If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice. 

Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

 

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Richard Wurmbrand

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
the expansion of the

the expansion of the universe as well as theoretically accounting for a good 3/4's of the universes mass.

We've no evidence beyond our theories for either of these. Indeed the theories themselves predict them. Finding them would validate the theories. But it's not impossible that we could one day find out that neither exist at all.

caposkia wrote:
you're absolutely sure that absolutely nothing happened?  or was it that nothing that you expected to happen happened?

I'm not absolutely sure I exist, let alone anything else. But if an all knowing god failed to provide that which I need in order to believe then how is the fault mine?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:That's not

caposkia wrote:
That's not what He did...  all you see is innocent babies dying and bad choices made by people but are Gods fault because He built a universe that allowed the possibility.  God made everything exactly the way it needed to be.  We as humans made choices that changed that.  Consider the Butterfly Effect.

That argument works on fallible mortals, not omnipotent and omniscient immortal creators. If god had truly made it the way it could be at best, then we couldn't have changed it. I don't see why we have been denied the ability to fly but we have the ability to be cruel. This is omnipotence here. The very laws of physics were designed by this being. The 4 dimensional nature of our existence was his to toy with. You can't convince me that we can't have free will without also having volcanoes exploding under cities or crazy people who want nothing but to cause pain. Why do we even have pain? Why aren't we little clouds floating around doing whatever we want without being able to be hurt?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:as to how

caposkia wrote:

as to how drastic of a demand you were trying to make

Demanding an omnipotent being that He not allow anyone to be tortured for eternity is "drastic"?

 

caposkia wrote:

You demand, why?  it's not going your way?

Correct. Do you actually think a way not involving eternal torture is bad?

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: It doesn't

Vastet wrote:
It doesn't make it anything, and it in no way compares to a distortion of fact.

Where do you think they justify such actions?  Religions typically have a book...  don't tell me they make it up

Vastet wrote:

 Scripture is entirely interpretable.

until you study it

Vastet wrote:

What is fact and what is metaphor is up to the one interpreting.

ok, wisdom is a real person and Jesus is the metaphor.  It's really not.

Vastet wrote:

Even if the entire creationist movement was wiped out today, it would arise again within a hundred years because someone had a different interpretation and spread it. You don't have a leg to stand on to support your interpretation over someone elses, because there's no evidence for either.

and yet we're still standing where the others whom we've confronted are staggering.  (in reference to others with a different interpretation)  The difference is we've done our homework.  Most others can only tell you what others told them to believe.  Sadly this falls onto the non-believers as well.  not all however.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: The person

Vastet wrote:
The person won't gain new expertise or knowledge, but traits which had previously been overshadowed or controlled may become dominant. Focus, values, and personality can or will change. If you take the wheels off a car, it isn't technically a vehicle anymore. It becomes a metal box. Useful, but not something to travel in. A car is only a vehicle as long as all the necessary parts are present and working. And you are only you as long as all the parts that make you are present and working.

right, so your game analogy is out the window.  As you said, traits which has previously been overshadowed or controlled may become dominant.  In other words, though it's not really you, they are still parts of you that didn't define you previously.  There's the distortion.  

We could go on with this till we hit 1000 pages.  I think we both agree the brain is complex.  I think we both disagree about the brain receiving anything other than the 5 known senses to make us who we are.  

My point is the brain is complex and in that complexity, when parts get damaged, what you knew or know doesn't necessarily become portrayed... some may be forgotten, some may be lost... the results of the damage hold water for the transmitter receiver understanding be it that it is so complex and it's also possible that it's nothing more than a storage device as you interpret and when it gets damaged, those files are corrupt and change or become modified typically not in a useful way.  

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Sorry, I had to joke... what you're suggesting by saying putting one game into a processor and getting a whole new organized game out is to say just what I did above on a human scale.
And yet that's precisely how you define this mysterious transmission between souls and brains.

ok.... I don't follow


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
What you say makes sense, but my ears don't give me consciousness.  Deaf people are still conscious.  Same with eyes, touch and taste.  They are all senses our brain processes, but none of them make me conscious because there are people in the world that lack each sense typically by itself.  Yes, touch and taste too.  
True, but I never suggested the senses were part of your consciousness. Your brain is doing double duty as the processor and the consciousness. The unconscious or subconscious does all the translating and delivers the information to your conscious. You don't feel vibrations and consciously translate them into sounds.

right, but this stemmed from detecting consciousness and how to do so.  If the brain is not receiving it, there must be a way of detecting it within the brain I'm thinking.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I tend to

Vastet wrote:
I tend to remember things that don't make sense. I like things to make sense, so when they don't I remember them for future reference. I have a hypothesis, but the event is still unexplained in my eyes.

I understand.  I'm glad you didn't choose to conclude that your hypothesis must be the only answer.  It seems most who can't explain something choose to accept the only thing that might make sense rather than deducing the point that there could be something more going on.  

Vastet wrote:

 You may find it absolutely fascinating to learn what we do know. I certainly did. It changed the way I look at things a bit. At any rate, there is something infamous in science more analogous to a god. Dark matter. It has never been seen, but it's the only explanation we have for the mass of the universe and the reason galaxies don't spin according to our understanding of physics. Dark energy, even more elusive, is the theoretical force explaining

i do.  I love learning more and more about it.  Though for me, the more I learn, the more I see God in it.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:the expansion

Vastet wrote:
the expansion of the universe as well as theoretically accounting for a good 3/4's of the universes mass. We've no evidence beyond our theories for either of these. Indeed the theories themselves predict them. Finding them would validate the theories. But it's not impossible that we could one day find out that neither exist at all.

which then would bring us back to square 1, which is that there's something out there affecting things that we cannot detect.  

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
you're absolutely sure that absolutely nothing happened?  or was it that nothing that you expected to happen happened?
I'm not absolutely sure I exist, let alone anything else. But if an all knowing god failed to provide that which I need in order to believe then how is the fault mine?

God wants a relationship, not belief.  It is said that Satan "believes" in God.  He Hates God, but he believes in Him.  To make you believe in that moment, would that have built a strong relationship with God?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:That argument

Vastet wrote:
That argument works on fallible mortals, not omnipotent and omniscient immortal creators. If god had truly made it the way it could be at best, then we couldn't have changed it.

except that He told us we were in charge of it... which then would open up an opportunity for us to change it.  He gave people more power than you're giving Him credit for scripturally.

Vastet wrote:

I don't see why we have been denied the ability to fly but we have the ability to be cruel. This is omnipotence here. The very laws of physics were designed by this being. The 4 dimensional nature of our existence was his to toy with. You can't convince me that we can't have free will without also having volcanoes exploding under cities or crazy people who want nothing but to cause pain. Why do we even have pain? Why aren't we little clouds floating around doing whatever we want without being able to be hurt?

Genesis says Adam and Eve brought the knowledge of good and evil into the world through eating the fruit.  Yes, that's hard to grasp.  Let's look at it this way.  In nutrition, certain foods can give you certain abilities.  E.g. good proteins can help you build muscle, if you don't get enough, you won't build muscle, carbs replenish glycogen and fats do a number of things including transport and store certain vitamins and give a back up energy when carbs run out.  Point here is those fruits gave them the ability to know pain and the difference between good and evil.  It installed an understanding and an ability if you will.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

Demanding an omnipotent being that He not allow anyone to be tortured for eternity is "drastic"?

it's like demanding a judge to release a murderer, they're there for a reason and they made that choice when given plenty of opportunities to get a free pass

blacklight915 wrote:

Correct. Do you actually think a way not involving eternal torture is bad?

consider a world without Laws... or no consequences for breaking those laws... what do you think life would be like?


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I was in the USMC, I am fully aware of how the military tests people. It has nothing on what God did to Job and is done for a specific utilitarian purpose not to stroke the ego's of the instructors. 

It showed spirits and all generations to come what kind of faith it takes to be a follower of God.  Those who doubt know a true follower when their faith endures to the end.  I forget the guys name, but there was a murderer in history that persecuted and killed Christians.  He claimed; "I know when they are really a Christian, because they're the ones that will die before they deny it".  

So to follow God you have to be willing to murder your son and willing to get tortured to death so that he is content that you believe in him. I remain in absolute amazement that an omnipotent being could be so vain and expect so much from lower lifeforms. I would never expect anyone to go through that in my name; I would be horrified if they did. 

 

caposkia wrote:

ok, so what would you suggest could be evidence of Gods existence then?  I've offered a few ideas that were not accepted...  An example of what your perspective is would be helpful

The same type of evidence that would suggest demons. Since we can't summon a demon for study because they are too dangerous, can we summon god? Just say "hey god, we are using this brain thing that you gave us and discovered a great way to analyze reality called the scientific method. Could you please come here for a few minutes and give us some evidence of your existence?" Since God really loves us, and wants us to know he exists, he should have absolutely no problem providing us with physical evidence right?

 

caposkia wrote:

of course not, but they got that idea from the evidence that vehicles can explode.  There is some truth behind it.  Though it's in rare cases.  Considering demons, that is from history and mythology.  demons in any sense are rarely depicted as good and/or nice... there are exceptions in hollywood just as you pointed out.

Hollywood basis their stories off of all sorts of things. Most of which is fictional. Their portrayal of demons is as much evidence of their existence and if they exist, their behavior as Harry Potter is evidence for the existence of House Elves. Do you believe in House Elves?

 

caposkia wrote:

Which if you look into the culture and get an understanding of the times, those were serious things.  It'd be just as severe as burning an American flag at a soldiers funeral today. 

I consider adultery about as severe as burning an American flag at a funeral and I think they should have the exact same punishment: none. Do you think we should punish people who burn flags at funerals as severely as we do murderers and rapists?

 

caposkia wrote:

but then again, you're not omnipotent, so of course you don't understand that reasoning.

Ah yes, I am a mere mortal who am I to question God. Do you think that we shouldn't question the motives and actions of a being simply because it is more powerful than us? If God didn't want us to question him, why did he build us with the capacity to question? If I can't understand, it is his faulty construction right? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Basically, God was also trying to put the severity of their actions into a perspective they'd understand.  E.g. Adultery to God is considered so severe it is worth a punishment as bad as those who kill others.  Why?  That takes some understanding of how it affects your spirit and an understanding that God created us for specific purposes.  Adultery would go against some of those specific purposes.  (family is important to God)  I'm sure you've got something for that one though  

I am guessing that you are married. If your spouse cheated on you, would you support a punishment similar to punishments for murder?

 

caposkia wrote:

actually, if you read the Bible it is based on your actions and choices in life.  It has little to do with whether you believed in Him or not, it has to do with whether you broke the Law or not.  It would behoove anyone to believe and follow God.  It helps you better understand the Laws that govern us all.

I have been told by numerous Christians that you must accept Jesus Christ as your savior or you will go to hell. It is impossible to accept someone you do not believe in as your savior, therefore, if you do not believe in god and Jesus you are automatically going to hell no matter how great of a person you are. Are you saying that isn't true? 

 

caposkia wrote:

that's my point.  How can you decide that a choice God made was not for the better?  To kill one person may have been to save many others.  Part of that omnipotence is knowing what is going to happen before it does.  You're passing judgement on choices you haven't the slightest idea about.   

I can think of dozens of ways an omnipotent being could have handled people who were not behaving the way he wanted without resorting to drowning, stoning, and physical pain. If I can think of dozens, I imagine that an omnipotent being could think of billions. And again, if he knew what was going to happen before it did, why did he create a system where so many innocent people would suffer? He could have saw what was coming and fixed it before the damage happened.

If you could live your life knowing the results of all of your actions, wouldn't you choose the actions that caused the least amount of suffering? Suppose for example that you knew that if you leave your house at 1:09 PM and make a left hand turn that you would be driving in front of a guy who would be impatient with you driving the speed limit so would decide to pass you and drive recklessly, causing a car accident with injuries. Would you

A: Decide to wait and leave at 1:10 so that the guy already drove past.

B: Figure it is "his choice" and you don't want to infringe on his free will, so you leave and 1:09 and allow the accident to happen.

