Simple truths.

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Simple truths.

Hell is permanent.  Damnation to hell is eternal and irrevocable.  Hell is torture.

Hell is the consequence of not believing in Jesus.

Heaven is the reward for believing in Jesus. 

God created the universe.  God created earth.  God created man.  God created Satan.  God created hell.

God created morals. 

God created man with the choice to be moral or immoral.

Some people believe in Jesus.

Some people do not believe in Jesus.

Some people who believe in Jesus are moral. *

Some people who do not believe in Jesus are moral.

Some people who believe in Jesus are immoral. *

Some people who do not believe in Jesus are immoral.

All people who believe in Jesus will go to heaven.

All people who do not believe in Jesus will go to hell.

Logically, some people who are moral will go to heaven, and some to hell.

Also logically, some people who are immoral will go to heaven, and some to hell.

 

So...

any theists want to demonstrate that any of my simple statements are false?

 

 * By saying "some people are (im)moral" I mean to say that their overwhelming tendencies are (im)moral.  I'm well aware that everyone commits both moral and immoral acts.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
The gospels of Thomas and Peter (among others) make the same claims of jesus' divinity -- why are they not included in the bible then?

There is a bit more than just that. The gnostic letters/gospels are what you are referring to and those DO in fact contain contradictions galore to the core of what is known today as the bible. In addition to this, gnostic writings are far more doubted as to their authenticity, their source, and the supposed time of writings. They were always proven to be more "rumor" writings, not authentic sources. For example, in the gospel of Judas, it was stated that Jesus pulled Judas aside to let him know that he was the greatest of all and his role in Jesus' life would matter the most before all others. This was in direct contradiction to the teaching when Jesus told the disciples that they must in fact be the least to all others (Mark 9: 33-37)

zarathustra wrote:
As we read in Acts, the early church was already debating, about whether to allow Gentiles to join, and whether they should be circumcised. So also in Paul's letters, where often he has to correct the beliefs and practices of certain communities. Note further that jesus' divinity was disputed enough that Arianism managed to gain a hold until it was stamped out at the Nicean council in -- ahem -- 325. So even early on we see that "the following of Jesus' teachings" was not enough to define what xianity was.

Jesus' divinity doesn't seem in question by any of the new testament writers nor does being a follower of Jesus Christ. Paul was VERY CERTAIN about the Gentiles and the gift belonging to them until the time for the Jews to believe (Romans 11). So the argument based on "Christianity" as a label wasn't built until 325 has no standing at all.

zarathustra wrote:
The four gospels differ in various details. So if we're adhering to strict accuracy, at least 3 of them are wrong. Tacitus for one makes mention of "Chrestus", as that which was worshipped by the christians in rome. That suffices as proof for christianity, but not christ. No more than a news flash about scientologists would suffice 2,000 years from now as proof of xenu.

Examples. I've read several versions of the "details" in the gospels and last I checked, they are all in line with each other. The fact that you are going to make an argument based on a different spelling (it's like saying John was really spelled Jon and it was really Lucas instead of Luke; each is pronounced according to the dialects and also, not to mention, Webster just wasn't around then either) just seems like you are looking for excuses to debunk it.

Hambydammit wrote:
I've said before, but maybe you missed it. I'm not here to baby step you through the various sects of Christianity and their beliefs. If you would like to learn more, go to a library. If you truly don't understand the enormous differences between current denominations, and the enormous changes that Christianity has undergone since its beginning, then the first thing you need to tackle is your own ignorance.

When did we change to talking about dominations vs. what the basic principles of Christianity?

Hambydammit wrote:
As for the veracity of the gospels, or any of the bible for that matter, I suggest you learn more about the scholarly methods of determining historical accuracy, which include things like contemporary documentation, outside corroboration, historical consistency, internal consistency, and quite a few other litmus tests. The bible fails on virtually all levels. But then, you'd know that if you read something other than the bible.

I don't even know how to respond to that one. Guess you got me pegged....or maybe not.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I don't even know

Quote:
I don't even know how to respond to that one. Guess you got me pegged....or maybe not.

Hmm... I won't know until you put up the goods, will I?

Back it up or stop talking about it, dude.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Aryte, here we go

Aryte, here we go again...

razorphreak wrote:
There is a bit more than just that. The gnostic letters/gospels are what you are referring to and those DO in fact contain contradictions galore to the core of what is known today as the bible. In addition to this, gnostic writings are far more doubted as to their authenticity, their source, and the supposed time of writings. They were always proven to be more "rumor" writings, not authentic sources. For example, in the gospel of Judas, it was stated that Jesus pulled Judas aside to let him know that he was the greatest of all and his role in Jesus' life would matter the most before all others. This was in direct contradiction to the teaching when Jesus told the disciples that they must in fact be the least to all others (Mark 9: 33-37)

So whose decision was it to include Mk, Mt, Lk & Jn in the bible, but exclude these other writings? When was this decision made? Don't these make the cut, since they acknowledge jesus' divinity -- which you yourself said, is all that matters? Origen, for one, found the gospel of peter to be acceptable, and that was in the 2nd century.

razorphreak wrote:
Jesus' divinity doesn't seem in question by any of the new testament writers nor does being a follower of Jesus Christ. Paul was VERY CERTAIN about the Gentiles and the gift belonging to them until the time for the Jews to believe (Romans 11). So the argument based on "Christianity" as a label wasn't built until 325 has no standing at all.

Ah but once again (please read more thoroughly) - they are debating beliefs and practices in Acts, and Paul is correcting wayward practices in his letters. Therefore, the definition of christianity was not cohesive and all-encompassing, even from the outset.

razorphreak wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
The four gospels differ in various details. So if we're adhering to strict accuracy, at least 3 of them are wrong. Tacitus for one makes mention of "Chrestus", as that which was worshipped by the christians in rome. That suffices as proof for christianity, but not christ. No more than a news flash about scientologists would suffice 2,000 years from now as proof of xenu.

Examples. I've read several versions of the "details" in the gospels and last I checked, they are all in line with each other.

Then maybe you should check again. There is an entire forum here about biblical errancy. I have a lingering fear you won't make the slightest effort to delve into it, so just in case: Compare Mt 1:1-16 to Lk 3:23-38. If you see nothing incompatible there, then I think all hope is lost. Bear in mind that is merely of several instances that anyone with an interest in accuracy would notice.

razorphreak wrote:

The fact that you are going to make an argument based on a different spelling (it's like saying John was really spelled Jon and it was really Lucas instead of Luke; each is pronounced according to the dialects and also, not to mention, Webster just wasn't around then either) just seems like you are looking for excuses to debunk it.

I will plainly tell you here: I will not make a claim that I can't back up. If I'm wrong on any claim, I will admit I'm wrong. If I don't know, I will admit I don't know. I have no desire to argue in circles, nor in making baseless arguments in some vain hope of debunking you or anyone else. If I have not made it painfully clear before, I am entirely open to the prospect of you being correct and proving your case. Perhaps you thought I was blowing smoke since I didn't bother to provide examples the first time around. I apologize if I didn't, but I've had to explain this gospel inconsistency I don't know how many times now. I will try to be mindful of that in the future, but kindly bear in mind that I am not arguing simply for the sake of arguing.

razorphreak wrote:

When did we change to talking about dominations vs. what the basic principles of Christianity?

Don't the existence of different denominations indicate a disagreement over the basic principles of christianity?

Was "dominations" a Freudian slip? I find it very apropos.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
So whose decision was it to include Mk, Mt, Lk & Jn in the bible, but exclude these other writings? When was this decision made? Don't these make the cut, since they acknowledge jesus' divinity -- which you yourself said, is all that matters? Origen, for one, found the gospel of peter to be acceptable, and that was in the 2nd century.

Again still much more to it than just identifying Jesus' divinity. I've posted it before, to you in fact, the criteria in which was required to meet inclusion in one book:

  1. Apostolic Origin
  2. Consistent Message that does not contradict previous letters.
  3. Future - message applies for all generations irregardless of time period

Letters such as the Gospel of Thomas or Judas did not fulfill those criteria so while discovery channel shows and articles might say they "almost made it", the truth is they weren't included for very specific reasons.

zarathustra wrote:
Ah but once again (please read more thoroughly) - they are debating beliefs and practices in Acts, and Paul is correcting wayward practices in his letters. Therefore, the definition of christianity was not cohesive and all-encompassing, even from the outset.

Debating beliefs or actions is NOT what defines Christianity..PERIOD. The following of the example and word of Jesus is what it's about. The fact that Paul, Peter, and even John correct many is not a sign of disbelief because the first basic attribute is they believe. But for example in Corinth how they would allow adulterers exist within the church ranks was a contradiction to beliefs and it was things like this the writers were after to correct, not about if they believed or not. You are arguing on semantics that does not affect the core belief.

zarathustra wrote:
Then maybe you should check again. There is an entire forum here about biblical errancy. I have a lingering fear you won't make the slightest effort to delve into it, so just in case: Compare Mt 1:1-16 to Lk 3:23-38. If you see nothing incompatible there, then I think all hope is lost. Bear in mind that is merely of several instances that anyone with an interest in accuracy would notice.

First the line in Luke 3:23 states (NIV): Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought...meaning while he was listing the men, the TRUE human genealogy is with Mary. After all it is stated that Luke would have been much closer to Mary (possibly even interviewed her) than Matthew was.

Matthew on the other hand deals with it from Joseph, not Mary. Now Jesus was not the son of any earthly father, so Joseph was in fact his adopting father and according to old Jewish law that still makes Joseph the pop [on earth] (Zondervan Pictorial Dictionary, vol. 2, p. 675).

