NationStates Jolt Archive

I just have to wonder, how would the world react if the bible was quite clear: no one was going to hell, no one had to believe. Jesus' sacrifice was enough and there was no need to "acknowledge" it in order to go to heaven. How would this change the face of christianity? If you are christian, how would this change the way you think?

Society would collapse without the need to follow God's moral guidelines.
srsly

Society would collapse without the need to follow God's moral guidelines.
srsly

Seriously?

Then Christianity would be like any other major world religion barring Islam: If you're a good person, then Heaven Is For You!

And if you read Nietzsche, the collapse of THAT society is a good thing.

Society would collapse without the need to follow God's moral guidelines.
srsly

Many christians seem to be getting by just fine without following such guidelines and still considering themselves "saved" While many nonbelievers still hold to a set of moral guidelines. (suppresses rant about moral relativists.)

Society would collapse without the need to follow God's moral guidelines.
srsly

So society didn't exist before Christianity?

Then fundies and extremist head's will asplode.

Society would collapse without the need to follow God's moral guidelines.
srsly


I lolled.

Then Christianity would be like any other major world religion barring Islam: If you're a good person, then Heaven Is For You!

And if you read Nietzsche, the collapse of THAT society is a good thing.

According to his guidelines, why would you have to be good?

According to his guidelines, why would you have to be good?

You'll have to clarify a bit. Otherwise this answer will remain incomplete.

If you don't go to hell, you still have to be good: maybe your not rewarded as much in Heaven as are others, maybe you're sent to a different level of heaven. Who knows. But if you don't have to be good, and you don't go to hell, then what is Christianity but a word with no substance?

It would be exactly the same as it is now.

You'll have to clarify a bit. Otherwise this answer will remain incomplete.

If you don't go to hell, you still have to be good: maybe your not rewarded as much in Heaven as are others, maybe you're sent to a different level of heaven. Who knows. But if you don't have to be good, and you don't go to hell, then what is Christianity but a word with no substance?

I agree.

That Lisa chick I met last night wouldn't have a life's goal then. She wants to help those on bad paths return to the light for salvation. While I don't generally like religious peoples, she is ok in my book, very nice person.

You'll have to clarify a bit. Otherwise this answer will remain incomplete.

If you don't go to hell, you still have to be good: maybe your not rewarded as much in Heaven as are others, maybe you're sent to a different level of heaven. Who knows. But if you don't have to be good, and you don't go to hell, then what is Christianity but a word with no substance?

Maybe it would be a great example of God's forgiveness and love for the world? Maybe the cosmos isn't a meritocracy? Maybe it would lead to less pettiness and cruelty in the world? Maybe those who honestly believe in and try to do right by their god won't be doing so because they fear the hammer about to fall on them?

Anyone who claims that God is needed for you to be good has just put themselves into a corner from which they can't escape. Think about it.

It'd be like evangelical Christianity. A copout available to anyone.

"You can be a mass murdering child rapist all your life, but if you accept Jesus Christ as your savior at the last second, you'll still get into Heaven!"

Well, yeah. But if anyone actually wants to follow through with their little God conviction, then they have some 'splaning to do.

Maybe it would be a great example of God's forgiveness and love for the world? Maybe the cosmos isn't a meritocracy? Maybe it would lead to less pettiness and cruelty in the world? Maybe those who honestly believe in and try to do right by their god won't be doing so because they fear the hammer about to fall on them?

And sacrificing his son wasn't a great example of his forgiveness and love for the world?

The question is basically non-sequitur, because in order for Jesus' sacrifice to cover one's sins, that individual must consciously accept it for themselves.

If this were automatic and applied to everybody regardless, then that freedom of choice would be lost and by so doing, undermine the entire point of salvation.

Anyone who claims that God is needed for you to be good has just put themselves into a corner from which they can't escape. Think about it.

You can always escape from a corner. Just back up or turn around.

If there was no Hell or Heaven I would still be a Christian. I am convinced following Jesus is the best way to live...Loving God and loving people. One thing that bothers me about Christians is that we act like the afterlife is all we care about, instead of making the world a better place today, and being part of God*s kingdom on earth.

And sacrificing his son wasn't a great example of his forgiveness and love for the world?

Not if it doesn't apply to the whole world, it doesn't.

And sacrificing his son wasn't a great example of his forgiveness and love for the world?

Oh yes, God sure does love the world.
http://www.thefunnyjunks.com/wp-content/uploads/Image/2007/may/Pictures/satan-god/god-v-satan.jpg

Not if it doesn't apply to the whole world, it doesn't.

John 3:16.

If there was no Hell or Heaven I would still be a Christian. I am convinced following Jesus is the best way to live...Loving God and loving people. One thing that bothers me about Christians is that we act like the afterlife is all we care about, instead of making the world a better place today, and being part of God*s kingdom on earth.

Excellent first post. Welcome to NSG.

And sacrificing his son wasn't a great example of his forgiveness and love for the world?

Nope not really ...

Meh, it's hard to believe anything that dusty old book says.

Well, I say "Old", it was written over a period more than a millenium.

The question is basically non-sequitur, because in order for Jesus' sacrifice to cover one's sins, that individual must consciously accept it for themselves.

If this were automatic and applied to everybody regardless, then that freedom of choice would be lost and by so doing, undermine the entire point of salvation.

Hmmm. . . what is the point of salvation? Isn't it to go to Heaven? How is that undermined by everyone getting an automatic pass? Or are you suggesting there is a different point to salvation?

You can always escape from a corner. Just back up or turn around.

Or just walk through the wet paint :)

Hmmm. . . what is the point of salvation? Isn't it to go to Heaven? How is that undermined by everyone getting an automatic pass? Or are you suggesting there is a different point to salvation?

salvation-> being saved from something

what are you being saved from?

hell.

who goes to hell?

sinners (well, unrepentant ones)

who sins?

people with free will

Question about free will: How come everything is attrivuted to "God's Will", if we have free will? That doesn't make sense.

If there was no Hell or Heaven I would still be a Christian. I am convinced following Jesus is the best way to live...Loving God and loving people. One thing that bothers me about Christians is that we act like the afterlife is all we care about, instead of making the world a better place today, and being part of God*s kingdom on earth.

Good post, I agree with the whole making the world better bit.

salvation-> being saved from something

what are you being saved from?

hell.

who goes to hell?

sinners (well, unrepentant ones)

who sins?

people with free will

So the point of salvation is punishment? Why is this ultimately necessary? Why must people be punished (especially the most excruciating punishment imaginable, for eternity) for sins? And why do those who believe in God get a free pass, but not everyone else? Why isn't everyone saved? Why does God feel a need to play this game with humanity?

If there was no Hell or Heaven I would still be a Christian. I am convinced following Jesus is the best way to live...Loving God and loving people. One thing that bothers me about Christians is that we act like the afterlife is all we care about, instead of making the world a better place today, and being part of God*s kingdom on earth.

Here's a Zen story that agrees with you:
The Gates of Paradise

A soldier named Nobushige came to Hakuin, and asked: "Is there really a paradise and a hell?"

"Who are you?" inquired Hakuin.

"I am a samurai," the warrior replied.

"You, a soldier!" exclaimed Hakuin. "What kind of ruler would have you as his guard? Your face looks like that of a beggar."

Nobushige became so angry that he began to draw his sword, but Hakuin continued: "So you have a sword! Your weapon is probably much too dull to cut off my head."

As Nobushige drew his sword Hakuin remarked: "Here open the gates of hell!"

At these words the samurai, perceiving the master's discipline, sheathed his sword and bowed.

"Here open the gates of paradise," said Hakuin.

And, yes, nice first post, welcome to NSG. /bow

Hmmm. . . what is the point of salvation? Isn't it to go to Heaven? How is that undermined by everyone getting an automatic pass? Or are you suggesting there is a different point to salvation?

For Salvation to mean anything it must be chosen freely.

Suppose you have a group of children that you want to take skiing. None of them yet know how to ski so they must first be instructed. You only have a few hours in which to teach them, so there is limited time available. Which of the following approaches makes better sense:

1) Teach the children to ski. Those who put forth the effort to learn in the allotted time are able to go because they can ski safely. Those who did not put forth sufficient effort cannot be brought along because they have not learned how to ski safely and would surely be injured or be completely unable to go skiing. This also inherently implies a choice. A child who does not WANT to ski is not forced to do so.

2)Teach the children to ski but take them all on the trip regardless of their level of proficiency. Yes, all of them get to go on the trip but several of them are unable to participate and/or are badly injured trying. Implicit in this is that even the children who do not wish to go are compelled to do so.

Salvation isn't just a ticket to a warm happy place to hang out for Eternity. It's a way of being cleansed of sin so that one can return to God's presence, in which no uncleanliness can exist.

For Salvation to mean anything it must be chosen freely.

Suppose you have a group of children that you want to take skiing. None of them yet know how to ski so they must first be instructed. You only have a few hours in which to teach them, so there is limited time available. Which of the following approaches makes better sense:

1) Teach the children to ski. Those who put forth the effort to learn in the allotted time are able to go because they can ski safely. Those who did not put forth sufficient effort cannot be brought along because they have not learned how to ski safely and would surely be injured or be completely unable to go skiing. This also inherently implies a choice. A child who does not WANT to ski is not forced to do so.

2)Teach the children to ski but take them all on the trip regardless of their level of proficiency. Yes, all of them get to go on the trip but several of them are unable to participate and/or are badly injured trying. Implicit in this is that even the children who do not wish to go are compelled to do so.

Salvation isn't just a ticket to a warm happy place to hang out for Eternity. It's a way of being cleansed of sin so that one can return to God's presence, in which no uncleanliness can exist.

Yet most ski places offer you multupiule lessons and if you are not aduquitly equipped for your first test you can re think, study and do it again

You dont get a one time pass fail

For Salvation to mean anything it must be chosen freely.

Suppose you have a group of children that you want to take skiing. None of them yet know how to ski so they must first be instructed. You only have a few hours in which to teach them, so there is limited time available. Which of the following approaches makes better sense:

1) Teach the children to ski. Those who put forth the effort to learn in the allotted time are able to go because they can ski safely. Those who did not put forth sufficient effort cannot be brought along because they have not learned how to ski safely and would surely be injured or be completely unable to go skiing. This also inherently implies a choice. A child who does not WANT to ski is not forced to do so.

2)Teach the children to ski but take them all on the trip regardless of their level of proficiency. Yes, all of them get to go on the trip but several of them are unable to participate and/or are badly injured trying. Implicit in this is that even the children who do not wish to go are compelled to do so.

Salvation isn't just a ticket to a warm happy place to hang out for Eternity. It's a way of being cleansed of sin so that one can return to God's presence, in which no uncleanliness can exist.So, if I don't do whatever it is I'm supposed to do to be salvationed, but go to Heaven anyway, I might get injured? What exactly goes on in this "Heaven" of yours?

Alright. The legitimacy of those questions depend on how they are asked.

Yours don't pass the test.

Each one is a supposition designed to trap believers in a situation wherein they appear to be brutal and/or irrational.

The point of salvation is something that people have been trying to answer since the concept was known. However, it is generally understood that the point of salvation is to bring you to God, not save you from hell.

Why is it needed? Why must they be punished? These are questions that have obvious answers if you think about it and aren't trying to trap people to make them look foolish.

Imperfection only knows imperfection; therefore we can never know God. Jesus was perfect, his sacrifice makes us perfect, therefore we can know God.

People failed to make the right choice. Just as failing to study gets you an F on a test, or not wearing a seat-belt gets you at best a ticket, and at worse an early funeral.

Who says those that believe in God get a free-pass to do anything? Christians sin, and regular people sin. The difference is that Christians seek a way to rectify their situation, and others don't. Should the person with the fire-extinguisher be punished because he was prepared for disaster, but his neighbor wasn't and lost his house?

Who says it is a game? You do. You call it a game because belittling the concept puts Christians on the defensive and makes you look like you've discovered something no one else has. Well guess what, sacrificing your own son is not a part of any game I know of.

For Salvation to mean anything it must be chosen freely.

Suppose you have a group of children that you want to take skiing. None of them yet know how to ski so they must first be instructed. You only have a few hours in which to teach them, so there is limited time available. Which of the following approaches makes better sense:

1) Teach the children to ski. Those who put forth the effort to learn in the allotted time are able to go because they can ski safely. Those who did not put forth sufficient effort cannot be brought along because they have not learned how to ski safely and would surely be injured or be completely unable to go skiing. This also inherently implies a choice. A child who does not WANT to ski is not forced to do so.