If you choose B, do you believe that you bear any responsibility for the accident since you knew it would happen and actively chose not to prevent it? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Interesting perspective.  I know as a parent myself, I would be taking every means to keep my child far far away from the danger.  Granted it's not always in my power, but in such countries where American Soldiers have to come over, there's ample warning to walk to some far remote place in the woods that would likely not be fought in.  I would still blame the parents... or at least the community for allowing such terrible standards to happen in their town.  It's the adults who are around those children daily that are responsible for them.  I can't see putting blame on the soldiers for that.  If the soldiers didn't fight back, the soldiers would probably die.  Why would they die?  that government, community, group, whatever is putting them in danger.  

You have never traveled to a third world country have you? They don't really have the option of hopping on a plane and moving. Very few people ever even travel outside of whatever village they were born in. They are severely limited in their access to technology and their poverty. They don't choose their government. The government consists of people with guns who use force, threats of death and control of the food supply to control people. Revolution is not an option, they are unarmed with no realistic means of changing that. They survive by avoiding the negative attentions of warlords and going about their lives trying to scrape together enough money to get food for the next few days. Then when we sit here in America and send our bombs over into their backyard because we decide we don't like their warlord, it is their fault?!?

The reality is that even the people who plant IED's, the most prevalent way for our soldiers to be killed, are not evil terrorists. They are young men who were unfortunate enough to be born in a war ravaged country and they are given the choice of killing some foreign soldier and getting a bunch of cash, or allowing their family to starve to death. I don't blame them one bit and when I was a soldier, I was quite aware that the person I might someday kill would be no more evil than myself. Just some 16-20 something kid that happened to be born in a different country. To pretend that somehow they are "bad guys" who brought this shit onto themselves is delusional. They had absolutely no control over what happened.

We were the ones who made the decision that there were certain people so bad and dangerous to us that it is worth the collateral damage to get to them. We made that decision, not the villagers. As such, we are the ones responsible for the resulting damage. Me and you can argue about whether or not the benefit we gain is worth the damage we cause, but it is despicable to deny responsibility for the damage we cause when we decide to go to war, fully knowing how much damage we will cause with that decision.

Fortunately, there are many Americans who realize this and try to do what they can to repair and make up for it. Nothing can make up for the loss of an innocent loved one, but at least we can try to make the lives of those who survive a little better. As Americans who are spending our tax money on the bombs and bullets that are ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, I think we have a moral obligation to do what we can to repair the damage. Consider donating.

http://www.refugeesinternational.org/

 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

In the story of Noah, were the parents aware of the consequences of their actions long before it happened?  YES!!  

Every human in the world? Even the ones that never heard of a monotheistic god and thought the sun was god? And let us not forget about the animals. I am not against killing animals, but I find it quite disturbing to drown entire populations.  

caposkia wrote:

In the Boston Marathon bombings, are you suggesting parents knew long before it happened that it was going to happen?  Or is this a completely different scenario where everyone was caught by surprise and also that it was no parent's action that caused their child to become maimed or killed.

They knew it was a possibility. Any time there is a large gathering of people there is a risk of a terrorist attack. We know that, and that is why we spend so much money on homeland security in an attempt to neutralize those threats and catch them before they happen. 

 

caposkia wrote:

The problem you're not seeing is that the parents chose the fate of their families.  They knew exactly what was going to happen... Noah didn't build his massive arc in a secret military bunker where no one could see it.  It was out in plain sight for everyone and everyone knew of the impending threat.  They all chose to ignore it instead of turning to God and repenting of their ways, even for the sake of saving their family if it wasn't for themselves.

I have news for you. Everyone in the world was not able to see Noah's arc. They didn't have twitter in those days. People a mere 1,000 miles away would have had no way of knowing.   

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, you really should. Are ignorant prehistoric men who didn't even know god existed (remember the flood killed "everyone in the world" except for Noah at a time when most cultures were not even exposed to monotheism) deserving of blame, or an omnipotent being capable of doing anything he wants with a snap of his finger that decided to cause a worldwide flood killing everything to blame? Doesn't even seem like a close race to me. 

you dont' know much about history do you.  Lets' just say atheism wasn't a term back then.  Mono-and poly-theism was extremely common.

Lol, you accuse me of not knowing much about history and the next two sentences pose absolutely false statements. Obviously the term atheism didn't exist because our language didn't exist, but several of the Pygmy tribes in Africa had no types of religious beliefs. Many of the Eastern religions also have a lack of deities. Also, there is significant evidence that in many polytheistic traditions that many people did not have a literal belief in the gods and the stories of gods were used more as parables or fables with lessons rather than an active belief in the characters. 

Mono-theism was extremely rare, limited to the Middle East and one tribe in Africa. Most religions tended to be polytheistic with gods based on various phenomena based in nature. So in reference to the discussion, they could not have had a warning from the monotheistic Abrahamic god that they had never heard or thought of. Monotheism was not present in anywhere near the majority of the human population and since you are requiring not just basic monotheism, but belief in a specific god, the number of people who had even heard of him was quite small. It is mostly due to the successful imperialism, colonialism and evangelism of Christian and Muslim countries that most people in the world have at least a passing acquaintance with the Abrahamic god.

 

caposkia wrote:

again, you're looking at it as murder, not judgement.  Put the same perspective on a parent who chooses a judge that has sentenced many people to death to watch their kids.  Are the parents in this case putting their children in danger?

I wouldn't put my dog in the care of someone who was likely to "judge" him and kill him. But I think even judges are responsible for their decisions, and when they judge that someone should be killed, they are responsible for that death. If that death is an obviously innocent person, the judge is just as guilty as any murderer.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

From this you're going to say something about how that judge doesn't sentence children to death, only those who murder or kill others, their families are left alone.  Sure, but that's the law we abide by now.  Again, looking in history, many times families did suffer human judgement for the actions of a family member.   Is that just in America in the 21st century?  No, we don't run things like that.

And don't you think that not punishing innocents is a better way to run things? Why didn't God make that suggestion in his book? He could have saved us thousands of years of injustice simply by making a suggestion.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

You also are missing the point that these people were the worst of the worst.  think of all the worst possible thigns people could do in teh world and these people were living it out day in and day out.

If saying that it what makes you sleep at night. I don't support killing the children of even really bad people, it is a terrible way to run a society and is not just. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

You also are missing the point that these people were the worst of the worst.  think of all the worst possible thigns people could do in teh world and these people were living it out day in and day out.

If saying that it what makes you sleep at night. I don't support killing the children of even really bad people, it is a terrible way to run a society 

 
caposkia wrote:

 

in other words, all this flack about sending people to hell and you haven't a clue.

Like I said, I get conflicting stories from all sorts of Christians, all of whom claim they know the Truth. The only thing they all seem to agree on is that Hell is extremely unpleasant and once there you stay there for eternity. 

 

caposkia wrote:

YOU aren't choosing to be separated from people you love, those people you love would be choosing to be separated from you and God.  It takes selflessness to choose to be with others.  I see what you're saying, but you can't make taht your choice, that's theirs.

They are dead and already sent to wherever they go. Now I am the one who has to make the choice. Either I am reborn and saved and perhaps get to spend eternity with my brother. Or I continue along my current path and hang with Grandma. I can't be with both, because God has set up a system where people are separated for eternity. From my understanding, I don't even have the option upon dying to go "oh shit, there are pearly gates" and apologize. 

 

caposkia wrote:

...cause that's how it works.

I think you're seeing how your case doesn't hold water though

??????? One state has the death penalty, which it hasn't used in forever and has ONE person on death row happens to have a low murder rate and you think that is evidence that death penalties are an effective deterrent??? Look at the states which have death penalties that they actually use on a regular basis and they tend to have higher than average murder rates. California, Texas, Florida. Look at the countries which have a death penalty compared to countries which don't and the difference is even more stark. Granted, there is a lot more that goes into a murder rate than just the penalty, but the amount of evidence against the death penalty being an effective deterrent is overwhelming. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I figured, but thanks for making it clear.

The point is one making a choice you have no right to make.  Who gives anyone the authority to decide whether first of all a soul is saved, but second of all shouldn't live life for the very possibility of not making it?  that's like saying kill the baby because he might not turn out normal.

Who gives us authority to make any of the decisions we make? No one. We give up the authority to make certain decisions to be accepted into society. Authority is only a coherent concept in a human social structure. Outside of a human social structure it means nothing. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Her blood would be on your hands.  let's put it this way, woudl you still let her die due to the possibility that she might end up in hell understanding that you'd be held responsible in front of God for her death?  Which in turn could mean you would go to hell for that mere choice?  What if then you found out she was old enough and you not only condemned yourself to hell, but her as well because she didn't have a chance to repent of her ways?  

If I believed that risking my eternal salvation would ensure a much better eternity for someone I cared about I would do it. I would think that doing so would be one of the most loving and self sacrificing acts a human could make. Then the question is whether a loving god would send someone to hell for a loving and selfless act. I don't think so because after all, this is the same god that created a convoluted scheme of sacrificing his son in a gruesome manner for the salvation of humanity. It would be hypocritical of him to punish me for sacrificing my salvation for the sake of the salvation of someone else.

For the second part, my scenario assumed that you had some knowledge of the girl and that she was most likely a person who would go to heaven. If you know nothing of her, than the act would be a greater risk.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Your'e getting into spiritual politics a little too deep my friend.  You're suggesting to make choices you haven't the ability to make.  This is where faith and trust comes in.  A believer knows that God wants all to be saved... and if what you say is true, that she was going to end up condemning her self to hell, then God may not have had anyone there to save her just so that she could be with Him instead of eternally separated.

Now you are trying to have it both ways. Either God gives us free will, which means that whether I am there with the opportunity to save her or not is sheer luck. Or I do not have free will and God somehow influenced me to assure that I am there to have that choice. Which is it?

And if God takes such a large role in influencing people to be in the right place to prevent accidents like being hit by a bus, why doesn't he take a larger role in influencing people like me to be saved? Like for example, providing a little bit of empirical evidence for his existence? 

 

caposkia wrote:

I don't think you understand heaven or hell at all.  Hell is the runaway on the street, hungry and cold.  Heaven is home, where your parents can care for you and give you everything you need.  

I don't want anyone to give me everything that I need. I simply can't understand people who would desire that, nor those who live with their parents their entire lives. At one point in my life I had to choose between living with my parents or being homeless for a few months. I chose being homeless. If Hell is like being homeless, than it isn't as bad as Christians have led me to believe. I could be perfectly happy hanging with my friends on a street, even if it is cold. 

Now the whole living for eternity thing is a problem, regardless of whether it is in heaver or hell. Would you really want to live for eternity? Think about it. 

 

caposkia wrote:

In essence, as a child, your parents are making you choose the street or their house.  Unlike parents however, God knows we're more capable than children and allows us to make a choice by showing us both options.  

God hasn't shown me anything. I just have your word for it. I once participated in a prayer circle with a bunch of Mormons who prayed that God would give me evidence of his existence. I was very sincere and I assume the others were too. Maybe god doesn't like Mormons, because it hasn't worked yet.

 

caposkia wrote:

your'e right, especially considering Satan is more powerful than us.  I believe what I do because just like any child with good parents, I trust that God is making the best choices and consequences for my life.  I know Him and know He only wants the best for me.  Part of why I know that is because he cares enough to tell us what the consequences are for our actions.  God could have just left us in the dark and then in the end said; "surprise, you're going to hell!"

Do you think it is healthy for a child to blindly trust their parents? I don't.

 

caposkia wrote:

against their will huh?  This is the choice I have been trying to tell you the whole time.  People choose hell, people choose God.  People don't have to follow God or His laws, Hell is separation from God, if you can't or don't want to follow His laws, tehn you don't want to be with God.  It's not like humanistic laws where they're put in place for malicious reasons.  They're there for our best interest.  You may not see it that way, but they are.  They're also put in place to humble us and show us that we are not capable of works based faith.  You can't "earn' your way to heaven.  It is given to you as a gift.  

So your view of Hell is that it is simply separation from god? No hellfire, brimstone, pain, eternal torture etc? What makes it so unpleasant then? 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:it's like

caposkia wrote:

it's like demanding a judge to release a murderer, they're there for a reason and they made that choice when given plenty of opportunities to get a free pass

It's not like that in the slightest. Furthermore, statements like that only convince me you are being willfully dense/ignorant.

 

caposkia wrote:

consider a world without Laws... or no consequences for breaking those laws... what do you think life would be like?

Anything other than eternal torture is an unsatisfactory consequence?