Also remember who Matthew and Luke were - Matthew was a Jew, Luke a Gentile. Point of views are important in any writing, and even you should admit that. This is not a contradiction but rather a difference from what point of view the author is coming from (Matthew from Joseph, Luke from Mary).

zarathustra wrote:
I will plainly tell you here: I will not make a claim that I can't back up. If I'm wrong on any claim, I will admit I'm wrong. If I don't know, I will admit I don't know. I have no desire to argue in circles, nor in making baseless arguments in some vain hope of debunking you or anyone else. If I have not made it painfully clear before, I am entirely open to the prospect of you being correct and proving your case. Perhaps you thought I was blowing smoke since I didn't bother to provide examples the first time around. I apologize if I didn't, but I've had to explain this gospel inconsistency I don't know how many times now. I will try to be mindful of that in the future, but kindly bear in mind that I am not arguing simply for the sake of arguing.

And neither am I. If you would like me to be more detailed I will, but I don't know how much anyone will actually read what I write. This is why I will be vague in my writing because, at times, I wonder if it's a waste to someone who will simply reject it at first glance because of the non-belief. As I've stated before, I'm not here to try to convert you. It is a bit tough to be specific about details yet called "delusional"; makes it feel like it's a complete waste of time answering any question if, no matter how obvious the answer is, or how obvious you make your response, you just get ignored and dismissed.

zarathustra wrote:
Don't the existence of different denominations indicate a disagreement over the basic principles of christianity? Was "dominations" a Freudian slip? I find it very apropos.

Sorry about the "dom", I'm no spelling bee champ (not even webster can help me at times).

The different denominations are before any thing else a sign of man's inability to completely understand the word of God and impose upon the people steps for them to prove their faith. You could almost liken it to the "doubting Thomas" routine. It does not show a sign of disunity however, but as you stated, disagreement. The fact that baptists believe you are 100% baptized if you were dunked backwards vs. Catholics saying the sprinkle on your head is foolishness and most believers will agree. Anyone who reads the fullness to the study of what baptism means from the biblical point of view is it is when your soul and life are given to God, and the baptism of your spirit occurs that is important. Now each will make a point in saying "but the book shows the example of..." and that is their justification to the ceremony, however when you ask them directly, it'll is always "well that's true, it's about the spirit not water". Being united in Christ is first and foremost the key in being a believer and I will tell you that you will see Catholic working along side Baptist along side Lutheran along side Nazarene when it's about God's will. Those who shout they would never do such a thing are ignorant to God's word and way too involved in dogma.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:
Again still much more to it than just identifying Jesus' divinity. I've posted it before, to you in fact, the criteria in which was required to meet inclusion in one book:
  1. Apostolic Origin
  2. Consistent Message that does not contradict previous letters.
  3. Future - message applies for all generations irregardless of time period

Okay. On Sun, 2007-02-25 22:06 you summed up xianity as "the belief that the person who walked the earth known as Jesus Christ was God on earth and hence the Lord and savior". You did not elaborate, and offered no restrictions on that statement. Now you say there is "much more to it than just identifying Jesus' divinity". Sorry, I'm confused.

Further issues:

1. Apostolic origin - as scholarship indicates, the biblical gospels were not written by the apostles. If you ask for backup (as well you should), please refer to the forum topics here. Many (including myself) have addressed this already.

2. Consistent message that does not contradict previous letters -What letters? The letters of Paul, or someone else? The majority of gospel events are not referred to in the Pauline letters, if that's what you mean by previous letters. Aside from that the biblical gospels do contradict one another. Despite your acknowledged inability to see that. You'll find many contradictions explained in this thread.

3. Future - message applies for all generations irregardless of time period - Sorry, dead in the water. The original followers thought jesus was returning in their lifetime - which would help explain why the gospels weren't written down immediately following his presumed death and resurrection. We have seen over the centuries how many people thought the world would end and jesus would return in their lifetime. This generation is no exception (example: The Left Behind series). It would appear each generation of christians gets the message wrong.

razorphreak wrote:

Debating beliefs or actions is NOT what defines Christianity..PERIOD. The following of the example and word of Jesus is what it's about.

But following the example and word of jesus would be reflected in one's beliefs and actions, would it not? So a difference in beliefs and/or actions indicates a different in the interpretation of the example and word of jesus...PERIOD.

BTW..."irregardless" is a double negative. I don't believe that's what you intended.

razorphreak wrote:

First the line in Luke 3:23 states (NIV): Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought...meaning while he was listing the men, the TRUE human genealogy is with Mary...Matthew on the other hand deals with it from Joseph, not Mary.

.

Um, Luke 3:23 reads: "... He was the son it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli...". So he's writing about Joseph, not Mary.

Matthew 1:16 reads: "...and Jacob the father of Joseph...", again Joseph, not Mary.

You're right that it's technically not about jesus' paternal geneaology, since joseph is not supposed to be his biological father - but the fact remains that the two gospels are patently inconsistent on joseph's genealogy. This is simply one inconsistency of many. Please refer to the above-mentioned link if you require more. Please do not continue to tell me that all 4 gospels are consistent without having looked through those threads first.

razorphreak wrote:

Also remember who Matthew and Luke were - Matthew was a Jew, Luke a Gentile. Point of views are important in any writing, and even you should admit that. This is not a contradiction but rather a difference from what point of view the author is coming from (Matthew from Joseph, Luke from Mary).

What do you mean, "even I"? I of course admit that point of view affects writing, and I cite that as one reason for the many gospel inconsistencies. Matthew was writing for a jewish audience, Luke for a gentile audience. They each tweaked details to more effectively sell the story to their chosen demographic.

razorphreak wrote:
...makes it feel like it's a complete waste of time answering any question if, no matter how obvious the answer is, or how obvious you make your response, you just get ignored and dismissed.

I know the feeling.

razorphreak wrote:

The different denominations are before any thing else a sign of man's inability to completely understand the word of God and impose upon the people steps for them to prove their faith. You could almost liken it to the "doubting Thomas" routine. It does not show a sign of disunity however, but as you stated, disagreement.

It does. If there's a disagreement, both sides can't be right (although both sides could be wrong). Even if two denominations agree on A (let's say jesus' divinity), but disagree on B (let's say the eucharist), we have disagreement, and therefore disunity. If agreement on A is sufficient for unity, discard B (and C through ZZZZZZZ...) from the set of closely held beliefs. Man's ongoing (and prolific) inability to "completely understand the word of god) is reason enough not to bother with the word of god.

razorphreak wrote:

Being united in Christ is first and foremost the key in being a believer and I will tell you that you will see Catholic working along side Baptist along side Lutheran along side Nazarene when it's about God's will. Those who shout they would never do such a thing are ignorant to God's word and way too involved in dogma.

Hmm. Your memory seems short. Luther called the pope "the antichrist" when he left the fold. Europe was wracked for centuries with catholic-protestant conflict. Puritans left England for the colonies to escape Anglican discrimination. If you would like to develop on this thought, kindly continue the discussion here.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Okay. On Sun, 2007-02-25 22:06 you summed up xianity as "the belief that the person who walked the earth known as Jesus Christ was God on earth and hence the Lord and savior". You did not elaborate, and offered no restrictions on that statement. Now you say there is "much more to it than just identifying Jesus' divinity". Sorry, I'm confused.

Wait a minute. Are we talking about how books got into the bible or defining Christanity? Stop changing the subject.

zarathustra wrote:
Further issues:

1. Apostolic origin - as scholarship indicates, the biblical gospels were not written by the apostles. If you ask for backup (as well you should), please refer to the forum topics here. Many (including myself) have addressed this already.

Because they physically did not author them discredits them? Common man. If I can't physically write something does that mean that I am not the author? Hell in one of Paul's letters, Galatians, he even basically admits that he was not the one who was the physical writer but that does not mean they were not his words. People do this all the time today, autobiographies are credited to a person but typically written by someone else.

2. Consistent message that does not contradict previous letters -What letters? The letters of Paul, or someone else? The majority of gospel events are not referred to in the Pauline letters, if that's what you mean by previous letters. Aside from that the biblical gospels do contradict one another. Despite your acknowledged inability to see that. You'll find many contradictions explained in this thread.

Please tell me you are not this dense with everything? OK let me repeat it once more just in case you missed it; these contradictions are ALL explainable. 90% of all contradictions are mistranslations (people list them on the English versions which means nothing since they were originally written in greek). The rest are due to misunderstanding of the culture of the time and the fact that those who claim them to be contradictions do NOT put themselves in that time "state of mind".

As far as "what letters"...umm the gospels, the old testament. We are talking about the message, not the specific details. I thought I titled that point that....and somehow it went to this?

3. Future - message applies for all generations irregardless of time period - Sorry, dead in the water. The original followers thought jesus was returning in their lifetime - which would help explain why the gospels weren't written down immediately following his presumed death and resurrection. We have seen over the centuries how many people thought the world would end and jesus would return in their lifetime. This generation is no exception (example: The Left Behind series). It would appear each generation of christians gets the message wrong.

Erroneous. Because they believed Jesus would return in their lifetime, because some believed that he would return at the end of the 20th century, this does NOT remove the point of the message nor the details of what went behind that message. Case in point - the parables of Jesus.

zarathustra wrote:
But following the example and word of jesus would be reflected in one's beliefs and actions, would it not? So a difference in beliefs and/or actions indicates a different in the interpretation of the example and word of jesus...PERIOD.