2)Teach the children to ski but take them all on the trip regardless of their level of proficiency. Yes, all of them get to go on the trip but several of them are unable to participate and/or are badly injured trying. Implicit in this is that even the children who do not wish to go are compelled to do so.

Salvation isn't just a ticket to a warm happy place to hang out for Eternity. It's a way of being cleansed of sin so that one can return to God's presence, in which no uncleanliness can exist.

Two obvious problems:

1) The kids who don't get to go skiing are not punished with the worst punishment imaginable for all eternity.

2) There is no limited time, as God is unlimited, and could, if he so chose, make it so everybody has a good chance of salvation.

Therefore, your argument fails.

EDIT: quoted a bit I didn't mean to

salvation-> being saved from something

what are you being saved from?

hell.

who goes to hell?

sinners (well, unrepentant ones)

who sins?

people with free will

Free will makes angry robot smash things.

Yet most ski places offer you multupiule lessons and if you are not aduquitly equipped for your first test you can re think, study and do it again

You dont get a one time pass fail

Dude, it's just an analogy. Ignoring the point isn't a valid debate tactic.

For Salvation to mean anything it must be chosen freely.

Suppose you have a group of children that you want to take skiing. None of them yet know how to ski so they must first be instructed. You only have a few hours in which to teach them, so there is limited time available. Which of the following approaches makes better sense:

1) Teach the children to ski. Those who put forth the effort to learn in the allotted time are able to go because they can ski safely. Those who did not put forth sufficient effort cannot be brought along because they have not learned how to ski safely and would surely be injured or be completely unable to go skiing. This also inherently implies a choice. A child who does not WANT to ski is not forced to do so.

2)Teach the children to ski but take them all on the trip regardless of their level of proficiency. Yes, all of them get to go on the trip but several of them are unable to participate and/or are badly injured trying. Implicit in this is that even the children who do not wish to go are compelled to do so.

Salvation isn't just a ticket to a warm happy place to hang out for Eternity. It's a way of being cleansed of sin so that one can return to God's presence, in which no uncleanliness can exist.

And the kids who can't ski get sold to taiwan as sex slaves, and are tortured and raped for the rest of their lives.
If hell didn't exist, this would not be a problem. I don't have too much of a fundamental problem with the idea that nonbelievers just cease to exist when they die, but the concept of hell makes God a cruel vindictive bastard.

And the kids who can't ski get sold to taiwan as sex slaves, and are tortured and raped for the rest of their lives.
If hell didn't exist, this would not be a problem. I don't have too much of a fundamental problem with the idea that nonbelievers just cease to exist when they die, but the concept of hell makes God a cruel vindictive bastard.

Especially if one considers eternal punishment for finite sin a bit unequal and insensible.

Even if there is a hell, what prevents one from repenting once one has been consigned there?

Our lives would be completely empty of meaning besides to follow God's will.

So, if I don't do whatever it is I'm supposed to do to be salvationed, but go to Heaven anyway, I might get injured? What exactly goes on in this "Heaven" of yours?

We know from scripture that nothing unclean can exist in God's presence. Being cleansed of sin is a necessary component of returning to Him.

Two obvious problems:

1) The kids who don't get to go skiing are not punished with the worst punishment imaginable for all eternity.

2) There is no limited time, as God is unlimited, and could, if he so chose, make it so everybody has a good chance of salvation.

Therefore, your argument fails.

EDIT: quoted a bit I didn't mean to

It's not an argument, it's an analogy to illustrate a point. I made no mention of Hell whatsoever.

It's not as simple as some people go to Heaven, some people go to Hell and that's it. I know a lot of people believe that, but it isn't so.

Don't be so simplistic.

Dude, it's just an analogy. Ignoring the point isn't a valid debate tactic.

Neither is making a faulty analogy . . .

And the kids who can't ski get sold to taiwan as sex slaves, and are tortured and raped for the rest of their lives.
If hell didn't exist, this would not be a problem. I don't have too much of a fundamental problem with the idea that nonbelievers just cease to exist when they die, but the concept of hell makes God a cruel vindictive bastard.

Again, I made no mention of Hell. You're trying to extend a simple analogy to cover issues it wasn't intended to.

We know from scripture that nothing unclean can exist in God's presence. Being cleansed of sin is a necessary component of returning to Him.

Whose scripture? What is this nonsense?

Okay, so then he keeps them from his presence. But why go overboard and torture them with the most painful and horrible torture possible for all eternity? Why not just send them off somewhere else, especially the people who were, overall, basically good people who attempted to do good for others?

Like Wisconsin. *nods*

We know from scripture that nothing unclean can exist in God's presence. Being cleansed of sin is a necessary component of returning to Him.

Okay, so then he keeps them from his presence. But why go overboard and torture them with the most painful and horrible torture possible for all eternity? Why not just send them off somewhere else, especially the people who were, overall, basically good people who attempted to do good for others?

Again, I made no mention of Hell. You're trying to extend a simple analogy to cover issues it wasn't intended to.

Hell is assumed when discussing Christian theology, though, as it is one of the most central parts of it.

We know from scripture that nothing unclean can exist in God's presence. Being cleansed of sin is a necessary component of returning to Him.
An omnipotent God could change that at a whim.
Like Wisconsin. *nods*

Dogma reference FTW!

Okay, so then he keeps them from his presence. But why go overboard and torture them with the most painful and horrible torture possible for all eternity? Why not just send them off somewhere else, especially the people who were, overall, basically good people who attempted to do good for others?

why do you assume horrible torture for all eternity?

Whose scripture? What is this nonsense?

Let me know when you're up for an amicable discussion.

why do you assume horrible torture for all eternity?

Hell is not a place of toture in my mind. It is a place of utter seperation from god and everything else. I also think that once someone truly repents for what they have done they may pass on through to heaven after a fashion.

why do you assume horrible torture for all eternity?

Is that not what Hell is? I know that's what I'm constantly threatened with for my evil atheistic ways.

We know from scripture that nothing unclean can exist in God's presence. Being cleansed of sin is a necessary component of returning to Him.

God's omnipotent. He can cleanse us himself. Or at least let us in on all the information at the moment of death and let us choose. I doubt many people would choose to reject God in that circumstance.

Hell is assumed when discussing Christian theology, though, as it is one of the most central parts of it.

Unfortunately that's true, but not all Christian denominations subscribe to the fire and brimstone Hell.

why do you assume horrible torture for all eternity?

All that lake of fire stuff in the bible is hard to ignore.

God's omnipotent. He can cleanse us himself. Or at least let us in on all the information at the moment of death and let us choose. I doubt many people would choose to reject God in that circumstance.

I think that's being simplistic though. Clearly God works within a set of defined rules/parameters. Perhaps He is constrained by them on some level. Perhaps His reasons are beyond our understanding. Whetever explanation covers it, it would seem that we must choose for ourselves.

Is that not what Hell is? I know that's what I'm constantly threatened with for my evil atheistic ways.
there is not a person on Earth who really knows what hell really is.

why do you assume the worst possible thing? is it because it helps your side of the debate?

All that lake of fire stuff in the bible is hard to ignore.

the lake of fire stuff in Revelation? a book written in apocalyptic form?

there is not a person on Earth who really knows what hell really is.

why do you assume the worst possible thing? is it because it helps your side of the debate?

Because that is how hell is usually presented to us by "fire and brimstone" preachers who seem to get off on imagining the suffering of those sinners in hell. We didn't just make this up, it's in the national discourse already. What, may I ask, would you propose hell is like?

why do you assume horrible torture for all eternity?

22 . . . the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. (Luke 16:22-28)


Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew 25:41: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."

Revelation 20:15:" And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."

Rev. 14:11: "The smoke of their TORMENT ascendeth up for EVER AND EVER: and they have NO REST DAY NOR NIGHT."

there is not a person on Earth who really knows what hell really is.

why do you assume the worst possible thing? is it because it helps your side of the debate?

I assume that because it is, by far, the most common version. I get told I'm going to suffer for enternity several times a week because I dare to question the Bible and God. It's not something I'm pulling out of nowhere; it's the mainstream belief amoung Christians, and, I must admit, the Biblically supported one.

Because that is how hell is usually presented to us by "fire and brimstone" preachers who seem to get off on imagining the suffering of those sinners in hell.
usually? how often? by whom? do they represent all of Christianity?

We didn't just make this up, it's in the national discourse already.
is it?

What, may I ask, would you propose hell is like?
I don't know.

Alright. The legitimacy of those questions depend on how they are asked.

Yours don't pass the test.

Each one is a supposition designed to trap believers in a situation wherein they appear to be brutal and/or irrational.

The point of salvation is something that people have been trying to answer since the concept was known. However, it is generally understood that the point of salvation is to bring you to God, not save you from hell.

Why is it needed? Why must they be punished? These are questions that have obvious answers if you think about it and aren't trying to trap people to make them look foolish.

Imperfection only knows imperfection; therefore we can never know God. Jesus was perfect, his sacrifice makes us perfect, therefore we can know God.

People failed to make the right choice. Just as failing to study gets you an F on a test, or not wearing a seat-belt gets you at best a ticket, and at worse an early funeral.

Who says those that believe in God get a free-pass to do anything? Christians sin, and regular people sin. The difference is that Christians seek a way to rectify their situation, and others don't. Should the person with the fire-extinguisher be punished because he was prepared for disaster, but his neighbor wasn't and lost his house?

Who says it is a game? You do. You call it a game because belittling the concept puts Christians on the defensive and makes you look like you've discovered something no one else has. Well guess what, sacrificing your own son is not a part of any game I know of.

Incase anyone missed it.

22 . . . the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. (Luke 16:22-28)
parable.


Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

parable.

Matthew 25:41: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."
parable.

Revelation 20:15:" And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."

Rev. 14:11: "The smoke of their TORMENT ascendeth up for EVER AND EVER: and they have NO REST DAY NOR NIGHT."
apocalyptic literature.

I ask again

where have you been hiding?

In a hole next to a really pissed off guy with a dialysis machine. I think his name was Obama >_>

Incase anyone missed it.

I ask again

where have you been hiding?

I would ressurect Lenin and laugh at him telling him Jesus did exist then I would find out where Stalin really is and attack with his own heart, if manages to live without it.

Religion sucks. It sets moral guidelines for what's right and what's wrong when those moral guidelines should be set by and individuals own mind, not some religion which chains people's thinking.

In a hole next to a really pissed off guy with a dialysis machine. I think his name was Obama >_>

I think I love you.

*refrains from fluffle*

parable.




parable.


parable.


apocalyptic literature.

So, is there mention of hell in the bible that isn't a parable or apocalyptic literature?

So, is there mention of hell in the bible that isn't a parable or apocalyptic literature?

there are mentions of being dead in sin, which some people attribute to meaning hell

Romans 6:23 for example.

Alright. The legitimacy of those questions depend on how they are asked.

Yours don't pass the test.

Each one is a supposition designed to trap believers in a situation wherein they appear to be brutal and/or irrational.

The point of salvation is something that people have been trying to answer since the concept was known. However, it is generally understood that the point of salvation is to bring you to God, not save you from hell.

Why is it needed? Why must they be punished? These are questions that have obvious answers if you think about it and aren't trying to trap people to make them look foolish.

Imperfection only knows imperfection; therefore we can never know God. Jesus was perfect, his sacrifice makes us perfect, therefore we can know God.

Then why isn't everyone made perfect? Why must we play this game where we have to effectively guess which belief system is the correct answer?
People failed to make the right choice. Just as failing to study gets you an F on a test, or not wearing a seat-belt gets you at best a ticket, and at worse an early funeral.

Who says those that believe in God get a free-pass to do anything? Christians sin, and regular people sin. The difference is that Christians seek a way to rectify their situation, and others don't. Should the person with the fire-extinguisher be punished because he was prepared for disaster, but his neighbor wasn't and lost his house?

Who says it is a game? You do. You call it a game because belittling the concept puts Christians on the defensive and makes you look like you've discovered something no one else has. Well guess what, sacrificing your own son is not a part of any game I know of.

I call it a game because that's what it is. You have to go looking for these supposed clues that are supposed to make it blatantly obvious which religion, and which sect of that religion, is correct. Pick Allah or Buddha or Krishna or Wodin, and you go to hell. It's like the game where you pick a door out of a set of a hundred doors, only behind every door but one is eternal torment.
It's not only a game, it's a sick game, and God is a bastard for forcing us to play it.

there are mentions of being dead in sin, which some people attribute to meaning hell

Romans 6:23 for example.

I see. Makes you wonder how so many people got the idea that Hell is all punishment and torment and what not.

Then why isn't everyone made perfect? Why must we play this game where we have to effectively guess which belief system is the correct answer?

We were created perfectly. Read Genesis.

I call it a game because that's what it is. You have to go looking for these supposed clues that are supposed to make it blatantly obvious which religion, and which sect of that religion, is correct. Pick Allah or Buddha or Krishna or Wodin, and you go to hell. It's like the game where you pick a door out of a set of a hundred doors, only behind every door but one is eternal torment.
It's not only a game, it's a sick game, and God is a bastard for forcing us to play it.

Wrong. Buddha, Hinuism, Shinto, Toaism; none of them state unequivocally that you must believe in their system; the requirements for salvation are being a good person. What makes Christianity, Judaism, and Islam rather unique is that there do have a take all system: either you believe or you don't.

Also God said he was God. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light. There is no game to be played if the choices are already obvious.

You're angry, we can tell. Either your faith was shattered, or you witnessed something horrible that has made you into a nihilist. Well tough cookies. Christianity isn't a game because you're ignorant of its composition or because you're unhappy with humanity.

Even if he did, I still wouldn’t be

Also God said he was God. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light. There is no game to be played if the choices are already obvious.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/CircularReasoning.gif

Then why isn't everyone made perfect? Why must we play this game where we have to effectively guess which belief system is the correct answer?

I call it a game because that's what it is. You have to go looking for these supposed clues that are supposed to make it blatantly obvious which religion, and which sect of that religion, is correct. Pick Allah or Buddha or Krishna or Wodin, and you go to hell. It's like the game where you pick a door out of a set of a hundred doors, only behind every door but one is eternal torment.
It's not only a game, it's a sick game, and God is a bastard for forcing us to play it.

It's like that thing with the birds and the doors...

Only there are 10,000 doors (the number of which that are Eternal Pleasure varies based on which door is the ultimate 'correct' door) and both birds are liars, no matter what the sign says.

In effect, you are playing a game and you don't know the rules.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/CircularReasoning.gif

Don't blame me for Alpha falling into it.

"HE DOESN'T SHOW US HOW!"

"Read the Bible."

Whether or not it's true is not something Alpha asked.

We were created perfectly. Read Genesis.



Wrong. Buddha, Hinuism, Shinto, Toaism; none of them state unequivocally that you must believe in their system; the requirements for salvation are being a good person. What makes Christianity, Judaism, and Islam rather unique is that there do have a take all system: either you believe or you don't.
Yes, and if the god you believe in happens to be the right one, then all those people who believe in Buddha, Hinuism, Shinto, Toaism, etc, are all going to hell because they picked the wrong one, when there is no indication that christianity is right and the system they chose is wrong.
Also God said he was God. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light. There is no game to be played if the choices are already obvious.
The choices are not obvious. If they were, I would already be convinced.
You're angry, we can tell. Either your faith was shattered, or you witnessed something horrible that has made you into a nihilist. Well tough cookies. Christianity isn't a game because you're ignorant of its composition or because you're unhappy with humanity.
I am not a nihilist. I am a humanist. I am not angry, i am annoyed. God may exist, or he might not. He might be like you describe him, or he might not. If he is as you describe him, then I don't like him. If he's not, then I withold my judgement until I meet him, or don't.

Don't blame me for Alpha falling into it.

"HE DOESN'T SHOW US HOW!"

"Read the Bible."

Whether or not it's true is not something Alpha asked.

So, the choices aren't really obvious, you were just pretending they are because we hadn't asked you if they are or not yet?

So, the choices aren't really obvious, you were just pretending they are because we hadn't asked you if they are or not yet?

They are obvious within the paradigm of the Christian religion.

Even if I was, he accepted the framework that he himself built, and I called him on it.

Have a problem with this sort of discussion known as debate I should be aware of?

Yes, and if the god you believe in happens to be the right one, then all those people who believe in Buddha, Hinuism, Shinto, Toaism, etc, are all going to hell because they picked the wrong one, when there is no indication that christianity is right and the system they chose is wrong.The choices are not obvious. If they were, I would already be convinced.

You want to talk about the viability of the other religions? Fine. Make a thread about it and I'll call up some theologians to debate you since I'm not qualified to answer such a question.

However.

Your framework is concerned with Christianity. Hence mentioning Jesus. Hence mentioning hell. Well guess what, that's the framework I've been working in. I won't humor you if you want to change it all of a sudden because the realities of Christianity don't sit well with you.

I am not a nihilist. I am a humanist. I am not angry, i am annoyed. God may exist, or he might not. He might be like you describe him, or he might not. If he is as you describe him, then I don't like him. If he's not, then I withold my judgement until I meet him, or don't.

You're annoyed with your description of God. Mine doesn't paint him as an ebil bulla dat stealz my monies on da pwayground. Your issues are not my problem.

Society would collapse without the need to follow God's moral guidelines.
srsly

Lolz.

They are obvious within the paradigm of the Christian religion.
And there's that circular reasoning. If you are a Christian it is obvious that Christianity is the right religion, because God said so, and being a Christian you believe in God.

Even if I was, he accepted the framework that he himself built, and I called him on it.
What now?

Have a problem with this sort of discussion known as debate I should be aware of?

I wasn't aware that debates involved immersing yourself into a system of beliefs beforehand, and acting as though you sincerely held those beliefs until actually asked if you did.
You're annoyed with your description of God. Mine doesn't paint him as an ebil bulla dat stealz my monies on da pwayground. Your issues are not my problem.
I wasn't aware that they involved trying to make your opponents appear childish either.

I just have to wonder, how would the world react if the bible was quite clear: no one was going to hell, no one had to believe. Jesus' sacrifice was enough and there was no need to "acknowledge" it in order to go to heaven. How would this change the face of christianity? If you are christian, how would this change the way you think?



Jesus' sacrifice is enough, but if you don't believe it then how can you except for yourself that it is enough?

I just have to wonder, how would the world react if the bible was quite clear: no one was going to hell, no one had to believe. Jesus' sacrifice was enough and there was no need to "acknowledge" it in order to go to heaven. How would this change the face of christianity? If you are christian, how would this change the way you think?

Good question.

My personal beliefs on the extent of Chirist's sacrifice aside. I would say it would change nothing.

I make an effort to emmulate Christ. This is how I practice being Christian. I must be honest in saying that I often fail...I get angry, I get vindictive, I am often unforgiving, and I will take the easy way out on occasion.

But I try.

If, I was to be shown that precisely yes everyone was saved...regardless.

I would in all honesty be thankful.

It would make me happy as can be.

It would clear things up quite a bit, but I'd be worried about all those poor people who would have gone to hell for the simple reason of not believing that Jesus was God. It would be great to have clear-cut objective proof of one belief system, but I wouldn't be too happy about it being Christianity.

I'm more content to believe there are multiple Gods rather than just one, and it is how we act in this life, not what we necessarily believe, that determines our future.

I agree with how it was written in "the chronicles of Narnia" where the prince (i think) in the end went to Ashlan althou he worshiped Tashlan. He did worship Tashlan in words but his actions pointed towards Ashlan.

Jesus' sacrifice is enough, but if you don't believe it then how can you except for yourself that it is enough?

Because enough is enough, whether I accept it or not. If I die and find out that Jesus bought my way into heaven, my reaction will be "Oh, I guess I was wrong. Oh well." *skips merrily through the gates*

And there's that circular reasoning. If you are a Christian it is obvious that Christianity is the right religion, because God said so, and being a Christian you believe in God.

Indeed, but as already said that's another thread entirely. Not my concern.


What now?

He created the framework for this thread's discussion. I operated in it. He's wrong.

I wasn't aware that debates involved immersing yourself into a system of beliefs beforehand, and acting as though you sincerely held those beliefs until actually asked if you did.

I am a Christian, the difference is that I am fully aware of some of the issues people have with my religion. I'm also a realist, a bit of an existentialist, and a follower of various other ideologies. How that's relevant is entirely up to you.

I wasn't aware that they involved trying to make your opponents appear childish either.

Whose trying? Calling God a bastard certainly isn't indicative of maturity.

Indeed, but as already said that's another thread entirely. Not my concern.




He created the framework for this thread's discussion. I operated in it. He's wrong.
So this makes employing circular reasoning ok?



I am a Christian, the difference...
Difference? Difference between you being a christian and what?



Whose trying? Calling God a bastard certainly isn't indicative of maturity.

I wouldn't consider it indicative of a person's maturity or immaturity. However, pointing out perceived immaturity on the part of others in an attempt to make them appear wrong does smack of childishness to me.

So this makes employing circular reasoning ok?

The reasoning is entirely permissible in the framework he established.


Difference? Difference between you being a christian and what?


The implication was that I wasn't really a Christian, unless the statement I addressed was just there to take up space.


I wouldn't consider it indicative of a person's maturity or immaturity. However, pointing out perceived immaturity on the part of others in an attempt to make them appear wrong does smack of childishness to me.

"God's a bastard that makes me choose! His stupid little game!" Where is the maturity? Where is the rational human being that is seeking answers to a serious question?

I don't see it.

It would clear things up quite a bit, but I'd be worried about all those poor people who would have gone to hell for the simple reason of not believing that Jesus was God. It would be great to have clear-cut objective proof of one belief system, but I wouldn't be too happy about it being Christianity.

I'm more content to believe there are multiple Gods rather than just one, and it is how we act in this life, not what we necessarily believe, that determines our future.

But what difference would it make?
I mean, if it counted for everybody then the Christians wouldnt be right.
It wouldnt be Christianity as it is currently that would be the single unified Faith.

It be a refromed Christianity based on 100% knowledge that all people are included. Exclusionary doctrine would be meaningless...it would be proven completely wrong.

So would venture to guess that most of what dont like about current Christianity would be thrown out the window.

Indeed, but as already said that's another thread entirely. Not my concern.

He created the framework for this thread's discussion. I operated in it. He's wrong.
It seems you've yet to convince anyone but yourself. And how is saying "It's obvious, read the bible, the bible says you should believe in the bible, so you should believe in the bible because the bible says you should" working within the "framework" of this thread's discussion?
Whose trying? Calling God a bastard certainly isn't indicative of maturity.
I didn't just call God a bastard. I called one specific interpretation of God a bastard. I said "If God does X, then he's a bastard." If God doesn't actually do X, I didn't call him a bastard.

If the OP's scenario was the case, I'd totally high five Jesus when I saw him next.

I dreamt about Jesus once but he told me I was dispicable. LOL!

The reasoning is entirely permissible in the framework he established.

No it's not. What is this "framework" bullshit you keep referring to anyway? How is your circular reasoning permissible within my framework?

The implication was that I wasn't really a Christian, unless the statement I addressed was just there to take up space.


"God's a bastard that makes me choose! His stupid little game!" Where is the maturity? Where is the rational human being that is seeking answers to a serious question?

The example god is not just making me choose. I can handle choices. He's playing Russian roulette with five bullets loaded in the gun, and holding it to my head. When you put words in my mouth, you can make me sound how you want me to, sure. Great talent there.

I don't see it.
You never seem to, even though I keep writing it in big letters. Do you need glasses?

That reminds me, I have "BUddy Christ" figure that I love. I always get funny looks for it form the people who go to my church though.

...You never seem to, even though I keep writing it in big letters. Do you need glasses?


I would hazard to guess that he is just trolling for doughnuts. All of his arguments have a lot of words but little meaning other than to seemingly taunt his opponent

Firstly, we wouldn't know. Secondly, what would preclude us from being tarnished by further sin?

Thirdly, it would make no difference to me. Not a jot. If God exist, I've gambled and lost, if he doesn't, I've won and had more fun than any Christian in the process.

Firstly, we wouldn't know. Secondly, what would preclude us from being tarnished by further sin?

Thirdly, it would make no difference to me. Not a jot. If God exist, I've gambled and lost, if he doesn't, I've won and had more fun than any Christian in the process.

I sincerely doubt you have had more fun then me.

32.

Its a long 32.

Time Warp

I sincerely doubt you have had more fun then me.

How old are you?

32

The reasoning is entirely permissible in the framework he established.
You know you're the first person I've ever seen talking about the framework of a thread.




The implication was that I wasn't really a Christian, unless the statement I addressed was just there to take up space.
Ah, I see.




"God's a bastard that makes me choose! His stupid little game!" Where is the maturity? Where is the rational human being that is seeking answers to a serious question?

I don't see it.
ma·tur·i·ty (m-tyr-t, -tr-, -chr-)
n. pl. ma·tur·i·ties
1.
a. The state or quality of being fully grown or developed.
b. The state or quality of being mature.

I don't see anything about rationality or seeking answers to a serious question.

And in case you didn't get it, my point about you implying and later calling GAC immature wasn't that I think he is mature, my point was that being immature would not invalidate his argument in any way, so bringing it up was childish at best, and flaming at worst.

Firstly, we wouldn't know. Secondly, what would preclude us from being tarnished by further sin?

Thirdly, it would make no difference to me. Not a jot. If God exist, I've gambled and lost, if he doesn't, I've won and had more fun than any Christian in the process.

So you are under the assumption that if God does indeed exist that it must be the Christian God?

I just have to wonder, how would the world react if the bible was quite clear: no one was going to hell, no one had to believe. Jesus' sacrifice was enough and there was no need to "acknowledge" it in order to go to heaven. How would this change the face of christianity? If you are christian, how would this change the way you think?I'd be happy.

So you are under the assumption that if God does indeed exist that it must be the Christian God?

With in the constraints of this thread that would be resonable assumption on his part...look at the title of the thread you are posting in.

...and had more fun than any Christian in the process.

That's stereotype. I haven't had much fun subtracted from my life.

With in the constraints of this thread that would be resonable assumption on his part...look at the title of the thread you are posting in.

Not necessarily. I don't think Jesus' God was the same as the Christian God either.

Besides, in the context of this thread, if God exists and Jesus saved EVERYBODY, then what's to lose?

That's stereotype. I haven't had much fun subtracted from my life.

How would you know?

But what difference would it make?
I mean, if it counted for everybody then the Christians wouldnt be right.
It wouldnt be Christianity as it is currently that would be the single unified Faith.

It be a refromed Christianity based on 100% knowledge that all people are included. Exclusionary doctrine would be meaningless...it would be proven completely wrong.

So would venture to guess that most of what dont like about current Christianity would be thrown out the window.

I've heard the official stance of the Catholic Church is that all religions are a path to heaven

And sacrificing his son wasn't a great example of his forgiveness and love for the world?

Maybe it just meant he hated his son.

My god Jesus the Crist our lord saved everyone once and I promise you he would do it again if he had to because he loves us so much...John 3:16 "for god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son for all that believe in him shall never parish but have eternal life" John 3:16 :p

Maybe it just meant he hated his son.

He was his son...

This I know for the Holy Bible tells this good lil girl so!!!

My god Jesus the Crist our lord saved everyone once and I promise you he would do it again if he had to because he loves us so much...John 3:16 "for god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son for all that believe in him shall never parish but have eternal life" John 3:16 :p

You seem to misunderstand. "Everybody" is not equivalent to "everybody who believes," as some people do NOT believe.

Other Religions
Jesus asks today as he asked his disciples: ‘Who is my neighbour?’ In many places in East Anglia today, our neighbour is a Muslim or Jew, a Sikh, Hindu or Buddhist, or someone who adheres to another non-Christian religion.
Each Christian is called by Jesus to love our neighbour as ourself. Not just to tolerate them, not just to let them co-exist in peace, but to love them and care for them and reach out to them in solidarity and friendship.

Forty years on

Why do Catholics now look at people of other religions as friends and neighbours rather than ‘infidels’ needing a crusade?
Forty years ago this year, on 28th October 1965, the Second Vatican Council issued its Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (usually known by the first two words of its Latin text, Nostra Aetate).
This document developed what had already been said in the previous year’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium, art. 16). Although we want every single human being to know and accept the Good News of Jesus Christ, the one Saviour of the world, we also recognise that God’s saving work is mysteriously present in all kinds of ways, and that ‘those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the People of God’. Special mention is given first to the Jews: ‘this people remains most dear to God’. The Council goes on to reminds us that ‘the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator’, and gives first place among these to the Muslims ‘who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God…’ And it goes on to teach: ‘Nor is God himself far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is he who gives to all people life and breath and every other gift, and who as Saviour will that all people be saved.’
The key document of Catholic teaching on other religions is the decree Nostra Aetate of the Second Vatican Council. The full text can be found on the Vatican website:

(Click here) http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Peace through Knowledge
Christians are called to reach out in friendship to our non-Christian neighbours, and to resist any attempts to foment division and hatred in our society.
There are various things we can do to grow together in peace with our Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Hindi, Buddhist and other neighbours:
Get to know each other in a personal way, simply as fellow human beings. Do we talk to them at the bus stop, on the train, at the check-out, wherever we are? People of other faiths can feel rejected simply by the wall of silence and suspicion that often greets them. This is particularly true of Muslims at the moment.
Personal contact is the strongest bridge we can build. ‘Knowing a person’ is more important than ‘knowing about a person’, although they cannot be separated. Friendship overcomes prejudice and fear of any kind. This should include not just individuals, but communities: how can your parish community reach out in friendship to a local community of another religion at their local synagogue, mosque or temple? Ideally such friendship should be public, as a visible sign to the wider community.
Learn about each other’s faith, listening to each other in love, speaking the truth in love, and accepting in love that others do not agree with us. Knowing about each other should lead us to mutual respect and reverence. It does not mean pretending that we agree on most things, or toning down our own central beliefs as Catholics. Respecting another’s faith does not mean watering down or compromising our own. Not does it mean an insensitive attempt to belittle the other’s religion, or impose our own. It has to be said that sometimes offers of friendship are greeted by people using the opportunity to push their own religion: Catholics used to do that sometimes, and now others try it with us. Friendship doesn’t work like that! When we come together, we need to be able to relax together, and not worry that the other person is really there on a mini crusade!
Such dialogue of words, learning about each other, is important, but dialogue of action is also vital. There is so much that we can do together for the good of our society, working for the poor and homeless, the housebound, our young people, refugees and asylum seekers, human rights, supporting marriage and family life.

http://www.catholiceastanglia.org/main/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=21&MMN_position=153:153

That's what the Vatican's view

It would be exactly the same as it is now.

Oh...Snap!

It seems you've yet to convince anyone but yourself. And how is saying "It's obvious, read the bible, the bible says you should believe in the bible, so you should believe in the bible because the bible says you should" working within the "framework" of this thread's discussion?

"Why didn't God make everyone perfect?"

"Why didn't God spell it out for us?"

"Why doesn't God's salvation apply to the whole world?"

Elementary school kids that attend church service once a week for an hour a day learn this in-between arts & crafts time. Wanna know how? The Bible.

I didn't just call God a bastard. I called one specific interpretation of God a bastard. I said "If God does X, then he's a bastard." If God doesn't actually do X, I didn't call him a bastard.

A specific interpretation that you hold to be true given the virulence in which you attack it. It's also a position you want us to rebut also given the fact you bother to mention it.

[QUOTE=ElectronX;12735127]"Why didn't God make everyone perfect?"

"Why didn't God spell it out for us?"

"Why doesn't God's salvation apply to the whole world?"

Elementary school kids that attend church service once a week for an hour a day learn this in-between arts & crafts time. Wanna know how? The Bible./QUOTE]

You seem to have missed the point. Those answers only make sense within the context of the bible. It's a circular and self-referencing text.

"Why didn't God make everyone perfect?"

"Why didn't God spell it out for us?"

"Why doesn't God's salvation apply to the whole world?"

Elementary school kids that attend church service once a week for an hour a day learn this in-between arts & crafts time. Wanna know how? The Bible.



A specific interpretation that you hold to be true given the virulence in which you attack it. It's also a position you want us to rebut also given the fact you bother to mention it.


Why didn't He make it clear, or at least plausible, that the Bible is accurate, then?

No it's not. What is this "framework" bullshit you keep referring to anyway? How is your circular reasoning permissible within my framework?

The framework is what keeps the debate from going off onto a tangent that keeps us from addressing any of the questions asked. The viability of the Christian religion, for example, is one such tangent.

"How can God play this game with us and make us choose?" God, as in the Christian God spells it out nicely. Whether or not God is real was not the question asked, and goes so far outside the boundaries setup in this thread that it requires an entire topic to get anywhere. And even then I doubt the mods would let it stand; it's be a flame-fest.

The example god is not just making me choose. I can handle choices. He's playing Russian roulette with five bullets loaded in the gun, and holding it to my head. When you put words in my mouth, you can make me sound how you want me to, sure. Great talent there.

No, no he's really not. He's handing you a very simple pamphlet with very simple instructions on how to achieve salvation. Only if I agree to debate with you as to the veracity of God's existence could it ever possibly be the situation you described, but then again if we're not talking about the Christian God anymore, who are we talking about?

You never seem to, even though I keep writing it in big letters. Do you need glasses?

For things far away but not to read what's right in front of me.

[QUOTE=ElectronX;12735127]"Why didn't God make everyone perfect?"

"Why didn't God spell it out for us?"

"Why doesn't God's salvation apply to the whole world?"

Elementary school kids that attend church service once a week for an hour a day learn this in-between arts & crafts time. Wanna know how? The Bible./QUOTE]

You seem to have missed the point. Those answers only make sense within the context of the bible. It's a circular and self-referencing text.

And? He's talking about the Christian God. The Christian God prescribed the method for attaining Salvation. He denied this to be the case.

What is the problem?

ElectronX, what you fail to realise is that God, if he exists, failed to make it clear that the Bible IS the Truth. Indeed, looking at the evidence, it seems implausible that the Bible is accurate. Why did God not make the opposite be true and make it clear that the Bible is the Truth?

You know you're the first person I've ever seen talking about the framework of a thread.

Problem with trying to answer what is pertinent and ignoring what isn't?

ma·tur·i·ty (m-tyr-t, -tr-, -chr-)
n. pl. ma·tur·i·ties
1.
a. The state or quality of being fully grown or developed.
b. The state or quality of being mature.

I don't see anything about rationality or seeking answers to a serious question.

'The quality of being mature' is not saying anything.

Rationality and seeking answers was also not a part of the same statement.

And in case you didn't get it, my point about you implying and later calling GAC immature wasn't that I think he is mature, my point was that being immature would not invalidate his argument in any way, so bringing it up was childish at best, and flaming at worst.

I get your point, I fail to find merit in it. Being immature to the degree that you're baiting an entire religion by calling its deity a bastard is pretty much enough to invalidate any and everything he says; pointing out that fact is only flaming if its an inconvenience to the one whose position was just lampooned.

ElectronX, what you fail to realise is that God, if he exists, failed to make it clear that the Bible IS the Truth. Indeed, looking at the evidence, it seems implausible that the Bible is accurate. Why did God not make the opposite be true and make it clear that the Bible is the Truth?

Really? The Way, the Truth, and the Light. Clear enough to me.

The accuracy of the Bible is not my concern; he asked about the Christian God so we're discussing the Christian God.

Unless you have a different Bible than anyone else here does I'll stick with the one humanity has been using for the past few dozen centuries.

Really? The Way, the Truth, and the Light. Clear enough to me.

The accuracy of the Bible is not my concern; he asked about the Christian God so we're discussing the Christian God.

Unless you have a different Bible than anyone else here does I'll stick with the one humanity has been using for the past few dozen centuries.

Well, there are multiple versions of the Bible, some of them going as far to have a different 10 commandments from each other, but...

Yes, we are discussing the Christian God, and I am saying that he is illogical.

But God IS a bastard.
Satan is widely acknowledged to be a bastard, right?
He killed 10 people, and those with God's permission.
God killed over 2,000,000 people, often for little reason.
Therefore, God is 200,000+ times as much a bastard as Satan is.
Simple math.

Unless you have a different Bible than anyone else here does I'll stick with the one humanity has been using for the past few dozen centuries.
And to this:
The Vedas, the Quran, the Talmud, the writings of Buddha, etc.
(The Vedas and Buddha's writings are both older then the Christian Bible BTW)

Yes, we are discussing the Christian God, and I am saying that he is illogical.

Illogic does not preclude existence or validity. It makes it less likely, especially in comparison to more logical interpretations of God, but does not rule it out.

Hmmm. . . what is the point of salvation? Isn't it to go to Heaven? How is that undermined by everyone getting an automatic pass? Or are you suggesting there is a different point to salvation?

look at it this way. how would you like to spend eternity with the asshole that murdered you and your family, because he new that it wouldn't keep him out of heaven:mad:

John 3:16.

john 3:16 is not accurate because he was not there to save all just the people israel aka the non believers/false pharasees;)

Well, there are multiple versions of the Bible, some of them going as far to have a different 10 commandments from each other, but...

Indeed there are, and in each there is a prescription for salvation. Most of them being identical to each other. How does that matter?

Yes, we are discussing the Christian God, and I am saying that he is illogical.

Good for you. Start a thread on it and I might peek in. Otherwise I'll be fine debating in this thread, which presupposes God's existence within the framework of this debate.

john 3:16 is not accurate because he was not there to save all just the people israel aka the non believers/false pharasees;)

And God so loved the World...

The World is not just Israel unless you read God's mind and he felt like screwing around with billions of people throughout the ages.

Indeed there are, and in each there is a prescription for salvation. Most of them being identical to each other. How does that matter?



Good for you. Start a thread on it and I might peek in. Otherwise I'll be fine debating in this thread, which presupposes God's existence within the framework of this debate.

If you want to talk about what the thread was originally about, it's about what would happen if the Bible clearly said Jesus saved everybody, believer or not... maybe you should start your own thread?

EDIT: I'm not actually saying to, I'm just sayint technically you shouldn't admonish me for not being on the subject of the OP when you yourself are not.

look at it this way. how would you like to spend eternity with the asshole that murdered you and your family, because he new that it wouldn't keep him out of heaven:mad:

Amusing, and it might even be remotely applicable, but for the fact that the asshole who murdered my family could get into heaven, while I, who have openly rejected the deity of my forebears, am condemned. Which of these situations is more unequal, the one where we both attain forgiveness, and where the murderer is forced to face those he wronged and understand the horror of what he had done, and to receive forgiveness not only from god but from those he wronged, or the one where he gets to sip tea with Jesus while I burn in hell?

So the point of salvation is punishment? Why is this ultimately necessary? Why must people be punished (especially the most excruciating punishment imaginable, for eternity) for sins? And why do those who believe in God get a free pass, but not everyone else? Why isn't everyone saved? Why does God feel a need to play this game with humanity?

well now lets see...you don't believe in his rules but you want to reap the benefits, you feel the punishment is too harsh even though you wouldn't have to worry if you could follow instructions given by him,and you wonder why he won't hook up people who turn their backs on him. when is the last time you were so nice to someone who sent you off like that:confused:

look at it this way. how would you like to spend eternity with the asshole that murdered you and your family, because he new that it wouldn't keep him out of heaven:mad:

Hey, if we're all basking in the Radiant Glory of the Presence of God, who would give two shits?

If you want to talk about what the thread was originally about, it's about what would happen if the Bible clearly said Jesus saved everybody, believer or not... maybe you should start your own thread?

What if God saved everyone isn't a discussion question. Why doesn't he save everyone however, is. And given that the former leads into the later, I'm well within the confines of the debate.

EDIT: I'm not actually saying to, I'm just sayint technically you shouldn't admonish me for not being on the subject of the OP when you yourself are not.

I'm not denying the existence of God in a thread about God existing.

How is that off-topic?

Amusing, and it might even be remotely applicable, but for the fact that the asshole who murdered my family could get into heaven, while I, who have openly rejected the deity of my forebears, am condemned. Which of these situations is more unequal, the one where we both attain forgiveness, and where the murderer is forced to face those he wronged and understand the horror of what he had done, and to receive forgiveness not only from god but from those he wronged, or the one where he gets to sip tea with Jesus while I burn in hell?

in my humble opinion if you reject god, and he kills people just because he can, you can forgive each other in hell, because i fail to see how a person or group of people that choose to be openly defiant to god's teachings would want to be in his heaven. hell is clearly the other choice, and if you didn't choose god all your life you shouldn't after either:gundge:

well now lets see...you don't believe in his rules but you want to reap the benefits, you feel the punishment is too harsh even though you wouldn't have to worry if you could follow instructions given by him,and you wonder why he won't hook up people who turn their backs on him. when is the last time you were so nice to someone who sent you off like that:confused:

Did God appear to you to tell you this or did someone tell you this was true because it's written in a book and you believed them? How many books out there claim to know the truth about life? How is one supposed to know which book to put their faith in? Could this be spoken any clearer to you people who think that just because the Bible says something that it should be taken as fact unquestioned by everybody?

What if God saved everyone isn't a discussion question. Why doesn't he save everyone however, is. And given that the former leads into the later, I'm well within the confines of the debate.



I'm not denying the existence of God in a thread about God existing.

How is that off-topic?

I disagree. I think that religion in general lends itself to very broad discussion, and to resist it flowing in that direction is pointless. The OP doesn't even have to flow into the discussion of why he doesn't save everyone-- as I read it, it was a question of what, exactly the world would be like if he did, but the thread flowed towards why, exactly he doesn't.

I apologize that I might not be making the most sense right now, I'm slightly drunk.:(

And God so loved the World...

The World is not just Israel unless you read God's mind and he felt like screwing around with billions of people throughout the ages.

what billions you think way too much of yourself and your particular brand of religion, cause last time i checked half of the worlds christians became so at the buisness of a weapon ie: the crusades, the spanish inquisition etc:mp5:

in my humble opinion if you reject god, and he kills people just because he can, you can forgive each other in hell, because i fail to see how a person or group of people that choose to be openly defiant to god's teachings would want to be in his heaven. hell is clearly the other choice, and if you didn't choose god all your life you shouldn't after either:gundge:

That's a little unequal, then. An infinite damnation for a finite life. And you missed the point. In Christianity a mass murderer can sincerely repent and go to heaven, while a poor, charitable fellow who doesn't believe in god goes to hell.

My point of forgiveness was from the supposition that we were both already in heaven.

It depends, really.

I mean, does he use an external hard drive, usb stick, floppy?

I'd imagine each person would be around 200 mb..

I disagree. I think that religion in general lends itself to very broad discussion, and to resist it flowing in that direction is pointless. The OP doesn't even have to flow into the discussion of why he doesn't save everyone-- as I read it, it was a question of what, exactly the world would be like if he did, but the thread flowed towards why, exactly he doesn't.

Indeed it does, but that doesn't mean we jump from one topic to another entirely different from the former because they are related by virtue of discussing the same topic in some form.

That's like talking about battle-tanks because they're a form of vehicle in a discussion about the best type of sport's car.

I apologize that I might not be making the most sense right now, I'm slightly drunk.:(

Booze is good.

It depends, really.

I mean, does he use an external hard drive, usb stick, floppy?

I'd imagine each person would be around 200 mb..

He uses a couple of RAID 5's and a Terabyte HD. The reincarnation process is him loading you onto an external hard drive as he makes room for new people, and then loading you back up in a sort of shuffle fashion.

It depends, really.

I mean, does he use an external hard drive, usb stick, floppy?

I'd imagine each person would be around 200 mb..

J man gets the best encryption software available in Heaven.

Did God appear to you to tell you this or did someone tell you this was true because it's written in a book and you believed them? How many books out there claim to know the truth about life? How is one supposed to know which book to put their faith in? Could this be spoken any clearer to you people who think that just because the Bible says something that it should be taken as fact unquestioned by everybody?

without that book (which is not the one i subscribe to) what would you know know about god period. and those crazy books influenced enough people to the point where even people like you who in their own special way if you admit it or not, are trying to rationalize with god (and yourself) for a free pass to heaven, because one thing is for sure, we don't know for sure what is completely accurate but deep down theres still fear. why else would you indulge this thread and if i'm wrong then share your wellspring of knowledge so us blind sheep can be enlightened ;)

That's a little unequal, then. An infinite damnation for a finite life. And you missed the point. In Christianity a mass murderer can sincerely repent and go to heaven, while a poor, charitable fellow who doesn't believe in god goes to hell.

My point of forgiveness was from the supposition that we were both already in heaven.

but people who wait till the 11th hour to ask for forgiveness usually die at 10:30

without that book (which is not the one i subscribe to) what would you know know about god period. and those crazy books influenced enough people to the point where even people like you who in their own special way if you admit it or not, are trying to rationalize with god (and yourself) for a free pass to heaven, because one thing is for sure, we don't know for sure what is completely accurate but deep down theres still fear. why else would you indulge this thread and if i'm wrong then share your wellspring of knowledge so us blind sheep can be enlightened ;)

Or you could be a Hindu, have a Hindu holy book, and not give a boar's tit about Heaven and salvation through faith, because there is no Heaven, and there is no salvation through faith.

but people who wait till the 11th hour to ask for forgiveness usually die at 10:30

Witty, but untrue.

He uses a couple of RAID 5's and a Terabyte HD. The reincarnation process is him loading you onto an external hard drive as he makes room for new people, and then loading you back up in a sort of shuffle fashion.

J man gets the best encryption software available in Heaven.

Are these available at Best Buy?

Are these available at Best Buy?

No, only at Godmart. Shop God, Shop Godmart.

And he's also got the best compression algorithm divinity can buy.

without that book (which is not the one i subscribe to) what would you know know about god period. and those crazy books influenced enough people to the point where even people like you who in their own special way if you admit it or not, are trying to rationalize with god (and yourself) for a free pass to heaven, because one thing is for sure, we don't know for sure what is completely accurate but deep down theres still fear. why else would you indulge this thread and if i'm wrong then share your wellspring of knowledge so us blind sheep can be enlightened ;)


It's very hard to read your posts with the way you write, and you make way too many assumptions for my liking. I'll attempt to respond:

Without that book, there are many other texts on 'God' to learn about what people think is out there.

I don't need to rationalize 'God'. I believe in 'God' personally. If you read my response to you above, it in no way called into question 'Gods' existence.

I indulged in this thread for the same reason I indule in any thread. It interests me.

Witty, but untrue.

how so, i mean how many people do you know (other than moses) that know when they will die cause what i know for sure is that luke warm christians far out number true believers dubya:rolleyes:

how so, i mean how many people do you know (other than moses) that know when they will die cause what i know for sure is that luke warm christians far out number true believers dubya:rolleyes:

Depends on who you deem lukewarm Christians, and who's actually doing the judging, as opposed to speculating on the Christianness of other people.

It's very hard to read your posts with the way you write, and you make way too many assumptions for my liking. I'll attempt to respond:

Without that book, there are many other texts on 'God' to learn about what people think is out there.

I don't need to rationalize 'God'. I believe in 'God' personally. If you read my response to you above, it in no way called into question 'Gods' existence.

I indulged in this thread for the same reason I indule in any thread. It interests me.

please enlighten me unless this is too hard to read, run down a few of these texts that you read. i hope i can assume that you read more than one?

Depends on who you deem lukewarm Christians, and who's actually doing the judging, as opposed to speculating on the Christianness of other people.

you can run that poop all you want, but the rules and requirements to be a christian are in the bible.... or am i judging there too:confused:

No, only at Godmart. Shop God, Shop Godmart.

And he's also got the best compression algorithm divinity can buy.

You see? This is why we have over-population problems.

please enlighten me unless this is too hard to read, run down a few of these texts that you read. i hope i can assume that you read more than one?

I don't let anyone tell me what God is. One can only truely know what one experiences.

please enlighten me unless this is too hard to read, run down a few of these texts that you read. i hope i can assume that you read more than one?

The Vedas. The Bhagvad Gita. The Upanishads. The Prose Edda. The Theravada. The Shvetambara. The Guru Granth Sahib. The Tao-te-Ching. The I Ching. The Katha (also known as The Gathas of Zoarastrianism) The Dasam Granth Sahib. The Samaritan Pentateuch.

Hinduism alone has a hundred texts.

I've gone through the trouble of highlighting the ones I've actually read in full or in part.

you can run that poop all you want, but the rules and requirements to be a christian are in the bible.... or am i judging there too:confused:

It depends. Many, many people have personally accepted your god. However, there are plenty of people who feel anyone who doesn't advocate burning of (insert evil non-Christian infidel category) are not True Christians(TM). Then there are the people who believe in the flowery sweet Christianity that look at the Fire and Brimstone fellows and say "You're not True Christians(TM)." I'm not a Christian. I haven't read the Bible in full, and the parts of it I have read lead me to not desire further reading. However, there's a lot of this "Lukewarm Christians," and "Cafeteria Christians" horshit flying around, and it seems to be landing on more than a few faces.

You see? This is why we have over-population problems.

Agreed. If he'd just clear some of the spam off of his hard drive, and some of the more annoying viruses, the world would be a better place. Keep the porn, though. We needs our hot chicks, yes we does.

I don't let anyone tell me what God is. One can only truely know what one experiences.

I saw frailty too:rolleyes:

The Vedas. The Bhagvad Gita. The Upanishads. The Prose Edda. The Theravada. The Shvetambara. The Guru Granth Sahib. The Tao-te-Ching. The I Ching. The Katha (also known as The Gathas of Zoarastrianism) The Dasam Granth Sahib. The Samaritan Pentateuch.

Hinduism alone has a hundred texts.

I've gone through the trouble of highlighting the ones I've actually read in full or in part.

a likley story

I'd imagine each person would be around 200 mb..

Nah, way more than that. At least a terabyte each for functional copying of the brain and its structures, and probably another terabyte for the rest (a sequenced genome is 6 gigabytes by itself, to say nothing of all the other stuff you'd want to store.

And yes, this has been worked out for practical purposes.

a likley story

I've read some of those, not in full, but I've read them.

Nah, way more than that. At least a terabyte each for functional copying of the brain and its structures, and probably another terabyte for the rest (a sequenced genome is 6 gigabytes by itself, to say nothing of all the other stuff you'd want to store.

And yes, this has been worked out for practical purposes.

That's pretty absurd.

Not the amount of space it takes, that's pretty sensible.

But that someone would actually go through the trouble of working it out...

I've read some of those, not in full, but I've read them.

Aye, and I've been wanting to get my hands on a translation of the I Ching for a while, but I lack the time to read it for the next month or so.

But that someone would actually go through the trouble of working it out...

Interestingly enough, it's very necessary for brain simulation research and molecular dynamics since those projects generate reams of data that has to be stored and analyzed. In fact, it will only get bigger as more and more accurate models need more and more data storage to accurately simulate the desired end.

In regard to the genome, it will require 6 gigabytes per person, if we go by current data, which works out to around 8 exabytes of data to store the genomes of people in the OECD alone. That is, of course, over eight million terabytes of data.

I advise investing in data storage companies, because it's going to be a very profitable decade ahead.

It depends. Many, many people have personally accepted your god. However, there are plenty of people who feel anyone who doesn't advocate burning of (insert evil non-Christian infidel category) are not True Christians(TM). Then there are the people who believe in the flowery sweet Christianity that look at the Fire and Brimstone fellows and say "You're not True Christians(TM)." I'm not a Christian. I haven't read the Bible in full, and the parts of it I have read lead me to not desire further reading. However, there's a lot of this "Lukewarm Christians," and "Cafeteria Christians" horshit flying around, and it seems to be landing on more than a few faces.

too true and for the record, i was born into cristianity and have seen my fair share of bible thumpers and hot gospelers, but the one really good message i got came from my dad, when he told me that the only way to be a true brother is to want for my brother, what i want for myself:)

I saw frailty too:rolleyes:

That was actually a good flick, and arguably Bill Paxton's best.

He was his son...

So....he was emo too? :p

you can run that poop all you want, but the rules and requirements to be a christian are in the bible.... or am i judging there too:confused:

And no two sects, or even two people, interpret the rules exactly. Everybody is a good Christian, but only to themselves my friend.

Think about, let it sink in.

well now lets see...you don't believe in his rules but you want to reap the benefits, you feel the punishment is too harsh even though you wouldn't have to worry if you could follow instructions given by him,and you wonder why he won't hook up people who turn their backs on him. when is the last time you were so nice to someone who sent you off like that:confused:

Every time I don't shoot people who dislike the way I look. It's really not that hard a thing to do, morally, to not condemn people to hell for eternity.

What if God saved everyone isn't a discussion question. Why doesn't he save everyone however, is. And given that the former leads into the later, I'm well within the confines of the debate.

You fail.
I made the thread, and this is not what it's about. The thread is about what would it be like IF god saved everyone. That is the discussion question. After all your bitching about my framework, you got it completely wrong.

And besides that, any discussion of people still going to hell is obviously outside of the hypothetical. If it is outside of the hypothetical, it no longer presupposes the existence of God, and therefore we can talk about the world you and I live in, where God may or may not exist, and we really just don't know for sure until we die.

And sacrificing his son wasn't a great example of his forgiveness and love for the world?

lol, not sure how relevant this is, but that reminded me of a post I read on NSG last year that I really liked. Pretty much the poster said: "Why would God kill his son to show us forgiveness? I don't kick my dog to forgive my cat."

lol, not sure how relevant this is, but that reminded me of a post I read on NSG last year that I really liked. Pretty much the poster said: "Why would God kill his son to show us forgiveness? I don't kick my dog to forgive my cat."

I believe it is meant to show God's forgiveness for all of the sins of mankind; at the time, animal sacrifice was used as a tool of atonement for sins and wrongdoing, and so Jesus' giving up of his life was to reflect the penultimate sacrifice that would forgive all sins eternally. After this point, no longer did people have to appeal God in the form of sacrifice to ask for forgiveness because it was given to them by God's own sacrifice of himself in the form of his son Jesus.

Now, I am neither Christian (polytheist, in fact) nor a scholar of theology, but this is my interpretation of the meaning of the story.

I just have to wonder, how would the world react if the bible was quite clear: no one was going to hell, no one had to believe. Jesus' sacrifice was enough and there was no need to "acknowledge" it in order to go to heaven. How would this change the face of christianity? If you are christian, how would this change the way you think?

it wouldn't. this concept is older than christianity - in the context of christian theology it was discuss by Origen, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Basil the great admits that the vast majority of 3rd century christians believed in universal salvation, which is called Apokatastasis in the greek.

I believe it is meant to show God's forgiveness for all of the sins of mankind; at the time, animal sacrifice was used as a tool of atonement for sins and wrongdoing, and so Jesus' giving up of his life was to reflect the penultimate sacrifice that would forgive all sins eternally. After this point, no longer did people have to appeal God in the form of sacrifice to ask for forgiveness because it was given to them by God's own sacrifice of himself in the form of his son Jesus.

Now, I am neither Christian (polytheist, in fact) nor a scholar of theology, but this is my interpretation of the meaning of the story.

Oh yeah, I went to a Christians high school so I understand what it represents, but just from a superficial viewpoint, the poster's comments were quite funny and makes the whole thing seem very irrational.

Oh...Snap!

Well, what would you think would be different? People would just have spent the time finding other religions as reasons to kill each other.

I believe it is meant to show God's forgiveness for all of the sins of mankind; at the time, animal sacrifice was used as a tool of atonement for sins and wrongdoing, and so Jesus' giving up of his life was to reflect the penultimate sacrifice that would forgive all sins eternally. After this point, no longer did people have to appeal God in the form of sacrifice to ask for forgiveness because it was given to them by God's own sacrifice of himself in the form of his son Jesus.

Now, I am neither Christian (polytheist, in fact) nor a scholar of theology, but this is my interpretation of the meaning of the story.

christ died because death was part of the human condition, and to redeem the human condition it had to be grafted onto the divine condition...that is, someone had to have human and divine natures simultaneously. that's the necessity of the incarnation. to the christians of the ancient world, and of the east up to today, we were saved at the annunciation, our salvation was manifest in bethlehem, and it was experienced fully in the harrowing of hell. punishment and justice had absolutely nothing to do with it. it was more medical than legal. to quote St. Athanasius "God became man that man might become God" - it has nothing to do with punishment or legal pardon. it's like grafting the branch off a dying tree onto a healthy one. "I am the vine and you are the branches". no christian theologian before Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century ever discussed Christ's death as a liberation from punishment. read the wikipedia article on "Theosis", which is salvation as it is understood by the ancient christian world and the modern eastern orthodox church. judicial metaphor was never taken literally by the church until halfway through christian history, and then it was only taken literally by roughly half of the christian world...and the half that didn't read the gospels in the origional language and was most isolated from the majority of the theological schools of the ancient mediteranian. the only reason it wasn't corrected was because every other school was speaking greek at the time rome (which was one of 5 major centers, each with their own patriarch, the pope being the symbolic first among equals, not the leader or authority) was speaking latin, which is not a philosophically inclined language. no one in the roman world failed to learn greek if they wanted to study theology or philosophy. only after civilization collapsed in the west did latin become an acceptable language for theology...and latin theologians developed their own school in relative isolation from the rest of christian history after that happened...which has given us such theological concepts as god killing christ to satisfy a twisted sense of justice, the idea of predestination, limited atonement, and pretty much every other idiocy in christian history.

Society would collapse without the need to follow God's moral guidelines.
srsly

actually there's a strong case that christianity caused the fall of rome in the first place.

actually there's a strong case that christianity caused the fall of rome in the first place.

Right... the Goths were Christians, after all.

Right... the Goths were Christians, after all.

well, Arians. then again, so was half the byzantine court. the arian conflict in large part explains why "orthodox" christians dislike homosexuals...byzantine court functionaries were usually "eunuchs" (a catch-all term in the ancient world for men who were impotent or otherwise sexually non-functional with women...there's ample evidence in roman legal codes that many, at some times most "eunuchs" were anatomically whole but homosexual men) and in general were Arians, the political opponents of the strain of christianity that eventually won out. discrediting them and making them out to be sinful monstrosities was part of the aftermath of the orthodox takeover of the formerly arian court.

well, Arians. then again, so was half the byzantine court. the arian conflict in large part explains why "orthodox" christians dislike homosexuals...byzantine court functionaries were usually "eunuchs" (a catch-all term in the ancient world for men who were impotent or otherwise sexually non-functional with women...there's ample evidence in roman legal codes that many, at some times most "eunuchs" were anatomically whole but homosexual men) and in general were Arians, the political opponents of the strain of christianity that eventually won out. discrediting them and making them out to be sinful monstrosities was part of the aftermath of the orthodox takeover of the formerly arian court.

Arian is a religion now? :confused:

Arian is a religion now? :confused:

Arianism refers to the theological positions made famous by the theologian Arius (c. AD 250-336), who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 4th century. The most controversial aspect of the teachings of Arius dealt with the relationship between God the Father and the person of Jesus with significant trinitarian implications.

other than Gnosticism, it's the earliest "heresy" that orthodox christians defeated politically. it involves the belief the jesus was a created being and not co-eternal with the father, and challenges the trinity. it prompted the first great ecumenical council, if I recall correctly. ancient christianity was incredibly diverse...I always love when modern protestants pretend that their theology is identical to that of the apostles. most of them aren't even aware of the heavy hellenistic influences...for example the opening of the gospel of john makes reference to christ in terms of platonic philosophy, and not judaism. catholics know more, but most tend to have a heavily skewed biased towards the latin schools of thought which were not in power until much later. most protestant seminaries are complete jokes. people would be better informed about christianity if they took an introductory philosophy course...*sigh*

You fail.
I made the thread, and this is not what it's about. The thread is about what would it be like IF god saved everyone. That is the discussion question. After all your bitching about my framework, you got it completely wrong.

You wanted a serious discussion did you not? "What if everyone went to heaven." doesn't generate discussion. Hence why you bothered with "Why isn't it so" when people took the bait. If you want to be petty, fine by me; I find it amusing.

And besides that, any discussion of people still going to hell is obviously outside of the hypothetical. If it is outside of the hypothetical, it no longer presupposes the existence of God, and therefore we can talk about the world you and I live in, where God may or may not exist, and we really just don't know for sure until we die.

Then go ahead and do that; I don't have to participate in it if you want to be silly for the sake of being silly. I can however, accept your concessions if you refuse to deal with the points already raised. And I just did.

what if, as is quite likely, there is no greater peril to 'save' anyone FROM, then the mutualy suicidal self destructiveness of human society?

whatever is claimed by any one belief in its writings, is neither more nor less then that.

there may be one god, no god or zillions of them, and all some or none, of the revealers of organized belief, may have been choosen by the same god to channel its will to us, yet for all that, whatever gods, governments, or anything else see fit to exist, it remains up to us, to avoid screwing everything up, for each other.

=^^=
.../\...

You wanted a serious discussion did you not? "What if everyone went to heaven." doesn't generate discussion.

erm, the 13 pages of responses kind of seem to imply somewhat that it *does*

erm, the 13 pages of responses kind of seem to imply somewhat that it *does*

Not on its own, hence everything else that came after my statement you forgot to actually quote. Strawmen aren't that fun.

Not on its own, hence everything else that came after my statement you forgot to actually quote. Strawmen aren't that fun.

...his prompting generated your response. and no, I didn't forget to quote your statement, I completely ignored it and had no desire to read it.

...his prompting generated your response. and no, I didn't forget to quote your statement, I completely ignored it and had no desire to read it.

Then everything you say isn't worth responding to, because its entirely illegitimate.

Good day.

Then everything you say isn't worth responding to, because its entirely illegitimate.

Good day.

that was sweeping and inaccurate...it's not difficult to surmise that if you are responding to a thread, and someone started the thread, then that person's initial post generated your response and by extension all responses to your response. I wouldn't bother quibbling with you but I'm sitting at work with nothing else to do. -_-

that was sweeping and inaccurate...it's not difficult to surmise that if you are responding to a thread, and someone started the thread, then that person's initial post generated your response and by extension all responses to your response. I wouldn't bother quibbling with you but I'm sitting at work with nothing else to do. -_-

What is the sky were green, and what if the sky being green only brought positives to the world? The discussion is over so quickly that the thread is removed as spam. Assuming, of course, that's all the thread is meant to discuss. The obvious question is what _isn't_ the sky green? Just as the obvious question is why _isn't_ everyone auto-saved by God once everyone acknowledges that such would be a good thing. That's what generates discussion, and what I came here to discuss.

And if you are bored, at work, why not, I duno, do some work?

And if you are bored, at work, why not, I duno, do some work?

not that it's any of your business, but I'm a night clerk and my responsibilities leave large amounts of dead time in which I study or write. besides, the idea of universal salvation was a major part of early christian theology and the subject of discussion by many of the church fathers. if people had a grasp of basic church history there'd be plenty to discuss. the concept is referred to as Apokatastasis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apokatastasis)in the greek, and many academic and theological discussions of it exist and continue to this day. the implications of this theological position for Soteriological discussions in the east and west are immense.

because you came in and criticized a poor caricature of one sect of modern christianity, which is largely ignorant of its philosophical roots doesn't mean that the subject would not have had merit without your input.

and in case you're wondering, I am not a christian so this has nothing to do with a defense of my personal opinion.

just out of curiousity, as a voice in the wilderness and not addressed to any debatee in particular, but how, precisely, is a personality cult supposed to save anyone from anything?

=^^=
.../\...

not that it's any of your business, but I'm a night clerk and my responsibilities leave large amounts of dead time in which I study or write. besides, the idea of universal salvation was a major part of early christian theology and the subject of discussion by many of the church fathers. if people had a grasp of basic church history there'd be plenty to discuss. the concept is referred to as Apokatastasis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apokatastasis)in the greek, and many academic and theological discussions of it exist and continue to this day. the implications of this theological position for Soteriological discussions in the east and west are immense.

You made it public business when you mentioned it. Don't want to talk about it, then don't talk about it.

Indeed, universal salvation was a topic of extreme discussion during Christianities formative years. How is that relevant now? The discussion is centered upon why it isn't that way based upon scriptural prescription.

because you came in and criticized a poor caricature of one sect of modern christianity, which is largely ignorant of its philosophical roots doesn't mean that the subject would not have had merit without your input.

I didn't criticize any sect of modern Christianity. I criticized Alpha's position that God is a bastard.

just out of curiousity, as a voice in the wilderness and not addressed to any debatee in particular, but how, precisely, is a personality cult supposed to save anyone from anything?

=^^=
.../\...

How is believing we're going to run out of resources within the next ten years going to save anyone from anything?

I just have to wonder, how would the world react if the bible was quite clear: no one was going to hell, no one had to believe. Jesus' sacrifice was enough and there was no need to "acknowledge" it in order to go to heaven. How would this change the face of christianity? If you are christian, how would this change the way you think?
Probably wouldn't change much. The Bible says a lot of things that are completely ignored by 99% of Christians.

Indeed, universal salvation was a topic of extreme discussion during Christianities formative years. How is that relevant now? The discussion is centered upon why it isn't that way based upon scriptural prescription.

because it continues to be believed by millions of christians and discussed in second largest christian sect which takes St. Gregory of Nyssa much more seriously than the west does.

I didn't criticize any sect of modern Christianity. I criticized Alpha's position that God is a bastard.

I suppose I misread this:

But if you don't have to be good, and you don't go to hell, then what is Christianity but a word with no substance?

I was skimming and read that as saying that christianity in which no one went to hell was a word without substance, which would be a criticism of many modern sects. my mistake.

Probably wouldn't change much. The Bible says a lot of things that are completely ignored by 99% of Christians.

"jesus was a pacifist (http://www.plowcreek.org/bible_pacifism.htm#Scriptures_supporting_Pacifism)? the spirit has obviously not moved you to understand the scriptures. jesus supports our war..."

You wanted a serious discussion did you not? "What if everyone went to heaven." doesn't generate discussion. Hence why you bothered with "Why isn't it so" when people took the bait. If you want to be petty, fine by me; I find it amusing.

It seemed to generate plenty of discussion. But I bothered on the "Why isn't it so" because that is also relevant. However, you can't say that Christianity is the obvious choice because the hypothetical posits that it is. That's not how hypotheticals work. by removing one part of the hypothetical (That jesus saves everyone) but leaving in the other (that God's existence is assumed) you skew the debate.

Then go ahead and do that; I don't have to participate in it if you want to be silly for the sake of being silly. I can however, accept your concessions if you refuse to deal with the points already raised. And I just did.
Wow, you don't just know how to put words in my mouth, you know how to put concessions in my mouth. Damn. Get yourself a talk show. Pretty much everything I've said in regards to what you've said in this thread has been showing you why your understanding of the framework of this debate is wrong, and how everything you've said is irrelevant.

Indeed, universal salvation was a topic of extreme discussion during Christianities formative years. How is that relevant now? The discussion is centered upon why it isn't that way based upon scriptural prescription.
It's relevant now because despite the fact that people have stopped believing in it, it could still be true. Facts do not change because some clerics that don't agree with them come to power. It is also relevant because some would like to see the Christian faith move back to this assumption.

I didn't criticize any sect of modern Christianity. I criticized Alpha's position that God is a bastard.
you still don't understand what I'm saying, do you? for the record, I did not say simply that God is a bastard, only that any god who fits one particular description is a bastard. I know my nasty adult words frighten you, but this is NSG, not sunday school. Suck it up.

No, no he's really not. He's handing you a very simple pamphlet with very simple instructions on how to achieve salvation. Only if I agree to debate with you as to the veracity of God's existence could it ever possibly be the situation you described, but then again if we're not talking about the Christian God anymore, who are we talking about?
The bible is not a simple pamphlet. Biblical contradictions (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html) are numerous.
I get your point, I fail to find merit in it. Being immature to the degree that you're baiting an entire religion by calling its deity a bastard is pretty much enough to invalidate any and everything he says; pointing out that fact is only flaming if its an inconvenience to the one whose position was just lampooned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
What if God saved everyone isn't a discussion question.

And who exactly are you to decide what we may and may not discuss here?

I saw frailty too:rolleyes:

say what now?

That was actually a good flick, and arguably Bill Paxton's best.

OH it's a movie? Never heard of it. What does it have to do with what I was saying?

OH it's a movie? Never heard of it. What does it have to do with what I was saying?

Not much, really.

It's a fairly shitty horror-esque movie about a father and two sons. The father is a demon hunter, who goes around killing ordinary looking people whose crimes he claims he can see when he touches them. The one son goes on to be a mass murderer, and the other son ends up killing that brother and then continuing on with his father's work (now that his father is dead.)

The somewhat silly thing about the whole movie is that "demon" in the context of the movie could just as easily be called "murderer" and the movie would remain 100% consistent, so it was just a somewhat superstitious plot device that only somewhat supplements the "visions from god" upon contact with "demons."

Oh, and it's revealed at the end that the father wasn't crazy, and that he really did get visions, as does the son now (who I think is played by Matthew McConaughey)

Yeah, it was a pretty shitty movie all around.

because it continues to be believed by millions of christians and discussed in second largest christian sect which takes St. Gregory of Nyssa much more seriously than the west does.

Really? I don't know of any.


I suppose I misread this:


Yeah you did.

I was skimming and read that as saying that christianity in which no one went to hell was a word without substance, which would be a criticism of many modern sects. my mistake.

Christianity that doesn't require anything isn't Christianity. That's what I said, but that isn't what you read.

Also quit calling upon the opinions of an invisible group of people and provide a little bit of evidence that many people believe in this form of Christianity, that there are many modern sects, and that their belief system is the same which you interpret it to be.

Really? I don't know of any.

Christianity that doesn't require anything isn't Christianity. That's what I said, but that isn't what you read.

The no true scotsman fallacy won't save you now!

Also quit calling upon the opinions of an invisible group of people and provide a little bit of evidence that many people believe in this form of Christianity, that there are many modern sects, and that their belief system is the same which you interpret it to be.

I looked on Wikipedia, and it seems they are not so invisible, except I guess to the willfully blind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_salvation#Modern_movement
The post-enlightenment, universalist movement led to the formation of the Universalist Church of America, which later merged in 1961 with the American Unitarian Association to form the Unitarian Universalist Association. However, because Unitarian Universalism is officially creedless, no member of that denomination is required to believe in the doctrine of universalism. Many Anglicans also adhere to a universalist doctrine.

Early Universalists in North America include John Murray and Thomas Potter in 1770 . The story goes that God told Potter that he was to go and rescue the one swimming from a boat that had hit a sandbar and that this person would be the one he was waiting for. Murray preached to Potter's neighbours and the word spread like wildfire.

Hosea Ballou, who is sometimes called an ultra-universalist, is often recognized as the great theologian of American Universalism, having written thousands of sermons as well as essays, hymns and treatises. Ultra-universalism is the belief that all sin is directly punished by the consequences in the sinner's own life. No further recompense being necessary after death, every soul is directly reunited with God in Heaven. The more common, and less extreme version of the Universalist doctrine is that Hell does indeed exist and many souls may end up there, however, Hell is not a realm of eternal punishment. Instead God continues to care for the souls in Hell until, eventually, God's infinite, patient love will outlast the sinner's ability to resist. When, at last, the sinner who had turned away from God turns back to the God who had never turned away, the sinner will be removed from Hell to enjoy the salvation God had always intended for all creation.

Not much, really.

It's a fairly shitty horror-esque movie about a father and two sons. The father is a demon hunter, who goes around killing ordinary looking people whose crimes he claims he can see when he touches them. The one son goes on to be a mass murderer, and the other son ends up killing that brother and then continuing on with his father's work (now that his father is dead.)

The somewhat silly thing about the whole movie is that "demon" in the context of the movie could just as easily be called "murderer" and the movie would remain 100% consistent, so it was just a somewhat superstitious plot device that only somewhat supplements the "visions from god" upon contact with "demons."

Oh, and it's revealed at the end that the father wasn't crazy, and that he really did get visions, as does the son now (who I think is played by Matthew McConaughey)

Yeah, it was a pretty shitty movie all around.
You're pretty consistent with attitudes and opinions i respect, so if you don't mind indulging me a smidge, perhaps you could give a comparable movie that you liked?

You're pretty consistent with attitudes and opinions i respect, so if you don't mind indulging me a smidge, perhaps you could give a comparable movie that you liked?

Well it really depends on what aspect of the movie you're looking to compare. On its own it's a fairly specialized movie, mixing in thriller and horror elements with spirituality. Stripping away the symbolism, you can draw a lot of comparisons between it and something like The Sixth Sense, where a central character experiences supernatural things around him that others can't.

The Sixth Sense, of course, is a far superior movie.

Well it really depends on what aspect of the movie you're looking to compare. On its own it's a fairly specialized movie, mixing in thriller and horror elements with spirituality. Stripping away the symbolism, you can draw a lot of comparisons between it and something like The Sixth Sense, where a central character experiences supernatural things around him that others can't.

The Sixth Sense, of course, is a far superior movie.

Except in terms of semi-gratuitous and aggrevated violence, of course. :)

I see your ante and raise you Jacob's Ladder?

Except in terms of semi-gratuitous and aggrevated violence, of course. :)

I see your ante and raise you Jacob's Ladder?

Haven't seen it, but based on the wiki synopsis, yes, that sounds more similar.

Haven't seen it, but based on the wiki synopsis, yes, that sounds more similar.

It might be worth the time to watch.

The wiki doesn't do it much disservice.

If the only reason for you to be morally and ethically kind to people is to get into a better after life. you are doing nothing more then trying to kiss the back-side of the god/s and/or godess/es you proclaim to worship.

that is called being a hypocrite. :mp5:

(citation needed)

OOC
Rafe

Society would collapse without the need to follow God's moral guidelines.

If the only reason for you to be morally and ethically kind to people is to get into a better after life. you are doing nothing more then trying to kiss the back-side of the god/s and/or godess/es you proclaim to worship.

that is called being a hypocrite. :mp5:

(citation needed)

OOC
RafeThe old, established rule.
That's where fear'll get someone (or a group of people). Worst of all in one's imaginations - made attempt at manifest.

Every time I don't shoot people who dislike the way I look. It's really not that hard a thing to do, morally, to not condemn people to hell for eternity.


You fail.
I made the thread, and this is not what it's about. The thread is about what would it be like IF god saved everyone. That is the discussion question. After all your bitching about my framework, you got it completely wrong.

And besides that, any discussion of people still going to hell is obviously outside of the hypothetical. If it is outside of the hypothetical, it no longer presupposes the existence of God, and therefore we can talk about the world you and I live in, where God may or may not exist, and we really just don't know for sure until we die.

If everyone was saved, and went to heaven it would be a disaster. Why? because you would be still dealing with the same people, across the board, that you see now. Not to mention all of the people that thrived on injustice, and hatred from the past. I'm just assuming that you understand that they would be saved too. :cool:

I think you just have to live a good life

MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

well, Arians. then again, so was half the byzantine court. the arian conflict in large part explains why "orthodox" christians dislike homosexuals...byzantine court functionaries were usually "eunuchs" (a catch-all term in the ancient world for men who were impotent or otherwise sexually non-functional with women...there's ample evidence in roman legal codes that many, at some times most "eunuchs" were anatomically whole but homosexual men) and in general were Arians, the political opponents of the strain of christianity that eventually won out. discrediting them and making them out to be sinful monstrosities was part of the aftermath of the orthodox takeover of the formerly arian court.

just so you know, Arians derive from hebrews and islam.

other than Gnosticism, it's the earliest "heresy" that orthodox christians defeated politically. it involves the belief the jesus was a created being and not co-eternal with the father, and challenges the trinity. it prompted the first great ecumenical council, if I recall correctly. ancient christianity was incredibly diverse...I always love when modern protestants pretend that their theology is identical to that of the apostles. most of them aren't even aware of the heavy hellenistic influences...for example the opening of the gospel of john makes reference to christ in terms of platonic philosophy, and not judaism. catholics know more, but most tend to have a heavily skewed biased towards the latin schools of thought which were not in power until much later. most protestant seminaries are complete jokes. people would be better informed about christianity if they took an introductory philosophy course...*sigh*

catholics hide the whole truth, because it would destroy the entire foundation of their made up religion. :upyours:

http://brimstone.us/6_jan_JesusHatesYou.jpg

If everyone was saved, and went to heaven it would be a disaster. Why? because you would be still dealing with the same people, across the board, that you see now. Not to mention all of the people that thrived on injustice, and hatred from the past. I'm just assuming that you understand that they would be saved too. :cool:

I got the impression that injustice and hatred would be impossible in heaven, and in any case, with the entire population of the earth throughout human history, I think I'd be too busy hangin' with Shakespeare, Lincoln, Jefferson, Churchill, and Ghandi to be dealing with them.

I got the impression that injustice and hatred would be impossible in heaven, and in any case, with the entire population of the earth throughout human history, I think I'd be too busy hangin' with Shakespeare, Lincoln, Jefferson, Churchill, and Ghandi to be dealing with them.
Satan was originally the strongest advocate for justice, and that's why God held him/it dearest.
Lo and behold, he had the wherewithal to take justice to its logical end ... away from an unjust and cruel god.
Or so the story goes.

Satan was originally the strongest advocate for justice, and that's why God held him/it dearest.
Lo and behold, he had the wherewithal to take justice to its logical end ... away from an unjust and cruel god.
Or so the story goes.

Well, if we're assuming a god nice enough to save everyone, he's probably not the ass discussed in the bible.

Well, if we're assuming a god nice enough to save everyone, he's probably not the ass discussed in the bible.

...so, perhaps the whole "flood" thing was just bad press? :)

...so, perhaps the whole "flood" thing was just bad press? :)

quite a bit more likely then not.

so what if: there were more gods and goddessess then could be counted let alone named, none of them infallable or having the slightest desire to be worshipped, and few if any wishing ourselves, or anyone, or anything, any particular harm?

how do we know that's not how it is?

or let me put that another way: we don't.

=^^=
.../\...

catholics hide the whole truth, because it would destroy the entire foundation of their made up religion. :upyours:

some consider "made up religion" as redundant... peharps you'd care to elaborate?

quite a bit more likely then not.

so what if: there were more gods and goddessess then could be counted let alone named, none of them infallable or having the slightest desire to be worshipped, and few if any wishing ourselves, or anyone, or anything, any particular harm?

how do we know that's not how it is?

or let me put that another way: we don't.

=^^=
.../\...
Well, i'm sure there's some balance with attention span and devotion, and there's more than enough to choose from.
:)

some consider "made up religion" as redundant... peharps you'd care to elaborate?

I couldn't. Your statement pretty much does it.

BTW - how'd we get this far before you showed up?

I got the impression that injustice and hatred would be impossible in heaven, and in any case, with the entire population of the earth throughout human history, I think I'd be too busy hangin' with Shakespeare, Lincoln, Jefferson, Churchill, and Ghandi to be dealing with them.

I love how you put those middle three in there with the first and last two...something tells me shakespeare and ghandi wouldn't have anything to do with the three politicians. churchill was born into british nobility at the height of the colonial empire ghandi spent his life destroying...and was something of an ass. before england was at war with germany churchill was public about how much admiration he had for hitler. :rolleyes:

catholics hide the whole truth, because it would destroy the entire foundation of their made up religion. :upyours:

erm, well, most of the things we know about the heresies I was talking about come from catholic and orthodox sources...they don't particularly hide it, they just discuss it and assume their philosophy makes more sense. lol, somebody has an axe to grind.

I just have to wonder, how would the world react if the bible was quite clear: no one was going to hell, no one had to believe. Jesus' sacrifice was enough and there was no need to "acknowledge" it in order to go to heaven. How would this change the face of christianity? If you are christian, how would this change the way you think?

They would still find a way to warp it around and use it as a half-assed justification to force everyone else into following their narrow and hateful idea of morality.

They would still find a way to warp it around and use it as a half-assed justification to force everyone else into following their narrow and hateful idea of morality.

I'm certainly glad scientifically inclined people don't determine the mean for anything but religion by its most extreme minority. wouldn't make for very good...well, anything really.

I'm certainly glad scientifically inclined people don't determine the mean for anything but religion by its most extreme minority. wouldn't make for very good...well, anything really.

I am far from scientifically minded.

But, hey, I can only speak from what I know.. and those of us who don't go to church are exposed to religion by televangelists, crazy street-corner preachers, and whoever happens to be a big enough nut-job to make the evening news. I know there are moderate, kind Christians out there.. but without the Bible, they would probably still be moderate and kind.

But what the bible and Christianity has done is give people a semi-legitimate backing for their irrational and extreme hatreds; homophobia, mis.. myso.. anti-women-ness, and persecution of other beliefs. It has allowed the most vocal and hostile fringe of humanity to point at a large group of people, stand up, and say "Hey, I'm with them! You better listen to what *I* have to say or you'll have to deal with all of us!"

I believe that, were Christianity to not exist, or for it to be undercut in the scenario the original profile suggested, the great bulk of the kind people that follow it would remain kind.. Even if there is no God telling them to do so, nice people will be nice.

But without Christianity to latch on to, without a mainstream religion to attach themselves to like burrs to a boar, the hateful loudmouths like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell would have nothing to support them.. noone to make them look legitimate.. Nothing to shield their ignorance and malice, allowing everyone to look straight at the person, look at what he is really saying, and see it for the tripe it is. Without the throngs of supporters people like them claim to have in mainstream Christianity, they would be dismissed, and fade from the public eye and the realm of influence.

I just have to wonder, how would the world react if the bible was quite clear: no one was going to hell, no one had to believe. Jesus' sacrifice was enough and there was no need to "acknowledge" it in order to go to heaven. How would this change the face of christianity? If you are christian, how would this change the way you think?

This sounds like Jesus joining International Rescue or something...

http://www.moviecitynews.com/static_images/images/2004/200x200/thunderbirds_go.jpg

This reminds me of a story that a friend of mine told me once. There was a village of Eskimos who had never had any contact with Christianity until one day when a missionary came along and started preaching. The Eskimos accepted him word and accepted God, but at the end a lone Eskimo went up to the missionary and asked
“If I had no knowledge of God or Jesus or any of what you have just said , would I have gone to hell?”
So the missionary smiled and said “Of course not. Not if you didn’t know”. The Eskimo looked him right in the eyes and said “Why the fuck did you tell me then?”

So, my point is, if Jesus died for our sins and, assuming what I have been told several times is correct, that ignorance of God does not equate in hell, then surely NOT spreading the word of God would be the most “Christian” thing to do, then everyone would go to heaven, if it does exist, and if it doesn’t then what does it matter? We wouldn’t have people wasting their lives on something which may or may not exist.

And don’t anyone give me that bull crap on how “If there was no Christianity society would fall apart”. More of the world is non-Christian than Christian, and they seem to be getting on fine. And before the invention of religion (and I use the word invention as I see religion as little more than a tool) there were no crusades, no holy wars, no religious based attacks. I am not saying the world was perfect, not by a long shot, but it was one less “evil” in the world.

But back to my origional point. Can someone explain to me why Christians spread the belief around to people who are getting into Heaven on a technicality anyway, and if they are not, why we should have to worship and a god who treats ignorance as a sin that will get you eternal torture/void (depending on which part of the bible you read)

But what the bible and Christianity has done is give people a semi-legitimate backing for their irrational and extreme hatreds; homophobia, mis.. myso.. anti-women-ness, and persecution of other beliefs. It has allowed the most vocal and hostile fringe of humanity to point at a large group of people, stand up, and say "Hey, I'm with them! You better listen to what *I* have to say or you'll have to deal with all of us!"

let me start by saying that I'm a gay hindu. I'm not defending them because I've never gotten shit from "christians". I've gotten plenty. my personal life has suffered in very real ways because of people who used this for their justification, but let me also be clear - they'd be doing it anyway.

But without Christianity to latch on to, without a mainstream religion to attach themselves to like burrs to a boar, the hateful loudmouths like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell would have nothing to support them.. noone to make them look legitimate.. Nothing to shield their ignorance and malice, allowing everyone to look straight at the person, look at what he is really saying, and see it for the tripe it is. Without the throngs of supporters people like them claim to have in mainstream Christianity, they would be dismissed, and fade from the public eye and the realm of influence.

religion has nothing to do with demagogues or hatred. even a cursory reading of the new testament makes the ethical imperatives of christianity abundantly clear, and they're completely ignored by "christians". it has nothing to do with religion - most people readily give up their power in ALL circumstances. even in a secular democracy people surrender their power to vote, ignore grassroots democracy, and let their nation be run by plutocrats and self interested oligarchs on a daily basis. people surrender to cults of personality, and use whatever ideology is at hand to justify their bigotry. when it's not religion, it's "communism" (I'm a marxist, don't take my saying that as some sort of mccarthyism), when it's not communism, it's "science". (read "the bell curve" for a "scientific" explanation of white superiority, and any number of other atheistic critiques of other races, homosexuality, and any other bigotry you can think of). this has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with human nature. evolution guarantees that whoever has the most children and kills or renders childless the most of the competition is going to be the most common. bigotry, stereotypes, xenophobia, absurd notions of racial superiority and nationalism...all of those are adaptive behaviours that benefited our ancestors in terms of spreading their genes. again, it has nothing to do with religion...it would exist without it, except that religion is the easiest way for us to process our subconscious and adapt emotionally to the world around us. scapegoating religion, however, is exactly the same process...inter-cultural conflict, demonization of the out-group, it helps guarantee the spread of your own genes, (in a broad sense), but it says nothing about moral superiority or a more advanced way of being. we're naive if we blame the hijacking of an ideology on the ideology itself...and even more naive if we don't expect it to happen to EVERY ideology, religious or not. there have been democratic slaughters, atheist concentration camps, secular ethnic "cleansings", buddhist crusades...and I suspect their always will be things of that nature. it has nothing to do with the ideology. religion doesn't cause bigotry any more than swasticas caused nazism.

Nah, way more than that. At least a terabyte each for functional copying of the brain and its structures, and probably another terabyte for the rest (a sequenced genome is 6 gigabytes by itself, to say nothing of all the other stuff you'd want to store.

And yes, this has been worked out for practical purposes.That's *nowhere* near enough.

Human brains weigh in average slightly excess of 1 kg...that's around ~10^26 atoms per human brain Just storing their spatial data in simple 3 dimensional space would require in order of 10^29 bytes of data (128-1024 bit accuracy), and that's not counting for kinetic data, nutrient, intoxicant & hormonal supply, sense input, radioactive & biological decay, chemical reactions, electromagnetic fields, position of subatomic particles, time/space structure....

In short, you need nature in order to emulate a sensing brain: Solely spiritual existence would be no human existence at all as how brains function depend on so many different physical things.

...Though, fooling - virtual reality like - a brain inside a body (or even inside a vat) would be a possible task: You only need to approximate (all) sensory inputs and other effects (like hormonal or dietary response)...a task possibly not requiring even a gigabyte/sec link.

Also, a decent *approximation* of a human brain probably would not require quite that much data storage as I mentioned above (I'd still wager on exabyte range rather than tera or petabyte).

btw. according to Wikipedia from Orders of Magnitude (data): 1.8×10^22 bits (2.25 zettaoctets) – amount of information which can be stored in 1 gram of DNA....That would be roughly 2 billion terabytes.

Yes, this is something Dr Dawkins outlined too. Brains have a huge capacity - they're very advanced pieces of biological machinery.