you, I'm still going to Hell.


3) God has made it known his opinion to me: "God is Love and there is no Hell." We can argue Revelation if you want, but we probably won't get very far.


I dont know where that quote comes from. I'd like you to verify it

Personal Revelation from God. (or to be blunt, God told me) You don't have to believe me, that is up to you, but you have to explain why I shouldn't believe what I have experienced.


God makes the rules fair. They are just and fair according to his nature. He doesn't save everyone because not everyone wants to be saved. He can save everyone but you have to reciprecate to save yourself. He cannot force you to love him back. Thats not what love is.

I do love God, and yet according to you, I am going to Hell. If I do not believe the right thing, it is not because I don't love God, it is because I am stupid or delusional. How is it just for someone to be punished for being stupid or delusional?

Ok then more akin to god placing him in the middle of a busy highway

Either way god knowingly placed Jesus in harm with full knowledge of the outcome of his actions … he is guilty of at least accessory to murder

Yes, exactly right. God sent Jesus to us so that we might be saved. That's the whole point, God so loved the world (us) that he gave us his son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

And Yes, Jesus too knew that he would be killed, that the outcome was not in doubt, and that it would be hard to endure, even Jesus asked if it were possible to remove the 'cup' from him and give him a different option, but let God's will be done and Jesus went through with it.

We are like children who have done wrong and are going to prison, God send Jesus to stop our needing to go. Like a parent who is held responsible for the damages that their child has caused, Jesus came to pay the price for our sins.

Because suicide is killing and killing is a sin
But it was in keeping with god's plan that Jesus died. His going willing to his death was suicide.

I'm just saying that the whole scene, of his death, was acted out for more reason than Ph33rdom is letting on.

They don't have to be time related they have to be severity related. It is not just to torture someone for stealing a TV. Hell, being infintely long, is infinitely sever.

Hell is of itself not a one size fits all policy, and Hitler will be in a diffrent kind/level of hell than others for example. See Matthew 11 verses 20-24 to explain more. And more to the point, whats the most severe sin you can think of? See while for you it may be killing someone, ultimately its ignoring what Jesus did for you on the cross. It is supreme arrogence to think you dont need it, considering what he went through for you


1) my entire life is probably going to be about 80 years, my entire afterlife would be infinte which is infinitely longer than 80 years. If you argue I would get 80 years in Hell, I could understand.

The severity is more linked to what will be happening to you in hell, than how long you will be in hell for. See Matthew 11:20-24 again


2) But I don't, I spend my life in communion with God, doing my best to obey Him and atoning when I fail. And according to you, I'm still going to Hell.

There are only three things you need to do to be in heaven with God

- Accept you've done wrong in his eyes
- Ask him to fogive you through the blood of Jesus
- Try your best to sincerely live your life for him


Personal Revelation from God. (or to be blunt, God told me) You don't have to believe me, that is up to you, but you have to explain why I shouldn't believe what I have experienced.

Well it would seem to contridict the Bible. If it would seem to me that God told me to kill my son, I wouldnt because it contridicts his word, so I know it cant have been him.


I do love God, and yet according to you, I am going to Hell. If I do not believe the right thing, it is not because I don't love God, it is because I am stupid or delusional. How is it just for someone to be punished for being stupid or delusional?

I dont think your stupid or dillusional. I just dont believe you've grasped the Bible properly. Hell is clearly shown to be a part of the system. I just think you have to pray about it and listen to God about it. Remember, God will not say anything that is contradictive of the Bible to you. Its not enough just to believe God exists. The Devil believes God exists. You have to put your trust in Jesus to save you

But it was in keeping with god's plan that Jesus died. His going willing to his death was suicide.

Only suicide in so far as taking a bullet for someone is suicide

Besides the fact of the differences between the old and new testaments versions of hell, how can you trust what the bible says about anything considering the church is down to only using 73 (<-IIRC) of the original 600+ books of the original bible? The fact that emperor constantine chose which of those books they would use and got rid of any that he deemed bad/heretic/too jewish etc, and that the entire christianity religion is based off of censored material, how can you not say that those of us that don't believe the bible as it stands today probably isn't right don't have a leg to stand on so to speak?

As far as the suicide issue, jesus did commit suicide IMO if we are to believe the story. I would argue that knowingly putting yourself in a position that you know for a fact is going to result in your death is suicide. No different than jumping from the empire state building. Just because he had someone else do the dirty work does not absolve him from the responsibilities of his own actions.

Yes, exactly right. God sent Jesus to us so that we might be saved. That's the whole point, God so loved the world (us) that he gave us his son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

God is the only one that required death to give us everlasting life

He required it
And he carried it out (or knowingly put his son in harms way)
And that is what I call neglagence



Jesus came to pay the price for our sins.
And god is the only one that set the "price" to death

As evidence of Hell, I submit Exhibit A, my first ex-wife. And as extra evidence, I submit Exhibit B, my second ex-wife.

Because Tom Paine said it better than I think I ever could, here is a letter that he wrote to a christian friend in 1797:


"In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.

"But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? for this is the first point to be settled. It is not your calling it so that makes it so, any more than the Mahometans calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran to be so. The Popish Councils of Nice and Laodicea, about 350 years after the time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was done by yeas and nays, as we now vote a law.

"The Pharisees of the second temple, after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, did the same by the books that now compose the Old Testament, and this is all the authority there is, which to me is no authority at all. I am as capable of judging for myself as they were, and I think more so, because, as they made a living by their religion, they had a self-interest in the vote they gave.

"You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word revelation. There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither can he prove it himself.

"It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No.

"Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?

"For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold verbal communication with the Deity. It is the way by which the world has been imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner. But all this does not settle the point, whether the Bible be the Word of God, or not. It is therefore necessary to go a step further. The case then is: -

"You form your opinion of God from the account given of Him in the Bible; and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of creation. The result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard, shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.

"The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive being; making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done, and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done. But the works of God in the creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea - that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness.

"The sun and the seasons return at their appointed time, and everything in the creation claims that God is unchangeable. Now, which am I to believe, a book that any impostor might make and call the Word of God, or the creation itself which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing, and the creation says the contrary. The Bible represents God with all the passions of a mortal, and the creation proclaims him with all the attributes of a God.

"It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (I Sam. xv. 3) `Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'

"That Samuel or some other impostor might say this, is what, at this distance of time, can neither be proved nor disproved, but in my opinion it is blasphemy to say, or to believe, that God said it. All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.

"What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus xvii. (but which has the appearance of fable from the magical account it gives of Moses holding up his hands), had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death; and to complete the horror, Samuel hewed Agag, the chief of the Amalekites, in pieces, as you would hew a stick of wood. I will bestow a few observations on this case.

"In the first place, nobody knows who the author, or writer, of the book of Samuel was, and, therefore, the fact itself has no other proof than anonymous or hearsay evidence, which is no evidence at all. In the second place, this anonymous book says, that this slaughter was done by the express command of God: but all our ideas of the justice and goodness of God give the lie to the book, and as I never will believe any book that ascribes cruelty and injustice to God, I therefore reject the Bible as unworthy of credit.

"As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case.

"You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New.

"When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done (for I do not think you know much about it), and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it."

Well it would seem to contridict the Bible. If it would seem to me that God told me to kill my son, I wouldnt because it contridicts his word, so I know it cant have been him.