BTW..."irregardless" is a double negative. I don't believe that's what you intended.

Again, are we talking about what defines what being a Christian is about or what people do by their own interpretations?

zarathustra wrote:
Um, Luke 3:23 reads: "... He was the son it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli...". So he's writing about Joseph, not Mary.

Matthew 1:16 reads: "...and Jacob the father of Joseph...", again Joseph, not Mary.

You're right that it's technically not about jesus' paternal geneaology, since joseph is not supposed to be his biological father - but the fact remains that the two gospels are patently inconsistent on joseph's genealogy.

No matter the version, what is KNOWN about Luke was who he interviewed for the details. You list it as a contradiction yet you won't address the fact that Matthew wrote about Joseph's side of the family and Luke about Mary's side. Tradition of the time ALWAYS lists who the father was but that does not mean the details are all about the father ONLY. Luke was known to be close to Mary and that genealogy was, in fact, that of Mary, and why he put the words "it was thought", meaning thought according to man's view of Joseph being the father, there are after all two parents and Luke listed the OTHER one. Add that he was a gentile further supports the idea that Luke would use Mary's side because Jews would not.

zarathustra wrote:
Even if two denominations agree on A (let's say jesus' divinity), but disagree on B (let's say the eucharist), we have disagreement, and therefore disunity. If agreement on A is sufficient for unity, discard B (and C through ZZZZZZZ...) from the set of closely held beliefs. Man's ongoing (and prolific) inability to "completely understand the word of god) is reason enough not to bother with the word of god.

Because we will never achieve perfection does not dismiss the message or the word. The fact that you are dismissing it not based on God's word but that of men shows a serious lack of understanding of what Christianity really is...and it isn't what some council did.

zarathustra wrote:
Your memory seems short. Luther called the pope "the antichrist" when he left the fold. Europe was wracked for centuries with catholic-protestant conflict. Puritans left England for the colonies to escape Anglican discrimination. If you would like to develop on this thought, kindly continue the discussion here.

Nobody's perfect. But again, are we talking about people after all.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
hi razorphreak, will you

hi razorphreak, will you respond to my last post?


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: mouse

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:

mouse wrote:
Also, you haven't addressed the point that hell is incompatible with universal compassion (an idea which is reconciled in other faiths in the world)

you still haven't addressed this point.

Because your "point" makes no sense. As I just put, compassion means nothing after you're dead. The reason? You've already received it. God has compassion to those who are alive but, just like with anything else, nothing is infinate.

except eternal damnation?

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I suspect razor has gone

I suspect razor has gone back to his church to claim victory over the heathens.

Alas, we shall never know how hell is like the NFL... although I can probably think of a few reasons... I hear Michael Vick is really difficult to play with, and honestly, if I had to sit and listen to Randy Moss talk about himself day in and day out, I'd probably opt for the Christian version of hell.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
 Hamby, that's why I like

 Hamby, that's why I like you man.  Funny stuff mang....haha 

mouse wrote:
why is heaven like the NFL? why shouldn't everyone go to heaven? is hell necessary?

OK mouse....and this isn't just directed at you, but I really gotta ask, do you and others not understand the definition of what an analogy is?  Figure it out and you might figure out how heaven is like the NFL to football players.

mouse wrote:
I don't think every word from God helps. In fact the idea of hell passed down by God does not help. I still don't understand how it is useful to your faith at all, and it is destructive in many other people's lives. Can you give me an example or an anecdote to show how this knowledge helps people? I can give you examples of how it has hurt people.

I'm not sure if I can really explain how hell is not a hinderance at all.  When you live your life without worry of eternal damnation or all the other nonsense God takes care of the rest.  You ask why it's destructive to some or why it hurts others?  This has got to be one of my favorite passages as to WHY its stupid to worry about it...(I've posted the whole thing so you can read it for yourself)

Matthew 6:25-34 "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

 "And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

 Why does anyone need to worry about tomorrow?  And tomorrow includes worrying about salvation or damnation.  To a Christian, seeking the kingdom of heaven when you've been called is the utmost priority in your life and that is what drives you forward.  It does not say to stop and worry about falling from grace.  Now while many will say this or that about hell but when you've devoted yourself to God's word, that is the plucking of an eye, that is the removal of a hand, and that is the cutting off of an ear that made you do evil.  It is the changing of attitude that the bible refers to that is the change.  It is not a physical change.  That is why in Romans 6:2 it states "We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?"  

Now....does that make sense? 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Hamby,

razorphreak wrote:

Hamby, that's why I like you man. Funny stuff mang....haha

mouse wrote:
why is heaven like the NFL? why shouldn't everyone go to heaven? is hell necessary?

OK mouse....and this isn't just directed at you, but I really gotta ask, do you and others not understand the definition of what an analogy is? Figure it out and you might figure out how heaven is like the NFL to football players.

hey razorphreak,

i know what an analogy is--you didn't understand my question. why are you making an analogy between heaven and the nfl? how did you come up with this analogy--what was your rationale?  since  you haven't explained your rational in relating heaven to the nfl rather than relating heaven to (using your analogy), say the open little-league team where everyone gets to play (this is what i think of when i think of infinite compassion), than your analogy is not meaningful or useful. 

 so, here is my question again. what about heaven is like the nfl or any other selective institution? why is heaven not for everyone? 

mouse wrote:
I don't think every word from God helps. In fact the idea of hell passed down by God does not help. I still don't understand how it is useful to your faith at all, and it is destructive in many other people's lives. Can you give me an example or an anecdote to show how this knowledge helps people? I can give you examples of how it has hurt people.

I'm not sure if I can really explain how hell is not a hinderance at all. When you live your life without worry of eternal damnation or all the other nonsense God takes care of the rest. You ask why it's destructive to some or why it hurts others? This has got to be one of my favorite passages as to WHY its stupid to worry about it...(I've posted the whole thing so you can read it for yourself)

Matthew 6:25-34 "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Why does anyone need to worry about tomorrow? And tomorrow includes worrying about salvation or damnation. To a Christian, seeking the kingdom of heaven when you've been called is the utmost priority in your life and that is what drives you forward. It does not say to stop and worry about falling from grace. Now while many will say this or that about hell but when you've devoted yourself to God's word, that is the plucking of an eye, that is the removal of a hand, and that is the cutting off of an ear that made you do evil. It is the changing of attitude that the bible refers to that is the change. It is not a physical change. That is why in Romans 6:2 it states "We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?"

Now....does that make sense?

 

i like the passage which you quoted, however it does not explain how hell does not hinder or help your beliefs. notice, it doesn't mention hell at all. why can't a christian be a christian simply with guidance from the above passage?

again, why is your belief in hell necessary for you to be christian? what do you have to say to people who have severe, deep-rooted psychological problems because of their indoctrination of hell? 

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: i know what an

mouse wrote:
i know what an analogy is--you didn't understand my question. why are you making an analogy between heaven and the nfl? how did you come up with this analogy--what was your rationale?

You know I almost got upset with you here...started thinking why is it this person can't think for him/her self?  But then I kinda took a deep breath...

Jesus' words state "many will be called but few are chosen."  Just as with college football, many are selected but how many will actually be chosen to the NFL?  Heaven is the same in the sense that while many are called to play the game (believe), not everyone will make it to the ultimate goal (heaven)....in the sport injury, lack of skill, or outside influence will prevent them.  In the spirit, temptation and a lack of understanding of the truth behind the word are all ways to prevent you from being saved. 

mouse wrote:
i like the passage which you quoted, however it does not explain how hell does not hinder or help your beliefs. notice, it doesn't mention hell at all. why can't a christian be a christian simply with guidance from the above passage?

You don't think that we ALL ask that?  The REASON it does not mention hell is because when you follow God, hell is the furthest thing from your mind but not absent from thought as if things were always hunky dory because when we see evil we know better.

mouse wrote:
again, why is your belief in hell necessary for you to be christian? what do you have to say to people who have severe, deep-rooted psychological problems because of their indoctrination of hell?

What would I say to those who have problems because of hell?...the verse from Matthew 6.  Why is the belief necessary?  In order for you to come to a complete realization of what your Christian life is about, you MUST understand both sides, good and evil.  Remember, it is said that Satan knows the bible better than any person (proving it when he tempted Jesus) and so we, who are far more ignorant on spiritual things must be aware of what you are against...and that includes what may await in hell.

You asked, "why is heaven not for everyone?"  The answer...it was.  Because man did not listen to the word of God and did his will over that of God, well it's like wanting to drive 80 all the time when the speed limit is only 30.  When you do your will over that of the law, or in this case the word of God, you will eventually get caught and suffer the punishment.  You can continue to ask why all you want...the point here is if hell was not necessary, if we did not have to even in the slightest concern ourselves with hell, or if we knew that heaven was for all, would evil exist?  The answer? No.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: mouse

razorphreak wrote:

mouse wrote:
i know what an analogy is--you didn't understand my question. why are you making an analogy between heaven and the nfl? how did you come up with this analogy--what was your rationale?

