NationStates Jolt Archive

Good then you should have no problem quoting said scripture. Hell is for bad people. It says nothing that its existence is bad. Unless you'd care to quote scripture that says the existence of hell is bad. Oddly, I don't view the existence of prisons as bad, but I wouldn't want to end up in one.



Not a good place to be != a bad place to exist



I don't agree. Again, show me the scripture that say the existence of Hell is a bad thing.

This would seem to be an argument in favour of a "subjective" authority and not an "objective" one. ;)

This would seem to be an argument in favour of a "subjective" authority and not an "objective" one. ;)

I don't believe that humans go to hell, but my beliefs or what arguments I would make are not the point. The point is that all arguments that are being made rely on assumptions.

I don't believe that humans go to hell, but my beliefs or what arguments I would make are not the point. The point is that all arguments that are being made rely on assumptions.
Believe it or not, it wasn't a derisive post directed at yourself.
I've recently, due the nature of the season "War on Christmas :rolleyes: "
had a few conversations on the nature of what is subjective and what is objective, and i was merely pointing that out (since it seems to be a talking point).
I agree with you to some degree, if that helps clarify.

Believe it or not, it wasn't a derisive post directed at yourself.
I've recently, due the nature of the season "War on Chrismas :rolleyes: "
had a few conversations on the nature of what is subjective and what is objective, and i was merely pointing that out (since it seems to be a talking point).
I agree with you to some degree, if that helps clarify.

No, I wasn't disagreeing with you or taking offense. I was merely pointing out that my defenses were not evidence of my beliefs, other than on what I was arguing (which is why I clarified my argument).

No, I wasn't disagreeing with you or taking offense. I was merely pointing out that my defenses were not evidence of my beliefs, other than on what I was arguing (which is why I clarified my argument).
Fair enough!
Sometimes a person just has to work with the material they're given, indeed.

And I saw the dead, small and great, before the great white throne........
Regardless of whether the atheist is small or great, I suppose that MEANS he will be there.

First: It rather depends on who 'the dead' are, does it not?

Second: Even if an Atheist is among the multitude to get 'judged', that still does not equate to an entire 'afterlife'... just a brief resurrection.

Oh, I see what you mean now. You are saying that because God allowed Job's pain, thus it could be argued that he actually caused it. Which is little like saying that God is causing suffering in the world today, because he allows it. In one sense, God is responsible for Job's pain. But I would not call that torture, because torture usually does not have the best interests in mind for the object of the torture. However, in Job's case, one can easily argue that God retained Job's best interest in his heart, even though it clearly did not seem that way to Job at the time.

In the case of the suffering in the world, the source is not God, but the sin of humans, according to the Genesis story. Thus suffering, as we humans experience it, can have several sources.

No - you don't see what I mean.

God uses HaSatan as a tool.

Satan has no 'free will' in the story... he is just the instrument.

If I find you dissecting live puppies with a pair of scissors, it is a misunderstanding of what I see, to conclude that the scissors are an evil entity with a lust for blood.

The Job story seems fairly straightforward. God presents his new pet to HaSatan, who does what he does, and implies that the human in question is 'not all that'. God basically turns out and says "Yuh huh! He is too! Torture him for me, to prove it"

God doesn't 'allow' Satan to do anything... unless, of course, you are arguing that Satan is actually the EQUAL of god?

As GnI would tell you. There is little scriptural support for what many Christians claim about Hell.


This is certainly true... most of what we 'know' about Hell comes from very different sources. (Usually, Milton).

Much of the OTHER 'knowledge' we have, can easily be explained as confusions, even when it IS scriptural.... like confusing the burning of waste at Har Megiddo, with some kind of eternal region.

I have a reasonable doubt that you would behave unbehoovingly.
I wanted to point out that the person's judgment had been clouded by their conceit about your knowledge of the subject, and that could lead to some unpleasant repercussions ...
As i said, live n'learn!!
*bows*

Indeed... it is often a bad decision, to choose to assume that your friends/enemies/whoever, knows nothing.

The sad thing is... the other poster would probably not realise that you were trying to spare their blushes...

My thanks, as always, my friend. :)

A most excellent post.
*bows*

EDIT: One of a SERIES of excellent posts on this topic, on this thread.
Howmany ever facets of "elements" you possess, Willamena, you are certainly in ONE of them here.

This is why it always brightens my day when Willamena enters a debate. We might not always agree, but I can ALWAYS get something new and different from her perspective.

If I ever have a Posters-of-NS-Debate-and-Picnic... Willamena is on the list. :)

In fact... most of 'the list' have actually been debating in this thread, I think. :)

This is certainly true... most of what we 'know' about Hell comes from very different sources. (Usually, Milton).

Much of the OTHER 'knowledge' we have, can easily be explained as confusions, even when it IS scriptural.... like confusing the burning of waste at Har Megiddo, with some kind of eternal region.

Yes, thank you. I was hoping you would come in and point this out. If I say it, I have to make the "what kind of Christian says such a thing" argument.

Yes, thank you. I was hoping you would come in and point this out. If I say it, I have to make the "what kind of Christian says such a thing" argument.

Funny, isn't it?

Christianity is just not homogenous. There are thousands of denominations, of various scope.... there are a half-dozen really major denominations.

And yet, almost all of these denominations, hold almost every OTHER denomination to be apostate.

And yet, (again... I think I just like saying 'as yet') YOU always have to defend where you might not 'toe the party line'.... as if there were such a thing as one, complete, understanding that was universally true, among ALL Christians.

Funny, isn't it?

Christianity is just not homogenous. There are thousands of denominations, of various scope.... there are a half-dozen really major denominations.

And yet, almost all of these denominations, hold almost every OTHER denomination to be apostate.

And yet, (again... I think I just like saying 'as yet') YOU always have to defend where you might not 'toe the party line'.... as if there were such a thing as one, complete, understanding that was universally true, among ALL Christians.

Amusingly, then you have relatively small group of Christians claiming that 80% of Americans agree with them simply because we all classify ourselves as Christians. It's all silly.

EDIT: and yeah I have to show why I don't agree with them, but they never have to show where there beliefs come from. They just link to a bunch of crap sites that make a lot of assumptions that cannot be found in the Bible.

Amusingly, then you have relatively small group of Christians claiming that 80% of Americans agree with them simply because we all classify ourselves as Christians. It's all silly.

Indeed. Agreed, my friend. I think people just like to imagine multiples of support, and divisions of opposition.

My best friend is a Methodist.... my mother is (loosely) Anglican... my father was Roman Catholic... my wife is Southern Baptist.

I have spent enough time close enough to 'Christians', to know it is unlikely that 80% would agree over the shade of the sky on a given evening.

(No insult intended).

EDIT: and yeah I have to show why I don't agree with them, but they never have to show where there beliefs come from. They just link to a bunch of crap sites that make a lot of assumptions that cannot be found in the Bible.

Ooops, I answered too early. :)

Unless I miss my guess, what you are running into is that old 'law', that states "Whatever is said ten times, is true".

If someone finds it on a website, and it agrees with their argument, is is taken as Gospel. And, even if the same article is posted a dozen places, EACH repetition is counted as further evidence.

Indeed. Agreed, my friend. I think people just like to imagine multiples of support, and divisions of opposition.

My best friend is a Methodist.... my mother is (loosely) Anglican... my father was Roman Catholic... my wife is Southern Baptist.

I have spent enough time close enough to 'Christians', to know it is unlikely that 80% would agree over the shade of the sky on a given evening.

(No insult intended).

None taken. I actually think Christianity, like science, is something that affects everyone a little differently. How these things manifest themselves in our lives here on earth is varied by our experiences. But, shhhhh... don't tell anyone.

It's the same both ways. Science cannot disprove God's existance, nor can science prove God's existance.

Which makes religious people ultimately smarter. The Universe is already explained. They know everything. Science can't explain everything. Which means anyone who follows science is ultimately dumber, since everything is not explained.

Science is the new religion guys. The problem with science is that it's just as bad as the Catholic church was in the 1400s. Science is on a witch-hunt, and their target is Religion.

(and this is coming from an atheist... oh god, what's the world coming to...)
Oh give me a break. I think it's very ignorant to say people who follow science are dumber. People search for spiritual explication there where there's no scientific one. And as scientific explications increase in amount every second, I wouldn't be surprised if science explains everything one day.