 

Sorry for not yet addressing the middle part of your previous response. However, it is getting harder and harder for me to believe you really are open to what I'm saying.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Where do you

caposkia wrote:
Where do you think they justify such actions?  Religions typically have a book...  don't tell me they make it up

I'd imagine it is religious people's fault for pushing too hard the other way. If there'd been ten more ladies like the one I described in my previous post I don't know if I might have snapped.

caposkia wrote:
until you study it

Studying scripture doesn't make it any less interpretable. Interpretation through study is how we end up with a thousand denominations of christianity.

caposkia wrote:
ok, wisdom is a real person and Jesus is the metaphor.  It's really not.

Ok then god is pure evil for job and the flood and a thousand other crimes against humanity, and you are approaching pure evil by following him.

caposkia wrote:
and yet we're still standing where the others whom we've confronted are staggering.  (in reference to others with a different interpretation)~snip

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
They don't look like they

They don't look like they are staggering to me. They're making money hand over fist. So many people that they build super sized churches and religious museums, and have enough cash left to challenge the education system every couple years.

They are in fact more successful than the rest of christianity today; combined.

caposkia wrote:
right, so your game analogy is out the window.

It wasn't a game analogy, it was a book analogy, and it's still perfectly accurate.

caposkia wrote:
As you said, traits which has previously been overshadowed or controlled may become dominant.  In other words, though it's not really you, they are still parts of you that didn't define you previously.  There's the distortion.  

But it's still not you. A Game of Thrones and the Hobbit were both written using the same language, grammar, and terminology (mostly). But they aren't the same story. Just because there are bits of them that look the same doesn't make them the same.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:We could go

caposkia wrote:
We could go on with this till we hit 1000 pages.  I think we both agree the brain is complex.  I think we both disagree about the brain receiving anything other than the 5 known senses to make us who we are.  

There's more than 5 senses you know. Balance, gravity, pressure, and probably a whole bunch of stuff I'm not thinking of. But yeah, we definitely disagree.

caposkia wrote:
My point is the brain is complex and in that complexity, when parts get damaged, what you knew or know doesn't necessarily become portrayed... some may be forgotten, some may be lost... the results of the damage hold water for the transmitter receiver understanding be it that it is so complex and it's also possible that it's nothing more than a storage device as you interpret and when it gets damaged, those files are corrupt and change or become modified typically not in a useful way.

And my point is that all evidence points to consciousness as a purely physical process.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:ok.... I

caposkia wrote:
ok.... I don't follow

I think we've confused each other. I think we can let this go.

caposkia wrote:
right, but this stemmed from detecting consciousness and how to do so.  If the brain is not receiving it, there must be a way of detecting it within the brain I'm thinking.

I think it'll be awhile either way. There's still lots of unknowns. If there is some kind of transmission, it'll be detected eventually. If there isn't, then that will also be setted. But it'll be years or more.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:which then

caposkia wrote:
which then would bring us back to square 1, which is that there's something out there affecting things that we cannot detect.

Well it isn't square 1. It took thousands of years to even see the discrepancy.

caposkia wrote:
God wants a relationship, not belief.  It is said that Satan "believes" in God.  He Hates God, but he believes in Him.  To make you believe in that moment, would that have built a strong relationship with God?

I don't know. It was a long time ago.
To have a relationship, he must talk to me. That's the only option. It's one thing to get me to believe. But to believe AND love, there'd need to be some explanations. I'm not going to take the words of men as if they were god.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:except that

caposkia wrote:
except that He told us we were in charge of it... ~snip~

Except we aren't in charge. The percentage of existence that we can manipulate is uncalculably small. There isn't enough room or material in the universe to write the number down. It makes 0.00000000000001% look infinitely huge.

He limited us far more than he empowered us. Like the ultimate tease.
Look at this giant glorious house I made! You get to stay in a tiny corner of the attic, forever.

caposkia wrote:
Genesis says Adam and Eve brought the~snip

There are so many problems with genesis that I'm still figuring them out. The first and foremost is the scenario. Eating the fruit wasn't bad, because they didn't know what bad was. If your kid lies to you, you teach him lying is wrong. You don't punish him eternally for doing something he didn't know was wrong. You CERTAINLY don't punish his children and their children in perpetuity.

The whole scenario is a set up.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:So to

Beyond Saving wrote:

So to follow God you have to be willing to murder your son and willing to get tortured to death so that he is content that you believe in him. I remain in absolute amazement that an omnipotent being could be so vain and expect so much from lower lifeforms. I would never expect anyone to go through that in my name; I would be horrified if they did. 

No, to follow God you just have to trust Him.  If he's asking you to do something, you have to trust that there is a greater good reason for it.  Please consider the times when making comments like that.  During that time, it was not uncommon for a god to ask for human sacrifices and so to test Abraham, our God asked him to do the very thing that was common among other followings to see if He was actually faithful to Him.  Followers of this God are quite different and are more family oriented, so to take such a leap as to follow through with something so drastic would show the utmost faith and trust that there was a reason bigger than their family for it.  As you can read, it never happened and God never asked anyone else for such a sacrifice.  before or after.  If Abraham wasn't worthy to be the father of the great nation of Israel, He could have walked away at any time.  

Consdering your tortured comment.  God knows it will be the opposition of his rule that will attack his followers in such a way.  The ministry is and has always been the faithfulness of His followers vs. other followers of other gods.  Time and time again, people get up and leave one god or gods for others.  YHWH's followers are faithful to Him alone and others don't like that.  Therefore, he warns us that we will be tortured for our faith and to be prepared for it.  He also reminds us that it is witness to Him to endure until the end without counter.  

Yes, there are stories of those who were saved through seeing the strength and faithfulness YHWH's followers have.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

The same type of evidence that would suggest demons. Since we can't summon a demon for study because they are too dangerous, can we summon god? Just say "hey god, we are using this brain thing that you gave us and discovered a great way to analyze reality called the scientific method. Could you please come here for a few minutes and give us some evidence of your existence?" Since God really loves us, and wants us to know he exists, he should have absolutely no problem providing us with physical evidence right?

sure, but I've been through this conversation with others before... and it's a fail.  See even if God provided physical evidence, how would you know it was from God?  Would you not deduce that other causes brought that physical thing to you?  e.g. an acorn falls on your head in the middle of a field with no trees around you for at least 1 mile in any direction.  Was it God?  The non-believer would consider any number of things but not once consider God to be the cause... e.g.

a bird likely picked up the acorn and dropped it in the air... 

high level winds knocked it off a high point on the tree and updrafts held it in the air until it reached me and fell

if an airplane happen to be flying overhead, someone tossed it out the window.  

any one of those could have happened... How do we know it wasn't God that caused it to happen in that way?  

Again, God doesn't want you to just believe, he wants you to build a relationship with him.  Will him giving you something physical build a relationship?  

Consider Bruce Almighty the movie.  I liked the part where Jim's character was praying for a sign from God and each time he asked, roadsigns popped up with a specific message predicting trouble ahead on the road.  Be it that he was on the road, He never considered the signs he was seeing as a "sign" from God... there were many more logical reasons why those signs were there.  I do believe God actually works in those ways and unless you know what you're asking for, you will never see it.  

to make it short, there are signs of God all around you.  You just dont' know what you're looking for.  Not even believers are always aware of them.  Typically we see them in hind sight.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Hollywood basis their stories off of all sorts of things. Most of which is fictional. Their portrayal of demons is as much evidence of their existence and if they exist, their behavior as Harry Potter is evidence for the existence of House Elves. Do you believe in House Elves?

I wasn't using Hollywood as a basis for evidence, I only asked why they leaned toward making demons evil.  Pretty much all of historical stories about demons portray them as evil.  Simply put

Beyond Saving wrote:

I consider adultery about as severe as burning an American flag at a funeral and I think they should have the exact same punishment: none. Do you think we should punish people who burn flags at funerals as severely as we do murderers and rapists?

Considering the insult and rammifications of what that would do to the family who lost, I definitely think there should be something more than nothing done about it.  There is no greater insult to their ultimate sacrifice.  Considering comparing that to murderers and rapists, let's put it this way, is it worse to burn the flag in front of a soldiers funeral or to open someone elses mail? I bet the family would think they should be punished as severely.  Me?  I dont' know.  Understanding the symbolism of the flag and what the intentions of that person would be to intentinoally burn it at a soldiers funeral..  I wouldn't be totally against such rammifications.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ah yes, I am a mere mortal who am I to question God. Do you think that we shouldn't question the motives and actions of a being simply because it is more powerful than us? If God didn't want us to question him, why did he build us with the capacity to question? If I can't understand, it is his faulty construction right? 

I never said He didn't want us to question Him, but you making conclusions, not asking questions.  I do think we should question the motives and actions of a being no matter how powerful.  Does that mean we have the ability to decide the answer for them?

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am guessing that you are married. If your spouse cheated on you, would you support a punishment similar to punishments for murder?

I support forgiveness through Jesus Christ.  I do understand a punishment similar to punishments for murder would be appropriate  Spiritually speaking because you are violating a covenant.  It is a dishonor to your spouse to cheat on them.  If you're trying to compare it to Earthly standards in today's time in America, no, it would not fit the bill.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have been told by numerous Christians that you must accept Jesus Christ as your savior or you will go to hell. It is impossible to accept someone you do not believe in as your savior, therefore, if you do not believe in god and Jesus you are automatically going to hell no matter how great of a person you are. Are you saying that isn't true?

9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11For there is no partiality with God.  12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;     (Romans 2:9-12)

I take this as saying you are judged according to what you know in your heart.  Verses further on confirm that undrestanding.  If you lived and have done wrong and have not followed the Law, you will be judged according to the Laws you live under.    

If you don't know Christ and don't follow Him, You're likely going to be found guilty of breaking quite a few laws in your lifetime.  No one's perfect.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I can think of dozens of ways an omnipotent being could have handled people who were not behaving the way he wanted without resorting to drowning, stoning, and physical pain. If I can think of dozens, I imagine that an omnipotent being could think of billions. And again, if he knew what was going to happen before it did, why did he create a system where so many innocent people would suffer? He could have saw what was coming and fixed it before the damage happened.

Only by taking choice away.  Also, you're faling to consider that innocence has not been under Gods wrath.  If innocent infants died (because I know that's where you'er going to go) that blood is on the hands of those who allowed such an action to come upon them.  they had the power to be safe from it if they chose.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

If you could live your life knowing the results of all of your actions, wouldn't you choose the actions that caused the least amount of suffering? Suppose for example that you knew that if you leave your house at 1:09 PM and make a left hand turn that you would be driving in front of a guy who would be impatient with you driving the speed limit so would decide to pass you and drive recklessly, causing a car accident with injuries. Would you

A: Decide to wait and leave at 1:10 so that the guy already drove past.

B: Figure it is "his choice" and you don't want to infringe on his free will, so you leave and 1:09 and allow the accident to happen.

If you choose B, do you believe that you bear any responsibility for the accident since you knew it would happen and actively chose not to prevent it? 

You're assuming God didn't do that.  Again, I don't know what the alternatives could have been, but one assumption is that God would have to purge the population every so many generations if he hadn't done it the way He did... doesn't that constitute more suffering than just one big purge and starting from scratch?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

You have never traveled to a third world country have you? They don't really have the option of hopping on a plane and moving. *snip

I've been to Ecuador and that's not what I was saying... you don't need a plane to travel to the woods.  NO, they don't get to choose their government, but they typically do have places to go.  

Very few people ever even travel outside of whatever village they were born in. They are severely limited in their access to technology and their poverty. They don't choose their government. The government consists of people with guns who use force, threats of death and control of the food supply to control people. Revolution is not an option, they are unarmed with no realistic means of changing that. They survive by avoiding the negative attentions of warlords and going about their lives trying to scrape together enough money to get food for the next few days. Then when we sit here in America and send our bombs over into their backyard because we decide we don't like their warlord, it is their fault?!?

not everything is in everyone's control.  They also watch out for their own.  If the battle is in their back yard, someoen in their community likely brought it there.