You know I almost got upset with you here...started thinking why is it this person can't think for him/her self? But then I kinda took a deep breath...

thanks for your patience.

razorphreak wrote:
Jesus' words state "many will be called but few are chosen."
why?
razorphreak wrote:
Just as with college football, many are selected but how many will actually be chosen to the NFL? Heaven is the same in the sense that while many are called to play the game (believe), not everyone will make it to the ultimate goal (heaven)
i did not ask to take part in god's game. people try out for the nfl of their own volition. i never asked to be "called" by god in the first place. your analogy has broken down. why would he punish anyone for putting the on the planet, if they didn't even ask to be put there? and, people who don't make the nfl aren't condemned to hell either.
razorphreak wrote:
....in the sport injury, lack of skill, or outside influence will prevent them. In the spirit, temptation and a lack of understanding of the truth behind the word are all ways to prevent you from being saved.
why. why wouldn't jesus have compassion for people who don't understand the truth? i can imagine someone (like buddha) being compassionate to those who are ignorant of truth, even beyond the temporal bounds of life. why does jesus' compassion have an expiration date, while buddha's doesn't? buddha never condemned anyone. why is jesus' condemnation necessary in the universe, if it is possible to still forgive?

 

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:
again, why is your belief in hell necessary for you to be christian? what do you have to say to people who have severe, deep-rooted psychological problems because of their indoctrination of hell?

What would I say to those who have problems because of hell?...the verse from Matthew 6. Why is the belief necessary? In order for you to come to a complete realization of what your Christian life is about, you MUST understand both sides, good and evil. Remember, it is said that Satan knows the bible better than any person (proving it when he tempted Jesus) and so we, who are far more ignorant on spiritual things must be aware of what you are against...and that includes what may await in hell.

You asked, "why is heaven not for everyone?" The answer...it was. Because man did not listen to the word of God and did his will over that of God, well it's like wanting to drive 80 all the time when the speed limit is only 30. When you do your will over that of the law, or in this case the word of God, you will eventually get caught and suffer the punishment. You can continue to ask why all you want...the point here is if hell was not necessary, if we did not have to even in the slightest concern ourselves with hell, or if we knew that heaven was for all, would evil exist? The answer? No.

the reason hell is not necessary is simple. you can imagine a compassionate god forgiving everyone, even after their arbitrarily finite time on this planet, can't you? it is easy. in fact it is difficult for me to believe that a compassionate god's love would expire at death. that seems silly to me, even if he didn't know what was going to happen. if i can forgive, so can god.

you said: "if we did not have to even in the slightest concern ourselves with hell, or if we knew that heaven was for all, would evil exist? The answer? No."

ok i'm sorry, but you're going to have to take me through your argument here. you are saying that evil on earth necessitates hell beyond earth. this is beyond me--i've never heard this line of argumentation before. it seems like you are making a metaphysical claim. can you explain it?

why does evil existing on earth have anything to do with a hell beyond earth?

evil does not necessitate a hell. hell is not a logical consequence of anything (including evil) since it is an absurd idea.  it seems to me the only reason why anyone would think a place like hell exists is because they had the misfortune of learning about it from their parents or their pastors. or from greek legends about hades.

no one could ever dream up such an absurd place/idea like hell except someone (god or human) who wanted to incite fear in those less powerful than he.  you have not made an argument for why hell is necessary. this seems to be essential to your belief system. 

a loving god does not have to make a hell. a loving god does not want to make a hell.

ultimate forgiveness requires the dissolution of ego. the only way someone would punish you for eternity is if they harbored resentment to you, and harboring resentment requires ego. since god harbors resentment and is willing to punish you because he resents, then he is not ultimately forgiving. it seems to me that if he is not ultimately forgiving, he is not all good. that's too bad.

 

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
bump?

bump?


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: i never asked

mouse wrote:
i never asked to be "called" by god in the first place.

Nor I but when he called me, it was undeniable.

mouse wrote:
why would he punish anyone for putting the on the planet, if they didn't even ask to be put there? and, people who don't make the nfl aren't condemned to hell either.

This is one of the things I really wish will stick - who says you are punished or condemned?  Only the head coach will bench you and in the case of God, only he will condemn you. 

mouse wrote:
why wouldn't jesus have compassion for people who don't understand the truth? i can imagine someone (like buddha) being compassionate to those who are ignorant of truth, even beyond the temporal bounds of life. why does jesus' compassion have an expiration date, while buddha's doesn't? buddha never condemned anyone. why is jesus' condemnation necessary in the universe, if it is possible to still forgive?

All of God's creations are finite.  Everyone will die one day.  The example you give of "Buddha", remember Buddha was a man first; he did not begin as a spirit.  Buddhism is more of a state of mind and philosophy than it is a theism.  A Buddha will not condemn for it is not his place to do so.  God as the creator has rule over the created (like the example in the bible, how can the pot ask the potter why did you make me so?).  What God does at judgment time, well no one knows, at least, no one alive anyway.

mouse wrote:
Why is the belief necessary? In order for you to come to a complete realization of what your Christian life is about, you MUST understand both sides, good and evil. Remember, it is said that Satan knows the bible better than any person (proving it when he tempted Jesus) and so we, who are far more ignorant on spiritual things must be aware of what you are against...and that includes what may await in hell.

Belief is necessary as we are not worthy of his mercy to begin with.  Because we are not creatures capable of being good 100% of the time, from thoughts to actions, we were first required to offer reconciliation for our faults; this was negated by Jesus as he became THE atonement so belief in him became all that was necessary.

mouse wrote:
if i can forgive, so can god.

Right.  That's why I can't say who goes and who doesn't but like the laws that we are required to obey, God can't be taken for granted either.

mouse wrote:
you said: "if we did not have to even in the slightest concern ourselves with hell, or if we knew that heaven was for all, would evil exist? The answer? No."

ok i'm sorry, but you're going to have to take me through your argument here. you are saying that evil on earth necessitates hell beyond earth. this is beyond me--i've never heard this line of argumentation before. it seems like you are making a metaphysical claim. can you explain it?

The point I was trying to make is if you knew you could drive 80 all the time and it was LEGAL, would you feel in the slightest guilty for doing so?  Would you be on the look out for cops if you knew you didn't have to worry?  If you live your life by God's word, what is there to worry about?  Sure temptation will come your way but if you remember God's word, what sway will it have?  That make sense? 

mouse wrote:
ultimate forgiveness requires the dissolution of ego. the only way someone would punish you for eternity is if they harbored resentment to you, and harboring resentment requires ego. since god harbors resentment and is willing to punish you because he resents, then he is not ultimately forgiving. it seems to me that if he is not ultimately forgiving, he is not all good. that's too bad.

Right.  But don't compare that to God as he is not a person.  As I said no person on this earth can condemn you.  God however can just as we have the power on earth to condemn someone of breaking a law.  Because he can does not signify ego or resentment but rather the punishment for the wrongs committed.  But when he yields this power no one alive can say... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: mouse

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:
why would he punish anyone for putting the on the planet, if they didn't even ask to be put there? and, people who don't make the nfl aren't condemned to hell either.

This is one of the things I really wish will stick - who says you are punished or condemned?  Only the head coach will bench you and in the case of God, only he will condemn you.

The very thing that tells you there is a hell is what tells us we're destined for it.

razorphreak wrote:
All of God's creations are finite.  Everyone will die one day.

I contend this is not so. Within a hundred years old age might not be a problem anymore. Immortality is theoretically achievable. That would imply we are not a gods creations.  

razorphreak wrote:
The example you give of "Buddha", remember Buddha was a man first; he did not begin as a spirit.  Buddhism is more of a state of mind and philosophy than it is a theism.  A Buddha will not condemn for it is not his place to do so.  God as the creator has rule over the created (like the example in the bible, how can the pot ask the potter why did you make me so?).  What God does at judgment time, well no one knows, at least, no one alive anyway.

If noone knows, then why are theists constantly saying otherwise? It seems to me you would be better served educating your own.
And you didn't address his question. Put another way, how could one judge those who aren't aware of ones existance let alone one's rules? How can your god morally judge me, when I have never experienced your god or your gods rules? In order for the rules to be absolute, the message must be absolute. Which is why no religion has ever had any credibility, save sun and moon worshippers(at least they worshipped something that existed and ironically was at least in part responsible for their existance, plus held up to the notion that everyone could percieve them).

razorphreak wrote:
Belief is necessary as we are not worthy of his mercy to begin with.

Sounds like the wife of a woman beater talking there. Your god is not worthy of our worship.

razorphreak wrote:
Because we are not creatures capable of being good 100% of the time, from thoughts to actions, we were first required to offer reconciliation for our faults; this was negated by Jesus as he became THE atonement so belief in him became all that was necessary.

And until the day comes that you can show your jesus appeared to everyone on the planet and delivered his message, I'll ignore it as ludicrous. An all powerful god wouldn't set the stage for absolution in belief of a man that can't even be proved to have existed, let alone one that was unknown by the vast majority of our species. The notion is nonsensical.

razorphreak wrote:
Right.  That's why I can't say who goes and who doesn't but like the laws that we are required to obey, God can't be taken for granted either.

No, it can't be taken for granted. I agree. There's no evidence it exists, let alone any evidence to suggest we should follow it. Though I'm not sure you meant it that way.

razorphreak wrote:
The point I was trying to make is if you knew you could drive 80 all the time and it was LEGAL, would you feel in the slightest guilty for doing so?

No, but then I don't feel guilty if I go 90 either. As long as I don't hurt anyone there's no harm. In fact, it's quite often safer for you and everyone else to go faster than the limit. At least in my experience. Maybe drivers are better at following the rules where you are.

razorphreak wrote:
  Would you be on the look out for cops if you knew you didn't have to worry?

Being on the lookout for cops is pointless most of the time. By the time you've seen the cop, he's already clocked your speed.

razorphreak wrote:
  If you live your life by God's word, what is there to worry about?  Sure temptation will come your way but if you remember God's word, what sway will it have?  That make sense?