Ooops, I answered too early. :)

Unless I miss my guess, what you are running into is that old 'law', that states "Whatever is said ten times, is true".

If someone finds it on a website, and it agrees with their argument, is is taken as Gospel. And, even if the same article is posted a dozen places, EACH repetition is counted as further evidence.

Yeah, but at least that's not as bad as "It doesn't agree with me so it must be wrong even though I can't show any evidence that contradicts it."

I've been running into both around the forums lately.

"The law says X."
"Here's the law. Where does it say that?"
"Well, it just does."

This is why it always brightens my day when Willamena enters a debate. We might not always agree, but I can ALWAYS get something new and different from her perspective.

If I ever have a Posters-of-NS-Debate-and-Picnic... Willamena is on the list. :)

In fact... most of 'the list' have actually been debating in this thread, I think. :)
Amen to that!!
...if i'm invited, i'll bring the guacamole-mole-mole!

Yeah, but at least that's not as bad as "It doesn't agree with me so it must be wrong even though I can't show any evidence that contradicts it."

I've been running into both around the forums lately.

"The law says X."
"Here's the law. Where does it say that?"
"Well, it just does."
A-f*cking-MEN to that.
*bows*

A-f*cking-MEN to that.
*bows*

Jocabia rocks, too. :)

Amen to that!!
...if i'm invited, i'll bring the guacamole-mole-mole!

Oh, you know you're invited... you're just fishing for compliments, now. :)

Yeah, but at least that's not as bad as "It doesn't agree with me so it must be wrong even though I can't show any evidence that contradicts it."

I've been running into both around the forums lately.

"The law says X."
"Here's the law. Where does it say that?"
"Well, it just does."

Agreed, completely... only today I ran into the assertion that 'wanting it to be so' is a valid piece of reasoning...

Oh, you know you're invited... you're just fishing for compliments, now. :)
Well, usually when i get invited, it's not necessarily the reason i ASSUME.

Like when i went on a double date, it wasn't four people - i was the driver for the other couple. As it turns out my date was, i guess, her imaginary friend who would show up sporadically, to my lack of fortune. The only time i heard something that made me think that (she) might show up was some heavy grunting and yelling in the back (in what sounded like speaking in tongues) and it didn't turn out well when i dove off the wheel, looking to comply.
;)

Well, usually when i get invited, it's not necessarily the reason i ASSUME.

Like when i went on a double date, it wasn't four people - i was the driver for the other couple. As it turns out my date was, i guess, her imaginary friend who would show up sporadically, to my lack of fortune. The only time i heard something that made me think that (she) might show up was some heavy grunting and yelling in the back (in what sounded like speaking in tongues) and it didn't turn out well when i dove off the wheel, looking to comply.
;)

Ha ha! Maybe your 'double date' was actually a 'blind date'.... and you ruined it all, by peeking?

But no... you'd be invited for the conversation, the debate bravado.... and, of course, the guacamole. ;)

Ha ha! Maybe your 'double date' was actually a 'blind date'.... and you ruined it all, by peeking?

But no... you'd be invited for the conversation, the debate bravado.... and, of course, the guacamole. ;)
The *eerie* thing :eek: about this is that i'm watching that show right now. It rocks! They're doing Texas.
No, i didn't peek. I let go of the wheel. It's unfairly misleading for them to label something in a car as "cruise control" when it really doesn't control the cruise :(
I didn't see many cameras, and i didn't even see that much skin. I saw ankles in strange places, and then i saw a toe, and then stars, and THEN the ditch and then i saw the things on the dash fly to and fro, and the next thing i know, i saw a chorus of doctors holding shiny cold instruments and some weird smirks on their faces and then my eyelids for a while, and then i saw some poorly-decorated hospital walls for four days. I didn't see those folk again.

Actually, i made the whole thing up. I'm married, so i'm inferring that i have a much less exciting relationship to sexuality! ;)

Good then you should have no problem quoting said scripture. Hell is for bad people. It says nothing that its existence is bad. Unless you'd care to quote scripture that says the existence of hell is bad.

Unnecessary for what I'm doing. Bruarong is arguing explicitly that anywhere God is not is torture:

The fact that he designed you to be happy only with intimacy with him means that you will find his absence a torture.

...in other words, a bad place to be, and deliberately designed to be so. It makes no difference if the place is designed to torture you or you are designed so that being in the place is torture, the effect is the same; it's sophistry on a par with arguing a thumbscrew isn't designed to torture you, your thumb just isn't designed to be put in a thumbscrew. He is also arguing that hell is a place God is not: it follows his claim that since all good things come from God...

Every good things comes from God, so without God, there is no good thing

...nothing good can be there, and the whole therefore cannot be a good thing either, since all of its parts are bad things. Isaiah 45:7: ['I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things'] makes it very clear that God can create evil if he wants to, so it's incorrect to assume Hell has a good purpose simply because God created it. Further, since Bruarong's version of Christianity appears to be explicitly dualistic, that means Hell must be an evil place, because it is not a good place, and contains nothing good.

QED, it is, indeed, a bad place. Further, I could pull up the point of those quotes saying that you should 'fear god' because he is able to send you there: if the threat of the place itself is fearsome without your even being in it, it follows that it is a very bad place. It's logically valid to use your opponent's claims to show their argument is flawed by demonstrating they lead to an unacceptable conclusion [reductio ad absurdum].

I can pull plenty of scripture out that casts doubt on the existence of Hell [the various statements that death is simply final for people God doesn't like, for a start], or simply point out Bruarong's God doesn't exist anyway so the whole argument is slightly ridiculous, but that's not my argument: I am arguing that if Bruarong's assumptions about hell and God are correct, God cannot be either good or just for creating it: he must either desire for people to end up in an evil place [and in doing so, be fully responsible for their suffering, since he is the one who decides if anyone goes there], or he must be powerless to remove it.

Not a good place to be != a bad place to exist

Why are you quoting me as 'East Canuck?' o_O

Now, you're being intellectually dishonest. You realize that is not what he meant. What he said was true. You create a strawman with your statement. Are you going to honestly claim that he meant that there is a way out AFTER one is sent?

For the prison analogy to work, there must be a way out: you can be paroled or released from prison. You can appeal your sentence before another court in case the first judged you unfairly. If we are to regard hell as just because of the example of the prison system, you must also be able to be paroled or released from hell.

This is demonstrating the problem with his prison analogy: would the prison system be just if nobody could ever appeal, be paroled, or finish their sentence?

The *eerie* thing :eek: about this is that i'm watching that show right now. It rocks! They're doing Texas.
No, i didn't peek. I let go of the wheel. It's unfairly misleading for them to label something in a car as "cruise control" when it really doesn't control the cruise :(
I didn't see many cameras, and i didn't even see that much skin. I saw ankles in strange places, and then i saw a toe, and then stars, and THEN the ditch and then i saw the things on the dash fly to and fro, and the next thing i know, i saw a chorus of doctors holding shiny cold instruments and some weird smirks on their faces and then my eyelids for a while, and then i saw some poorly-decorated hospital walls for four days. I didn't see those folk again.

Actually, i made the whole thing up. I'm married, so i'm inferring that i have a much less exciting relationship to sexuality! ;)

The important thing is, that your sad tale of suffering almost ended with chocolate milk on my monitor.... :)

Interesting statement, which raises a few questions:
1. Is this "instinct" not merely "being raised in an environment where certain values are quite prominently present" ?
2. If there is more to it than that, why would it not merely be a survival trait ?
3. How do you explain that people can be in complete disagreement over what "right" and "wrong" actually are in many cases ?


There is little doubt that a conscience may be influenced. Perhaps we all know what it is like to remember the first time something shocked our conscience, while some years later, it was no big deal. I see a difference between instinct and conscience. Instinct is the thing that makes a baby suck. Conscience causes the feeling the first time you are aware of doing something that you know is not right. While both instinct and conscience may be modified, they are clearly not the same thing.

Thus, one person's conscience will be quite different from another's. When I was a lad, I had no qualms about killing a rat, even squeaky ones (they were horrible pests on our farm). However, I soon realized that not everyone feels the same way, particularly those friends of mine who had pet rats. On the other hand, I find it hard to kill an innocent spider, although my wife is adamant that every spider in her house must die (unless I can rescue it first).