Beyond Saving wrote:

The reality is that even the people who plant IED's, the most prevalent way for our soldiers to be killed, are not evil terrorists. They are young men who were unfortunate enough to be born in a war ravaged country and they are given the choice of killing some foreign soldier and getting a bunch of cash, or allowing their family to starve to death. I don't blame them one bit and when I was a soldier, I was quite aware that the person I might someday kill would be no more evil than myself. Just some 16-20 something kid that happened to be born in a different country. To pretend that somehow they are "bad guys" who brought this shit onto themselves is delusional. They had absolutely no control over what happened.

but they do have a choice to not bring the war to their back yard.   Either way, we're getting off topic with this.  It was an example as to which you've confirmed, though there still is a chioce, to starve or get killed.  Guess the double negative in this case makes for an easy decision.  Considering where this started... they had the choice of feeding into their desires and killing their family or giving up on those desires and surviving the ordeal... which would you choose?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Every human in the world? Even the ones that never heard of a monotheistic god and thought the sun was god? And let us not forget about the animals. I am not against killing animals, but I find it quite disturbing to drown entire populations.  

the understanding is they were all aware... The whole world was not populated at that time by humans

Beyond Saving wrote:

They knew it was a possibility. Any time there is a large gathering of people there is a risk of a terrorist attack. We know that, and that is why we spend so much money on homeland security in an attempt to neutralize those threats and catch them before they happen. 

so with that understanding, those parents who brought their children were... bad?  I mean if i knew it was goign to happen, i would stay as far away as possible.  I do have to say I typically go and this year it didn't happen... Maybe there's something to what you're saying.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have news for you. Everyone in the world was not able to see Noah's arc. They didn't have twitter in those days. People a mere 1,000 miles away would have had no way of knowing.   

...and how many people existed in the world before the flood?  ..and how many miles were they spread from end to end?  I can say with decent certainty that the Americas had not yet been populated... that is known to have happened much much later.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lol, you accuse me of not knowing much about history and the next two sentences pose absolutely false statements. Obviously the term atheism didn't exist because our language didn't exist, but several of the Pygmy tribes in Africa had no types of religious beliefs. Many of the Eastern religions also have a lack of deities. Also, there is significant evidence that in many polytheistic traditions that many people did not have a literal belief in the gods and the stories of gods were used more as parables or fables with lessons rather than an active belief in the characters. 

Mono-theism was extremely rare, limited to the Middle East and one tribe in Africa. Most religions tended to be polytheistic with gods based on various phenomena based in nature. So in reference to the discussion, they could not have had a warning from the monotheistic Abrahamic god that they had never heard or thought of. Monotheism was not present in anywhere near the majority of the human population and since you are requiring not just basic monotheism, but belief in a specific god, the number of people who had even heard of him was quite small. It is mostly due to the successful imperialism, colonialism and evangelism of Christian and Muslim countries that most people in the world have at least a passing acquaintance with the Abrahamic god.

These tribes were... before the flood?  Also those who didn't have gods had idols from what I understand... are you saying they didn't worship... anything???? or believe in some sort of power beyond themselves?  I'm not aware of these tribes.  What time period was it?

Beyond Saving wrote:

I wouldn't put my dog in the care of someone who was likely to "judge" him and kill him. But I think even judges are responsible for their decisions, and when they judge that someone should be killed, they are responsible for that death. If that death is an obviously innocent person, the judge is just as guilty as any murderer.

what if they were guilty? 

We're getting down to technicalities.  I've made it clear what has happened and why.  People made a choice and it was understood that at that time, the populations were aware of this God and his intentions.  

Ultimately Gods intention was to "blot out mankind" because the creation was completely corrupt and violent.  The fact that Noah survived at all was by grace.

Beyond Saving wrote:

And don't you think that not punishing innocents is a better way to run things? Why didn't God make that suggestion in his book? He could have saved us thousands of years of injustice simply by making a suggestion.

He has made quite a few that we've very effectively ignored.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
 

You also are missing the point that these people were the worst of the worst.  think of all the worst possible thigns people could do in teh world and these people were living it out day in and day out.

If saying that it what makes you sleep at night. I don't support killing the children of even really bad people, it is a terrible way to run a society and is not just. 

no, it is what it is... we can go on and on making assumptions about what had happened, but when ti comes down to it, there's just not enough information to conclude whether what was done was justified or not.  I trust that God made the best decision out of the possible millions he could have made.  I also trust that after death, the innocent were taken care of.

Beyond Saving wrote:

They are dead and already sent to wherever they go. Now I am the one who has to make the choice. Either I am reborn and saved and perhaps get to spend eternity with my brother. Or I continue along my current path and hang with Grandma. I can't be with both, because God has set up a system where people are separated for eternity. From my understanding, I don't even have the option upon dying to go "oh shit, there are pearly gates" and apologize. 

your brother still goes through a resurrection in the end regardless of where he allegedly ends up... are you sure about that?  I think if you're looking at it as "I know my family is not going to be with God so I shouldn't be either" then you're missing the bigger picture.  The Bible makes it clear that the new way of life is goign to be completely different, to the extent even that there aren't going to be husband and wife anymore.  I can't imagine a life like that, but then again, I can't imagine life after death... it's incomprehensible.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Who gives us authority to make any of the decisions we make? No one. We give up the authority to make certain decisions to be accepted into society. Authority is only a coherent concept in a human social structure. Outside of a human social structure it means nothing. 

I like that perspective

Beyond Saving wrote:

If I believed that risking my eternal salvation would ensure a much better eternity for someone I cared about I would do it. I would think that doing so would be one of the most loving and self sacrificing acts a human could make. Then the question is whether a loving god would send someone to hell for a loving and selfless act. I don't think so because after all, this is the same god that created a convoluted scheme of sacrificing his son in a gruesome manner for the salvation of humanity. It would be hypocritical of him to punish me for sacrificing my salvation for the sake of the salvation of someone else.

For the second part, my scenario assumed that you had some knowledge of the girl and that she was most likely a person who would go to heaven. If you know nothing of her, than the act would be a greater risk.

that again is where trust in God comes in.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Now you are trying to have it both ways. Either God gives us free will, which means that whether I am there with the opportunity to save her or not is sheer luck. Or I do not have free will and God somehow influenced me to assure that I am there to have that choice. Which is it?

I have dedicated my life to God... in that dedication I have opened my heart to God and allow him to guide me in life.  Yes, I've given up some of my freedom to Him.  In that sense, I know that if I end up in a situation where I could make a choice to save someone or let them die, I would understand I was there to make the effort to save them.

As far as you're concerned... free will is freedom in the sense that you can make a choice... that doesn't mean that things don't influence your choices... even subconsciously.  influence is not slavery.   

Beyond Saving wrote:

And if God takes such a large role in influencing people to be in the right place to prevent accidents like being hit by a bus, why doesn't he take a larger role in influencing people like me to be saved? Like for example, providing a little bit of empirical evidence for his existence? 

My guess is empirical evidence is not how he wants you to know Him.  ..and if God wasn't influencing people like you to be saved, I wouldn't be here talking to you right now.  I am trying to find what you might be looking for, but you're fighting it the whole way.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't want anyone to give me everything that I need. I simply can't understand people who would desire that, nor those who live with their parents their entire lives. At one point in my life I had to choose between living with my parents or being homeless for a few months. I chose being homeless. If Hell is like being homeless, than it isn't as bad as Christians have led me to believe. I could be perfectly happy hanging with my friends on a street, even if it is cold. 

Now the whole living for eternity thing is a problem, regardless of whether it is in heaver or hell. Would you really want to live for eternity? Think about it. 

why not?  

and the hell thing, you're taking an analogy literally.  the comparison is as drastic.  No of course you won't want to live at home your whole life, but the analogy also takes the angle that you're a child who needs everything at that point in your life.  Would you still choose the street?  Most children would choose the love and comfort of home.  I wasn't referring to when you're old enough.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

God hasn't shown me anything. I just have your word for it. I once participated in a prayer circle with a bunch of Mormons who prayed that God would give me evidence of his existence. I was very sincere and I assume the others were too. Maybe god doesn't like Mormons, because it hasn't worked yet.

Mormons... yea, it's my understanding they don't exactly know God... they depend on another book to explain their following.  

Either way, sometimes prayers take a lifetime to be answered.  If you were sincere about it... and you still are... it'll happen.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you think it is healthy for a child to blindly trust their parents? I don't.

well... they do... and they kind of have to up until a certain age.  so yea, it's healthy... 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So your view of Hell is that it is simply separation from god? No hellfire, brimstone, pain, eternal torture etc? What makes it so unpleasant then? 

God is 'good'.  To be separated from God is to be separated from all that is good.. that would include good feeling, emotion, etc.  What could be more unpleasant than no good physical feeling or emotional feeling and no hope of quenching it?  All that's left is pain on many different levels.  

I don't believe in the "hellfire and brimestone" hell.  Considering the details that the Bible goes into about hell, it is a terrible existence, but it doesn't give us enough detail to understand exactly how.  Many of the words "hell" in the Bible aren't actually referring to the eternal existence of the separation.  

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:caposkia

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

it's like demanding a judge to release a murderer, they're there for a reason and they made that choice when given plenty of opportunities to get a free pass

It's not like that in the slightest. Furthermore, statements like that only convince me you are being willfully dense/ignorant.

it's exactly what the Bible teaches.  I quoted Romans 2 i think that talked about how people are judged according to the Law they're under.  IF it's not God's law, they are judged according to their law.  They are only in trouble if they're found to have broken laws in their lifetime.  I'm sure we can all find many moments where we, even in secret have broken laws.  Jesus is the free pass if you have..

blacklight915 wrote:

Anything other than eternal torture is an unsatisfactory consequence?

,...if you're offered a free pass out and you deny it?  it makes sense.  I'm not the one who judges though.  I don't know exactly how that works.  all I know is if you've broken a law and are found guilty of it, you are condemned, but through Jesus Christ we are saved from that condemnation.  

blacklight915 wrote:

Sorry for not yet addressing the middle part of your previous response. However, it is getting harder and harder for me to believe you really are open to what I'm saying.

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I am open to what you're saying, but I'm not afraid to confront something I feel is a bit skewed.  I don't mean any disrespect by it.  I'm only trying to find common ground or help you understand why I have a hard time accepting that understanding.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I'd imagine

Vastet wrote:
 I'd imagine it is religious people's fault for pushing too hard the other way. If there'd been ten more ladies like the one I described in my previous post I don't know if I might have snapped.

10 more?? you have more patience than i Eye-wink

Vastet wrote:

Studying scripture doesn't make it any less interpretable. Interpretation through study is how we end up with a thousand denominations of christianity.

...and so far (I've done a lot of homework here) I have found branches of Christianity that separate themselves from other branches separate themselves either because they have another book they follow besides the bible, or due to disagreements about insignificant issues that have little or nothing to do with the core understanding and belief system.... either that or they're so extreme that they've been rejected by other branches of Christianity.  

Vastet wrote:

Ok then god is pure evil for job and the flood and a thousand other crimes against humanity, and you are approaching pure evil by following him.  

except that evil is defined as that which is not of God.. so it would have to be the other way around.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:They don't look

Vastet wrote:
They don't look like they are staggering to me. They're making money hand over fist. So many people that they build super sized churches and religious museums, and have enough cash left to challenge the education system every couple years. They are in fact more successful than the rest of christianity today; combined.

money doesn't define success in Christianity.  They may be great manipulators or business gurus, but when it comes down to confronting the truth, they still stagger, stacks of cash in their pocket or not.

Vastet wrote:
But it's still not you.

but snipits of you that you typically woudn't have presented as you

Vastet wrote:

A Game of Thrones and the Hobbit were both written using the same language, grammar, and terminology (mostly). But they aren't the same story. Just because there are bits of them that look the same doesn't make them the same.

it's because in your analogy they're not.  Bostonians use the same language, grammar, and terminology, (mostly) but that doesn't make them the same either.. Boston tends to be one of the most diverse cities when you really get to know it.  

anyway, you don't get a complete new story when a persons brain is damaged... if anything you get what seems like a different story, but incomplete and fragmented.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: There's more

Vastet wrote:
There's more than 5 senses you know. Balance, gravity, pressure, and probably a whole bunch of stuff I'm not thinking of. But yeah, we definitely disagree.

point taken.

Vastet wrote:

And my point is that all evidence points to consciousness as a purely physical process.

except that we can mimic it in unconscious items.  I believe we see evidence pointing to a purely physical process because all we understand is purely physical.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Well it isn't

Vastet wrote:
Well it isn't square 1. It took thousands of years to even see the discrepancy.

true, we'd still be aware of the discrepency that is Sticking out tongue

Vastet wrote:

I don't know. It was a long time ago. To have a relationship, he must talk to me. That's the only option. It's one thing to get me to believe. But to believe AND love, there'd need to be some explanations. I'm not going to take the words of men as if they were god.

that's a good stance to take.  I wouldn't.. and don't take the words of men either.  It's how I came to know God as I do.  It's also why I haven't ever been a member of a church until recently.  