Only if there's a god. Without knowing your god, following him would be intellectually dishonest at best, and immoral at worst.

razorphreak wrote:
Right.  But don't compare that to God as he is not a person.  As I said no person on this earth can condemn you.  God however can just as we have the power on earth to condemn someone of breaking a law.  Because he can does not signify ego or resentment but rather the punishment for the wrongs committed.  But when he yields this power no one alive can say...

Without having made the laws known and believed by everyone, I don't know how you can reconcile his right to judge everyone based on them. I find it immoral to judge someone through ignorance. I feel it. Why would your god make it so his rules felt bad to those he expects to follow them? It would be logical to make his desires feel good, not bad.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: mouse

razorphreak wrote:

mouse wrote:
i never asked to be "called" by god in the first place.

Nor I but when he called me, it was undeniable.

what is your point here?

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:
why would he punish anyone for putting the on the planet, if they didn't even ask to be put there? and, people who don't make the nfl aren't condemned to hell either.

This is one of the things I really wish will stick - who says you are punished or condemned? Only the head coach will bench you and in the case of God, only he will condemn you.

the question here again is, if I didn't ask to be put on the planet, why would God punish me? Which question are you answering here?

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:
why wouldn't jesus have compassion for people who don't understand the truth? i can imagine someone (like buddha) being compassionate to those who are ignorant of truth, even beyond the temporal bounds of life. why does jesus' compassion have an expiration date, while buddha's doesn't? buddha never condemned anyone. why is jesus' condemnation necessary in the universe, if it is possible to still forgive?

All of God's creations are finite.

God's essential creation (a human soul) is infinite, not finite in the Christian doctrine.

razorphreak wrote:
The example you give of "Buddha", remember Buddha was a man first; he did not begin as a spirit.
Buddha was never a spirit.

razorphreak wrote:
A Buddha will not condemn for it is not his place to do so.
A buddha doesn't condemn someone because condemnation is not necessary in the universe, even if there is a God-creator. Buddhism guides away from ignorance and toward truth. No condemnation necessary to help people find truth.

razorphreak wrote:
God as the creator has rule over the created (like the example in the bible, how can the pot ask the potter why did you make me so?). What God does at judgment time, well no one knows, at least, no one alive anyway.

Pots can't ask why they were put on the planet, and pots are not condemned to hell.

 

Humans can ask why they were put on the planet and they have a valid point when they say, given the fact that I didn't ask to be put on earth in the first place, why would a loving God condemn me?

Also, Hell is not necessary.

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:
Why is the belief necessary? In order for you to come to a complete realization of what your Christian life is about, you MUST understand both sides, good and evil. Remember, it is said that Satan knows the bible better than any person (proving it when he tempted Jesus) and so we, who are far more ignorant on spiritual things must be aware of what you are against...and that includes what may await in hell.
this is your quote, not my quote.

razorphreak wrote:
Belief is necessary as we are not worthy of his mercy to begin with.
this is why belief in hell is necessary?
how does your belief in hell affect your behavior in general?

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:
if i can forgive, so can god.

Right. That's why I can't say who goes and who doesn't but like the laws that we are required to obey, God can't be taken for granted either.

this does not make hell necessary.

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:
you said: "if we did not have to even in the slightest concern ourselves with hell, or if we knew that heaven was for all, would evil exist? The answer? No."

ok i'm sorry, but you're going to have to take me through your argument here. you are saying that evil on earth necessitates hell beyond earth. this is beyond me--i've never heard this line of argumentation before. it seems like you are making a metaphysical claim. can you explain it?

The point I was trying to make is if you knew you could drive 80 all the time and it was LEGAL, would you feel in the slightest guilty for doing so? Would you be on the look out for cops if you knew you didn't have to worry? If you live your life by God's word, what is there to worry about? Sure temptation will come your way but if you remember God's word, what sway will it have? That make sense?

Isn't God's word diluted if you need an external motivator to get you to follow it? Wouldn't your belief in God and following of his message be more meaningful if you carried it out without knowledge of hell?

 

can you be more specific about why hell is necessary in God's universe?

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:
ultimate forgiveness requires the dissolution of ego. the only way someone would punish you for eternity is if they harbored resentment to you, and harboring resentment requires ego. since god harbors resentment and is willing to punish you because he resents, then he is not ultimately forgiving. it seems to me that if he is not ultimately forgiving, he is not all good. that's too bad.

Right. But don't compare that to God as he is not a person. As I said no person on this earth can condemn you. God however can just as we have the power on earth to condemn someone of breaking a law.

I understand that an omnipotent being can do whatever he wants. My question to you is not whether he has the power to condemn but why he would use this power when could easily forgive?

 

razorphreak wrote:
Because he can does not signify ego or resentment but rather the punishment for the wrongs committed. But when he yields this power no one alive can say...



I don't understand why our arbitrarily short lives (you can live to be one, ten, nineteen, twenty-eight etc. and than have your life cut short by numerous arbitrary accidents which are just part of the life God designed on tihs planet) carry with them infinite sentences, especially by a loving God.

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: the question

mouse wrote:
the question here again is, if I didn't ask to be put on the planet, why would God punish me? Which question are you answering here?

Who says God is punishing you?  If you feel this way perhaps it would be time to research a bit more about who God is no? 

mouse wrote:
Buddhism guides away from ignorance and toward truth. No condemnation necessary to help people find truth.

And it actually follows what Jesus taught because no MAN should condemn.

mouse wrote:
Pots can't ask why they were put on the planet, and pots are not condemned to hell.

Nor should we be asking why but rather trying to find out what our purpose is.  And because there are actions that can condemn you, does that mean you are???  Last time I checked, so long as you are alive you can at any time save yourself from condemnation.

mouse wrote:
this does not make hell necessary.

Yes, it does.  God will not remember someone who does not remember his word.  He can forgive it all, but we should be aware he does not have to.

mouse wrote:
Isn't God's word diluted if you need an external motivator to get you to follow it? Wouldn't your belief in God and following of his message be more meaningful if you carried it out without knowledge of hell?

OK please understand what an analogy is, again.  I didn't say you needed any external motivator to God, I was trying to give you an example of what it means to follow a figure of authority.

mouse wrote:
My question to you is not whether he has the power to condemn but why he would use this power when could easily forgive?

Because we do not know what the other person's reason for being on this planet is, we do not know if God sent him to be at that time and place to accomplish it.  As I've given the example of Hitler or Saddam Hussein, because these "evil" men can be condemned by men does not mean they would be by God.  So when God condemns, I don't know...all I do know is there is one action to which there is no forgiveness (which is NOT the challenge).

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: The very

Vastet wrote:
The very thing that tells you there is a hell is what tells us we're destined for it.

Umm last time I checked that very thing tells us all there is a way to avoid it too. 

Vastet wrote:
If noone knows, then why are theists constantly saying otherwise? It seems to me you would be better served educating your own.

The bible is there, my hope would be if they and I were to cross paths, God's wisdom will help us both. 

Vastet wrote:
how could one judge those who aren't aware of ones existance let alone one's rules? How can your god morally judge me, when I have never experienced your god or your gods rules?

Because in every person morality is not lost.  Every person has a "natural law" and this is what tells you it's not good to kill another person, it's not good to steal over share, it's not good to hate over love. (Romans 2)  Based upon that, those who have never heard Jesus' words will be judged in this light.  This is not a ticket out of not listening to God's word however.

Vastet wrote:
As long as I don't hurt anyone there's no harm. In fact, it's quite often safer for you and everyone else to go faster than the limit. At least in my experience. Maybe drivers are better at following the rules where you are.

And that justifies it?  I suppose you could use that argument for driving drunk too but it only takes one time to prove it wrong so why continue?

Vastet wrote:
Without knowing your god, following him would be intellectually dishonest at best, and immoral at worst.

I'm talking about his message, his word.  I thought you'd understand that.

Vastet wrote:
Why would your god make it so his rules felt bad to those he expects to follow them? It would be logical to make his desires feel good, not bad.

So it would feel good to rape? Murder?  Steal?  Hate? 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
hi razorphreak, i feel

hi razorphreak,

i feel like you are sort of stepping around my questions without getting to the heart of them. 

you do this here: 

 

razorphreak wrote:

mouse wrote:
i never asked to be "called" by god in the first place.

Nor I but when he called me, it was undeniable.



My point in this question is that I never asked to be created, and yet apparently God called me; Why does God call people without their permission and then but also condemns his own creation? 

 

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Again, here are questions

Again, here are questions which linger after these posts:

1. Why is hell necessary?

 

2. Why is it that "many are called, but few are chosen?"

 

3. How does your knowledge of hell affect your behavior? 

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: mouse

razorphreak wrote:

mouse wrote:
the question here again is, if I didn't ask to be put on the planet, why would God punish me? Which question are you answering here?

Who says God is punishing you? If you feel this way perhaps it would be time to research a bit more about who God is no?

christians say that if you do not accept jesus, god punishes you by condemning you to eternal damnation in hell. i think this action taken by god is unnecessary and not loving.

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:
Buddhism guides away from ignorance and toward truth. No condemnation necessary to help people find truth.

And it actually follows what Jesus taught because no MAN should condemn.

a god should be an example for man;a god should not condemn.

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:
Pots can't ask why they were put on the planet, and pots are not condemned to hell.

Nor should we be asking why but rather trying to find out what our purpose is.

why shouldn't we be asking why?

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:
this does not make hell necessary.

Yes, it does. God will not remember someone who does not remember his word. He can forgive it all, but we should be aware he does not have to.

god doesn't have to do anything, but if he represents absolute good, his forgiveness would be absolute also.