People have tried to explain the conscience in terms of survival. A trait that humans have adopted during our evolution. My point, however, relates not to how humans acquired such a trait, but why we have it (religion versus science). Thus it is irrelevant to my point how we got it. The Christian view point, as I understand it, says that we have a conscience to help us avoid doing wrong and to point us towards God. A conscience is not infallible. It can be seared, or altered, much like any tool can be damaged.




If the "knowledge" would be the same for everyone - yes. But it evidently isn't.


The knowledge of which I speak would not have to be the same for everyone. For example, God reaches out to both children and hardened criminals. Such 'knowledge' would only have to point in one direction -- God. (And by that I am not suggesting the Christian God, just a higher power.)


True - provided you replace God with "something higher".
Although well over 50% of the worlds population is monotheistic; so perhaps just saying "true" will suffice ;)


Which is why I referred to God as He/She/It. Obviously, I would not refer to the Christian God as she or it.


Which is of course where religion and science rather vehemently differ.
Seeing is believing - yes; believing is seeing: no.
Looking for eveidence that your belief is true tends to "produce" that evidence after all...

However, when making observations in science, we usually have an expectation already present. Thus, one can say that a scientist is producing evidence that confirms his expectation, because his expectation provides the basis on which to interpret the data. In this point, science and religion are not so different, since human nature is a limiting factor in both disciplines. Thus, I argue, seeing is believing and believing is seeing. Not necessarily in every case, but it certainly applies to both religion and science.

The knowledge of which I speak would not have to be the same for everyone. For example, God reaches out to both children and hardened criminals. Such 'knowledge' would only have to point in one direction -- God. (And by that I am not suggesting the Christian God, just a higher power.)

A worthwhie question, then: why don't you believe in Allah, and that his book, the Qu'ran, shows that he is just and good?

The important thing is, that your sad tale of suffering almost ended with chocolate milk on my monitor.... :)
Out the nose, i trust ...? ;)

Interpretation isn't that big a problem: there can be interpretations with significant meaning to individuals, and one big accepted interpretation as the official one. This is why we have the Bible to refer to.

Agreed. Interpretation needn't be such a big problem. But it can be.



The problem lies solely in when you hold up the one big accepted interpretation and say, "This is it. This is the truth. This is what its to mean."


I sorta agree. I don't see this as the sole problem, or even the biggest one, but it certainly is a problem for many. Being dogmatic about the interpretation of scripture is a critical point. It can be as much of a problem from being dogmatic about a part of scripture where one shouldn't, as not being dogmatic enough about a part where one should. For example, when Jesus said to love our enemy, it is a pity more people didn't take that part of scripture a little more literally, and were a lot more dogmatic about it. On the hand, most people would recognise that loving your enemy does not therefore mean that you allow him to destroy your family without lifting a finger to prevent it. Real love would mean acting on it, preventing the destruction of your family, for the good of both your family and your enemy. Jesus was not a pacifist, I feel.


The problem lies in not recognizing that the little interpretations are equally true, because what is spiritually enlighting need only enlighten one spirit at a time.


I think I know what you mean. It's like two preachers can preach on the same piece of scripture and focus on entirely different meanings. I actually have never met a Christian who believes that there is only one meaning or interpretation for every piece of scripture.



The literal interpretation is worse; that is the one that says, "This is literally true." And when you hold up the one big interpretation and declare it entirely literally true, then you've gone as far from enlightening people as you can get.


Not necessarily. I do not rule out the literal interpretation simply because it depends on a supernatural intervention. Rather, my reality (the material world and the spiritual world) both come from the supernatural, and are upheld by the supernatural, and are filled with the supernatural. Thus a miracle (or an intervention of the supernatural in the natural world) cannot be ruled out.
On the other hand, it is possible that some pieces of scripture are not meant to be literally true, e.g. being born again. It is only literally true in the spiritual sense, not the material sense. Declaring it to be a literal material necessity would indeed destroy the meaning, and would bring confusion to people, e.g. Nicodemus. However, interpretation in the literal spiritual sense makes a good deal of sense to me.

I suggest that it is important to take scripture piece by piece, and interpret it in the light of the whole message of the Bible. The question then would be 'Just what is that message?'

Jocabia rocks, too. :)
Agreed.

I suggest that it is important to take scripture piece by piece, and interpret it in the light of the whole message of the Bible. The question then would be 'Just what is that message?'

Mostly, "If you look at it at the right angle, you can find anything that backs up what you're supposed to think." That's perhaps the most interesting thing about the Bible; it can be spun ino anything.

A worthwhie question, then: why don't you believe in Allah, and that his book, the Qu'ran, shows that he is just and good?

There are several good reasons.

I was first exposed to the Christian Gospel. I accepted it for a number of reasons, none of which had to do with Muhammad and his book. It was sometime later that I became very good friends with a Muslim, an Afghani. We were doing our PhDs together. Through him, I learned a good deal about Islam, and even read some of the English translation of the Qu'ran for myself. I well remember spending a good deal of time (months) on the issue of how was I supposed to know if Islam or Christianity was the truth. I had to deal with the question 'Would I change my religion if I discovered Islam was closer to the Truth than Christianity?' It wasn't an easy time for me, but it did mean that I had to do a great deal of searching. Searching the scriptures (of both religions), reading books, talking/arguing with my friend. I don't remember a definite date, but I am aware that somewhere along the line, I became more and more satisfied that Christianity held more truth and reason than Islam. Obviously, it was not an objective decision, since I am not capable of making one, in this case. It was a personal one, and although I feel it was based on reason, it will never be free of faith. Whatever one believes, there will always be an element of risk involved.

I don't deny that Islam has a lot of truth in it, but I don't believe it is the way to know God.

Mostly, "If you look at it at the right angle, you can find anything that backs up what you're supposed to think." That's perhaps the most interesting thing about the Bible; it can be spun ino anything.

Yeah, but the problem is perhaps more with human nature than the book.

I don't deny that Islam has a lot of truth in it, but I don't believe it is the way to know God.

Then what is it the way to know, and upon what do you base this evaluation?

Yeah, but the problem is perhaps more with human nature than the book.


Then the book was written incorrectly if the purpose was supposed to be knowledge of God, and hence this particular bit of "divine inspiration" didn't really pan out.

Yeah, but the problem is perhaps more with human nature than the book.

Well maybe god should have paid more attention to the behaviour of his target audience when he inspired those guys to write it then.

Then what is it the way to know, and upon what do you base this evaluation?

The life of Jesus, as I find it presented in the Bible, is the message. I look for consistency within the message (e.g. between the books of the Bible), consistency between the world and the message (e.g. everyone has a conscience, and all have sinned), and consistency between the message and my own life (perception of reality). And lastly, if the message is true (or if I have understood it right), then God should hear and answer me when I pray to him. (Obviously, there are some conditions about such an approach, but the message of the Bible covers them.)

In short, the way to know God is based on faith, reason, and personal experience. Perhaps in that order, although it may vary from person to person.

Well maybe god should have paid more attention to the behaviour of his target audience when he inspired those guys to write it then.

But you don't know if it could have been written better. Any suggestions?

The life of Jesus, as I find it presented in the Bible, is the message. I look for consistency within the message (e.g. between the books of the Bible), consistency between the world and the message (e.g. everyone has a conscience, and all have sinned), and consistency between the message and my own life (perception of reality). And lastly, if the message is true (or if I have understood it right), then God should hear and answer me when I pray to him. (Obviously, there are some conditions about such an approach, but the message of the Bible covers them.)

In short, the way to know God is based on faith, reason, and personal experience. Perhaps in that order, although it may vary from person to person.

This boils down to, "It had to be consistent with what I already believed." Everything you cite as a criterion for your evaluation is what the Bible you already believed in says should happen. This is nowhere near a real evaluation; it's a product of bias, and nothing more. What you wind up deciding is that, "Unless it's 100% in agreement with what I believe based upon my understanding of the Bible, then its not as good as the Bible." Purely circular reasoning, once again.

But you don't know if it could have been written better. Any suggestions?

I have a suggestion.

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and the author of human nature, then He can see to the writing something better than a bunch of vagueries that lead to never-ending conflicts. The author of your average instruction manual can do better.

But you don't know if it could have been written better. Any suggestions?