I do believe God talks to people, but as scripture says, you will find God in the places you least expect to find Him.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Except we

Vastet wrote:
Except we aren't in charge. The percentage of existence that we can manipulate is uncalculably small. There isn't enough room or material in the universe to write the number down. It makes 0.00000000000001% look infinitely huge. He limited us far more than he empowered us. Like the ultimate tease. Look at this giant glorious house I made! You get to stay in a tiny corner of the attic, forever.

I thought you were referring to Earth specifically.  I agree with you in understanding the vastness of the Universe. 

Vastet wrote:

 There are so many problems with genesis that I'm still figuring them out. The first and foremost is the scenario. Eating the fruit wasn't bad, because they didn't know what bad was.

but they knew they'd die if they ate it... and with that explanation, they must have known that death was something not to be desired.

Vastet wrote:

If your kid lies to you, you teach him lying is wrong. You don't punish him eternally for doing something he didn't know was wrong. You CERTAINLY don't punish his children and their children in perpetuity. The whole scenario is a set up.

well here, if you read Genesis, the punishment was to have to work to live, then to die... not eternal punishment... 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:if you're

caposkia wrote:

if you're offered a free pass out and you deny it?  it makes sense

Seeing as how there is literally nothing anyone could do (or not do) to deserve eternal torture, NO, it doesn't make sense. And it's not a free pass, either.

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(lyric) Prophets call out your name, ..but they call out in vain

(lyrics)  re:: Jerusalem, The prophets call out your name, .. but they call out in vain..

(our hearts are all drawn to one place)

Beyond's wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
I can't be with both, because God has set up a system where people are separated for eternity. From my understanding, I don't even have the option upon dying to go "oh shit, there are pearly gates" and apologize.
caposkia wrote:
your brother still goes through a resurrection in the end regardless of where he allegedly ends up... are you sure about that?

According to the text, not just one but two different types of resurrection (this is undisputed). Sheep and Goats. Pay no never mind if this is unjustified criticism (nit-picky) ? But, Only to this. Perhaps, it could be quibbling a bit

Caposkia wrote:
YHWH .. strenghth and faithfulness .. [His worshippers] were faithful to Him alone ..
OKay this could be a point of stumbling (no spitting hairs with this). The exact opposite could be argued (remember). Unless you are restricting your remarks to various heroes of the 'Faith', or to a tiny list touted in some Pauline works (ex. Hebrews).

caposkia wrote:
I have dedicated my life to God... in that dedication I have opened my heart to God and allow him to guide me in life.  Yes, I've given up some of my freedom to Him.  In that sense, I know that if I end up in a situation where I could make a choice to save someone or let them die, I would understand I was there to make the effort to save them.


Reply :
Philippians 3:9-14
 (NASB)

9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; . . To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. Col. Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly carnal nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. .

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lol, you accuse me of not knowing much about history and the next two sentences pose absolutely false statements. Obviously the term atheism didn't exist because our language didn't exist, but several of the Pygmy tribes in Africa had no types of religious beliefs. Many of the Eastern religions also have a lack of deities. Also, there is significant evidence that in many polytheistic traditions that many people did not have a literal belief in the gods and the stories of gods were used more as parables or fables with lessons rather than an active belief in the characters.
Mono-theism was extremely rare, limited to the Middle East and one tribe in Africa. Most religions tended to be polytheistic with gods based on various phenomena based in nature. So in reference to the discussion, they could not have had a warning from the monotheistic Abrahamic god that they had never heard or thought of. Monotheism was not present in anywhere near the majority of the human population and since you are requiring not just basic monotheism, but belief in a specific god, the number of people who had even heard of him was quite small. It is mostly due to the successful imperialism, colonialism and evangelism of Christian and Muslim countries that most people in the world have at least a passing acquaintance with the Abrahamic god.


caposkia wrote:
  Reply:  These tribes were... before the flood?  Also those who didn't have gods had idols from what I understand... are you saying they didn't worship... anything???? or believe in some sort of power beyond themselves?  I'm not aware of these tribes. What time period was it?

Needed answer and Answer::

NationalGeographicSociety (Consult Map,  Map Below) --

Minor Quibble (to Beyond):

I could be thinking of something else, however, according to Author:: E.J. Michael Witzel's book entitled The Origins of the World's Mythologies (not controversy free). Regionally, some of these ancient African tribes completely lacked a creation myth and creator god (this is undisputed). That said, it wasn't as if there were no 'gods' so much but no Creator god. I'm more familiar with the primitive religion of Africa, where the EXORCIST or more precisely the village Shaman was often highly significance, with the banishing of the evil and spirits, often associated with sickness and illnesses (of the villagers)

Beyond Saving wrote:


And don't you think that not punishing innocents is a better way to run things? [In the Flood]..


 
caposkia wrote:
Cap replies :He has made quite a few that we've very effectively ignored.
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it! One prophet cries out: "Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"?
(as for the great deluge/flood, try to consult the 'ancient' Sumer and Akkadian sources and National-Geographic map would be a great assistance and help)


Beyond Saving wrote:


Who gives us authority to make any of the decisions we make? No one. We give up the authority to make certain decisions to be accepted into society. Authority is only a coherent concept in a human social structure. Outside of a human social structure it means nothing.

caposkia wrote:
Cap replies :  I like that perspective


With beings that man himself deems above him in sacred lit.,. There lies a Hierarchical structure, according to lore especially, some are above others and some below in a kind of pecking order. As with UFOlogists having cited.

In ancient mythology, world around and the ANE, there is usually a most high god within a pantheon, the go to guy for the 'divine council' (book of Isaiah 40:13; Rom. 11:34). With bitter rivals fighting it out among the gods. Lessor known were the fact of collations formed within conflicts of the gods and between various deities. Many unfamiliar with the general particulars may have missed this.

caposkia wrote:
Satan is more powerful than us..

To paraphrase Titus 'To the pure, everthing is pure; but to the corrupt everything is corrupt" (actual NT quote: "'πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς· τοῖς δὲ μεμιαμμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν, ἀλλὰ μεμίανται αὐτῶν καὶ . . '")

In the Canonical writings and the Gospels, the outer darkness is a place referred to three times in the Gospel of Matthew (8:12, 22:13, and 25:30), for example, into which a person may be "cast out"

In Rev. There is an interesting quote you can make as follows: ". .the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood..". Satan is getting a lot of access to a place he was literally to have been kicked out of, according to this verse in the book.

caposkia wrote:
I don't believe in the "hellfire and brimestone" hell.  Considering the details that the Bible goes into about hell, it is a terrible existence, but it doesn't give us enough detail to understand exactly how.  Many of the words "hell" in the Bible aren't actually referring to the eternal existence of the separation.



Just when you thought there was nothing new under the sun. The NDE clearinghouse website has identified another description and/or concept of a hell-state. Descriptions consistently are mainly a type of sensory deprivation, with an endless thickly shrouded 'veil' in a light gray colorless mist. ALL according to actual NDE survivors. I should say sounds disconcerting and scarily frightening, no stimuli; almost worse than a literal samsara (,perhaps). I thought veils were associated w/ and supposed to be of happier times? Whatever the case, Not considered the lowest realm of accounts of actual NDErs,. Noteworthy, this hellish-state has been completely missed by authors of popular works on the subject, (thought I'd share). Why? (?) Update needed, who knows. Perhaps some comparisons, Yes! Well?


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:Minor

danatemporary wrote:

Minor Quibble (to Beyond):

I could be thinking of something else, however, according to Author:: E.J. Michael Witzel's book entitled The Origins of the World's Mythologies (not controversy free). Regionally, some of these ancient African tribes completely lacked a creation myth and creator god (this is undisputed). That said, it wasn't as if there were no 'gods' so much but no Creator god. I'm more familiar with the primitive religion of Africa, where the EXORCIST or more precisely the village Shaman was often highly significance, with the banishing of the evil and spirits, often associated with sickness and illnesses (of the villagers)

Could be the same. I can't remember the exact tribes because I was just watching a show on Nat Geo. You are probably right. It is highly unlikely that any culture ever existed without some forms of woo. When you live in a primitive tribe you are extremely limited in your resources to understand the world and blaming spirits for illnesses and such is as logical as any other explanation you could possibly come up with. I would consider a tribe which believes in spirits but no particular god atheist. Certainly insofar as their ability to be warned by the Abrahamic god they were.

The Pirahã in the Amazon, which Daniel Everett wrote an absolutely fascinating book about. He went to live with the Pirahã for several years as a missionary to attempt to convert them. They had no concept of a deity, although they did believe in spirits. The tribe quickly lost interest in Jesus and instead of converting the tribe, Everett ended up becoming atheist. (No doubt he was not a True Christian&tradeEye-wink 

A bit off topic, but a book I would highly recommend adding to the old reading list. 

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Sleep-There-Are-Snakes/dp/0307386120

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Opps I meant to use the word coalitions

Re:: Opps I meant to use the word coalitions

Opps cannot edit now the word I meant to use was "coalitions" with the divine Council.

========================================================================

That was very nice of you with the book recommendation.

I have been meaning to read anything about Heyerdahl's sail across the Pacific, on the raft (used by Thor Heyerdahl). He constructed this ocean going raft, after he was to have studied the polynesians. His voyage on the Kon-Tik (keyword:: Kon-Tik) remains interesting enough, on finding out about his experimental archaelogy. It seems to contain all the romance of Hemingway.
Book on the tribe. Thanks. Happily. I definitely have to check that out, so will definitely head over to Amazon(com)
Cool Smiling
Speaking of books . . .
I remember, I have come across provocative perspectives in the interviews of popular authors. Ones who make comparisons between various 'Hells' (not that I've read every last one).

Caposkia wrote:
..Satan is more powerful than us


After the Intertestamental period, nothing remains the same about the Devil (well the evil maybe). Especially in the shaping and crafting of the (particularly) expanded role(s) of Satan. I dont always know what to make of Satan (in the Bible), with Ha-Satan taking on the role of prosecuting Attorney of the God's child. By no means am I ever suggesting Satan would be the Judge. That said, Imagine allowing the appointment to the post being granted to apparently the worst arch criminal (in history)!! Legacy issues are unacknowledged.

p.s. -- Smiling

_____

bible.cc/1_peter/1-12.htm ". . even the angels long to look into these things.'"


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:...and so far

caposkia wrote:
...and so far (I've done a lot of homework here) I have found branches of Christianity that separate themselves from other branches separate ~snip

True, the mormons are a great example. This is a natural evolution of religion. As a faith grows and spreads, it gets diluted. Occasionally completely rewritten.

However, some of these branchings date from before the bible was even compiled. The first split, in Rome, occured at a time when the christian mythos was still new and relatively unestablished.

caposkia wrote:
except that evil is defined as that which is not of God.. so it would have to be the other way around.

If crimes against innocents are good, I don't want to be good. My definition of good is to do no harm. Pure good, if such could be said to exist, is exemplified by the willingness to not cause harm under any circumstance. To let yourself die so another can live, even if the other is your enemy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:money doesn't

caposkia wrote:
money doesn't define success in Christianity.  They may be great manipulators or business gurus, but when it comes down to confronting the truth, they still stagger, stacks of cash in their pocket or not.

They will be the final vestige of christianity. Their funding may seem to mean nothing to you, but money still matters in theology. They are spreading their word faster and more efficiently than you are spreading yours. That is a strategy for success.

caposkia wrote:
but snipits of you that you typically woudn't have presented as you

But not me anymore than my kids, if I had some, are me. Take away my interest in science and science fiction and you gut a good 40% of who I am in one stroke, with one smack to the head. My entire social circle would collapse. I'd be dead, and some clone with a few common memories would replace me.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:it's because

caposkia wrote:
it's because in your analogy they're not.  Bostonians use the same language, grammar, and terminology, (mostly) but that doesn't make them the same either.. Boston tends to be one of the most diverse cities when you really get to know it.