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:
Isn't God's word diluted if you need an external motivator to get you to follow it? Wouldn't your belief in God and following of his message be more meaningful if you carried it out without knowledge of hell?

OK please understand what an analogy is, again. I didn't say you needed any external motivator to God, I was trying to give you an example of what it means to follow a figure of authority.

can you answer this question more directly: Isn't God's word diluted if you need an external motivator to get you to follow it? Wouldn't your belief in God and following of his message be more meaningful if you carried it out without knowledge of hell? (with a "yes" or a "no" or an "i don't know"?)

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Haven't we been down this

Haven't we been down this road? 

1. Why is hell necessary? - God's mercy can be limitless, but God has told us that it is not.  Why it is not I do not know but I understand it.  If a child misbehaves, you have make aware to the child there will be consequences if they continue down that path.  God has done the same here...

2. Why is it that "many are called, but few are chosen?" If man was not evil by nature, it would read all are called and chosen.  If we followed the bible but in our hearts we hate, we judge, and we do not believe, how can we be chosen? 

3. How does your knowledge of hell affect your behavior?  It doesn't.  Because I believe in Jesus, in what God wrote, and yes because I know of hell, I've got the understanding that things will happen in my life that may screw me up, that may make me take a step back, but my spirit is happy to know the word and what it takes for me to keep faith.

 That he would leave his place on high, and come for sinful man to die, You count it strange, so once did I, Before I knew my savior - Aaron Shust: My Savior My God

mouse wrote:
christians say that if you do not accept jesus, god punishes you by condemning you to eternal damnation in hell. i think this action taken by god is unnecessary and not loving.

What is more important...what one person tells you or what the bible states?

mouse wrote:
why shouldn't we be asking why?

Like the pot, how can it ask why to the one who created it?  Thing is, if you ask, God might answer.  For me I've never needed to know why because, for me anyway, there never has been a reason to question.

mouse wrote:
his forgiveness would be absolute also.

Who says it's not.  While we know that God can condemn, I don't know what he does or not.  All I know is as a man, I CAN'T.

mouse wrote:
can you answer this question more directly: Isn't God's word diluted if you need an external motivator to get you to follow it? Wouldn't your belief in God and following of his message be more meaningful if you carried it out without knowledge of hell? (with a "yes" or a "no" or an "i don't know"?)

I think I understand you now...

Are you asking if, because of my understanding of hell, that makes me act differently?  If there was no hell, would I follow God's word anyway?

To be honest I don't know.  Hell or not I feel called to his will and to that I live my life.  I know in the past, before being called, I didn't care about hell or not.  Now, hell is the farthest thing from my mind.  What is more so on my mind is being prepared for the next thing God wants me to do and prepared when I do have to use his wisdom for his will.

 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Why is hell

Quote:
Why is hell necessary? - God's mercy can be limitless, but God has told us that it is not.

Ok... Why is god's mercy not limitless? Because it's not.

This is what we call circular reasoning. How do you know it was god? How do you know he was telling the truth? All these answers will produce the same results... circular reasoning.

Quote:
Why is it that "many are called, but few are chosen?" If man was not evil by nature, it would read all are called and chosen. If we followed the bible but in our hearts we hate, we judge, and we do not believe, how can we be chosen?

If chickens and nuts were farts and butts, we'd all stink more. More circular reasoning. It is because it is... is not an answer. It's a restatement of a baseless assertion.

Quote:
How does your knowledge of hell affect your behavior? It doesn't. Because I believe in Jesus, in what God wrote, and yes because I know of hell, I've got the understanding that things will happen in my life that may screw me up, that may make me take a step back, but my spirit is happy to know the word and what it takes for me to keep faith.

So... um... hell is only for people who don't believe in illogical stories based on circular reasoning?

I get it... kind of... I think...

If I don't believe in your god, then I don't believe in hell... so, logically, my fear of hell will make me believe in god...

Ok. I admit. I don't get it.

Quote:
What is more important...what one person tells you or what the bible states?

people wrote the bible, last I checked... so... what is more important, what people 2000 years ago wrote in a collection of independent books that were compiled hundreds of years after the originals were lost, or what people who have been studying 2000 years of science tell you?

For me, kiddo, I prefer to believe the scientists.

Quote:
Like the pot, how can it ask why to the one who created it? Thing is, if you ask, God might answer. For me I've never needed to know why because, for me anyway, there never has been a reason to question.

We've noticed you aren't big into questioning your beliefs. Good thing Edison was more of a skeptic than you, or you wouldn't be able to post your anti-science nonsense for everyone to read.

Quote:
Who says it's not. While we know that God can condemn, I don't know what he does or not. All I know is as a man, I CAN'T.

Enlightening. or not...

Quote:

Are you asking if, because of my understanding of hell, that makes me act differently? If there was no hell, would I follow God's word anyway?

To be honest I don't know.

This makes me afraid of you. Seriously. If you don't know, then it's distinctly possible that you have some kind of borderline sociopathic tendencies.

I wish you could understand how scary it is for a non-religious person to hear a theist say he doesn't know if he would be an evil son-of-a-bitch if not for fear of hell. That's really, really scary.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


caseagainstfaith
Silver Member
caseagainstfaith's picture
Posts: 202
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

1. Why is hell necessary? - God's mercy can be limitless, but God has told us that it is not. Why it is not I do not know but I understand it. If a child misbehaves, you have make aware to the child there will be consequences if they continue down that path. God has done the same here...

Its NOT the same, punishing a child is done with the intent to teach a lesson to learn from. To not repeat in the future. If any parent were to say, "love me, or I'll torture you for as long as I can" we'd lock them up.

razorphreak wrote:
If man was not evil by nature, it would read all are called and chosen. If we followed the bible but in our hearts we hate, we judge, and we do not believe, how can we be chosen?

Why does a "perfect" God create something "evil by nature"? That's oxymoronic.

And why is God so hung up on "believing"? If I were to say, "I don't believe George Washington was the first US President", you might say I'm kooky, but, would you say I deserve eternal punishment? Now what if I were to say, "I don't believe George Washington arose from the dead."? Even if George Washington DID rise from the dead, it is still reasonable for me to doubt that he did. What if God says, "everybody that doesn't believe G Washington rose from the dead goes to hell"? You'd be in hell too. Would that be fair?

"Faith" is believing in that which there is insufficient evidence. If there was sufficient evidence, you wouldn't need faith. Why does God find believing in that which there is insufficient evidence to be a virtue?

razorphreak wrote:
What is more important...what one person tells you or what the bible states?

Speaking of "Simple Truths," the Bible is shit. Have you ever read the fucking thing -- the WHOLE FUCKING THING?

 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Hamby...I've missed that

Hamby...I've missed that critical eye of yours...course how can I say anything when your only response has me in circles..

Hambydammit wrote:
If I don't believe in your god, then I don't believe in hell... so, logically, my fear of hell will make me believe in god...

You won't believe in anything that you don't have proof of, of that I'm sure.  So until you have your proof, what does it matter if you believe in it or not?  It is not for you to say I believe in God because of hell because that is not how God will reveal himself to you... 

Hambydammit wrote:
what is more important, what people 2000 years ago wrote in a collection of independent books that were compiled hundreds of years after the originals were lost, or what people who have been studying 2000 years of science tell you?

It's about faith hamby.  Since science is at best, subjective, faith is what determines the understanding of God influenced writings. 

Hambydammit wrote:
Good thing Edison was more of a skeptic than you, or you wouldn't be able to post your anti-science nonsense for everyone to read.

How little you actually understand who I am... 

Hambydammit wrote:
This makes me afraid of you. Seriously. If you don't know, then it's distinctly possible that you have some kind of borderline sociopathic tendencies.

I wish you could understand how scary it is for a non-religious person to hear a theist say he doesn't know if he would be an evil son-of-a-bitch if not for fear of hell. That's really, really scary.

Interesting you'd word it that way when the question was if I would follow God's word, not if I would be an evil person.  But sleep easy tonight because life should not be lived by "what if's" and I am not asking what if because what I do not by certain is my faith in God and Jesus.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
caseagainstfaith wrote: Its

caseagainstfaith wrote:
Its NOT the same, punishing a child is done with the intent to teach a lesson to learn from. To not repeat in the future. If any parent were to say, "love me, or I'll torture you for as long as I can" we'd lock them up.

I didn't say it was the same..I'm trying to show a similar analogy.

caseagainstfaith wrote:
Why does a "perfect" God create something "evil by nature"? That's oxymoronic.

Did I say he created us that way?  Odd I'd remember that.

caseagainstfaith wrote:
"Faith" is believing in that which there is insufficient evidence. If there was sufficient evidence, you wouldn't need faith. Why does God find believing in that which there is insufficient evidence to be a virtue?

Only to those who are not called would say there is insufficient evidence.

caseagainstfaith wrote:
Speaking of "Simple Truths," the Bible is shit. Have you ever read the fucking thing -- the WHOLE FUCKING THING?

Yes I have and from what you just said it's pretty obvious you didn't get it.  But, as I've said before, God made you this way so you show the bible to be correct. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
"Yes I have and from what

"Yes I have and from what you just said it's pretty obvious you didn't get it. But, as I've said before, God made you this way so you show the bible to be correct. "

 

Why would a loving god who created me in his image and watches over me always create me, personally, in such a way so that I am incapable of believing in him?