Write it in legalese. No metaphors or non-literal interpretations possible. That way (hopefully) no-one could use it to justify the enourmous amount of crap its been used for. But then it wouldnt be very interesting and people would probably just ignore it and it would have become another failed religion.

Plus, what McVenezuela said.

Write it in legalese. No metaphors or non-literal interpretations possible. That way (hopefully) no-one could use it to justify the enourmous amount of crap its been used for. But then it wouldnt be very interesting and people would probably just ignore it and it would have become another failed religion.

Plus, what McVenezuela said.

I've no idea what legalese is. But seriously, how are you going to describe something like heaven in ordinary human language.

We say that Jesus is the Son of God, but we don't think that God the Father fathered Jesus the same way that we do it here on earth. Rather the term 'father' is the closest we have to describing the relationship between God and Jesus.

The Bible is full of such limitations. It cannot introduce completely new words, for then we would not know the definitions of such words, or we would find it hard to understand the meaning. (It's difficult enough already.) You cannot get away with metaphors. Even in scientific writing, metaphors are useful to explain new concepts to the students.

The limitations are human ones, of course, not divine ones. Which is possibly related to the misuse of Scripture by humans.

I have a suggestion.

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and the author of human nature, then He can see to the writing something better than a bunch of vagueries that lead to never-ending conflicts. The author of your average instruction manual can do better.

That was not a suggestion. That was a criticism.

I've no idea what legalese is. But seriously, how are you going to describe something like heaven in ordinary human language.

We say that Jesus is the Son of God, but we don't think that God the Father fathered Jesus the same way that we do it here on earth. Rather the term 'father' is the closest we have to describing the relationship between God and Jesus.

The Bible is full of such limitations. It cannot introduce completely new words, for then we would not know the definitions of such words, or we would find it hard to understand the meaning. (It's difficult enough already.) You cannot get away with metaphors. Even in scientific writing, metaphors are useful to explain new concepts to the students.

The limitations are human ones, of course, not divine ones. Which is possibly related to the misuse of Scripture by humans.

Legalese, its just the popular term for the way legal documents are written i.e. leaving no room for interpretation in a different way or any loopholes. That way people cant use it to justify things like the crusades, the inquisition, going to war etc. The new concepts part isnt so important as unless people were willing to come to violence over the precise meaning of father then its not really going to cause many problems apart from a bit of head scratching by theologians.

Legalese, its just the popular term for the way legal documents are written i.e. leaving no room for interpretation in a different way or any loopholes. That way people cant use it to justify things like the crusades, the inquisition, going to war etc. The new concepts part isnt so important as unless people were willing to come to violence over the precise meaning of father then its not really going to cause many problems apart from a bit of head scratching by theologians.

Legal language. What a horror. That would mean we would have to become lawyers just to understand it. Ewww.

But seriously, that's kinda like having the scriptures only in Latin. Which means only the priests would know what it said. We have already tried that. It failed miserably. Sorry, I don't like your suggestion.

This boils down to, "It had to be consistent with what I already believed." Everything you cite as a criterion for your evaluation is what the Bible you already believed in says should happen. This is nowhere near a real evaluation; it's a product of bias, and nothing more. What you wind up deciding is that, "Unless it's 100% in agreement with what I believe based upon my understanding of the Bible, then its not as good as the Bible." Purely circular reasoning, once again.

I dont know about the person you were respondinging to's case. But in my case the problem I find with Islam is Muhammad's hypocracy. He preached a message of love peace and understanding etc in a simmilar (but not the same) way as Jesus. Yet he went out and slaughtered the entire Qualish army at the Battle of Badhra, where as Jesus, when his life was threatened went to the cross without resistance.

Legal language. What a horror. That would mean we would have to become lawyers just to understand it. Ewww.

But seriously, that's kinda like having the scriptures only in Latin. Which means only the priests would know what it said. We have already tried that. It failed miserably. Sorry, I don't like your suggestion.

Thats what i mean. It would leave no room for interpretation, but would be boring, so even if it was true no-one would care about it and it would become another failed religion. If people did follow it though thats the only way you could get them to not use the bible to justify evil acts. Its all about creating an interesting story that people can say whatever they want to mean.

That was not a suggestion. That was a criticism.

The suggestion is, "State points unambiguously." Is that difficult to understand? Basic writing; make sure that your audience understands what you're saying if you're trying to get a message across. If indeed there is a message, then present it in unoccluded terms.

I dont know about the person you were respondinging to's case. But in my case the problem I find with Islam is Muhammad's hypocracy. He preached a message of love peace and understanding etc in a simmilar (but not the same) way as Jesus. Yet he went out and slaughtered the entire Qualish army at the Battle of Badhra, where as Jesus, when his life was threatened went to the cross without resistance.

And, of course, there are no instances in the Bible wherein people were slaughtered for opposing the Jehovah. No inconsistency between the Old Testament and the New.

And, of course, there are no instances in the Bible wherein people were slaughtered for opposing the Jehovah. No inconsistency between the Old Testament and the New.

If you dont understand the diffrences between the old and new coveneants I sugest you go and look them up.

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

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-different.html

In any case I am comparing the central human figures of the religion. Jesus and Muhammad.

If you dont understand the diffrences between the old and new coveneants I sugest you go and look them up.

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

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-different.html

In any case I am comparing the central human figures of the religion. Jesus and Muhammad.

I thought Jesus was of a divine nature, and had perfect access to the mind of God. Guess not.

I thought Jesus was of a divine nature, and had perfect access to the mind of God. Guess not.

What in my post made you think he doesnt. And kindly stop sidestepping the issue by drawing up a diffrent comparison. Have you read either of the links I gave

Thats what i mean. It would leave no room for interpretation, but would be boring, so even if it was true no-one would care about it and it would become another failed religion. If people did follow it though thats the only way you could get them to not use the bible to justify evil acts. Its all about creating an interesting story that people can say whatever they want to mean.

You are getting worse. '....even if it was true, no-one would care about it and it would become another failed religion.' That is such a bad case scenario. (Probably pretty much the way it is today anyway.) How is ignorance going to help?

What in my post made you think he doesnt. And kindly stop sidestepping the issue by drawing up a diffrent comparison. Have you read either of the links I gave

The links have nothing to do with anything. I'm looking at what you're saying, not what someone else is saying. I am not sidestepping the issue by any stretch; I am saying that you are making an invalid comparison, The fact that your links provide the same invalid comparison does nothing to contradict that. Three inappropriate comparisons don't add up to one good one.

The links have nothing to do with anything. I'm looking at what you're saying, not what someone else is saying. I am not sidestepping the issue by any stretch; I am saying that you are making an invalid comparison, The fact that your links provide the same invalid comparison does nothing to contradict that. Three inappropriate comparisons don't add up to one good one.

The links dont make comparisons between Jesus and Mohammad at all. They are examining the supposed diffrence between the Old and New covanant. So I think you definitely havent read them. You were making the point earlier that God in the Old Testament contradicted the new. I say that isnt the case and posted linkes to expalin why. And in any case, they can be compared as the two historical figures who founded religious movments (Christainity and Islam)

This boils down to, "It had to be consistent with what I already believed." Everything you cite as a criterion for your evaluation is what the Bible you already believed in says should happen. This is nowhere near a real evaluation; it's a product of bias, and nothing more. What you wind up deciding is that, "Unless it's 100% in agreement with what I believe based upon my understanding of the Bible, then its not as good as the Bible." Purely circular reasoning, once again.

Not only does the consistency have to be with what I already believed, but also what I already know (e.g., there is no person alive today who has successfully avoided making wrong choices, provided they have had the option--and I'm not just talking about mistakes, but real sin). Thus, there is more to it than bias and not 'pure' circular reasoning.

Edit: I am aware that some people think that they can reason away morality (i.e, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong), however, I think everybody knows that it is just plain wrong to, e.g. return injury for a favour.

However, I do not deny that there is a good deal of bias involved in my world view. I'm not sure any world view can be free of bias. We cannot hope to be purely objective. We can only strive for objectivity. And let us not forget that there is a world of difference between those who strive for objectivity (while never making it) and those who make no attempt.