All right you're a bit too advanced for that analogy to function properly. I'll use Star Wars instead. I was going to originally, but I try to avoid it as I do so fairly often.
If you watch the first 3 films (eps 4 to 6), you are engrossed in a tale about a boy fighting an empire lead by his father.
But if you watch eps 1 to 3 first, you never feel that story, because the focus of the tale is clearly the father. How he fell, and how he was redeemed.
It's a completely new story, all because half of it wasn't presented at first.

Obviously, this is the chronological opposite of what we're discussing, but chronology doesn't matter that much.

Phinneus Gage was a new story made of elements of a previous story. But still a new story.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:except that

caposkia wrote:
except that we can mimic it in unconscious items.  I believe we see evidence pointing to a purely physical process because all we understand is purely physical.

I would argue our seeing it mimic'd is further evidence of physicality. Processes and shapes that work tend to propagate, even if function changes.

We also can't prove the consciousness of anything we can't communicate with. This sounds ridiculous, but the truth is we can't prove that Jello isn't conscious. Or slightly less ridiculous; plants in general.

caposkia wrote:
but they knew they'd die if they ate it... and with that explanation, they must have known that death was something not to be desired.

They literally could not. How do you decide death is undesirable when you don't have the context of good and bad? Nothing is bad or good, it just is. And death couldn't have been all that undesirable when it just leads to another life closer to the creator.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:well here, if

caposkia wrote:
well here, if you read Genesis, the punishment was to have to work to live, then to die... not eternal punishment... 

Except that's written over by later chapters, and that offer isn't extended to descendants. I never had any choice in the matter. Why am I being punished for the actions of people I never even knew, before I was born? I'm denied any choice, yet told I have free will. There's a massive discrepancy there.

At least one of these concepts must be false. They are mutually exclusive.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:No, to follow

caposkia wrote:

No, to follow God you just have to trust Him.  If he's asking you to do something, you have to trust that there is a greater good reason for it.  Please consider the times when making comments like that.  During that time, it was not uncommon for a god to ask for human sacrifices and so to test Abraham, our God asked him to do the very thing that was common among other followings to see if He was actually faithful to Him.  Followers of this God are quite different and are more family oriented, so to take such a leap as to follow through with something so drastic would show the utmost faith and trust that there was a reason bigger than their family for it.  As you can read, it never happened and God never asked anyone else for such a sacrifice.  before or after.  If Abraham wasn't worthy to be the father of the great nation of Israel, He could have walked away at any time.

I would say that anyone who is willing to murder their own child is not worthy of leading any nation.

 

caposkia wrote:

sure, but I've been through this conversation with others before... and it's a fail.  See even if God provided physical evidence, how would you know it was from God?  Would you not deduce that other causes brought that physical thing to you?  e.g. an acorn falls on your head in the middle of a field with no trees around you for at least 1 mile in any direction.  Was it God?  The non-believer would consider any number of things but not once consider God to be the cause... e.g.

a bird likely picked up the acorn and dropped it in the air... 

high level winds knocked it off a high point on the tree and updrafts held it in the air until it reached me and fell

if an airplane happen to be flying overhead, someone tossed it out the window.  

any one of those could have happened... How do we know it wasn't God that caused it to happen in that way?

I was thinking something a little more extreme than an acorn. He is omnipotent, it doesn't have to be some kind of Davinci Code sign that has to be interpreted. He could simply come on down, assume some form that he thinks is good and say, "Hi all, I am God, haven't been around for awhile, watch me grow this amputees arm."   

 

caposkia wrote:

Again, God doesn't want you to just believe, he wants you to build a relationship with him.  Will him giving you something physical build a relationship?

How can I have a relationship with a being that is hiding and apparently is only willing to speak through complex codes that can only be recognized in hindsight? If he really wanted to talk, he could call me on the phone, or better yet, have a seat at the bar and we can have a drink together.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Consider Bruce Almighty the movie.  I liked the part where Jim's character was praying for a sign from God and each time he asked, roadsigns popped up with a specific message predicting trouble ahead on the road.  Be it that he was on the road, He never considered the signs he was seeing as a "sign" from God... there were many more logical reasons why those signs were there.  I do believe God actually works in those ways and unless you know what you're asking for, you will never see it.

Why is he so secretive? It is almost like he is trying to make me not believe in him. If he really wanted all of us in heaven with him, don't you think he would approach us in a more direct way?

 

caposkia wrote:
 

to make it short, there are signs of God all around you.  You just dont' know what you're looking for.  Not even believers are always aware of them.  Typically we see them in hind sight.  

If I don't know what I am looking for, whose fault is that? If I am sending a secret signal to someone, I am going to make sure they know the signal beforehand. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Considering the insult and rammifications of what that would do to the family who lost, I definitely think there should be something more than nothing done about it.  There is no greater insult to their ultimate sacrifice.  Considering comparing that to murderers and rapists, let's put it this way, is it worse to burn the flag in front of a soldiers funeral or to open someone elses mail? I bet the family would think they should be punished as severely.  Me?  I dont' know.  Understanding the symbolism of the flag and what the intentions of that person would be to intentinoally burn it at a soldiers funeral..  I wouldn't be totally against such rammifications.  

That is scary. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I never said He didn't want us to question Him, but you making conclusions, not asking questions.  I do think we should question the motives and actions of a being no matter how powerful.  Does that mean we have the ability to decide the answer for them?

Well since I have to choose whether or not to become a follower, sooner or later I have to come to a conclusion of whether or not he is a moral being. I don't want to follow someone who is immoral. Since the only source I have to rely on is the Bible and my knowledge of the world, I think the conclusion that if such a being exists it does not share my morality is obvious. Would you follow a being that didn't share your morality? At least what you consider the important parts of your morality? 

 

caposkia wrote:

I support forgiveness through Jesus Christ.  I do understand a punishment similar to punishments for murder would be appropriate  Spiritually speaking because you are violating a covenant.  It is a dishonor to your spouse to cheat on them.  If you're trying to compare it to Earthly standards in today's time in America, no, it would not fit the bill.  

Note to self: Don't vote for Caposkia for President. 

 

caposkia wrote:

If you don't know Christ and don't follow Him, You're likely going to be found guilty of breaking quite a few laws in your lifetime.  No one's perfect.

It is well established that I break quite a few laws on a regular basis no matter which religion you are talking about. I probably still would even if I could be convinced that God existed. Not really a fan of religious laws.

 

caposkia wrote:

Only by taking choice away.  Also, you're faling to consider that innocence has not been under Gods wrath.  If innocent infants died (because I know that's where you'er going to go) that blood is on the hands of those who allowed such an action to come upon them.  they had the power to be safe from it if they chose.  

And God also had the power not to kill them. Perhaps the parent bear some responsibility, but that doesn't take away from God making the choice to kill them. God isn't some tool that doesn't have a choice, he is omnipotent so he has infinite options. He chose an option that included killing babies. 

 

caposkia wrote:

You're assuming God didn't do that.  Again, I don't know what the alternatives could have been, but one assumption is that God would have to purge the population every so many generations if he hadn't done it the way He did... doesn't that constitute more suffering than just one big purge and starting from scratch?

Or he could have left the human population alone to suffer or thrive on their own and gone to make another planet. Since he liked Noah so much, he could have brought Noah to the new planet. Just one possibility this mere mortal can come up with. I'm sure an omnipotent being could come up with more.

 

caposkia wrote:

I've been to Ecuador and that's not what I was saying... you don't need a plane to travel to the woods.  NO, they don't get to choose their government, but they typically do have places to go.

Where? We bombed all over the country. When our military moves in, you can't just come and go. People wandering around in rural areas are suspicious and liable to be shot. And when they get to wherever they go to hide, how do they survive? And that is assuming they even have some idea of where a safe place is. It isn't like these people knew who we were after and where those people were located. We send in a special ops group, finds the people we are looking for and then calls in an airstrike which takes them out and everyone around them. Some of our attacks went places where there were no bad guys. Just some group of civilians that had the misfortune of being misidentified.    

 

caposkia wrote:

not everything is in everyone's control.  They also watch out for their own.  If the battle is in their back yard, someoen in their community likely brought it there.

The United States brought it there. 

 

caposkia wrote:

but they do have a choice to not bring the war to their back yard.  

Exactly what does the average civilian in Afghanistan do to stop the US military? What do they do to prevent terrorists from setting up a camp near their village? They are unarmed, poor and uneducated people. If you think they have a "choice" you really need to evaluate your concept of choice. They have no realistic options. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Either way, we're getting off topic with this.  It was an example as to which you've confirmed, though there still is a chioce, to starve or get killed.  Guess the double negative in this case makes for an easy decision.  Considering where this started... they had the choice of feeding into their desires and killing their family or giving up on those desires and surviving the ordeal... which would you choose?

And my point is that this terrible choice, with no good answer, that they must make is the same type of choice foisted upon people by your god. It is our fault that those poor people have to make such terrible choices.

 

caposkia wrote:

the understanding is they were all aware... The whole world was not populated at that time by humans

What year (approximately) do you think the flood happened? A google search shows me that the earliest anyone places it is 6,000 BC, or roughly 7-10,000 years after humans migrated to North America. (See Dana's handy migration map above)

  

caposkia wrote:

These tribes were... before the flood?  Also those who didn't have gods had idols from what I understand... are you saying they didn't worship... anything???? or believe in some sort of power beyond themselves?  I'm not aware of these tribes.  What time period was it?

Several tribal societies that have been isolated don't have any concept of god(s). They may believe in various woo things such as spirits, but don't worship them in the classical sense of religious worship. It becomes difficult when you are trying to determine the beliefs of people who died 15-20,000 years ago, but many finds have a distinct lack of potentially religious idols. I suppose they could have all been destroyed by time. Yet we find that when we encounter groups of people that have been isolated from the rest of humanity for thousands of years, they don't have any kind of monotheistic belief and sometimes, no religion. 

http://archive.org/stream/jstor-3025216/3025216_djvu.txt

 

caposkia wrote:

what if they were guilty? 

We're getting down to technicalities.  I've made it clear what has happened and why.  People made a choice and it was understood that at that time, the populations were aware of this God and his intentions.  

Ultimately Gods intention was to "blot out mankind" because the creation was completely corrupt and violent.  The fact that Noah survived at all was by grace.

Well God should have designed humans better in the first place so they didn't become corrupt and violent. Obviously, his solution didn't work either as humans are still corrupt and violent. 

 

caposkia wrote:

He has made quite a few that we've very effectively ignored.

Good. I would hate to live in a society where we punished adultery as stiffly as we punish murder.

 

caposkia wrote:

no, it is what it is... we can go on and on making assumptions about what had happened, but when ti comes down to it, there's just not enough information to conclude whether what was done was justified or not.  I trust that God made the best decision out of the possible millions he could have made.  I also trust that after death, the innocent were taken care of.

That is the difference between me and you. There is absolutely no situation where killing a baby is justified. Ever.  

 

caposkia wrote:

My guess is empirical evidence is not how he wants you to know Him.  ..and if God wasn't influencing people like you to be saved, I wouldn't be here talking to you right now.  I am trying to find what you might be looking for, but you're fighting it the whole way.

I'm looking for empirical evidence. It isn't a secret. You know it and if there is a god, he knows it. Since he is omnipotent, he can provide it. Since it has not been provided, I can only assume that he doesn't want me in heaven.  

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Now the whole living for eternity thing is a problem, regardless of whether it is in heaver or hell. Would you really want to live for eternity? Think about it. 

caposkia wrote:

why not?  

Forever is a really long time. Anything gets boring after a few thousand years. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Mormons... yea, it's my understanding they don't exactly know God... they depend on another book to explain their following.  

Either way, sometimes prayers take a lifetime to be answered.  If you were sincere about it... and you still are... it'll happen.  

It is just Christianity +1 prophet. I doubt it will happen. But yes, I am sincere. I would absolutely love to have a discussion about morality with god. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:caposkia

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

if you're offered a free pass out and you deny it?  it makes sense

Seeing as how there is literally nothing anyone could do (or not do) to deserve eternal torture, NO, it doesn't make sense. And it's not a free pass, either.