Well, I can only report what I have seen and heard. Why should I not believe what I have seen and heard God say with my own eyes and ears, but believe those same eyes and ears when I read the Bible.


Remember, God will not say anything that is contradictive of the Bible to you.

But God did, if you want to argue with Him, go ahead, but when God tells me something I'm going to listen.

Only suicide in so far as taking a bullet for someone is suicide
But any way that Jesus chose to die would be taking a bullet for us, by the nature of his being. Even slitting his wrists.

But God did, if you want to argue with Him, go ahead, but when God tells me something I'm going to listen.

How do you know its God telling you? While I can apricate the value of supernatural experiance, the Devil is supernatural as well. I'm not saying your intentionally contacting the Devil, but he may be contacting you, under the guise of God, and you dont know it. When I experiance God, I do so through the Bible. No other experiance will contradict that and if it seems to, then chances are the experiance is not of God

How do you know its God telling you? While I can apricate the value of supernatural experiance, the Devil is supernatural as well. I'm not saying your intentionally contacting the Devil, but he may be contacting you, under the guise of God, and you dont know it. When I experiance God, I do so through the Bible. No other experiance will contradict that and if it seems to, then chances are the experiance is not of God

How do you know?

How do you know its God telling you? While I can apricate the value of supernatural experiance, the Devil is supernatural as well. I'm not saying your intentionally contacting the Devil, but he may be contacting you, under the guise of God, and you dont know it. When I experiance God, I do so through the Bible. No other experiance will contradict that and if it seems to, then chances are the experiance is not of God

1) How are you sure the Bible is not the corrupted by the Devil?

2) Because the entity claimed to be who I would call Yahweh

3) The entity encouraged me to do good things like feed the poor, help at a battered women's shelter, give to those displaced by tragity, volunteer to help the devopementally disabled.

4) Because I felt love, and i don't think the Devil (if he exists) would love.

5) I don't know it was God. However, I only have the people's word who wrote the Bible that it is the Word of God. If I hear second (or third) hand that Peter Johnson said "X" and then someone who shows me an ID saying Peter says, "I didn't say X, I said Y" who should I believe and why?

Ok, here we go again with this original sin and free will thing:

-According to Christians, God is omniscient and omnipotent.

-God created Adam and Eve innocent, thus without any knowledge of what was good or evil, without any knowledge of "sin" or whatever. This is confirmed by the fact that they gain this knowledge *after* eating the fruit (which is why they feel shame all of a sudden).

-God forbids them to eat the fruit. However, they are innocent and without knowledge of good or evil. So they can't possibly know if disobeying god is evil or not.

-So they eat the fruit.

-They gain knowledge of good and evil, but it is too late, and god, even though he's supposed to be so loving and forgiving and all (not to mention that *he's* the one who created them without knowledge of good and evil) kicks them out of heaven.

-God is omniscient, so he *knew* that this was going to happen, that's what omniscient means: he knows everything.

-Three possible conclusions:
1. This story is true and god, since it's by his own fault that it happened (since he created them without any knowledge that disobeying him would be bad and he was omniscient, which means he should have known about it) is an incredibly uncaring jerk or a cruel monster, which makes Christianity pretty much useless (since the reason why we are supposed to be Christians is because it's so much about love and the like).
2. This story is false and thus cannot be used in any debate about sin, good and evil, free will, etc.
3. This story is true and god is in fact imperfect according to Christian teachings: either he isn't omniscient and thus couldn't foresee this (which then means he might not be omnipotent either, since without omniscience, he's pretty much doing things without knowing if he couldn't actually do more, or what effect his actions have, etc.), or he's omniscient and omnipotent and whatever, but used his powers carelessly (creating people in such a way that they'll be screwed sooner or later is pretty much careless), and thus is imperfect too.

I want an answer from all you christians out there. It's funny how nobody has yet bothered answering this.

How about #4?
4. The story is true and God is omniscient and omnipowerful, and chose to allow free will and allow mankind to suffer the consequences of choosing wrong, as well as the blessings of choosing correctly, because it is the only way everyone (and by that, I mean every sentient being, including angels, demons and mankind) will acknowledge that God is sovereign, that He is righteous, and that free will has consequences.

It shows that whether the "devil made me do it" or "that woman you gave me made me do it" is your excuse, you are still responsible for your own actions.

God did not force you, or make it so that you would have no choice because you saw a cloud of glory following you around, but because you, with the reasoning powers God gave you, made up your own mind, and chose to do what you wanted to do.

That is what sin is, doing what you want, instead of what God wants.

Now show me where the Bible says that Adam was created as a perfect being. That is an assumption/assertion made by people, not found in the Bible.

Anyway, as I was saying, before Christ comes down to rule the earth for 1000 years, Satan is locked up. But after the 1000 years of the perfect rule of Christ, after 1000 years of seeing righteous people living for hundreds of years without sickness, and seeing wicked people drop dead before their time, Satan will be released once more. So that once again, people will be free to choose for a final time, where do they want to go, who do they want to spend eternity with? God or Satan? And after Satan rounds up the last wicked people, and tries to fight God with his new army, they all end up in the Lake of Fire, which is what most people think of as Hell. And if you are reading this, you are no longer ignorant, you have no excuse. The choice is yours.

And if you have not yet seen enough convincing evidence, it is up to you to find it. The evidence is all around us, but we look through broken, muddy glasses.

How about #4?
4. The story is true and God is omniscient and omnipowerful, and chose to allow free will and allow mankind to suffer the consequences of choosing wrong, as well as the blessings of choosing correctly, because it is the only way everyone (and by that, I mean every sentient being, including angels, demons and mankind) will acknowledge that God is sovereign, that He is righteous, and that free will has consequences.

It shows that whether the "devil made me do it" or "that woman you gave me made me do it" is your excuse, you are still responsible for your own actions.

God did not force you, or make it so that you would have no choice because you saw a cloud of glory following you around, but because you, with the reasoning powers God gave you, made up your own mind, and chose to do what you wanted to do.

That is what sin is, doing what you want, instead of what God wants.

Now show me where the Bible says that Adam was created as a perfect being. That is an assumption/assertion made by people, not found in the Bible.

Anyway, as I was saying, before Christ comes down to rule the earth for 1000 years, Satan is locked up. But after the 1000 years of the perfect rule of Christ, after 1000 years of seeing righteous people living for hundreds of years without sickness, and seeing wicked people drop dead before their time, Satan will be released once more. So that once again, people will be free to choose for a final time, where do they want to go, who do they want to spend eternity with? God or Satan? And after Satan rounds up the last wicked people, and tries to fight God with his new army, they all end up in the Lake of Fire, which is what most people think of as Hell. And if you are reading this, you are no longer ignorant, you have no excuse. The choice is yours.

And if you have not yet seen enough convincing evidence, it is up to you to find it. The evidence is all around us, but we look through broken, muddy glasses.


After I read your post, I agree with two things: 1- being ignorant is a bad thing and; 2- evidence IS all around us, just not to back up your claim. As far as Adam being perfect, if god is perfect, then so would be Adam. Here, let me explain this in bible speak: Perfection begot perfection. God, being a perfect being begot Adam, thus, Adam would be perfect too.

To the argument of free will:

There is no free will in Christianity. Christianity's God does not give us free will.