Thus, if I may turn your own criticism back upon yourself, I challenge you to provide a clear reasoned argument that demonstrates that your criticism of my belief is without a bias of your own, and that your labeling of it as circular reasoning is also free of circular reason.
At least you could provide some sound reasons for your world view, together with a brief description of what it is. Or are you too scared of criticism? :)

The links dont make comparisons between Jesus and Mohammad at all. They are examining the supposed diffrence between the Old and New covanant. So I think you definitely havent read them. You were making the point earlier that God in the Old Testament contradicted the new. I say that isnt the case and posted linkes to expalin why. And in any case, they can be compared as the two historical figures who founded religious movments (Christainity and Islam)

I didn't say I'd read them; I said that they didn't support your comparison. I'm looking at your argument, and I'd be a fool to think that you'd provide links to do anything other than try to back up an illegitimate comparison. That one of them is from "christian thinktank" does little to make me doubt that.

And again, you attempt to remove them from the larger context. If there was a historical Jesus who was anything like what's described in the New Testament, of which we can't even be certain, he was a figure within a particular context, and you have yourself brought in the idea of an "old covenant" and a "new covenant," so you seem ready to put him back into that context when it suits you.

Oh give me a break. I think it's very ignorant to say people who follow science are dumber. People search for spiritual explication there where there's no scientific one. And as scientific explications increase in amount every second, I wouldn't be surprised if science explains everything one day.
It was a flame-post. Best ignore it.

Unnecessary for what I'm doing. Bruarong is arguing explicitly that anywhere God is not is torture:

So? Doesn't make it evil. If simply being denied the experience of God because you turned away from him is torture how does it make you ability to turn away from him evil? If you were starving and I had a ton of wonderful foods, would I be evil for not shoving it down you throat?

...in other words, a bad place to be, and deliberately designed to be so. It makes no difference if the place is designed to torture you or you are designed so that being in the place is torture, the effect is the same; it's sophistry on a par with arguing a thumbscrew isn't designed to torture you, your thumb just isn't designed to be put in a thumbscrew. He is also arguing that hell is a place God is not: it follows his claim that since all good things come from God...

Um, what? All good things come from God. All bad things come from God. All things come from God. What's your point? God created choice. To turn away from God is evil. Does that make choice evil?

God created a place where people end up when they turn away from him. He gives them the choice and turning away takes you away from God. Being away from God is torture. Rather simple. The option is to design you so that you may not turn away. Would that be less evil in your mind?

...nothing good can be there, and the whole therefore cannot be a good thing either, since all of its parts are bad things. Isaiah 45:7: ['I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things'] makes it very clear that God can create evil if he wants to, so it's incorrect to assume Hell has a good purpose simply because God created it. Further, since Bruarong's version of Christianity appears to be explicitly dualistic, that means Hell must be an evil place, because it is not a good place, and contains nothing good.

Again, you keep making it's contents equal to the creation of it. "Nothing good can be there" does not equal "the place is evil". It appears that you're having difficulty holding these two apart. I concede that nothing good can be there. I did that in the first reply. You've done nothing to argue that place is evil but merely that nothing good can be there. Again, so?

QED, it is, indeed, a bad place. Further, I could pull up the point of those quotes saying that you should 'fear god' because he is able to send you there: if the threat of the place itself is fearsome without your even being in it, it follows that it is a very bad place. It's logically valid to use your opponent's claims to show their argument is flawed by demonstrating they lead to an unacceptable conclusion [reductio ad absurdum].

No, a place I don't want to go does not equal a bad thing to exist. I never want to go to a New Kids on Block concert but that doesn't make them evil. Wait... bad example.

You've done nothing to prove that being a place that is undesirable to all people makes its creation evil other than simply make the assertion. Forgive me if I remain unconvinced. You've done a lot to show why one wouldn't want to go there, why one might even fear going or fear turning away from the one who either draws us in or casts us out, but nothing to show why the creation of the place is bad in and of itself.

I can pull plenty of scripture out that casts doubt on the existence of Hell [the various statements that death is simply final for people God doesn't like, for a start], or simply point out Bruarong's God doesn't exist anyway so the whole argument is slightly ridiculous, but that's not my argument: I am arguing that if Bruarong's assumptions about hell and God are correct, God cannot be either good or just for creating it: he must either desire for people to end up in an evil place [and in doing so, be fully responsible for their suffering, since he is the one who decides if anyone goes there], or he must be powerless to remove it.

Yes, I don't actually believe in Hell. I'm simply arguing that you and he are both making assertions that rely on assumption. You still have not shown otherwise. You've offered a lot of opinions why your view should be held to be more valid (and to be fair, I tend to agree with much of what you've said) but they still remain opinions.

Why are you quoting me as 'East Canuck?' o_O

No idea! I must have hit copy and not realized I was doing that.

For the prison analogy to work, there must be a way out: you can be paroled or released from prison. You can appeal your sentence before another court in case the first judged you unfairly. If we are to regard hell as just because of the example of the prison system, you must also be able to be paroled or released from hell.

Says you. This is still an assertion. It's your opinion.

This is demonstrating the problem with his prison analogy: would the prison system be just if nobody could ever appeal, be paroled, or finish their sentence?
If the court system could not possibly make mistakes then appeals would be unnecessary and finishing a sentence or being paroled depends on the crime. You make the assumption that you could be judged unfairly in this court or that your sense must have an end. All people go to Hell for the same reason.

"Hell is evil."
"Why?"
"Because it must be different than Hell to not be."
"Why?"
"Because places like Hell are evil."
"Why?"

See the argument.

Science does not prove everything. Actually where have all of these theories became law. They have not, and will not. Many scientists are starting to say that evolution didn't happen, and many people are starting to accept the historical accuracy of the bible. It is a very accurate book, and has the least twisted ideas out of any religion. I mean Islam believes that Jesus was a prophet, but how can you say that he was only a prophet when he was saying stuff like "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one gets to the father except through me." He was either everything or nothing. If you believe that he was a prophet how can you? He is saying that whatever way you have doesn't work. Jesus is the only way. Science is not the most important thing. Why wouldn't you believe history over science?

I object tot he idea that life has no meaning without God. As sentient creatures, we determine our own meaning, with or without God.

Hence free will even for the religious.

Your definition of free will only works for Atheism. for a religion even most philosophies there is a purpose for everything and we are free to cooperate with the purpose or act against it or stay out of the way (when such is considered to be possible: "if you're not for me...") Free will also is only free in terms of capability I don't think anyone could or should argue that it means free from consequences.

Science does not prove everything. Actually where have all of these theories became law. They have not, and will not. Many scientists are starting to say that evolution didn't happen, and many people are starting to accept the historical accuracy of the bible. It is a very accurate book, and has the least twisted ideas out of any religion. I mean Islam believes that Jesus was a prophet, but how can you say that he was only a prophet when he was saying stuff like "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one gets to the father except through me." He was either everything or nothing. If you believe that he was a prophet how can you? He is saying that whatever way you have doesn't work. Jesus is the only way. Science is not the most important thing. Why wouldn't you believe history over science?

... It's a 'very accurate book'?

So how 'bout that flood? Or how 'bout that part where Adam just got randomly created? Or how bout that part with the getting eaten by the whale?

Or how 'bout some sources?

No sources, no care.

... It's a 'very accurate book'?

So how 'bout that flood? Or how 'bout that part where Adam just got randomly created? Or how bout that part with the getting eaten by the whale?

Or how 'bout some sources?

No sources, no care.

Actually "that flood" is recognizable in more than just Christianity. How about you look in to Greek mythology, they also talk about "that flood." And Adam was randomly created by God. It doesn't relly matter how random it was, if you believe in an all powerful being. The whale, hmmmmm an all powerful being, it's possible.

ITS CALLED FAITH.

Actually "that flood" is recognizable in more than just Christianity. How about you look in to Greek mythology, they also talk about "that flood." And Adam was randomly created by God. It doesn't relly matter how random it was, if you believe in an all powerful being. The whale, hmmmmm an all powerful being, it's possible.

ITS CALLED FAITH.

Let me make this more obvious.

NO SOURCES, NO CARE.

Faith is not a source for your argument that the Bible is very historically accurate. No sources, no care. Either get some or sit down and stop trying to argue with no ammo.

Let me make this more obvious.

NO SOURCES, NO CARE.

Faith is not a source for your argument that the Bible is very historically accurate. No sources, no care. Either get some or sit down and stop trying to argue with no ammo.