Did he then, by your logic, create me with the intention of sending me to hell? If god is omnipotent, then wouldn't he have known that I would be a scientific person who is incapable or believing something without sufficent proof(proof that is arrived at via the scientific method)?

 

"Only to those who are not called would say there is insufficient evidence."

Only those who are desperate to believe would call a poorly written, poorly translated, selectively edited book, 'truth'.


caseagainstfaith
Silver Member
caseagainstfaith's picture
Posts: 202
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

I didn't say it was the same..I'm trying to show a similar analogy.

Its not "similar" either. That's one of the annoying things about theists, they give a lame analogy. And then when it is pointed out that isn't reasonable at all, they'll just say, "well, its just sorta like that". Its nonsense.

razorphreak wrote:
caseagainstfaith wrote:
Why does a "perfect" God create something "evil by nature"? That's oxymoronic.

Did I say he created us that way? Odd I'd remember that.

How else did we get an "evil nature"? Besides, don't you say it just a few sentances later:

razorphreak wrote:
God made you this way so you show the bible to be correct.

By the way, isn't "Bible" supposed to be capitalized?

razorphreak wrote:
Yes I have and from what you just said it's pretty obvious you didn't get it. But, as I've said before, God made you this way so you show the bible to be correct.

 

And, how many other people "don't get it"? Like Muslems. I guess they don't "get it". How about Jews? They don't get it either I guess. Hindus Buddhists? JW's, Mormons? What about Protastants if you are Catholic, or Catholics if you are Protestant?

 

Oh, and assuming YOU do "get it", why exactly was a woman not heard to cry out while raped to be assumed to be guilty and stoned to death? Can you clue me in?  And how about when God ordered that when the Israilis come upon a city, they are to walk up and say, "be our slaves or die", and kill them if they refuse?  How did that work?  Or what about when Moses ordered the taking of virgins as war "plunder"?  How did that go?


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

 

mouse wrote:
can you answer this question more directly: Isn't God's word diluted if you need an external motivator to get you to follow it? Wouldn't your belief in God and following of his message be more meaningful if you carried it out without knowledge of hell? (with a "yes" or a "no" or an "i don't know"?)

I think I understand you now...

Are you asking if, because of my understanding of hell, that makes me act differently? If there was no hell, would I follow God's word anyway?

To be honest I don't know. Hell or not I feel called to his will and to that I live my life. I know in the past, before being called, I didn't care about hell or not. Now, hell is the farthest thing from my mind. What is more so on my mind is being prepared for the next thing God wants me to do and prepared when I do have to use his wisdom for his will.

 

From your answer (hell is the farthest thing from your mind) it follows that hell is not an essential component of your belief system. If hell isn't essential to your belief in being called to his will maybe the concept of hell isn't necessary at all!

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: Why would a

Maragon wrote:
Why would a loving god who created me in his image and watches over me always create me, personally, in such a way so that I am incapable of believing in him?

Did he then, by your logic, create me with the intention of sending me to hell? If god is omnipotent, then wouldn't he have known that I would be a scientific person who is incapable or believing something without sufficent proof(proof that is arrived at via the scientific method)?

As I've posted several times in this very thread, God creates some for noble purpose and others for destructive purpose.  Please go back and read my analogy of Hitler.

I do not know what God's will was for you and if he created you to not be a believer, who am I to say you are damned if he created you for me to believe more.  If he did, I cannot say you are going to hell because I am not God one and second if you fulfill your purpose to what God wanted, that sounds to me like something good and worthy of forgiveness (to me, to God is what matters though).  You need to understand, if you are fulfilling God's purpose that is a full life. 

 

Maragon wrote:
Only those who are desperate to believe would call a poorly written, poorly translated, selectively edited book, 'truth'.

According to whom?  It's easy to dismiss than to attempt to understand. 

 

caseagainstfaith wrote:
That's one of the annoying things about theists, they give a lame analogy. And then when it is pointed out that isn't reasonable at all, they'll just say, "well, its just sorta like that". Its nonsense.

Funny how as soon as I read this I thought the most annoying thing about those like you (note I'm not saying all atheists) who simply cannot use reasoning with understanding of comapartive analogies and will always use idiotic responses with no logic and only hatred...wow that just really annoys me.  I couldn't even read the rest of your post since it's obvious you are not posting to debate but to argue your own hatred against someone.  If you want to discuss, let's discuss.  If you want to insult, you've got your own thread that bars theists from posting so please go vent.

mouse wrote:
From your answer (hell is the farthest thing from your mind) it follows that hell is not an essential component of your belief system. If hell isn't essential to your belief in being called to his will maybe the concept of hell isn't necessary at all!

Because it's the farthest thing from my mind is does not mean it does not leave my mind entirely.  About the only thing where it is essential is the reminder that I can always fall and if I were to fall hard enough, I may not be able to get back up.  It's not a fear but rather a sense of to be prepared against evil when it comes my way. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


caseagainstfaith
Silver Member
caseagainstfaith's picture
Posts: 202
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

Funny how as soon as I read this I thought the most annoying thing about those like you (note I'm not saying all atheists) who simply cannot use reasoning with understanding of comapartive analogies and will always use idiotic responses with no logic and only hatred...wow that just really annoys me.

So, its okay for you to insult me, eh? And my response WAS LOGICAL -- I pointed out that infinite punishment is totally irrelevant to the concept of punishment to teach a lesson. So my response was logical, and I was justified in saying your analogy whas shit.  And rather than respond to it, you dumped on me for pointing out your analogy was shit.  You may now commence to go fuck yourself.


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
" As I've posted several

"

As I've posted several times in this very thread, God creates some for noble purpose and others for destructive purpose.  Please go back and read my analogy of Hitler.

I do not know what God's will was for you and if he created you to not be a believer, who am I to say you are damned if he created you for me to believe more.  If he did, I cannot say you are going to hell because I am not God one and second if you fulfill your purpose to what God wanted, that sounds to me like something good and worthy of forgiveness (to me, to God is what matters though).  You need to understand, if you are fulfilling God's purpose that is a full life. "

Funny, I've never seen any of this postulated in the biblical accounts. I'm pretty sure this is some bizzare theory you've created to attempt to recify glaring logical fallacies in your doctrine. 

 

"According to whom?  It's easy to dismiss than to attempt to understand. "

 

Couldn't I say the same to you?


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: Funny, I've

Maragon wrote:
Funny, I've never seen any of this postulated in the biblical accounts. I'm pretty sure this is some bizzare theory you've created to attempt to recify glaring logical fallacies in your doctrine.

Romans 9:14-23.

Maragon wrote:
Couldn't I say the same to you?

Have you known me well enough to say I'm not open minded enough to attempt to understand when you are being civil?  I don't walk into a thread and make basless claims (even though you might consider them, they are all backed up by what I believe) and start insulting someone elses beliefs with non-responsive claims, such as saying something is nonsense for the sake of posting.

My point is you've got something to add...let's see it.  But I want to see if you are open to the other side of the argument. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Romans 9:14 What shall we

Romans

9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

[...] I don't walk into a thread and make basless claims (even though you might consider them, they are all backed up by what I believe) [...]

Your belief is faith. That is, belief that forgoes a basis.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:

magilum wrote:
Your belief is faith. That is, belief that forgoes a basis.

Would have been better to post it from the NIV or NASB; easier to read.

My belief is in Jesus and his message. That is the basis.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
"My belief is in Jesus and

"My belief is in Jesus and his message. That is the basis."

 

Your belief is in something that is scientifically unfounded and has never been adaquately proven. 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: Your belief

Maragon wrote:
Your belief is in something that is scientifically unfounded and has never been adaquately proven.

Which is why it's called faith.  Faith, while defined as the belief in the unknown, does have basis upon personal experiences.  My experience with God is my own and while I can tell you until the day I die how I've come to believe in God and what my proof is, no scientist or a person who has trust in only science will ever accept my proof because, as my quote says, I can't prove it (God) to you until it is revealed to you.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Maragon

razorphreak wrote:

Maragon wrote:
Your belief is in something that is scientifically unfounded and has never been adaquately proven.

Which is why it's called faith. Faith, while defined as the belief in the unknown, does have basis upon personal experiences. My experience with God is my own and while I can tell you until the day I die how I've come to believe in God and what my proof is, no scientist or a person who has trust in only science will ever accept my proof because, as my quote says, I can't prove it (God) to you until it is revealed to you.

 

Yes, but personal experience isn't proof of anything.

If I believed in everyone's personal experiences simply because they said I should, what WOULDN'T I believe in? 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: Yes, but

Maragon wrote:
Yes, but personal experience isn't proof of anything.

If I believed in everyone's personal experiences simply because they said I should, what WOULDN'T I believe in?

I think you misunderstand.  My personal experience with God is not to make you believe in it.  I can't do that.  I don't have that ability.  For me however, it's what I know. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:
Maragon wrote:
Yes, but personal experience isn't proof of anything.

If I believed in everyone's personal experiences simply because they said I should, what WOULDN'T I believe in?

I think you misunderstand. My personal experience with God is not to make you believe in it. I can't do that. I don't have that ability. For me however, it's what I know.

The brain has ways to fool us. Ever see an optical illusion?

Knowledge is a complex subject, and subjective phenomena are not even legitimate demonstration of something's reality--in themselves, at least--for me.

I cannot deny that you have experiences.  And if you've had them, then neither can you. What I can question (and what everyone should at least question) is whether the experience came from where we attribute it? That is, the experience of "God" cannot be denied as an experience, just that God actually also exists outside of the experience. That is, you can know that you had an experience, but you cannot know it was from outside yourself--ever see the Matrix?

I do not doubt that God exists in the minds of believers. I doubt that God exists outside of believers' minds. That is the issue that is relevant for a god's existence, not subjective experiences.

 

 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote: I cannot

ShaunPhilly wrote:
I cannot deny that you have experiences. And if you've had them, then neither can you. What I can question (and what everyone should at least question) is whether the experience came from where we attribute it? That is, the experience of "God" cannot be denied as an experience, just that God actually also exists outside of the experience. That is, you can know that you had an experience, but you cannot know it was from outside yourself--ever see the Matrix?

Each experience is not to simply be accepted but tested.  When you hear of the old pope performing miricles from the dead, this MUST be questioned, especially when these so called spirits ask for worship...

1 John 4:1-3 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:
ShaunPhilly wrote:
I cannot deny that you have experiences. And if you've had them, then neither can you. What I can question (and what everyone should at least question) is whether the experience came from where we attribute it? That is, the experience of "God" cannot be denied as an experience, just that God actually also exists outside of the experience. That is, you can know that you had an experience, but you cannot know it was from outside yourself--ever see the Matrix?

Each experience is not to simply be accepted but tested. When you hear of the old pope performing miricles from the dead, this MUST be questioned, especially when these so called spirits ask for worship...

1 John 4:1-3 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

OK....

In general, I avoid responses such as the following.  I'll make an exception once in a while, and now is such a time.

How is that an asnwer to my post? It does not address the epistemological question at all.  I find is rather funny that one would counter a suggestion to question whether an experience was from some god with a dead pope doing something or other.  Followed by a qote from the Bible is, well, almost knee-slapping funny. 

What is teh methodology for testing something like this? By what criteria will you accept some spirits but not others?  What is your epistemological methodology? 

Razor, I hate saying this, but your post seems like a dodge.  And while I don't know you personally well at all, it strikes me as fitting the psychological profile of a defense mechanism to answer a question with something non sequitor--known in debate as a deflection of the question (a dodge).

I apologize if I came accross too strong, but it's my honest impression.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Before you go off calling

Before you go off calling it a dodge, you did ask how would I know where it came from and what to attribute it to.  This is why I posted the bible verse; it says it better than I could.

ShaunPhilly wrote:
What is teh methodology for testing something like this? By what criteria will you accept some spirits but not others? What is your epistemological methodology?

I had thought that was pretty clearly defined by the bible verse.  For the sake of being generalistic, people approach you with their beliefs but it is important to question where they are coming from.  It's escentially to whom the credit is given to for their wisdom and/or understanding.  That make sense?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Avecrien
Theist
Avecrien's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-04-25
User is offlineOffline
Hell is permanent, but not

Hell is permanent, but not torture. Those not saved are destroyed. Annihilated. God doesn't revolve around people, he's got better things to do. Bible says they get squished, not prodded for ever and ever.

Hell(annihilation) is the consequence of refusing God. Jesus has a job that gives him a direct role in the ushering in of some and exclusion of others. Doesn't mean people have to know the guy. Helps, especially when we get into the christian idea of grace.

The reward for being down with God and, knowingly or not, following/serving jesus is what Jesus and the bible call "the kingdom of god." Bible says its on earth. So any heaven place that people go to will be here. Sorry, Billy Graham, no rainbow polishing.

God made stuff, yes. I've seen valid arguments for biblical leeway along the lines of God creating things out of pre-existing matter. Book as a whole doesn't lean that way. Neither do I. Who knows for sure.

God's the boss, he defines the rules. So, for christians, he defines right and wrong.(scary concept. I had my morality before I was a big fan of god.)

Man has free will, sure.

Some people believe in some version of Jesus.

Some don't.

Some Jesus lovers are moral.

Some non-Jesus folks are moral.

_Most_ people who believe in Jesus are immoral.

Some people who do not believe in Jesus are immoral.

Jesus said many( I infer a majority, but that's my personal opinion) who knowingly try to enter into this kingdom of his will fail. So no, not everyone who knows and even loves Jesus has a free ticket.

Bible says people are judged according to what they do with what they have. One doesn't have to know Jesus.  One doesn't necessarily have to know God in any concrete sense. More you know and have available, more is expected of you.  There may be some sort of hoops/punishments for those without a clue of jesus or the god he serves who do  things God doesn't like but are still good people, thinking back to things like Jesus talking about the servant who does wrong unknowingly receiving fewer blows. Such isnt the focus of the book, it tends to be pushing you into a different line to begin with.

So, my best understanding from  what christianity's teachings have to say about people who don't know the religion is that really moral people get to work for God. Immoral people, whether they kiss ass and talk about Jesus all their lives or not, are screwed.

The bible's timeline doesn't leave much room for elaboration on the end result of those not in the first resurrection, the 'elect,' who get to live and work in the kingdom. So its hard for me to spout things off to that end.  It does make  my job easy when talking to someone who worries about their gramma who never heard about the Bible but who totally rocked though.

Mike Gravel for president!


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Avecrien wrote: Hell is

Avecrien wrote:
Hell is permanent, but not torture. Those not saved are destroyed. Annihilated. God doesn't revolve around people, he's got better things to do. Bible says they get squished, not prodded for ever and ever.

It does?  Where were you reading this?  God doesn't have better things to do and you can see that in his interest in us.  He asks us questions not because he doesn't know the answer but rather because he is involved.

Hell is torture.  Remember it's referred to as the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth.  Doesn't sound pleasant to me. 

Avecrien wrote:
The reward for being down with God and, knowingly or not, following/serving jesus is what Jesus and the bible call "the kingdom of god." Bible says its on earth. So any heaven place that people go to will be here. Sorry, Billy Graham, no rainbow polishing.

If no living person can know what heaven is exactly, and not even the bible tells us exactly what heaven is, there is simply no way to understand what "heaven on earth" would mean.

Avecrien wrote:
So, my best understanding from what christianity's teachings have to say about people who don't know the religion is that really moral people get to work for God. Immoral people, whether they kiss ass and talk about Jesus all their lives or not, are screwed.

How so?  Every person, moral or otherwise, can repent with the belief in Jesus when called upon to do so.  This is the "elect".  Even the person on a deathbed, if their heart is true, can be saved.  If we cannot judge a person no matter their lifestyle morality means little because of the belief in Jesus.  With that said, morality is very much understood when you believe as a lifestyle of sin is simply not possible (your life changes when you believe in Jesus and you do not go back to an old way of life). 

This is why the belief in Jesus is not only necessary but essential. 

Avecrien wrote:
The bible's timeline doesn't leave much room for elaboration on the end result of those not in the first resurrection, the 'elect,' who get to live and work in the kingdom. So its hard for me to spout things off to that end. It does make my job easy when talking to someone who worries about their gramma who never heard about the Bible but who totally rocked though.

And this is where Romans 2:14 comes into play.  The person who never heard of the bible or Jesus is still judged upon the natural law of their hearts. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Before

razorphreak wrote:

Before you go off calling it a dodge, you did ask how would I know where it came from and what to attribute it to. This is why I posted the bible verse; it says it better than I could.

ShaunPhilly wrote:
What is teh methodology for testing something like this? By what criteria will you accept some spirits but not others? What is your epistemological methodology?

I had thought that was pretty clearly defined by the bible verse. For the sake of being generalistic, people approach you with their beliefs but it is important to question where they are coming from. It's escentially to whom the credit is given to for their wisdom and/or understanding. That make sense?

Yes, but that answer actually avoids answering the question.  You say you test to see if it is from God, but how would you know a message not from a god to one from a god? What methodology does one use to make the distinction?

The Bible verse did not help at all.  here is the relevant section;

Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. 

This is circular logic. 

You are saying that to know if a message is from God, we have to ask if the message acknowledges (agrees with the idea?) that Jesus came from God, right? So, in order to know if God exists, a person can know via messages from God, which they can test as being from God if said spirit acknowledges God.

So, in order to know taht God exists we have to simply have thoughts taht agree that Jesus is from God, thus taht God exists.

To know that god exists is to believe that Jesus came from God.

If you cannot see what's wrong with that, then you are seriously self-deluded.

Shaun 

 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Avecrien
Theist
Avecrien's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-04-25
User is offlineOffline
Razor, where I was reading

Razor, where I was reading I decided to leave out in an effort not to be preachy in answering the questions at first. I'm happy to list you verses, but you look like one who likes the source material to begin with Eye-wink You've been here seemingly a good bit longer than I have, better that I should satisfy you with bible quoting privately or do so in this thread?

This 'heaven,' the place promised to the saints of the bible is described incessantly. A lot isn't known, but a good deal of information is readily available.  Where it is, who'll be there, what they'll be like, and what they'll be doing is written clearly. Theres room for fun inferences too.

Your statement of the ability of immoral people to  repent is both true and not applicable. Sure, people who suck can repent(stop) and be saved. However the bullet point of 'simple truths' I was speaking on dealt with immorality, not repentance. You and I might simply want to tack on our own point to the list on repentance.

EDIT: And Romans 2 was represented, to be sure!

Mike Gravel for president!


Avecrien
Theist
Avecrien's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-04-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Avecrien wrote:
Hell is permanent, but not torture. Those not saved are destroyed. Annihilated. God doesn't revolve around people, he's got better things to do. Bible says they get squished, not prodded for ever and ever.

...God doesn't have better things to do and you can see that in his interest in us... 

I'm curious about this too. Are you saying God does revolve around people? And interest relative to what? Seems like a fun tangent to chase.

Mike Gravel for president!