We have the free will to choose eternal happiness by God's side (heaven), or emptyness, nothingness (hell). Now, which one is the clear choice? You can't say we have free will, technically.

You have free will to raise your hand, but if you do, I will shoot you.
You have free will to believe what you want, but if you do, you will not get eternal happiness. Great, so I have little choice. So where does the free will come from?

To the argument of us rejecting God's help:

I never said I reject God and heaven. If I find out he exists when I die, I'll gladly accept him. For now, he'll have to realize that I use logic and reasoning to found my beliefs, and with the lacking evidence of his existance, I cannot blindly believe he exists.

What if I think Religion is a scam? What if I believe that people are trying to earn power, money, and influence by taking advantage of those willing to believe? What if I believe Religion is a bad thing?
Thus, in believe, I would think that it would be best if I didn't partake in it. I am doing what I think is best, and am being as good as I can be. Yet I go to hell. Rather, I "reject" God. I'll accept God if I realize he exists when I die. For now, I'd rather do what I think is best for everyone and make everyone as happy as I can, instead of simply accepting God and that's that.

If God cannot see that I try to make life better for everyone, and instead banishes me to hell, then it is not a perfect God. I believe that if God exists, he is a perfect God.

God will look down upon me, and will see that I see greed and corruption in Religion, and as such do not partake in it, he will not banish me. That is, if he is perfect.

To any argument involving belief and faith:

Why did God make us intelligent so that we could ponder the universe, if he didn't want us to do that? God wants you to have faith and then he'll accept you into heaven. Pretty much give up your intelligence and accept something without any proof. So why did he give us this intelligence?

Logic deducts that taking a *perfect* God, a heaven, and a hell, all good people will go to heaven and all bad people will go to hell. Praying is unnecessary, because God looks at your actions, not at your prayers. He cannot be bribed with prayers. You must prove you are a good person with your actions.
God does not discriminate on religion. He's perfect. He's beyond banishing those who don't believe in him. After all, it was he who gave them the ability to reason.

In fact, I don't think God would be happy with this whole "faith" thing. Faith is believing something blindly without any proof, which is what Christians claim is needed to get into heaven and be one with God. It means closing your mind and believing something regardless of proof. Basically throwing out your intelligence. God gave you intelligence and you're squandering it like that? That will make him mad. But he is perfect, so he does not get mad. In fact, he still won't judge you in bad light. He'll judge you by your actions.

I think God is perfect. As long as you live a good life, and do good deeds, you are worthy to be at his side, in heaven.

Has anyone who was punished as a child, for something done against the wishes of the parent/caregiver, and said "if you were perfect, you wouldn't punish me! You would know that I am not perfect, so you wouldn't judge me by the standard of perfection." Or something to that effect? And did it stop your punishment from occurring?

To all of the Defiant ones out there,
Jesus said that your own words will judge you at the last day.

So what ever criteria you have come up with to show yourselves worthy of being with God in heaven, make sure you live up to them, perfectly, or face the consequences.

God constantly said in the Bible to get knowledge. Jesus said to be "wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." So use your brain.

And remember, in a courtroom, "proof" can be eyewitness testimony, which is what the whole Bible is, the written testimony of eyewitnesses.

After I read your post, I agree with two things: 1- being ignorant is a bad thing and; 2- evidence IS all around us, just not to back up your claim. As far as Adam being perfect, if god is perfect, then so would be Adam. Here, let me explain this in bible speak: Perfection begot perfection. God, being a perfect being begot Adam, thus, Adam would be perfect too.

And who is the only begotten Son of God? Hint: it's not Adam...

According to your argument, Adam was God, because God begets God. But since he was innocent, sinned, and died, and never rose from the grave, we can infer that he was not God.

Only One lived as a man, yet did not sin. And that was Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God.

There can be only one (said in my Christopher Lambert voice)...

Using biblical sounding language does not make a premise Biblical.

And who is the only begotten Son of God? Hint: it's not Adam...

According to your argument, Adam was God, because God begets God. But since he was innocent, sinned, and died, and never rose from the grave, we can infer that he was not God.

Only One lived as a man, yet did not sin. And that was Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God.

There can be only one (said in my Christopher Lambert voice)...

Using biblical sounding language does not make a premise Biblical.
Then I guess everytime I hear god referred to as the father, it's not what they really mean? Besides, I would never try to make a premise sound biblical as the bible is so full of contradictions, lies, whole omitted books, vagueness, primitive explanations for basic science and down right weird-can-only-be-on-drugs type of crap I wouldn't want to unduly hinder my arguments and take weight away from proven evidence. Now, if you want to finish arguing semantics, cool, but try and answer why your side has no evidence and how exactly you can get imperfection from perfection. BTW, heres a hint: I didn't say Adam was a god. I didn't say god made another god (can he?) either. You are using the typical fundamentalist attitude when it comes to debating. I said god made (according to you christians) Adam, a HUMAN. But god is perfect, right? Since god is perfect, what he does/makes is perfect and he made Adam so, Adam too must be perfect.

Has anyone who was punished as a child, for something done against the wishes of the parent/caregiver, and said "if you were perfect, you wouldn't punish me! You would know that I am not perfect, so you wouldn't judge me by the standard of perfection." Or something to that effect? And did it stop your punishment from occurring?

To all of the Defiant ones out there,
Jesus said that your own words will judge you at the last day.

So what ever criteria you have come up with to show yourselves worthy of being with God in heaven, make sure you live up to them, perfectly, or face the consequences.

God constantly said in the Bible to get knowledge. Jesus said to be "wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." So use your brain.

And remember, in a courtroom, "proof" can be eyewitness testimony, which is what the whole Bible is, the written testimony of eyewitnesses.

No one has ever lied in court? A) not everyone that literally wrote the bible supposedly were eyewitnesses- some were just underlings writing what they were told; B) even 'eyewitnesses lie, especially when they can gain from it.

Because Tom Paine said it better than I think I ever could, here is a letter that he wrote to a christian friend in 1797:


"In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.

"But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? for this is the first point to be settled. It is not your calling it so that makes it so, any more than the Mahometans calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran to be so. The Popish Councils of Nice and Laodicea, about 350 years after the time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was done by yeas and nays, as we now vote a law.

"The Pharisees of the second temple, after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, did the same by the books that now compose the Old Testament, and this is all the authority there is, which to me is no authority at all. I am as capable of judging for myself as they were, and I think more so, because, as they made a living by their religion, they had a self-interest in the vote they gave.

"You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word revelation. There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither can he prove it himself.

"It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No.

"Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?

"For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold verbal communication with the Deity. It is the way by which the world has been imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner. But all this does not settle the point, whether the Bible be the Word of God, or not. It is therefore necessary to go a step further. The case then is: -

"You form your opinion of God from the account given of Him in the Bible; and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of creation. The result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard, shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.

"The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive being; making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done, and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done. But the works of God in the creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea - that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness.

"The sun and the seasons return at their appointed time, and everything in the creation claims that God is unchangeable. Now, which am I to believe, a book that any impostor might make and call the Word of God, or the creation itself which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing, and the creation says the contrary. The Bible represents God with all the passions of a mortal, and the creation proclaims him with all the attributes of a God.

"It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (I Sam. xv. 3) `Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'

"That Samuel or some other impostor might say this, is what, at this distance of time, can neither be proved nor disproved, but in my opinion it is blasphemy to say, or to believe, that God said it. All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.