And where are your sourses for w/e you believe. Are you blindly following theories?

And where are your sourses for w/e you believe. Are you blindly following theories?

You're the one who's claiming that the Bible is historically accurate, given that things like whales eating people and floods that cover the earth are involved. The burden of proof is on you.

NO SOURCES, NO CARE.

Science does not prove everything. Actually where have all of these theories became law. They have not, and will not. Many scientists are starting to say that evolution didn't happen, and many people are starting to accept the historical accuracy of the bible. It is a very accurate book, and has the least twisted ideas out of any religion. I mean Islam believes that Jesus was a prophet, but how can you say that he was only a prophet when he was saying stuff like "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one gets to the father except through me." He was either everything or nothing. If you believe that he was a prophet how can you? He is saying that whatever way you have doesn't work. Jesus is the only way. Science is not the most important thing. Why wouldn't you believe history over science?

Scientists? No scientists are saying that. I have never seen a single scientific proof that evolution didn't happen. I've only seen religious rants that it didn't happen. Perhaps you'd like to show me these proofs.

A small number of Christian scientists are questioning evolution. Don't you think it's odd that evolution is so inaccurate yet only Christian scientists seem to notice? Is it possible they have an agenda?

Christians accept the historical accuracy of the Bible. Show me an athiest that accepts the historical accuracy of the Bible, and I'll be impressed. It's not surprising that a people considers the basis of their religion, the Bible, to be accurate. In fact, it would be unusual if they didn't.

It is a very accurate book != divinely-inspired even if you accept your assertion. If I were going to write a book intended to create a religion I would make sure it had as much accuracy as I could muster. I would include all of the history I could. I would include as much as my understanding of the world would allow. You cannot show this did not happen.

Heard of faith? It's that little thing that is required for one to accept our Savior and our Lord. If it were capable of being proven it would no longer require faith.

And where are your sourses for w/e you believe. Are you blindly following theories?

This is not a thread that requires that one prove all scientific theories. You came into the thread and made assertions. You may back up those assertions or not, as you wish, but people rarely accept assertions simply because you say so.

Also, your argument that the whale incident requires faith is evidence that the Bible has not been shown to be objectively historically accurate.

Not necessarily. I do not rule out the literal interpretation simply because it depends on a supernatural intervention. Rather, my reality (the material world and the spiritual world) both come from the supernatural, and are upheld by the supernatural, and are filled with the supernatural. Thus a miracle (or an intervention of the supernatural in the natural world) cannot be ruled out.
The difference between "your" supernatural and mine is that yours is without you, and mine is within.

The literal interpretation is not ruled out by me because it depends on supernatural intervention, but because it denies supernatural. It concretizes and abstracts spiritual value apart from the mind, which makes supernatural things no longer spiritually meaningful --it becomes a thing of the physical world, rather than of the spiritual world.

In our language, we often use metaphors (phrases that express natural images) to talk about spiritual (supernatural) matters. A "broken heart" for example expresses a whole range of not just emotions but circumstances that have moved a person's spirit in a certain way that we call "heartbreak". That that person will never be the same again because of their experience is the reason we call it a 'spiritual' thing --it changes them on the inside (their 'inner self'). To take the phrase literally, that is as a heart (the organ) that is broken (malfunctioning), robs it entirely of its spiritual message. The literal reading makes it 'of nature', not 'of spirit', because the images used are of nature.

On the other hand, it is possible that some pieces of scripture are not meant to be literally true, e.g. being born again. It is only literally true in the spiritual sense, not the material sense. Declaring it to be a literal material necessity would indeed destroy the meaning, and would bring confusion to people, e.g. Nicodemus. However, interpretation in the literal spiritual sense makes a good deal of sense to me.
"Literally true in the spiritual sense" is I think a concept that most Christian-religious people have latched onto to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible being correct, and superficially I understand what the phrase means. But the term actually is a misuse of "literal". Metaphor and trope (non-literal wording) is used to convey the spiritual in language. The "broken heart" above is a good example. Being "born again" is also a good example --it is not a literal birth but a figurative one, an expression of a movement of the soul.

I suggest that it is important to take scripture piece by piece, and interpret it in the light of the whole message of the Bible. The question then would be 'Just what is that message?'
There is "what the message is" and then there is "what does the message I get mean to me and how I am going to use it to better my life". Which is the more important to you?

And neither does religion. That's what makes life interesting. That's what keeps us searching for answers and possibilities. Imagine how dull it would be if everything was explained. You don't need 'God' to have a purpose in life, nor do you need a scientific explanation for everything.

Actually "that flood" is recognizable in more than just Christianity. How about you look in to Greek mythology, they also talk about "that flood."

Correct; though there was no mention of an arc with 2 of every animal in that version... OTOH; they at least did explain how they managed to repopulate the earth without too much incest ;)

Seriously though - why could the Bible story not be based on the Greek tale ? If I write a new story on little red riding hood - does it magically become "more true" ?

I have a suggestion.

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and the author of human nature, then He can see to the writing something better than a bunch of vagueries that lead to never-ending conflicts. The author of your average instruction manual can do better.
*Whew!*

Darn good thing the Bible is not an instruction manual (just squeaked by there on a technicality).

Write it in legalese. No metaphors or non-literal interpretations possible. That way (hopefully) no-one could use it to justify the enourmous amount of crap its been used for. But then it wouldnt be very interesting and people would probably just ignore it and it would have become another failed religion.

Plus, what McVenezuela said.
And entirely rob it of all its value.

Your definition of free will only works for Atheism. for a religion even most philosophies there is a purpose for everything and we are free to cooperate with the purpose or act against it or stay out of the way (when such is considered to be possible: "if you're not for me...") Free will also is only free in terms of capability I don't think anyone could or should argue that it means free from consequences.
I don't know if you deliberately made reference to a Star Trek episode, but it provided me with an insight into that episode. Thanks.

Many scientists are starting to say that evolution didn't happen,
according tio your god, lying is a sin. You have sinned.

ICR has a list of "scientists" who adhere to the cult of creationism. This list pales in comparison to the much more restrictive list of Steves for which you must be a scientist (biological scientist IIRC) named some variant of Steve.

BTW I put ICR "scientists" in quotes as few (if any) are involved in the biological sciences. Furthermore, they must sign an agreement not to accept any results which contradict their predefined conclusion. As anyone can plainly see, this is a blatant violation of scientific integrity and as such any "conclusions" they make are tainted with dishonesty. (So much for the commandment on bearing false witness.)

Why wouldn't you believe history over science?
No, I'll take history which is science.The bible is poor history and not science.

Out the nose, i trust ...? ;)

Indeed. Fortunately, I only came close to drowning... this poor monitor has had more than it's fair share of recycled beverages, recently. :)

I dont know about the person you were respondinging to's case. But in my case the problem I find with Islam is Muhammad's hypocracy. He preached a message of love peace and understanding etc in a simmilar (but not the same) way as Jesus. Yet he went out and slaughtered the entire Qualish army at the Battle of Badhra, where as Jesus, when his life was threatened went to the cross without resistance.

Whereas, of course, the Biblical 'god of love' mailed kittens to the people of Jericho?

If you dont understand the diffrences between the old and new coveneants I sugest you go and look them up.

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

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-different.html

In any case I am comparing the central human figures of the religion. Jesus and Muhammad.

This is a cop out.

If Jesus is god, there should be no inconsistency. Indeed, the fact that there IS such a marked difference between 'god' in Hebrew scripture, and the (supposedly) same 'god' in the Greek scripture... makes something of a liar of the immortal, unchanging god.

No wonder the Hebrews still don't accept this testament of a so called 'messiah'.

Indeed. Fortunately, I only came close to drowning... this poor monitor has had more than it's fair share of recycled beverages, recently. :)
I think they call that regurgitated, not recycled.

;p

If you were starving and I had a ton of wonderful foods, would I be evil for not shoving it down you throat?

Yes, you would be evil for not sharing with those who needed food more than you, if you were fully able to do so.

The idea that God 'offers' people salvation is incomplete: what God actually offers people is a vague book full of historical and scientific inaccuracies and documentation of atrocities, and odd contradictory messages of hope. An actual 'free choice' of salvation would be if God and the devil sat down, made their cases to you, let you ask your questions and answered them, and then let you choose, with all the information available to you.