 

There's literally nothing we can do (or not do) at this point in our lives to earn eternity with God... so though someone had to suffer for us, it is a free pass for us.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
...and so far (I've done a lot of homework here) I have found branches of Christianity that separate themselves from other branches separate ~snip
True, the mormons are a great example. This is a natural evolution of religion. As a faith grows and spreads, it gets diluted. Occasionally completely rewritten. However, some of these branchings date from before the bible was even compiled. The first split, in Rome, occured at a time when the christian mythos was still new and relatively unestablished.
caposkia wrote:
except that evil is defined as that which is not of God.. so it would have to be the other way around.
If crimes against innocents are good, I don't want to be good. My definition of good is to do no harm. Pure good, if such could be said to exist, is exemplified by the willingness to not cause harm under any circumstance. To let yourself die so another can live, even if the other is your enemy.

To let yourself die so that another can live woudl then be causing harm to yourself.... a justified world cannot exist at this point in time without harm to something or someone.  Otherwise, there would have to be no crime.  or any crime would have to be deemed good and unpunishable.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: They will be

Vastet wrote:
They will be the final vestige of christianity. Their funding may seem to mean nothing to you, but money still matters in theology. They are spreading their word faster and more efficiently than you are spreading yours. That is a strategy for success.

Any business can use money in that sense, but money does not define truth.  In fact, it seems to be proven in industry that the more money a business has, the larger it grows, the less adherant to its core it becomes, before you know it, the business is run blindly by minions while the head rakes in the cash oblivious to where it might be going.  

They may be spreading better than us, but we've stayed more cohearant to the truth than they...  Our product is purer, there's has a lot of fillers... compare McDonalds to your local burger joint.  

Vastet wrote:

 But not me anymore than my kids, if I had some, are me.

not to cut it there, but in such a comparison, you can't say that with brain damage you become someone else in existence... you're still you, but different aspects that never showed... 

Vastet wrote:

Take away my interest in science and science fiction and you gut a good 40% of who I am in one stroke, with one smack to the head. My entire social circle would collapse. I'd be dead, and some clone with a few common memories would replace me.

Basicaly, you're right, but literally to the point of clone.  Basic personality traits would still come out, though very flawed in comparison to what you were.  You still don't become soemone else in the most literal form of the meaning.  You change according to the misinformation being processed in your brain.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I would argue

Vastet wrote:
I would argue our seeing it mimic'd is further evidence of physicality. Processes and shapes that work tend to propagate, even if function changes. We also can't prove the consciousness of anything we can't communicate with. This sounds ridiculous, but the truth is we can't prove that Jello isn't conscious. Or slightly less ridiculous; plants in general.

that's basically my point.. Our ability to observe consciousness is so limited that we really can't define its limits.  

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
but they knew they'd die if they ate it... and with that explanation, they must have known that death was something not to be desired.
They literally could not. How do you decide death is undesirable when you don't have the context of good and bad? Nothing is bad or good, it just is. And death couldn't have been all that undesirable when it just leads to another life closer to the creator.

If they didn't have a concept of death, Satan would not have tried to convince them that they would not die if they ate it.  Whatever they knew, it was implied that they understood death.  

Also, they were already with God in the garden... God "walked around in the garden"  therefore, to die would not get them closer to Him.  Only further away.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
well here, if you read Genesis, the punishment was to have to work to live, then to die... not eternal punishment... 
Except that's written over by later chapters, and that offer isn't extended to descendants. I never had any choice in the matter. Why am I being punished for the actions of people I never even knew, before I was born? I'm denied any choice, yet told I have free will. There's a massive discrepancy there. At least one of these concepts must be false. They are mutually exclusive.

Do our parents not have influence on our opportunities in life?  Even grandparents?  e.g.  I'm 3rd generation in the U.S.A.  My great grandparents came over for better opportunities.  Though I had no choice in the matter, I was born here.  I don't know what my opportunities or abilities would be if my great grandparents chose to stay in Italy, but I do know that because of their choices, I'm living the life I have been given they way I am today.   

Point being, every choice we make influences many generations to come especially in bloodline.  We may not understand how, but they do.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I would

Beyond Saving wrote:

I would say that anyone who is willing to murder their own child is not worthy of leading any nation.

Of course you would, that kind of behavior is not common and definitely frowned upon in our culture today.  A sacrifice is not considered murder because people clearly understood that though they're your children, the god created them and is their true parent... they also would take care of them in the afterlife.  I'm obviously speaking in general about all deities, not specifically judeo-Christian here.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I was thinking something a little more extreme than an acorn. He is omnipotent, it doesn't have to be some kind of Davinci Code sign that has to be interpreted. He could simply come on down, assume some form that he thinks is good and say, "Hi all, I am God, haven't been around for awhile, watch me grow this amputees arm."   

He did that already.  His name was Jesus Christ.... and if you read the Bible, you'll find that people still didn't believe.  How many times would God have to do that do you think?

Beyond Saving wrote:

How can I have a relationship with a being that is hiding and apparently is only willing to speak through complex codes that can only be recognized in hindsight? If he really wanted to talk, he could call me on the phone, or better yet, have a seat at the bar and we can have a drink together.

He only hidden from those who don't follow Him, but is very visible to those who do.... and where 2 or more are gathered, He is there.  I can't explain why He works with you the way He does, but I do understand that it is probably the best way He should communicate with you at this time.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why is he so secretive? It is almost like he is trying to make me not believe in him. If he really wanted all of us in heaven with him, don't you think he would approach us in a more direct way?

He did with Jesus.  He's not being secretive, but He does want you to make an effort too.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

If I don't know what I am looking for, whose fault is that? If I am sending a secret signal to someone, I am going to make sure they know the signal beforehand. 

If you know scripture, you know what to look for.  In other words, you have the resources to figure out the code

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

Considering the insult and rammifications of what that would do to the family who lost, I definitely think there should be something more than nothing done about it.  There is no greater insult to their ultimate sacrifice.  Considering comparing that to murderers and rapists, let's put it this way, is it worse to burn the flag in front of a soldiers funeral or to open someone elses mail? I bet the family would think they should be punished as severely.  Me?  I dont' know.  Understanding the symbolism of the flag and what the intentions of that person would be to intentinoally burn it at a soldiers funeral..  I wouldn't be totally against such rammifications.  

That is scary. 

what's scary is why a person would do such a thing in the first place.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well since I have to choose whether or not to become a follower, sooner or later I have to come to a conclusion of whether or not he is a moral being. I don't want to follow someone who is immoral. Since the only source I have to rely on is the Bible and my knowledge of the world, I think the conclusion that if such a being exists it does not share my morality is obvious. Would you follow a being that didn't share your morality? At least what you consider the important parts of your morality? 

likely not, and also a being wouldn't want you to follow them if your morals weren't in line... but where are the morals and what is immoral.  You're looking at the morals of a judge as if any negative judgement is immoral.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is well established that I break quite a few laws on a regular basis no matter which religion you are talking about. I probably still would even if I could be convinced that God existed. Not really a fan of religious laws.

or laws in general?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Or he could have left the human population alone to suffer or thrive on their own and gone to make another planet. Since he liked Noah so much, he could have brought Noah to the new planet. Just one possibility this mere mortal can come up with. I'm sure an omnipotent being could come up with more.

Do you know the rammifications of such a decision?  We're sitting here second guessing a choice an omnipotent being made.  In other words, how do you know He didn't consider that alternative, then foresee that it would have been a terrible choice?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Where? We bombed all over the country. When our military moves in, you can't just come and go. People wandering around in rural areas are suspicious and liable to be shot. And when they get to wherever they go to hide, how do they survive? And that is assuming they even have some idea of where a safe place is. It isn't like these people knew who we were after and where those people were located. We send in a special ops group, finds the people we are looking for and then calls in an airstrike which takes them out and everyone around them. Some of our attacks went places where there were no bad guys. Just some group of civilians that had the misfortune of being misidentified.    

...and therein lies the problem.  Human error.

Beyond Saving wrote:

The United States brought it there. 

or that... either way, again, humans are to blame.

Beyond Saving wrote:

What year (approximately) do you think the flood happened? A google search shows me that the earliest anyone places it is 6,000 BC, or roughly 7-10,000 years after humans migrated to North America. (See Dana's handy migration map above)

we can only guess with the information available to us.  I'm guessing it's further back than what our fossil records show, be it that life was understood to be a bit longer then as well.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well God should have designed humans better in the first place so they didn't become corrupt and violent. Obviously, his solution didn't work either as humans are still corrupt and violent. 

God designed humans perfectly, with one flaw... he decided to NOT make us robots.  Choice is and was the downfall of humanity.   Why blame God for what we chose to do?

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is the difference between me and you. There is absolutely no situation where killing a baby is justified. Ever.  

I agree, yet people did it to God all the time.  In fact, are you suggesting those people who died did not kill babies themselves, you probably should recheck your understanding of exactly what those people must have been like.  All children are gods, not ours, yet we seem to think we have the right to decide for them.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm looking for empirical evidence. It isn't a secret. You know it and if there is a god, he knows it. Since he is omnipotent, he can provide it. Since it has not been provided, I can only assume that he doesn't want me in heaven.  

Has he not provided it or have you not been looking for it?  If you have been looking for it, are you looking for something logical based on scripture or are you looking for a pile of $$ at your doorstep.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Forever is a really long time. Anything gets boring after a few thousand years. 

how do you know?  You've lived that long?

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is just Christianity +1 prophet. I doubt it will happen. But yes, I am sincere. I would absolutely love to have a discussion about morality with god. 

 

If that's true, in my understanding, you will have it.  Though it might be through His followers, which is typically how He speaks as you can see from scripture.   


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:There's

caposkia wrote:

God designed humans perfectly, with one flaw... he decided to NOT make us robots.  Choice is and was the downfall of humanity.   Why blame God for what we chose to do?

Because, as you yourself stated, God made the choice to give humans the ability to choose. And I am not responsible for the actions of my ancestors.

 

caposkia wrote:

There's literally nothing we can do (or not do) at this point in our lives to earn eternity with God... so though someone had to suffer for us, it is a free pass for us.

Then, since no one deserves Heaven or Hell, your God (being just) would create other places where people do deserve to go.

It is not a free pass for me. I would have to sacrifice my honesty and my rational thinking to get it.

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Double Post

DP (Double post)


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I would say that anyone who is willing to murder their own child is not worthy of leading any nation.

Of course you would, that kind of behavior is not common and definitely frowned upon in our culture today.  A sacrifice is not considered murder because people clearly understood that though they're your children, the god created them and is their true parent... they also would take care of them in the afterlife.  I'm obviously speaking in general about all deities, not specifically judeo-Christian here.

You can put whatever perfume on it you want, a sacrifice is murder. Would you vote for a presidential candidate who cut their son's throat as a sacrifice? 

 

caposkia wrote:

He did that already.  His name was Jesus Christ.... and if you read the Bible, you'll find that people still didn't believe.  How many times would God have to do that do you think?

More than once every couple thousand years. Maybe since god is immortal he doesn't appreciate how long 2000 years is to us. If god really cares about saving us all from hell, why did he stop after Jesus? 

 

caposkia wrote:

He only hidden from those who don't follow Him, but is very visible to those who do.... and where 2 or more are gathered, He is there.  I can't explain why He works with you the way He does, but I do understand that it is probably the best way He should communicate with you at this time.

Since I am not getting the message it is obviously not the best way to communicate with me. 

 

caposkia wrote:

He did with Jesus.  He's not being secretive, but He does want you to make an effort too.  

I am limited in the effort that I can make, he is omnipotent. 

 

caposkia wrote:

If you know scripture, you know what to look for.  In other words, you have the resources to figure out the code

I read the bible. I found it disgusting. I don't know how any sane human can read the bible in full and decide to worship the being described in it. I also didn't find anything to help me decode any of god's secret messages. Maybe I am simply not smart enough. 

 

caposkia wrote:

likely not, and also a being wouldn't want you to follow them if your morals weren't in line... but where are the morals and what is immoral.  You're looking at the morals of a judge as if any negative judgement is immoral.  

I would say that any eternal punishment is immoral. Wouldn't you agree? Isn't forgiveness supposed to be a central tenant of Christianity? It doesn't seem forgiving to punish someone eternally no matter what terrible things they did during their short lives.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is well established that I break quite a few laws on a regular basis no matter which religion you are talking about. I probably still would even if I could be convinced that God existed. Not really a fan of religious laws.

or laws in general?

I see laws as a necessary evil. I think the use of violent force should be minimal and all laws are enforced by using violence.

 

caposkia wrote:

Do you know the rammifications of such a decision?  We're sitting here second guessing a choice an omnipotent being made.  In other words, how do you know He didn't consider that alternative, then foresee that it would have been a terrible choice?