"What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus xvii. (but which has the appearance of fable from the magical account it gives of Moses holding up his hands), had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death; and to complete the horror, Samuel hewed Agag, the chief of the Amalekites, in pieces, as you would hew a stick of wood. I will bestow a few observations on this case.

"In the first place, nobody knows who the author, or writer, of the book of Samuel was, and, therefore, the fact itself has no other proof than anonymous or hearsay evidence, which is no evidence at all. In the second place, this anonymous book says, that this slaughter was done by the express command of God: but all our ideas of the justice and goodness of God give the lie to the book, and as I never will believe any book that ascribes cruelty and injustice to God, I therefore reject the Bible as unworthy of credit.

"As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case.

"You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New.

"When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done (for I do not think you know much about it), and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it."
Y'know, I think it's a tragedy that this post was just ignored.

After I read your post, I agree with two things: 1- being ignorant is a bad thing and; 2- evidence IS all around us, just not to back up your claim. As far as Adam being perfect, if god is perfect, then so would be Adam. Here, let me explain this in bible speak: Perfection begot perfection. God, being a perfect being begot Adam, thus, Adam would be perfect too.

But it depends on what you mean by perfect. I've used this example before and I'll use it again. Say a mastercraftsman made the perfect chisel. It was perfectly formed and forged so that it would cut away stone in the exact way that the artist using it would desire. Say that same mastercraftsman also developed the perfect screwdriver. It could latch on to any screw, of any head type and unscrew or screw it in place with amazing ease. Yet despite the perfectness of the screwdriver, it wasnt to good for sculpting marble, and the chisel wasnt much good for screwing a plug socket back in place either. The point being that you have to clarify perfect. A perfect what? The perfect what? Once you clarify it, it gives purpose. Purpouse in terms of perfection means that Adam may have been perfect in one way but not all. It depends in what function Adam was perfect

But it depends on what you mean by perfect. I've used this example before and I'll use it again. Say a mastercraftsman made the perfect chisel. It was perfectly formed and forged so that it would cut away stone in the exact way that the artist using it would desire. Say that same mastercraftsman also developed the perfect screwdriver. It could latch on to any screw, of any head type and unscrew or screw it in place with amazing ease. Yet despite the perfectness of the screwdriver, it wasnt to good for sculpting marble, and the chisel wasnt much good for screwing a plug socket back in place either. The point being that you have to clarify perfect. A perfect what? The perfect what? Once you clarify it, it gives purpose. Purpouse in terms of perfection means that Adam may have been perfect in one way but not all. It depends in what function Adam was perfect
I think your anology is flawed. Both the chisel and and screwdriver, no matter how good they are at carrying out their purpose, are nothing more than what they are. They don't even come close to the perfection of God. The chisel can only chisel things and the screwdriver can only screw things and in that respect they are far from perfect. Say, you bought a car not knowing that it had a flaw that would cause it to break down. Do you blame the car when this happens or do you blame the manufacturer? You would blame the manufacturer.

I think your anology is flawed. Both the chisel and and screwdriver, no matter how good they are at carrying out their purpose, are nothing more than what they are. They don't even come close to the perfection of God. The chisel can only chisel things and the screwdriver can only screw things and in that respect they are far from perfect. Say, you bought a car not knowing that it had a flaw that would cause it to break down. Do you blame the car when this happens or do you blame the manufacturer? You would blame the manufacturer.

You miss my point. God made us perfect as to what he wanted. Which was free willed creatures with the ability to think. Now in so far as disobeying the command goes, that does not prove that we were not perfect. It just shows that what we were perfect for was not blindly obeying orders.

You miss my point. God made us perfect as to what he wanted. Which was free willed creatures with the ability to think. Now in so far as disobeying the command goes, that does not prove that we were not perfect. It just shows that what we were perfect for was not blindly obeying orders.
Hmmm so you are claiming humans are perfect ... something I have not seen done in the realm of faith

But it depends on what you mean by perfect. I've used this example before and I'll use it again. Say a mastercraftsman made the perfect chisel. It was perfectly formed and forged so that it would cut away stone in the exact way that the artist using it would desire. Say that same mastercraftsman also developed the perfect screwdriver. It could latch on to any screw, of any head type and unscrew or screw it in place with amazing ease. Yet despite the perfectness of the screwdriver, it wasnt to good for sculpting marble, and the chisel wasnt much good for screwing a plug socket back in place either. The point being that you have to clarify perfect. A perfect what? The perfect what? Once you clarify it, it gives purpose. Purpouse in terms of perfection means that Adam may have been perfect in one way but not all. It depends in what function Adam was perfect


You said it in your post. You are perfect in regards to your purpose and gods purpose was for us is to love/obey him (your definition). According to christianity, we are here on this earth to serve god and in order to perfectly serve god we would not have eaten from the forbidden tree as that is rejecting him.

Ok, to begin with please do not quote box my post if you are going to respond to it! It does nothing but take up absurd amounts of space. Just say "As Tyslan said" to reference, everyone will understand what you mean.

Now then, I am going to try and argue from the viewpoint of justifying Hell. The concepts are basic enough throughout this. God gave humanity free will, the right to choose and the obligation to accept the consequences thereof. Now according to original sin doctrine humanity is naturally sinful, as in no man is perfect. Thus stated, humanity will always be in sin and away from God. The idea is simple enouigh, with humanity being away from sin, and humanity not accepting the offer to be closer to God through Christ, then we remain distant from God in death, thus in Hell which is defined as distance from God.

- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan

You said it in your post. You are perfect in regards to your purpose and gods purpose was for us is to love/obey him (your definition). According to christianity, we are here on this earth to serve god and in order to perfectly serve god we would not have eaten from the forbidden tree as that is rejecting him.

Our purpose on Earth is to love God. But to love in anyway, you have to have the ability to choose, the ability not to love.

1) Well why doesn't God, being merciful, just allow those people to exist who would choose to accept Jesus and prevent the conception of all others? I know I would rather not exist than spend an eternity in Hell.

2) Please explain to me how you know Revelation from the Bible is true and not what has been revealed to me. Moreover, explain why I should trust a second hand account but not a first hand one.

HOLD ON!!! We are kinda off track. How I justify hell is this...
You can only go to heaven if you believe that christ died on the cross to pay for your sin. If you do not believe this you go to hell. Adam and eve WERE imperfect, because God told them NOT to eat the fruit.

But they did it anyway. See? That's sin. That's what utterly destroyed the world from being perfect ever again. :eek:

The Rapture.
The end of the world will take place at any moment. It could tommorrow, or, it could be 30,000,000,000,000 years from now. WE DONT KNOW!!! But when it happens we (christians, or anyone who believes that christ took away their sin and wants to not sin anymore...mostly. So yeah you could be chalothlic, jew, maybe, arminian, you name it as long as you believe in christ.) Will go to heaven. God will judge us. Then he will judge everyone else exactly as he judged us. Execpt they will have no excuse. They will go to hell, We sing praises for eternity, kids play in His garden, have peace, etc. The End Of World. Sounds Good to me!

1) But once again, Hell is an infinite punishment, lasting an infinite length. An infinite punishment is only justifiable for an infinite crime which can't be committed. Hell is not a just punishment.

To put it a mathmatical way, suppose we have a negative number, if we keep adding that negative number to itself it will approach negative infinity no matter how small the number. No matter how mild the punishment, it will be an infitie punishment since we are there for an infinite time. Unless there is a time cap on Hell, it is an infinite punishment which is not just except in the case of infinite sin, which as finite humans, we can not commit.

Y'know, I think it's a tragedy that this post was just ignored.

Okay, fine...

… a letter that he wrote to a christian friend in 1797:

"In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.

This is true when one does not try to understand the message and intent of the scriptures and the verses but misuses them, uses them selectively and out of context (intentionally or by innocent error) to make a different point entirely.

When taken out of context anything can be misconstrued, we could even quote Moby Dick out of context and turn it into a seeming advocate of the communist manifesto. But simply because we can do such a thing with the words in the book does not make the novel nor the intent of the author of the story of Moby Dick, to actually advocated any such thing. The Bible does in fact advocate a lesson that a reasonable person can comprehend.


"But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? for this is the first point to be settled. It is not your calling it so that makes it so, any more than the Mahometans calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran to be so. The Popish Councils of Nice and Laodicea, about 350 years after the time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was done by yeas and nays, as we now vote a law.

Entirely irrelevant. No evidence whatsoever that it is not true, only a reason to favor caution and skepticism.

"The Pharisees of the second temple, after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, did the same by the books that now compose the Old Testament, and this is all the authority there is, which to me is no authority at all. I am as capable of judging for myself as they were, and I think more so, because, as they made a living by their religion, they had a self-interest in the vote they gave.

This is not an argument either. It states an opinion about people unknown to Tom Paine, he tries to discredit their ability to validate their opinions, he equates them as unequal to his own. In other words, it’s just an insult from him to them.


"You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word revelation. There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither can he prove it himself.

And neither does it disprove it.

"It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No.

"Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?

Minor detail: Mohammed talked to an entity in a cave for many years, the entity never claimed to be God at all, the entity claimed to have been sent from Heaven though. Early versions of the story said the entity was in the form of a salamander, but that didn’t have the desired affect on the listener that they wanted so the story changed and simply began to say that an “Angel” came to the cave to speak to Mohammed.

Back on the point. The Moses story is said to have involved witnesses, the entire Hebrew tribe is said to have seen miracles and signs in the open for even the unbeliever to have seen. For a Christian, Moses must be accepted as a prophet of God because Jesus said he was. As for Mohammed, he stands alone with no witnesses to the miracles nor the messenger from Heaven. Neither of which proves anything conclusively, outside of the fact that Tom Paine doesn’t know what he was talking about, but stating an opinion he chooses to believe (as he says next), not fact.

"For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold verbal communication with the Deity. It is the way by which the world has been imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner. But all this does not settle the point, whether the Bible be the Word of God, or not. It is therefore necessary to go a step further. The case then is: -

"You form your opinion of God from the account given of Him in the Bible; and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of creation. The result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard, shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.

"The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive being; making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done, and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done. But the works of God in the creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea - that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness.

"The sun and the seasons return at their appointed time, and everything in the creation claims that God is unchangeable. Now, which am I to believe, a book that any impostor might make and call the Word of God, or the creation itself which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing, and the creation says the contrary. The Bible represents God with all the passions of a mortal, and the creation proclaims him with all the attributes of a God.

The earth is NOT unchangeable and eternal. Tom Paine’s entire argument is based on the assumption that the earth and the universe are eternal and unchangeable, but we now know that the Earth is constantly in change, the universe is ever expanding and changing. If Tom Paine only knew then what we know today, he would see the error of this argument ~ it actually shows that the Bible version (according to his own words) must be a more accurate description of the Universe’s creator than his assumption because it is changeable.

Studying the Earth’s history is a lesson of ever more cataclysms and change, extinction and rebirth, not even the seasons of the planet endure unchanged. In other words, this argument is flat out wrong, even by it’s own logic, The creator of the Universe condones and mandates change, this is not a stagnate existence




"It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (I Sam. xv. 3) `Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'

"That Samuel or some other impostor might say this, is what, at this distance of time, can neither be proved nor disproved, but in my opinion it is blasphemy to say, or to believe, that God said it. All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.

"What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus xvii. (but which has the appearance of fable from the magical account it gives of Moses holding up his hands), had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death; and to complete the horror, Samuel hewed Agag, the chief of the Amalekites, in pieces, as you would hew a stick of wood. I will bestow a few observations on this case.

"In the first place, nobody knows who the author, or writer, of the book of Samuel was, and, therefore, the fact itself has no other proof than anonymous or hearsay evidence, which is no evidence at all. In the second place, this anonymous book says, that this slaughter was done by the express command of God: but all our ideas of the justice and goodness of God give the lie to the book, and as I never will believe any book that ascribes cruelty and injustice to God, I therefore reject the Bible as unworthy of credit.

And, supposedly, it is from this benevolent ‘nature’ that we learn survival of the fittest. Death is a part of life, we need to chop down the forest to make way for our fields, we need to plow the weeds under so that we can plant useful crops, we need to kill the beast to feed our children. All of creation is the evidence of Life consuming Life. To argue against the cycle of life and death is not an argument against the Bible, it is an argument against existence itself, and obviously when all things are considered, it is a bad argument because it is simply not true. God/Life requires that one destroys life to exist, or else our own children starve and we feed the earth with our decaying bodies. Nothing mortal lives forever, all things die. We kill to live, just by cleaning the kitchen we kills bacteria. Murder is against the law of God, killing is not murder. The Book of Samuel can defend itself, read that and then remember why Jesus came to change the old law that was created because of the hardness of our hearts, not the hardness of God’s heart.

"As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case.

"You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New.


Choice and choices. Tom Paine was educated in the Christian indoctrination as well as the friend he was writing to. And yet, Tom ‘determined’ his own fate and beliefs. Education did not determine his beliefs and in the same manner mortality of fate and epiphany are unrelated to ethnic culture and societal upbringing, anyone, anywhere, and from any background can be struck by the epiphany of truth and yet the unenlightened can not be induced nor forced to have an epiphany of the spirit no matter the education and indoctrination step taken to bring it about, it is beyond our ability to mandate, it is God’s will.


"When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done (for I do not think you know much about it), and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it."

This is entirely a cop out. A sleight of hand insult that implies he knows more than his adversary does and thus he believes as he does, when in fact, what he is really saying is, “I know enough to believe what I believe and I’m too stubborn to bother listening any further, my mind is made up, irregardless of any new evidence to the contrary”


:rolleyes:

Paine's central point still stands: We have no proof other than the words of the Bible that the Bible is true (at least no more proof than we have the Illiad is true). Why should second hand Revelation be taken over first hand Revelation? The only arguement I have heard is "the Bible is true because I said it's true." If you are a Christian that is fine, however, I fail to see why I should take the Bible's word over what has been revealed to me, and why I should be damned for eternity if I am duped.

This is true when one does not try to understand the message and intent of the scriptures and the verses but misuses them, uses them selectively and out of context (intentionally or by innocent error) to make a different point entirely.

Sounds like the same thing christians have been doing for years.

When taken out of context anything can be misconstrued, we could even quote Moby Dick out of context and turn it into a seeming advocate of the communist manifesto. But simply because we can do such a thing with the words in the book does not make the novel nor the intent of the author of the story of Moby Dick, to actually advocated any such thing. The Bible does in fact advocate a lesson that a reasonable person can comprehend.

I've never argued that the bible does not contain good lessons. But as the good lessons in moby dick, so goes the bible as they are both fiction. Your entire argument makes the assumption that the bible is fact, that everything it says happened did in fact happen. Since you are the one making the leap of faith, it is your burden to prove that your sources are true. Besides, I kinda think you didn't understand what Pain was saying there. What he means is that for bit of 'evidence' you pull from the bible, he can pull just as much 'evidence' from the bible that states something to the contrary, which is true.

Entirely irrelevant. No evidence whatsoever that it is not true, only a reason to favor caution and skepticism.

Irrelevant?!? Are you serious? It's amazing that you can show caution and skepticism when someone makes a factual argument that goes against your belief, but when the same person reverses it back to your views, they are completely wrong. What proof DO you have that the bible is correct and the koran isn't? What makes your belief more valid than another persons? NOTHING!! Get over yourself and realize that you do not KNOW everything, and when it comes to god, you KNOW nothing, have no verifiable facts and are basing your entire argument on personal beliefs.

This is not an argument either. It states an opinion about people unknown to Tom Paine, he tries to discredit their ability to validate their opinions, he equates them as unequal to his own. In other words, it’s just an insult from him to them.

Oh man, you are discounting his opinion about people he never met? The same peolpe that you blindly follow? Again, it is not insult (though some people can find insult anywhere) but him saying that the people that put together the current version of the bible are no better than he is, no more able to make an educated decision, no more able to decide what should and shouldn't be in the bible. He is right. They are no more mentally qualified to interpret the books of the bible than he or I. See an insult if you wish.


And neither does it disprove it.

Umm, that would be the point....:headbang:

Minor detail: Mohammed talked to an entity in a cave, the entity never claimed to be God, the entity claimed to have been sent by Heaven (early versions said the entity was in the form of a salamander, but that didn’t have the desired affect on the listener, soothe story began to say that an “Angel” came to the cave to speak to Mohammed.

Back on the point. The Moses story is said to have involved witnesses, the entire Hebrew tribe is said to have seen miracles and signs in the open for even the unbeliever to have seen. For a Christian, Moses must be accepted as a prophet of God because Jesus said he was. As for Mohammed, he stands alone with no witnesses to the miracles nor the messenger from Heaven. Neither of which proves anything conclusively, outside of the fact that Tom Paine doesn’t know what he was talking about, but stating an opinion he chooses to believe (as he says next), not fact.

You are trying to argue that there is more evidence for the bible being true than the koran because the bible says it has witnesses? Are you serious?

The earth is NOT unchangeable and eternal. Tom Paine’s entire argument is based on the assumption that the earth and the universe are eternal and unchangeable, but we now know that the Earth is constantly in change, the universe is ever expanding and changing, that if Tom Paine only knew what we knew today, he would see the error of this argument, it actually shows that the Bible version (according to his own words) must be a more accurate description of the Universe’s creator than his assumption. The Earth’s lessons seem to be one of ever more cataclysm and change, extinction and rebirth, not even the season endure unchanged. In other words, this argument is flat out wrong, even by it’s own logic.


Again, please reread what he wrote. He never said the earth was unchangeable and eternal. You are flat out wrong because you either cannot or just refuse to really see what he is saying. What he means is that according to the bible it says god is changeable. Pain is saying that based on all evidence, god isn't changeable, that in the bible god was so willing to just change things willy-nilly and that a human can change his mind (moses anyone??). Every year we have the same seasons, the sun rises and sets everyday on a set schedule as hasa been happening for as long as humans know. As he so aptly said, the bible tries to make god human whereas the evidence makes god god. Read it again please.

And, supposedly, it is from this benevolent ‘nature’ that we learn survival of the fittest. Death is a part of life, we need to chop down the forest to make way for our fields, we need to plow the weeds under so that we can plant useful crops, we need to kill the beast to feed our children. All of creation is the evidence of Life consuming Life. To argue against the cycle of life and death is not an argument against the Bible, it is an argument against existence itself, and obviously when all things are considered, it is a bad argument because it is simply not true. God/Life requires that one destroys life to exist, or else our own children starve and we feed the earth with our decaying bodies. Nothing mortal lives forever, all things die. We kill to live, just by cleaning the kitchen we kills bacteria. Murder is against the law of God, killing is not murder. The Book of Samuel can defend itself, read that and then remember why Jesus came to change the old law that was created because of the hardness of our hearts, not the hardness of God’s heart.

Your justification of what happened in the book of samual makes no sense. Pains argument stands in that how can you worship a god that would wipe out a people for defending themselves? There is not a single thing you can says "(I Sam. xv. 3) `Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'" If you try I think we will all know where you stand.

Choice and choices. Tom Paine was educated in the Christian indoctrination as well as the friend he was writing to. And yet, Tom ‘determined’ his own fate and beliefs. Education did not determine his beliefs and in the same manner mortality of fate and epiphany are unrelated to ethnic culture and societal upbringing, anyone, anywhere, and from any background can be struck by the epiphany of truth and yet the unenlightened can not be induced nor forced to have an epiphany of the spirit no matter the education and indoctrination step taken to bring it about, it is beyond our ability to mandate, it is God’s will.

Education has everything to do with it. When you are brought up, you are taught what to believe usually. Rare is the parent that lets their child make up their own mind. You think it is just coincidence that peolpe that are brought up as christians end up being christians and that those that are jewish remain jewish? And that the same goes for islam and every other religion out there? What he is saying is that because his friend was brought up as christian is the reason he is christian, just as if he were brought up islamic. To us 'enlightened' ones, we have seen that there is no more evidence for one over the other, that in fact thre is no evidence for either, that we make up our own minds given our observations, not what we are told.

This is entirely a cop out. A sleight of hand insult that implies he knows more than his adversary does and thus he believes as he does, when in fact, what he is really saying is, “I know enough to believe what I believe and I’m too stubborn to bother listening any further, my mind is made up, irregardless of any new evidence to the contrary”

You speak of him being stubborn...right. Pain seems to have been a very logical person, a trait I ascribe to myself. Being logical by nature, we look at the actual facts and make our own decision. Some people actually do really and truly and honestly believe the world is only 6,000 years old. We logical types look at all the evidence to the contrary and can't help but think that if they would only look into it with an open mind that they would see that their position doesn't make much sense.

:headbang:

1) Well why doesn't God, being merciful, just allow those people to exist who would choose to accept Jesus and prevent the conception of all others? I know I would rather not exist than spend an eternity in Hell.

Not allowing you to exist is not free will. God gave us free will, and also the command to "go fourth and multiply". God is not a dictatior, who will only let those who accept him exist.


2) Please explain to me how you know Revelation from the Bible is true and not what has been revealed to me. Moreover, explain why I should trust a second hand account but not a first hand one.

Well to be blunt, the Bible is not just one persons revelation of God. It's the revelations of more than 50 people. And all of what they say fits together and makes sense, culminating in the life of Jesus. There are over 300 prophicies of Jesus's life in the Old Tesement, some written more than a milliena before Jesus's life. The Bible is like a massive peer reviewed artilcle on God, but instead of one person writining it, its all the peers who examined it saying what they found. They all found the same thing. You found something diffrent, who should we be trusting?

Well to be blunt, the Bible is not just one persons revelation of God. It's the revelations of more than 50 people. And all of what they say fits together and makes sense, culminating in the life of Jesus. There are over 300 prophicies of Jesus's life in the Old Tesement, some written more than a milliena before Jesus's life. The Bible is like a massive peer reviewed artilcle on God, but instead of one person writining it, its all the peers who examined it saying what they found. They all found the same thing. You found something diffrent, who should we be trusting?


Well, I've read many of the DragonLance series of books, most of which are written by different authors and they all fit together and make sense too. Just because more than one person (though we don't even know that for a fact) got together and made a basic outline does not mean it is true.

Well, I've read many of the DragonLance series of books, most of which are written by different authors and they all fit together and make sense too. Just because more than one person (though we don't even know that for a fact) got together and made a basic outline does not mean it is true.

And how far apart were the DragonLance series of books written? Less than a decade I would guess. Remember, that the Bible was written over the period of over a milliena. Books that were writen and existed over 600 years before Christ lived have made predictions about his life. Over 300 of them, all of which are fufilled in Jesus. If me and a group of 50 or so others make a series of predictions about a single mans life who will live over 600 years from now and we got them all right, would you not think there was something very supernatural happening there?

Bibilically, if I remember right, God did not create hell. Satan (Who was an Angel), believed he was greater than God, and tried to destroy God. God exiled Satan from Heaven, and Satan created Hell where he could rule.


Probably not 100% accurate, and I know my memory can be falty. But it happened something like that, I dont' feel like going and getting a Bible to further research it. If you want to know more about what I'm referring to, read the last Chapter in the Bible, titled Revelations.


Also, I didn't read thoe whole thing, just read the first page then replied. So topic of conversation is probably WAY WAY off at this point...Sorry about that.

And how far apart were the DragonLance series of books written? Less than a decade I would guess. Remember, that the Bible was written over the period of over a milliena. Books that were writen and existed over 600 years before Christ lived have made predictions about his life. Over 300 of them, all of which are fufilled in Jesus. If me and a group of 50 or so others make a series of predictions about a single mans life who will live over 600 years from now and we got them all right, would you not think there was something very supernatural happening there?

And how do you know those books were written when the church says they were. You don't know.

And how do you know those books were written when the church says they were. You don't know.

Yes we do know. Perhaps it's about time you read up on your archaeology a little bit before you go around making yourself sound silly with accusations that are ridiculous. You don't have to believe in the Bible to find out how old it is...

And how do you know those books were written when the church says they were. You don't know.

You seriously doubt this much. If you have those kinds of doubts then your knowledge of history is going to become seriously more doubted. The documental evidence that Jesus existed is more contempary and plentiful than the documental evidence that alexander the great existed. The OT existed and was around the time of the NT because it is the OT that Jesus comments on and talks about. We know about the OT because the Jewish leaders of the time had them as important manuscripts.

Our purpose on Earth is to love God. But to love in anyway, you have to have the ability to choose, the ability not to love.
I disagree. Loving is not our purpose, but our nature. There is no one without the ability to love. It is not a choice, anymore than living is a choice.

/opinion

Yes we do know. Perhaps it's about time you read up on your archaeology a little bit before you go around making yourself sound silly with accusations that are ridiculous. You don't have to believe in the Bible to find out how old it is...

As far as I know, the earliest copy of the entire New Testament exists in Codex Sinaiticus (written ca. 375 A.D.), and Codex Vaticanus is ca. 350 A.D., but it's missing Paul's Pastoral Epistles and Revelation. None of this says 600 years before christ. If this isn't what we are talking about, then tell me which book you are referring too.

Speaking of making yourself sound silly ph33rdom, grasping onto one post where we may or may not be talking about the same thing and then calling the poster silly is kinda asinine.

As far as I know, the earliest copy of the entire New Testament exists in Codex Sinaiticus (written ca. 375 A.D.), and Codex Vaticanus is ca. 350 A.D., but it's missing Paul's Pastoral Epistles and Revelation. None of this says 600 years before christ. If this isn't what we are talking about, then tell me which book you are referring too.

Speaking of making yourself sound silly ph33rdom, grasping onto one post where we may or may not be talking about the same thing and then calling the poster silly is kinda asinine.

Asinine is referencing the NT age when the discussion was whether or not we know how old the OT is.

Asinine is referencing the NT age when the discussion was whether or not we know how old the OT is.

Didn't Howard Dean do that?

As far as I know, the earliest copy of the entire New Testament exists in Codex Sinaiticus (written ca. 375 A.D.), and Codex Vaticanus is ca. 350 A.D., but it's missing Paul's Pastoral Epistles and Revelation. None of this says 600 years before christ. If this isn't what we are talking about, then tell me which book you are referring too.


The Old Testement you nit. And while the earliest copies of the entire new testement can be seen to be that old, the Gospels can be proven to be written between 30-70AD

The Old Testement you nit. And while the earliest copies of the entire new testement can be seen to be that old, the Gospels can be proven to be written between 30-70AD

You nit, that's not the point. There are absolutely ZERO copies of the original bible. The OLDEST complete 'COPY' of the old testament is from 900 A.D. Go ahead, show me where the original is at. Come on now, I'm listening..... lol- you can't. Get over it.

You nit, that's not the point. There are absolutely ZERO copies of the original bible. The OLDEST complete 'COPY' of the old testament is from 900 A.D. Go ahead, show me where the original is at. Come on now, I'm listening..... lol- you can't. Get over it.

While not the entire Bible bound together in a single book. But guess what! The Bible is NOT a single book (Shock Horror!). Its about 70 or so books. We have older copies of the Old testement in the form of the Anchient Hebrew scrolls. The same scrolls which the religious leaders were reading when they told Herod that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Your going to have to accept it, seeing as historical standards say that unless we have more contempary documentation or contradictory archeological evidence, then we accept a document as true, untill otherwise falsified. As for the New Testement, there is more documental evidence of Jesus's existance, life, death and resurection than there is of Alexander the Great. If you doubt Jesus in this way, its only logical to doubt every other historical figure in the same way

Why should someone who is superior to you care about you at all? What makes you worthy of judging a god?

This objection was fairly succinctly answered by the Athenian philosophers when St Paul was trying to convert Athens: he shouldn't. Love should be directed to that which is most worthy of love, and, to an omnipotent being, humans would be less than ants in his regard. As far as the Athenian philosophers were concerned, that there should be an omnipotent being who loved humanity so much that he sent his son to die for us would be extremely nice- but it would also be wishful thinking, because, frankly, we're not worth it. As a perfect being, God himself would be the only being worthy of God's love, and a deity which did love humanity would not be a perfect deity.

In other words, yes: a superior being should not have any regard for humanity, and is entirely justified in doing whatever the hell he feels like, should they actually attain his notice. Such a being, however, would be far from the omnibenevolent being which you're probably trying to justify.

As for what makes us worthy of judging a deity? Whether we're worthy or not, we all do it, and it is as a result of our judging that we may decide to believe in him (or not) and follow him (or not).

This objection was fairly succinctly answered by the Athenian philosophers when St Paul was trying to convert Athens: he shouldn't. Love should be directed to that which is most worthy of love, and, to an omnipotent being, humans would be less than ants in his regard. As far as the Athenian philosophers were concerned, that there should be an omnipotent being who loved humanity so much that he sent his son to die for us would be extremely nice- but it would also be wishful thinking, because, frankly, we're not worth it. As a perfect being, God himself would be the only being worthy of God's love, and a deity which did love humanity would not be a perfect deity.

In other words, yes: a superior being should not have any regard for humanity, and is entirely justified in doing whatever the hell he feels like, should they actually attain his notice. Such a being, however, would be far from the omnibenevolent being which you're probably trying to justify.

As for what makes us worthy of judging a deity? Whether we're worthy or not, we all do it, and it is as a result of our judging that we may decide to believe in him (or not) and follow him (or not).

An exceptional first post.

An exceptional first post.

Thanks! :D

While not the entire Bible bound together in a single book. But guess what! The Bible is NOT a single book (Shock Horror!). Its about 70 or so books. We have older copies of the Old testement in the form of the Anchient Hebrew scrolls. The same scrolls which the religious leaders were reading when they told Herod that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Your going to have to accept it, seeing as historical standards say that unless we have more contempary documentation or contradictory archeological evidence, then we accept a document as true, untill otherwise falsified. As for the New Testement, there is more documental evidence of Jesus's existance, life, death and resurection than there is of Alexander the Great. If you doubt Jesus in this way, its only logical to doubt every other historical figure in the same way

Hmm, I could have swore it was ORIGINALLY actually closer to 600 books. The same question applies to you then: christianity uses 73 of the 600, why don't they use them all?

To answer your statement as to if I hold the bible to those standards then I will have to hold all historical figures, the answer is no, I don't. In order to believe a book that makes extraordinary claims of the supernatural, said bookl requires much more factual evidence to support it than run of the mill history books that speak of normal everyday happenings. Which requires more support: A book speaking of how aliens are not only living among us but having control of all the major governments; or a book that tells about the controversy of the 2000 elections? The thing is, I can believe that alexander the great lived and did what was accredited to him or not. I'm not threatened with going to an unsupported hell if I don't. But there is no reason not to believe Alexander the great existed though because thre is no gain to be had from the books about him. As far as the bible goes, if you research the surrounding countries, non of them have any historical accounts for a lot of the things the bible says happened. Wonder why that is?

If you define "Hell" as being forced to have sex with Rosie O'Donnell, then Hell certainly exists.

If you define "Hell" as being forced to have sex with Rosie O'Donnell, then Hell certainly exists.
You were raped by Rosie O'Donnell? Tell us more! Who is this Rosie O'Donnell?

You were raped by Rosie O'Donnell? Tell us more! Who is this Rosie O'Donnell?
http://vikingphoenix.com/cartoons/rosie559.gif

This thread is for people of any religion, but mainly Christians: how do you justify hell?

According to Christianity, God created every single person on this planet
According to Christianity, God gave me a brain, and the ability to reason
With the reasoning and judgement that God alledgedly gave me, according to Christianity, I have decided that Christianity cannot be right
So, I live my life with extremely high standards and high values, doing everything I can to improve society, being 100% responsible and accountable for every action I take, treating others as I would have them treat me, donating my time and money to charitable causes, in general, be as good a person as I can possibly be, while choosing to believe that Jesus Christ is not my saviour.
And I go to hell.
I go to hell, because with the reasoning that god gave me, I have determined that Christ is not my saviour.
Mahatma Gandhi goes to hell, because he was born and raised a Hindu, and despite all the good that came of his actions while he was alive, he is supposedly burning in hell.
4 billion of the people who are on this earth right now, either because they used their reasoning to determine that Christianity was not right, or more likely, because they were raised a different religion and possibly even taught that if they were any religion other than their own, they would go to hell.
Complete scumbags who live their life to make an extra buck on the backs of anyone else, who would slit their own mother's throat for a nickel if they could get away with it, who have no moral sense whatsoever, from the lowliest street thug to the corrupt businessman or politician, but just happen to be Christian, go to church every Sunday and ask god to forgive them for their sins go to heaven.
Adolf Hitler sits in heaven while Mahatma Gandhi burns in hell.
How do Christians justify this?
Frankly, if Christianity is right, then I would rather burn in hell than serve such an evil, merciless, uncaring god.
If God does exist, I should hope he is nothing whatsoever like he is portrayed in Christianity.


Actually, you obviously haven't studied much on this. God judges us by our hearts. Adolf Hitler will not be in heaven. He may have claimed to follow Jesus, but in now way did he obey Jesus. Mahatma Gahndi may very well go to heaven. He was raised in a different culture, and God is all knowing. God knows if he would have become a Christian in different circumstances. And I believe he would've. He obeyed Jesus Christ's laws far more than most Christians, and he may well be in heaven now. You, who claim to be lawful, and kind, however are bashing innocents who try to follow their God, (Christians) even though you don't know them. I think you sould rethink your previous actions.:)

This objection was fairly succinctly answered by the Athenian philosophers when St Paul was trying to convert Athens: he shouldn't. Love should be directed to that which is most worthy of love, and, to an omnipotent being, humans would be less than ants in his regard. As far as the Athenian philosophers were concerned, that there should be an omnipotent being who loved humanity so much that he sent his son to die for us would be extremely nice- but it would also be wishful thinking, because, frankly, we're not worth it. As a perfect being, God himself would be the only being worthy of God's love, and a deity which did love humanity would not be a perfect deity.

In other words, yes: a superior being should not have any regard for humanity, and is entirely justified in doing whatever the hell he feels like, should they actually attain his notice. Such a being, however, would be far from the omnibenevolent being which you're probably trying to justify.

As for what makes us worthy of judging a deity? Whether we're worthy or not, we all do it, and it is as a result of our judging that we may decide to believe in him (or not) and follow him (or not).

You are wrong. Loving someone who is imperfect is not a sin. A perfect person has the right to feel compassion for his creation. I love my dog, and though I'm not perfect, my dog is always there for me. She is a nice dog and likes children. She has never sinned, because only humans can. God only gave free will to humans so that the ones who showed his perfect love to others without being controlled by instinct could live with him.:) :)

Actually, you obviously haven't studied much on this. God judges us by our hearts. Adolf Hitler will not be in heaven. He may have claimed to follow Jesus, but in now way did he obey Jesus. Mahatma Gahndi may very well go to heaven. He was raised in a different culture, and God is all knowing. God knows if he would have become a Christian in different circumstances. And I believe he would've. He obeyed Jesus Christ's laws far more than most Christians, and he may well be in heaven now. You, who claim to be lawful, and kind, however are bashing innocents who try to follow their God, (Christians) even though you don't know them. I think you sould rethink your previous actions.:)

He is not bashing innocents who follow their god. He is talking about, whether you agree or not, the likely hood of a just god sending over half the population to hell because they don't believe christianity is right. As you said, if god judges us by our hearts, it really doesn't matter what religion you are.

Actually, you obviously haven't studied much on this. God judges us by our hearts.

Out of curiosity could you biblically back this up? In my mind what you are advocating here is salvation by works (but I could be wrong). Many people here may have made the mistake that I am advocating salvation by faith alone, which to a certian extent I am. The best Biblical point about this is the phrase that is to be found in James "Faith without deeds is dead". Now what this means, is that while faith is nessecary for salvation, it is not true faith unless it is demonstrated by your actions. This does not mean however that works without faith can give salvation.

bump