Anything less forces you to make the choice on the basis of incomplete or flawed information. Further, what of all the people in the world who can't access a Bible? How do they get the message?

The option is to design you so that you may not turn away. Would that be less evil in your mind?

Or to design you so turning away is not torture. False dilemma.

No, a place I don't want to go does not equal a bad thing to exist. I never want to go to a New Kids on Block concert but that doesn't make them evil. Wait... bad example.

Do you [i]fear New Kids on the Block concerts, though? Not wanting to go somewhere isn't the same as being afraid of it. Anyway, New Kids on the Block were defeated by the dread demon-knight Hanson, nobody fears them anymore.

I think they call that regurgitated, not recycled.

;p

Indeed.... well, I'd already used it once, and it was being re-used as a window(s) treatment... so recycled works too... :)

It's the same both ways. Science cannot disprove God's existance, nor can science prove God's existance.

Which makes religious people ultimately smarter. The Universe is already explained. They know everything. Science can't explain everything. Which means anyone who follows science is ultimately dumber, since everything is not explained.

Science is the new religion guys. The problem with science is that it's just as bad as the Catholic church was in the 1400s. Science is on a witch-hunt, and their target is Religion.

(and this is coming from an atheist... oh god, what's the world coming to...)

No it makes the science supporters smarter, and less complacent as they are searching for logical or actual methods of understanding.
The bible does not tell me it will rain on Thursday, meteorlogy tells me.
The bible does not tell me how to assemble a aircraft carrier, or heal infections, or perform open heart surgery, science does.
Science is not on a witch hunt to burn the religious, it is to find understanding.
Scientists do not demand evolution be taught in church, Religion demands we teach Creation in Biology.
And I assume that the last line is a joke

Science does not prove everything. Actually where have all of these theories became law.

So, when you state that things aren't law because they function under the name "theory", you seem to express a common, dangerously arrogant ignorance.
Many scientists are starting to say that evolution didn't happen
Prove it or STFU. That again is dangerously arrogant ignorance.
If those supposed scientists don't have the wherewithal to stick to something that can withhold its principles in the face of significant scientific rigmarole than frankly they are ill-suited and incompetent in faculty of that job, and should be ashamed of even being regarded as scientists. It is a very accurate book, and has the least twisted ideas out of any religion.Yes, because the accuracy you attest to means that you've experienced the things that can be proven in veracity, of an empirical nature, we trust? You're not bearing false witness?
I mean Islam believes that Jesus was a prophet, but how can you say that he was only a prophet when he was saying stuff like "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one gets to the father except through me." Well, that can be said about him because you are reading a newer and altered version of the quote. The original quote reads "by means of me" and NOT "through me". Try harder getting your own religious sources correct, please .. at least if you are going to attempt arguing about them.
He was either everything or nothing.
It would be interesting then to hear a rational explanation on your part as to why he cried out "My lord, my lord, why hast thou forsaken me?" when he was being tortured on the cross.
Why wouldn't you believe history over science?
"Why won't you believe the victors over the oppressed and vanquished?"

Actually "that flood" is recognizable in more than just Christianity. How about you look in to Greek mythology, they also talk about "that flood." And Adam was randomly created by God. It doesn't relly matter how random it was, if you believe in an all powerful being. The whale, hmmmmm an all powerful being, it's possible.

ITS CALLED FAITH.
No it isn't. It's called ... well, i'll just give you the parable about the people who read your post and determined you'd be by far the easiest target to sell a bridge to ...
Note, most if not ALL of the people offering wouldn't actually OWN or POSSESS said bridge, they'd just point it out to you and make off with your money, chanting a old quote that ends in ... "are soon parted."

So how many times have you been in that situation, and have you learned anything fom it yet?

Whereas, of course, the Biblical 'god of love' mailed kittens to the people of Jericho?
Well, kittens' got claws!! :eek:

So when you say "recycled" "beverages", you don't mean anything with a high count of .. uh, never mind. I guess you'll tell me if you tell me.

Actually "that flood" is recognizable in more than just Christianity. How about you look in to Greek mythology, they also talk about "that flood." And Adam was randomly created by God. It doesn't relly matter how random it was, if you believe in an all powerful being. The whale, hmmmmm an all powerful being, it's possible.

ITS CALLED FAITH.
No it isn't. It's called ...
*psst* "motif"

*psst* "motif"
hahaha!
*FLORT*
I knew it was one of those words that i don't know what the meaning is!
Score!

An actual 'free choice' of salvation would be if God and the devil [in his best pinstripe suit] sat down, made their cases to you, let you ask your questions and answered them, and then let you choose, with all the information available to you.

Anything less forces you to make the choice on the basis of incomplete or flawed information. Further, what of all the people in the world who can't access a Bible? How do they get the message?
Well, the amount of information available has no impact on whether or not free will is employed in the decision.

The scenario you suggest does, however, treat you like a mature adult, as opposed to being treated like a child. That's rather contrary to the whole (concretized) "Father God" thing.

Yes, you would be evil for not sharing with those who needed food more than you, if you were fully able to do so.

The idea that God 'offers' people salvation is incomplete: what God actually offers people is a vague book full of historical and scientific inaccuracies and documentation of atrocities, and odd contradictory messages of hope. An actual 'free choice' of salvation would be if God and the devil sat down, made their cases to you, let you ask your questions and answered them, and then let you choose, with all the information available to you.

Not according to the same people who believe in Hell. Again, one must accept your assertions to reach your conclusions. You make my point for me.

Anything less forces you to make the choice on the basis of incomplete or flawed information. Further, what of all the people in the world who can't access a Bible? How do they get the message?

Come on. You've heard this one before. The evidence of the Truth is written in every living thing, every rock and every river. The Bilble merely puts it into words.

Or to design you so turning away is not torture. False dilemma.

To design you so that you don't value the reward of not turning away? Then you punish the people who accept the Truth. You wish to make the dark seem like less of a loss by turning down the lights for those who choose to turn them on. You might consider that less evil, but again that's only your opinion. Again, one must accept your opinion in order to reach your conclusion, which is my point.

Do you [i]fear New Kids on the Block concerts, though? Not wanting to go somewhere isn't the same as being afraid of it. Anyway, New Kids on the Block were defeated by the dread demon-knight Hanson, nobody fears them anymore.
Actually, yeah, I totally fear New Kids on the Block concerts. I would say they are as close to hell as music gets. I threaten my nephews with locking them in their room with NKOB blaring if they don't their homework, it works every time (except their mother often stops me because she considers it cruel and unusual).

The scenario you suggest does, however, treat you like a mature adult, as opposed to being treated like a child. That's rather contrary to the whole (concretized) "Father God" thing.

The problem is, if you expect someone to make so serious a choice as God supposedly does, you are not treating them as a child. Children have their choices limited by their parents and the state for their own protection, which would rather contradict the 'free will' concept that's used to defend the concept of hell.

If God thinks of us as children, he should act in our best interest and choose the right path for us. If he things of us as adults, he should give us all the information relative to the choice at hand and let us make an educated decision. Having us mill around trying to figure things out by ourselves surrounded by contradictory messages makes no sense either way.

Not according to the same people who believe in Hell. Again, one must accept your assertions to reach your conclusions. You make my point for me.

No, it is very easy to demonstrate the incompleteness of the Bible. One can demonstrate the falsehood of the claim that the 'evidence of the Biblical God is in all living things' by simply noting that nobody came to believe in the Judeo-Christian God before missionaries came to their country: were the truth of the Biblical God written into all life, we should have seen Judeo-Christian faith spring up in pockets without the need for crusades and missionaries. Why do we find no temples to YHWH in Japan, Australia, or the Americas?

Come on. You've heard this one before. The evidence of the Truth is written in every living thing, every rock and every river. The Bilble merely puts it into words.

Yes. And to paraphrase the Messiah, Edmund Blackadder, there's only one problem with that assertation, which is that it's bollocks. What evidence of the 'truth' is there in a liver fluke or a Guinea Worm?

To design you so that you don't value the reward of not turning away? Then you punish the people who accept the Truth. You wish to make the dark seem like less of a loss by turning down the lights for those who choose to turn them on. You might consider that less evil, but again that's only your opinion. Again, one must accept your opinion in order to reach your conclusion, which is my point.