We have to determine if this omnipotent being really has our best interests as his goal. It is foolish to automatically assume he does simply because he said so. When we can look at the world and see that his "solution" to human violence by drowning the entire world was clearly a failure because humans are still very violent, why wouldn't we second guess him? Either he isn't omnipotent because by definition an omnipotent being could never fail at anything, or his goal was not to rid the world of violence.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Where? We bombed all over the country. When our military moves in, you can't just come and go. People wandering around in rural areas are suspicious and liable to be shot. And when they get to wherever they go to hide, how do they survive? And that is assuming they even have some idea of where a safe place is. It isn't like these people knew who we were after and where those people were located. We send in a special ops group, finds the people we are looking for and then calls in an airstrike which takes them out and everyone around them. Some of our attacks went places where there were no bad guys. Just some group of civilians that had the misfortune of being misidentified.    

...and therein lies the problem.  Human error.

Exactly. So when god makes a similar error, how can you believe he is omnipotent and good? We can forgive the human error that leads to the tragedy of a dead civilian, because we know that humans are not perfect. What should we make of a being that kills civilians while claiming to be omnipotent? Either he is not omnipotent and committed an error similar to the human who bombs a civilian target, or he is not good and intentionally killed innocents. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

What year (approximately) do you think the flood happened? A google search shows me that the earliest anyone places it is 6,000 BC, or roughly 7-10,000 years after humans migrated to North America. (See Dana's handy migration map above)

we can only guess with the information available to us.  I'm guessing it's further back than what our fossil records show, be it that life was understood to be a bit longer then as well.

Then how do you explain the technology? It is clear that according to the bible Noah built his ark during the bronze age or later. Otherwise, he would not have had the tools necessary to build the ark. Are you claiming that the flood happened before the stone age and the innovation of metal tools was lost? 

 

caposkia wrote:

God designed humans perfectly, with one flaw... he decided to NOT make us robots.  Choice is and was the downfall of humanity.   Why blame God for what we chose to do?

He decided to give us choice fully knowing what we would do with it. If you are raising a dog you know is violent are you not responsible when you let the dog off leash and it bites someone? 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is the difference between me and you. There is absolutely no situation where killing a baby is justified. Ever.  

I agree, yet people did it to God all the time.  In fact, are you suggesting those people who died did not kill babies themselves, you probably should recheck your understanding of exactly what those people must have been like.  All children are gods, not ours, yet we seem to think we have the right to decide for them.

Whether the adults killed babies or not is irrelevant. The fact that the adults might have killed the children does not justify god actually killing the children. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Has he not provided it or have you not been looking for it?  If you have been looking for it, are you looking for something logical based on scripture or are you looking for a pile of $$ at your doorstep.

I have more $$ than I need and I don't want god to give me anything. All I am looking for is evidence of his existence and yes, I am looking. I have asked every person who believes in him to give me evidence of his existence. So far, not a single person has been able to provide a shred of evidence. They all rely on faith based on a book written by ancient humans who believed the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and were extremely ignorant by modern standards. I see no reason to regard their testimony as credible.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Forever is a really long time. Anything gets boring after a few thousand years. 

how do you know?  You've lived that long?

I have lived considerably shorter and have already gotten bored with a number of fun things. It isn't difficult to extrapolate that if I lived for a few thousand years I would get bored with the things I find entertaining today. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is just Christianity +1 prophet. I doubt it will happen. But yes, I am sincere. I would absolutely love to have a discussion about morality with god. 

If that's true, in my understanding, you will have it.  Though it might be through His followers, which is typically how He speaks as you can see from scripture.   

Why would he be unwilling to speak for himself? I grow weary of having the discussion with his proxies, especially since every single one of you has different answers. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:To let

caposkia wrote:
To let yourself die so that another can live woudl then be causing harm to yourself.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. In fact your religion even celebrates such sacrifice as the ultimate good, exemplified by jesus sacrificing himself for all.

caposkia wrote:
Any business can use money in that sense, but money does not define truth.  In fact, it seems to be proven in industry that the more money a business has, the larger it grows, the less adherant to its core it becomes, before you know it, the business is run blindly by minions while the head rakes in the cash oblivious to where it might be going.  

They may be spreading better than us, but we've stayed more cohearant to the truth than they...  Our product is purer, there's has a lot of fillers... compare McDonalds to your local burger joint.

McDonalds is renowned worldwide. Only uncontacted tribes in South America could be expected to not know McDonalds. It has never shown signs of failing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
And it has swallowed

And it has swallowed millions of local burger joints whole. No evidence of them remains. Having truth or the best product on your side doesn't guarantee your survival.

caposkia wrote:
not to cut it there, but in such a comparison, you can't say that with brain damage you become someone else in existence... you're still you, but different aspects that never showed...

I'm not really me anymore though. I don't do the things I used to, I don't care about the things I used to. I don't even have the same personality, regardless if some elements do remain. Those elements can just as easily be spotted in somebody else, but that somebody else isn't me.
If my psyche isn't me then what is?
You may return to the soul here, but we've already established that as an insufficient argument to convince me.

caposkia wrote:
that's basically my point.. Our ability to observe consciousness is so limited that we really can't define its limits.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
To which I say we should

To which I say we should study it to the best of our ability, and not to take the words of men 2000 years ago, who knew even less than we do, as if they were fact.

caposkia wrote:
If they didn't have a concept of death, Satan would not have tried to convince them that they would not die if they ate it.  Whatever they knew, it was implied that they understood death.  

Understanding death doesn't mean you have a view on whether it is good or bad. If you don't know good and bad, then death is just another thing. Neither to be feared nor embraced. It just is.
Only with the capacity to judge good and bad can one say death is good or bad.

caposkia wrote:
Also, they were already with God in the garden... God "walked around in the garden"  therefore, to die would not get them closer to Him.  Only further away.

So adam and eve are in hell?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Do our

caposkia wrote:
Do our parents not have influence on our opportunities in life?  Even grandparents?

Only to the extent which we allow them to.

caposkia wrote:
e.g.  I'm 3rd generation in the U.S.A.  My great grandparents came over for better opportunities.  Though I had no choice in the matter, I was born here.

The way I see things, you wouldn't have been born at all if they hadn't. Your parents would never have met, meaning you would never have existed. So the rest of your paragraph is rather irrelevant. No offence.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Teaching of the Equity parable (you get yours in the end) . .

 When we can say,  " I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. I am not in him and he has no hold over me."

re :: Teaching of the Equity parable (you get yours in the end) . .
 

caposkia wrote:
If they didn't have a concept of death, Satan would not have tried to convince them that they would not die if they ate it.  Whatever they knew, it was implied that they understood death.  

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
Also, they were already with God in the garden... God "walked around in the garden"  therefore, to die would not get them closer to Him.  Only further away.

So adam and eve are in hell?

   Most modern scholars have a large beef and complaint with the Pauline epistles found in the New Testament,. The Canonical Gospels are often less of a problem; however they would like to gut the narrative completely and "de-mythologize" the Biblical Gospels. This is not private but in interviews they each have said as much.  Which both leads me to believe and it is pretty safe to assume they would privately want to scrub or throw-out most of the lesser Pauline works entirely, given the chance. This might present a problem :~  In so doing somewhat missing the value of these friendships and the encouragement to fledgling churches Paul gave. And forever missing the development of thought found in the New Testament. That said, most modern scholars have even more issues with the Pentateuch which means “five books" especially the first few chapters in the OT, in the Garden.  Beyond the mere concepts of human nature; Modernity could at least know the reference (not too much to ask). This would go miswanting, to indulge the their insane butcherings, in a word not the best idea, IMO. I can understand the whole wanting to toss out myth but then what would I do with my time ,hehe (Joke/Joking). No, We walk not according to the flesh, thank you Paul. Paul's working out things w/ Weaker Brethren wouldn't find a home with Scholarship, so how could I find a home with them ?  Likewise, it would leave us in the  dark. More speculating would occur to what end ? Therefore, I am not in favor of insane Scholarship's not so secret desires with pulling out a giant meat-ax and start where we have no clue as to what the original intent was (we live in modern times). Textual issues are solved in having other things to compare against.  Scholars like most are lazy, if you keep at it you can solve all sorts of issues, but you have to be willing to make an effort to go in the direction the evidence is leading.

:

:
 

{March 5th  danatemporary wrote}:

danatemporary wrote:
Who is my brother and who is my sister ? At least digitally, I am convinced that transcends Ideology, tenet, philosophy, and creed (,I have a dream).

 

 

  Important:

  (?) The Divine jurisprudence (begin with the Angels) . .

      An all important area to mention is unlocking the angels' original sin (if you will). While not failing to mention the particular religious culture of the time. A modern audience cannot estimate or appreciate how much each of these documents need to be looked at in the setting in which these documents were (originally) written. Now that is of some importance. To better find a way of understanding. I asked about Satan (and comments about the NDE), these expanded roles found later on in the writings that later became the Canon. (Btw, I'd hoped for some feedback on but I appreciate you are busy)  Importantly! Isnt there an aspect of human damnation being hopelessly intertwined with the fate of the angels ?  It shouldn't be glossed over, though I may be overstating it, only slightly, two things: One they each are headed South. And Second, the place was set up in the first place as a solution for the rebel angelic hordes, many instances were cited, according to the Bible. It seems to indicate man's fall brought about the damning to the souls ( how dreadful ). Matthew 25:41 - “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  Book of Hebrews 12:17 -  [Speaking of Esau] For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears,. And a passage I quoted in this Thread,. Conversely the very angels are interested in the matters of redemption. Who if any of the groupings of angels would need redemption? Obviously, the Unclean and Fallen angels are the only answer that makes any sense, according to the text. I do not think Rome's interpretation of a few key passages is right on both a previous verse I cited earlier and also the reference of so 'great a cloud of witnesses". The only game in town, at one time, wouldnt mean they (RCC) were always correct about things. Those fallen angels were looking into these matters, even though it's not explict nor unequivocal. This is what the New Testament writers were communicating about the angels. The case is strong, very strong, all-the-same for such this view. This is consistent with their plight, and the fate that the Fallen Angels made for themselves by being in rebellion against the Almighty, again, according to the holy bible ( and NO need for any concordance to find it :~),. I'd appreciate if you'd help in our understanding (many words in a reply this time). On how this ties into mankind according to the tradition ?  Smiling

In the image the she is a high-class hooker, that is the "she'' (perpetually snake bitten in a few ways).



  The summary doesnt do the actual text any justice. It is comic how the Hindu Hooker's soul is fought over which the better part of the details were omitted. Her soul has the attendants  of Lord Yama and the heavenly angels, if you will, both claiming her.  They have to have Hari and Yama to step in themselves to settle the matter. Before that the attendants get into an argument. It's sort of a loud funny exchange of: No!! She's coming with us!!  :~  It popped into my head is all.

Gospel of Luke 

:20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’ 27 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

 

 p.s. -- Noticed you skipped over the NDE, WOULD APPRECIATE your feedback on that, when you can.

  __________

 Anime classic  The Anti-hero Spike once said: I'm just watching a bad dream I never wake up from

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Because,

blacklight915 wrote:

Because, as you yourself stated, God made the choice to give humans the ability to choose. And I am not responsible for the actions of my ancestors.

You are right to say you're not responsible for the actions of your ancestors.  It's kind of the other way around.  Your ancestors were responsible for you no matter how far back... I'm sure they all didn't consider it, but the actions they chose affected the parts of your life you have no control over.. e.g. where you were born, when, by whom and what you look like along with any genetic problems and the life your parents led that allowed you to grow up the way you did, though that was somewhat in your parents control too.  

Point is, we are responsible for all of our grandchildren.  The choices we make now will affect all the generations to come in some way.  How dramatically?  Couldn't say, but it could be quite significant depending.

blacklight915 wrote:

Then, since no one deserves Heaven or Hell, your God (being just) would create other places where people do deserve to go.

God from what we can see in scripture created heaven... and the possibility of existing without Him.... that is the hell that people see as this torture chamber.  It is only everything that God is not from what we can see... it's not pleasent being eternally separate from our creator and those things in which He created us.  

blacklight915 wrote:

It is not a free pass for me. I would have to sacrifice my honesty and my rational thinking to get it.

 

Honest question... why would you have to sacrifice those when I didn't have to and many others who follow God haven't either?