No, that's not 'only' my opinion. If everyone is medium-happy, it's better than some people living in eternal bliss at the direct expense of everyone else. Could you really be happy in heaven, knowing people were suffering in hell just to make your comfy chair look even comfier by comparison?

Also, false analogy. I wish to make the dark lighter, so there is no loss for those who choose either path. Only a truly vicious person would choose salvation and then be bothered by the fact that people who didn't are happy too in their own fashion.

Actually, yeah, I totally fear New Kids on the Block concerts. I would say they are as close to hell as music gets.

You have heard Abba, right?

This is a cop out.

If Jesus is god, there should be no inconsistency. Indeed, the fact that there IS such a marked difference between 'god' in Hebrew scripture, and the (supposedly) same 'god' in the Greek scripture... makes something of a liar of the immortal, unchanging god.

No wonder the Hebrews still don't accept this testament of a so called 'messiah'.

Have you read the sites?

The one from GotQuestions explains precisely that the level of diffrence (if there is any) isnt as clear cut and stark as people think. Read it again

Have you read the sites?

Posting a link is not making an argument. If you have a point to make, quote the portion of the site that's relevant and make an argument based on it.

The problem is, if you expect someone to make so serious a choice as God supposedly does, you are not treating them as a child. Children have their choices limited by their parents and the state for their own protection, which would rather contradict the 'free will' concept that's used to defend the concept of hell.
Exactly; God has limited the options by supplying incomplete information.

'Free will' has nothing to do with limited options.

If God thinks of us as children, he should act in our best interest and choose the right path for us.
That is worse; what you propose here eliminates free will by not giving it an opportunity to happen.

If he things of us as adults, he should give us all the information relative to the choice at hand and let us make an educated decision. Having us mill around trying to figure things out by ourselves surrounded by contradictory messages makes no sense either way.
This is what I'd said, yup.

That is worse; what you propose here eliminates free will by not giving it an opportunity to happen.

Do you leave knives on the floor of your kitchen to give your children free will to play with them? Can children vote, buy alcohol, drive, or join the military?

Neither does religion.:)

Do you leave knives on the floor of your kitchen to give your children free will to play with them? Can children vote, buy alcohol, drive, or join the military?
Um... nope.

What is your point?

Free will has nothing to do with options that are impossible to have.

Um... nope.

What is your point?

My point is that limiting a child's freedom is part of what a responsible parent should do. So you put the knife block out of reach, you don't just explain knives can cut and then leave them in easy reach and cite 'free will' if they hurt themselves. If God really thinks of humans as children, why does he have us make such an incredibly important choice? Shouldn't he act as a responsible parent would and make the correct choices for us until we become 'adults?'

The Scientific Community, at this time, is on a movement against the 'moral' opposition that those who believe in Religion hold. While some of the Scientific Community is only in it for the Science and therefore are NOT part of the crusade (much like some who believe in the Christian God did not participate in the Crusades, but only wanted religion so that it benefitted all), the rest of the Scientific Community is on a movement to marginalize the other side of the debate, demeaning them as idiots, retards, and religious fanatics.

The "scientific community" that you speak of is nonexistent. Scientists are not some monolithic group of people. They are more fractured than religious groups. The argument is not that all religious people are stupid fanatics. It is that people who attack good science on the grounds that it conflicts with their religion are making a personal moral argument into a societal battle. I believe more fully than anyone I have ever met that science is more important to society than religion, but even I admit that people have the right to be religious. I just don't think that anyone should be able to roadblock religious progress in order to advance an agenda that they have been duped into by their own intellectual faults, their fear of eternal death, and their inability to question the ideas of their parents and forebears.

My point is that limiting a child's freedom is part of what a responsible parent should do. So you put the knife block out of reach, you don't just explain knives can cut and then leave them in easy reach and cite 'free will' if they hurt themselves.
Right; I agree.

'Free will' is employed if the children in your scenario choose to play with the knives. If the knives are removed, so is any opportunity on their part to exercise free will in regard to them. Free will becomes a non-issue. God in Genesis, however, gave us limited information and the opportunity to exercise free will.

If God really thinks of humans as children, why does he have us make such an incredibly important choice? Shouldn't he act as a responsible parent would and make the correct choices for us until we become 'adults?'
Because while he is treating us as children there is still the expectation that we are adults. The decision is correspondingly significant.

The importance of the decision, though, does not impact free will.

God in Genesis, however, gave us limited information and the opportunity to exercise free will.

But limited information will often lead to the incorrect choice: that's the whole point of educating people on the consequences of things like unprotected sex or drink-driving. The child who plays with knives has limited information: they do not fully comprehend the damage a knife is capable of doing to them. That's why you don't give them the opportunity to find out for themselves until you feel they can fully comprehend what a knife is capable of.

I would personally regard the story in Genesis as the exact same situation: humans did not fully comprehend the ramifications of eating the fruit from the tree, so God should never have let them 'play' with it either, and failed in his responsibility as a parent.

Because while he is treating us as children there is still the expectation that we are adults. The decision is correspondingly significant.

That doesn't make any sense. God thinks we're children but wants us to make an adult decision anyway?

That doesn't make any sense. God thinks we're children but wants us to make an adult decision anyway?

Sounds like a parent with teenagers to me ;) Which also fits the whole "putting faith in other things than the words of the father" concept - we rebel...

But limited information will often lead to the incorrect choice: that's the whole point of educating people on the consequences of things like unprotected sex or drink-driving. The child who plays with knives has limited information: they do not fully comprehend the damage a knife is capable of doing to them. That's why you don't give them the opportunity to find out for themselves until you feel they can fully comprehend what a knife is capable of.

I would personally regard the story in Genesis as the exact same situation: humans did not fully comprehend the ramifications of eating the fruit from the tree, so God should never have let them 'play' with it either, and failed in his responsibility as a parent.
Okay; but what God should have done is irrelevant. The story is what it is.

That doesn't make any sense. God thinks we're children but wants us to make an adult decision anyway?
God treats us as children, but acknowledges that we are adults. My own parents do that on occasion (and I let them) although I am in my 40's.

God treats us as children, but acknowledges that we are adults.

I say we put him in a home.

Have you read the sites?

The one from GotQuestions explains precisely that the level of diffrence (if there is any) isnt as clear cut and stark as people think. Read it again

I happily admit that I did not read the sites, and WILL not read the sites, unless I have good reason.

I agree with GMC... the most importnat thing is that an argument is presented. If you care to have an argument to rpesent... and care to explain why YOU believe it to be so... THEN I will happily look into your sites.

I do not just randomly open up every link people spam the forum with.

The "scientific community" that you speak of is nonexistent. Scientists are not some monolithic group of people. They are more fractured than religious groups. The argument is not that all religious people are stupid fanatics. It is that people who attack good science on the grounds that it conflicts with their religion are making a personal moral argument into a societal battle. I believe more fully than anyone I have ever met that science is more important to society than religion, but even I admit that people have the right to be religious. I just don't think that anyone should be able to roadblock religious progress in order to advance an agenda that they have been duped into by their own intellectual faults, their fear of eternal death, and their inability to question the ideas of their parents and forebears.
Good post. *bows*
If i may, welcome to NS.

EDIT: I should add though that a good portion of populace don't necessarily have any particular fear of "eternal death", since death once is death eternal in their own experience. It's kind of a no brainer that once you die there's not a lot else you're gonna get done, AS YOU, afterwards.
As well, the very nature of science requires a constant updating of knowledge and understanding, ever more for veracity as well, so questioning the ideas of their parents and forebearers is part and parcel - prerequisite, even.
The roadblocks that are spoken of get taken care of pretty quickly when you think clearly about it ... you don't take a knife to a gunfight.
And you certainly don't bring your macreme collection to a funeral.
The two simply don't reconcile in most terms of common ground, and most certainly they shouldn't be put in positions of contrast where one disproves the other. As the score goes, religion has lost almost every time.

I thought Jesus was of a divine nature, and had perfect access to the mind of God. Guess not.
What in my post made you think he doesnt. And kindly stop sidestepping the issue by drawing up a diffrent comparison. Have you read either of the links I gave
The fact that you fail to differentiate between a prophet and 'the son of god'

<snip>

Seriously though - why could the Bible story not be based on the Greek tale ? If I write a new story on little red riding hood - does it magically become "more true" ?
;) possibly :rolleyes: