Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN · 04-05-2012 12:02pm

joseph brand wrote: »

Zombrex wrote: »

Well no, I think it is because I have a hard time accepting any justice system that says because I lied to my parents (something they seem to have gotten over btw) I'm going to face an eternity of suffering and torture. That might be rational to you, but I would wonder how much that is based on self hatred than actual appeals to justice.

The Christian concept of hell seem far more like a made up concept to scare people into joining a cult that conveniently offered people away of avoiding this eternal suffering but only if you accept that the cult leader was God.

Let's not forget:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
AND
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.

So, just by 'thinking' you'd like to spend some quality time with your neighbours wife, or 'thinking' that you'd like your garden to look like your neighbours, it's HELL for you. Seems legit. :rolleyes:

OR

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.

Get stuck in traffic, stand on some Lego or see your team hit the crossbar and it's Sin-city.

Everybody is going to hell, by the church's standards. May aswell live your life, or not, it's your choice.

Exactly. Everybody is going to hell without intervention by God. And you have a choice.

So you can choose to accept the Gospel or not, and live your life accordingly. It's your choice.

Zombrex · 04-05-2012 12:15pm

PDN wrote: »

Exactly. Everybody is going to hell without intervention by God.

Seems a bit difficult to believe though, doesn't it. I mean do we lock people up for disrespecting their parents? Or having sex? Even short term. The idea that everyone is deserving of eternal suffering as punishment for how they lead their lives on Earth (most people leading relatively simple lives) seems very far fetched.

PDN · 04-05-2012 12:58pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Seems a bit difficult to believe though, doesn't it. I mean do we lock people up for disrespecting their parents? Or having sex? Even short term. The idea that everyone is deserving of eternal suffering as punishment for how they lead their lives on Earth (most people leading relatively simple lives) seems very far fetched.

That's fine, you don't have to believe it. And boards.ie has, in their infinite kindness, provided you with an Atheist and Agnosticism Forum where you can discuss your unbelief as much as you like.

However, in a thread of this nature on the Christianity Forum I would have hoped that you could find something better to contribute than, "Well I don't believe it."

Zombrex · 04-05-2012 1:27pm

PDN wrote: »

That's fine, you don't have to believe it. And boards.ie has, in their infinite kindness, provided you with an Atheist and Agnosticism Forum where you can discuss your unbelief as much as you like.

However, in a thread of this nature on the Christianity Forum I would have hoped that you could find something better to contribute than, "Well I don't believe it."

Well yes you would if you simply choose to ignore what I wrote. On a thread of this nature on the Christianity forum I would have thought that you could find something better to contribute towards support for belief in the claims of your religion that simply misrepresenting the posts of people you don't agree with. :rolleyes:

joseph brand · 04-05-2012 4:21pm

PDN wrote: »

Exactly. Everybody is going to hell without intervention by God. And you have a choice.

So you can choose to accept the Gospel or not, and live your life accordingly. It's your choice.

Sounds more like a threat tbh. The church doesn't give a fiddlers about anyone but themselves. They've shown nothing but contempt for the Irish people but their power is declining.

I can assure you I have a higher standard of morals and ethics than the church, so to follow any 'gospels' would be a step backwards.

By all means hold your personal beliefs, but don't bring them into the political discourse. We don't want to end up like some of those bible states in the US. (not talking about anyone in particular, just in general)

FergusODowd · 04-05-2012 5:11pm

joseph brand wrote: »

By all means hold your personal beliefs, but don't bring them into the political discourse

Everyone brings their particular beliefs into political discourse, including you.

Canis Lupus · 06-05-2012 12:46am

PDN wrote: »

That's fine, you don't have to believe it. And boards.ie has, in their infinite kindness, provided you with an Atheist and Agnosticism Forum where you can discuss your unbelief as much as you like.

However, in a thread of this nature on the Christianity Forum I would have hoped that you could find something better to contribute than, "Well I don't believe it."

As it's not in black I assume/hope I'm not commenting on a mod[b/] post but I think it was a reasonable post, one that many atheists ask. Most people out there are decent and it's not unreasonable to say it's pretty flipping harsh to be sentenced for all eternity for choosing not to believe in god.

Actually... Considering, according to you guys we live on for eternity either in heaven or in hell why are the 80-90 years spent on earth so important to god? 80/90 years is but a blink compared to infinity.

Fanny Cradock · 06-05-2012 12:12pm

Canis Lupus wrote: »

...sentenced for all eternity for choosing not to believe in god.

But we aren't saying that.

PDN · 06-05-2012 5:45pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But we aren't saying that.

As has been pointed out on a number of occasions. I feel like I'm in that film 'Groundhog Day'.

marienbad · 06-05-2012 8:49pm

PDN wrote: »

As has been pointed out on a number of occasions. I feel like I'm in that film 'Groundhog Day'.

But the may be true for you and Fanny, but it is not true for all Christians, as far as I know it is not even true for the greatest number of christians. And so is not unreasonable to other posters to be confused.

PDN · 06-05-2012 9:55pm

marienbad wrote: »

But the may be true for you and Fanny, but it is not true for all Christians, as far as I know it is not even true for the greatest number of christians. And so is not unreasonable to other posters to be confused.

I have met tens of thousands of Christians. I have yet to meet one who believes that anyone will be sentenced for all eternity for choosing not to believe in God.

Therefore, unless there is someone on this forum who has argued such a position, it is just a big fat strawman - and not for the first time.

marienbad · 06-05-2012 10:25pm

PDN wrote: »

I have met tens of thousands of Christians. I have yet to meet one who believes that anyone will be sentenced for all eternity for choosing not to believe in God.

Therefore, unless there is someone on this forum who has argued such a position, it is just a big fat strawman - and not for the first time.

Not doubting you for a minute PDN, but yours is not the only experience and I would hazard a guess that mine is closer to that of a substantial amount of people in Ireland than yours.

And people were told at a very young age that not believing in God and baptised into the ''one true and apostolic church'' ,whether by accident or design , was enough to consign one to hell. And by the way PDN if my memory serves me correctly, this would have included you and Fanny ! Because this was so uncomfortably black and white the notion of Limbo was invented for all those innocent babies.

Now this may or may not have been theologically sound ( and I have no interest in a theological debate with you)but it was what was taught because the objective was obedient christians and not theological educated ones. And that is possibly one of the reasons we as a nation found ourselves in the ''culture of deference'' society and all the problems that that caused.

PDN · 06-05-2012 10:50pm

marienbad wrote: »

Not doubting you for a minute PDN, but yours is not the only experience and I would hazard a guess that mine is closer to that of a substantial amount of people in Ireland than yours.

It's not your experience, but your logic that matters.

And people were told at a very young age that not believing in God and baptised into the ''one true and apostolic church''

As soon as you typed that word 'and' then you basically self-imploded.

You can't argue that people will go to hell for just A and then try to justify that point by arguing that it was really A+B.

And, tbh, it's going to be a colossal waste of time discussing your personal misunderstanding of the doctrine of the church in which you grew up.

marienbad · 06-05-2012 11:33pm

PDN wrote: »

It's not your experience, but your logic that matters.

As soon as you typed that word 'and' then you basically self-imploded.

You can't argue that people will go to hell for just A and then try to justify that point by arguing that it was really A+B.

And, tbh, it's going to be a colossal waste of time discussing your personal misunderstanding of the doctrine of the church in which you grew up.

AS I said experiences differ , you are too full of theology to see that we are not discussing logic, to most people in Ireland it dos'nt matter, there have their priests for that ( even still). I am not arguing anything I am just telling you what growing up in a catholic Ireland was like and in some places still is. You really should try listening instead of lecturing occassionally.

And again I see your are creating another ''rabbit hole''- I never said it was my personal understanding or misunderstanding ( do you read peoples post or always just look for the argument ?) .

Even today if you had a vox pop , on transubstantion/immaculate conception/ assumption/trinity -I doubt if you would get even 5% correct answers. And with that background a substantial number of people have a simplistic black and white faith.

The level of ignorance on the fundamental tenets of their faith is something that is quite astonishing.

lmaopml · 06-05-2012 11:51pm

marienbad wrote: »

AS I said experiences differ , you are too full of theology to see that we are not discussing logic, to most people in Ireland it dos'nt matter, there have their priests for that ( even still). I am not arguing anything I am just telling you what growing up in a catholic Ireland was like and in some places still is. You really should try listening instead of lecturing occassionally.

And again I see your are creating another ''rabbit hole''- I never said it was my personal understanding or misunderstanding ( do you read peoples post or always just look for the argument ?) .

Even today if you had a vox pop , on transubstantion/immaculate conception/ assumption/trinity -I doubt if you would get even 5% correct answers. And with that background a substantial number of people have a simplistic black and white faith.

The level of ignorance on the fundamental tenets of their faith is something that is quite astonishing.

Your experience Marian is not the 'rule' - maybe you should think about that some.

In saying that I do think that you are 'seeking', keep it up, that is important - it can be really hard, I was on that road for so very long, took many roads... - I hope you find it, there is a greater understanding than scratching the surface allows, but sometimes we don't want to do anything more than that because it has 'implications' - implications that effect how we live.

I gave myself over ultimately when I sensed that total 'peace', I can't even describe it, it's not psychological, it's part of your very being, body, mind and spirit - but that doesn't mean that it would be the same experience for everybody, I knew I wasn't perfect, but couldn't deny that there was something I judged myself against really..being brutally honest.

indioblack · 07-05-2012 12:04am

PDN wrote: »

No, that isn't actually true.

I believe the flames and fire are probably symbolic, but also that they symbolise something far worse than literal fire.

In eternity, I believe, people will see their sins as they really are. They won't make excuses any more, nor will they wink at their sins. They will realise, for the first time, exactly how horrible sin is.

The first sentence of the above paragraph could be argued to imply that they are unable to see the reality of sin in this life. The second sentence implies that they can see the actuality of sin - but wilfully ignore it.
And the third sentence once again could be said to mean that they were not capable of realising the depth of their errors on earth.

PDN · 07-05-2012 12:23am

marienbad wrote: »

AS I said experiences differ , you are too full of theology to see that we are not discussing logic,

Your post was contradictory. Accusing me of being 'too full of theology' doesn't change that.

You really should try listening instead of lecturing occassionally.

I did listen. I heard a contradiction.

And again I see your are creating another ''rabbit hole''- I never said it was my personal understanding or misunderstanding ( do you read peoples post or always just look for the argument ?) .

You were the one who tried to pick an argument with me, not vice versa.

Even today if you had a vox pop , on transubstantion/immaculate conception/ assumption/trinity -I doubt if you would get even 5% correct answers. And with that background a substantial number of people have a simplistic black and white faith.

And none of that has the faintest relevance to what I was talking about. We were discussing whether Christians believe that people will be punished eternally purely for choosing not to believe in God. In other words, nor for orginal sin, not for all the other sins they have committed in their lives, purely for disbelief and no other reason.

You are well out of order in arguing that I am wrong, but then trying to put your posts beyond logical analysis by deflecting with ad hominem attacks accusing me of not listening, of being 'too full of theology', and of not listening.

Marien, if you post an argument on an internet discussion board then you must expect people to examine the logic of what you post. If you don't want that, or use ad hominem attacks to avoid such examination, then you cannot really expect anyone to take what you post seriously.

lmaopml · 07-05-2012 12:23am

I often wonder at the 'depictions' of hell - and indeed any kind of artistic impression...I think it's healthy to understand the role that 'Art' plays without being boxed in, but also to not attach too much impressions to 'reality' or an artistic endeavor either - they have their place for sure, but none come close even to describing perfectly as every Christian understands something that words don't describe..

They are only meant as 'impressions' on the unknown and of course 'depictions' of what 'is' known about Christ. They can be tools of teaching too - and no doubt.

Ultimately the soul faces Christ - What we are concerned about is how we dress them for the occasion in truth...pray for them, and are united with them, at the end of the day - we're an inseperable family.

marienbad · 07-05-2012 12:49am

PDN wrote: »

Your post was contradictory. Accusing me of being 'too full of theology' doesn't change that.

I did listen. I heard a contradiction.

You were the one who tried to pick an argument with me, not vice versa.

And none of that has the faintest relevance to what I was talking about. We were discussing whether Christians believe that people will be punished eternally purely for choosing not to believe in God. In other words, nor for orginal sin, not for all the other sins they have committed in their lives, purely for disbelief and no other reason.

You are well out of order in arguing that I am wrong, but then trying to put your posts beyond logical analysis by deflecting with ad hominem attacks accusing me of not listening, of being 'too full of theology', and of not listening.

Marien, if you post an argument on an internet discussion board then you must expect people to examine the logic of what you post. If you don't want that, or use ad hominem attacks to avoid such examination, then you cannot really expect anyone to take what you post seriously.

I really suggest you should read my post again , PDN - I did not post an argument - I posted what my experience has been - I can't see how you can dispute or debate that- yours may have been different ,but that is just irrelevant.

And my experience has been that the level of knowledge that people have of their faith is pitiful. How you deduce what my understanding of faith or belief is from that is beyond me.

lmaopml · 07-05-2012 1:40am

marienbad wrote: »

I really suggest you should read my post again , PDN - I did not post an argument - I posted what my experience has been - I can't see how you can dispute or debate that- yours may have been different ,but that is just irrelevant.

And my experience has been that the level of knowledge that people have of their faith is pitiful. How you deduce what my understanding of faith or belief is from that is beyond me.

Marien, it seems you can join the ranks of the pitiful who blame everybody around them; afterall, it's your soul, your journey, your choices - don't go 'blaming' others, either you live and learn or live and quite simply give a side nod to something you seem interested in, but afraid of knowing. Don't you realise that there are millions of people who don't 'blame' others for themselves, for laziness...

You know what- it's your soul, your journey, your choice etc. but despite what you may see as 'opposition' in fact you have 'good friends' and always will have them here.

PDN · 07-05-2012 5:48am

marienbad wrote: »

I really suggest you should read my post again , PDN - I did not post an argument - I posted what my experience has been - I can't see how you can dispute or debate that- yours may have been different ,but that is just irrelevant.

I pointed out that Christians do not believe that people are punished eternally for simply choosing not to believe in God. Christians, at least those who believe in eternal punishment at all, believe that people are punished eternally for other reasons -original sin, sin committed by Adam and Eve, sins committede by ourselves, or even, as you misunderstood it, failing to be baptised.

You said I was inaccurate and wrong in posting that. So you were posting an argument. :rolleyes:

Your argument was wrong. You tried to back it up by citing an experience which did not contradict or refute the point I had made. I am not disputing your experience. But I am pointing out that it was irrelevant to the point I had made. To imply or state otherwise was poor logic.

When I pointed out that poor logic you embarked on a load of evasionary waffle about my being too theological, not listening, or lecturing too much. This gives the impression that you want to argue with something I said, but then evade any logical rebuttal yourself by saying, "I can argue against you, but my argument is free from being challenged or examined in turn because, in the midst of it, I shared an experience."

DEFTLEFTHAND · 07-05-2012 6:05am

I was reading a biography of Anton LaVey ( a man who headed and propagated satanism) recently. He had what proved to be a fatal heart attack at quite a young age and was taken to a Catholic hospital for treatment, his final words to family members are disturbing as he was repenting for he's life's teachings and warning those present to see the change. Did LaVey have a vision of hell in his last moments or was his mind altered from the drugs he had been administered?

Fanny Cradock · 07-05-2012 12:14pm

PDN wrote: »

I pointed out that Christians do not believe that people are punished eternally for simply choosing not to believe in God.

I'm going to throw the cat amongst the pigeons here and say that there are undoubtedly Christians out there that do think such a thing, which seems to be the extent of marienbad's argument. Of course, the question then becomes "so what?".

If the Bible speaks a consistent message about the reasons for damnation (and I believe it does) then it stands over against somebody's poorly informed assumptions about what the Bible says about the reasons for damnation.

It's like saying that because many people believe that shaving causes your hair to grow back thicker and in larger quantities that this has any significance beyond the fact that they are wrong.

Do you have a point beyond this?

marienbad · 07-05-2012 12:28pm

lmaopml wrote: »

Marien, it seems you can join the ranks of the pitiful who blame everybody around them; afterall, it's your soul, your journey, your choices - don't go 'blaming' others, either you live and learn or live and quite simply give a side nod to something you seem interested in, but afraid of knowing. Don't you realise that there are millions of people who don't 'blame' others for themselves, for laziness...

You know what- it's your soul, your journey, your choice etc. but despite what you may see as 'opposition' in fact you have 'good friends' and always will have them here.

What is it with his thread !! I am not blaming anyone , I am just pointing the existance of a certain type of christianity where not believing in god was and is certain entry to hell- As you saying that people that believe as such do not exist or what ?

marienbad · 07-05-2012 12:38pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm going to throw the cat amongst the pigeons here and say that there are undoubtedly Christians out there that do think such a thing, which seems to be the extent of marienbad's argument. Of course, the question then becomes "so what?".

If the Bible speaks a consistent message about the reasons for damnation (and I believe it does) then it stands over against somebody's poorly informed assumptions about what the Bible says about the reasons for damnation.

It's like saying that because many people believe that shaving causes your hair to grow back thicker and in larger quantities that this has any significance beyond the fact that they are wrong.

Do you have a point beyond this?

Exactly , and thank you Fanny, and I posited the further question that in my day I suspect that it was deliberate as ''thinking christians'' were surplus to requirements. No more and no less.

And I suspect that in this country a lot of people of a certain age still believe as much, at least that has been my experience.

And as to having a point beyond beyond that, no - not really- though I would be interested in any views as to why come christians are so ignorant and in many cases willfully so- of their own philosophy. I was just lending support to the poster that said that going to hell for not believing in God was a bit rough.

marienbad · 07-05-2012 12:41pm

PDN wrote: »

I pointed out that Christians do not believe that people are punished eternally for simply choosing not to believe in God. Christians, at least those who believe in eternal punishment at all, believe that people are punished eternally for other reasons -original sin, sin committed by Adam and Eve, sins committede by ourselves, or even, as you misunderstood it, failing to be baptised.

You said I was inaccurate and wrong in posting that. So you were posting an argument. :rolleyes:

Your argument was wrong. You tried to back it up by citing an experience which did not contradict or refute the point I had made. I am not disputing your experience. But I am pointing out that it was irrelevant to the point I had made. To imply or state otherwise was poor logic.

When I pointed out that poor logic you embarked on a load of evasionary waffle about my being too theological, not listening, or lecturing too much. This gives the impression that you want to argue with something I said, but then evade any logical rebuttal yourself by saying, "I can argue against you, but my argument is free from being challenged or examined in turn because, in the midst of it, I shared an experience."

Take off the combat glasses and read again then- starting at my first post on this issue. Are you afraid of any discussion or what ?

PDN · 07-05-2012 2:17pm

marienbad wrote: »

lmaopml wrote: »

Marien, it seems you can join the ranks of the pitiful who blame everybody around them; afterall, it's your soul, your journey, your choices - don't go 'blaming' others, either you live and learn or live and quite simply give a side nod to something you seem interested in, but afraid of knowing. Don't you realise that there are millions of people who don't 'blame' others for themselves, for laziness...

You know what- it's your soul, your journey, your choice etc. but despite what you may see as 'opposition' in fact you have 'good friends' and always will have them here.

What is it with his thread !! I am not blaming anyone , I am just pointing the existance of a certain type of christianity where not believing in god was and is certain entry to hell- As you saying that people that believe as such do not exist or what ?

But that is not what was under discussion. We were not discussing what was certain entrance to hell. We were discussing why people would go to hell - ie what people are sent to hell for. Those are two very distinct concepts. I'm happy to discuss either if you make it clear what it is you are wanting to discuss.

marienbad · 07-05-2012 3:37pm

PDN wrote: »

But that is not what was under discussion. We were not discussing what was certain entrance to hell. We were discussing why people would go to hell - ie what people are sent to hell for. Those are two very distinct concepts. I'm happy to discuss either if you make it clear what it is you are wanting to discuss.

No problem if we had a misunderstanding PDN, but I was just referencing that specific post by Canislupus (I think) . In my experience most non catholics have a a far greater understanding of their beliefs than do catholics. And black and white propositions are the norm and not the exception . That is all I am saying - I am not saying those propositions are correct.

For example The Immaculate Conception I would say as guesstimate would be correctly understood by less then 1 in 1000- ,that is all I am saying and I am curious as to why people think that is.

lmaopml · 07-05-2012 10:17pm

marienbad wrote: »

What is it with his thread !! I am not blaming anyone , I am just pointing the existance of a certain type of christianity where not believing in god was and is certain entry to hell- As you saying that people that believe as such do not exist or what ?

Sorry Marien if I took you up wrong. Certainly there are people who believe all sorts of things, and perhaps there are Christians who believe various differing things depending, so I'm sure you may come across some if you look for them. In saying that, I don't really get what the point is? Some Christians understanding is different to other Christians understanding of some things?

philologos · 07-05-2012 10:39pm

marienbad wrote: »

What is it with his thread !! I am not blaming anyone , I am just pointing the existance of a certain type of christianity where not believing in god was and is certain entry to hell- As you saying that people that believe as such do not exist or what ?

You're ignoring why it is a problem. It isn't unbelief that keeps us from the Kingdom of Heaven in and of itself.

The Lord God created us, in His image, that we are to reflect His glory in His creation. He in His loving rule gave us commandments that we might follow after Him, these commandments were given for our own good rather than our own detriment. God as Creator has full authority to do this, and indeed He does this because He cares for us and He loves us and wants us to do what is good.

Man decided to reject the Lord by sinning against Him, man decided that he wanted to break away from God and do things their own way. As a result of their rejection of God, they did what was clearly wrong, and fell into sin, choosing to follow their own selfish desires above and beyond God. As a result of breaking God's commandments they deserve punishment, they deserve to be condemned. They are guilty under God's commandment.

God in His mercy, sent Jesus Christ into the world to live, teach, and ultimately to be crucified in our place, so that we might be forgiven. That we might have a new relationship with God. That we can be forgiven, and live for Him is a grace upon grace. We deserve to be sent to hell. I deserve to go to hell. The good news is that God loves us enough not to send us there if we're willing to truly repent. The good news is by Jesus, we can have eternal life rather than eternal condemnation.

If we are still stubbornly unwilling to believe and trust in Jesus, we are condemned. Not because of unbelief - but because our sin will remain unpunished - therefore without Jesus we must bear it ourselves.

Hell exists because God is good. It is because God is profoundly angry at wrongdoing, and it is because God cannot tolerate what is evil to enter the Kingdom of God. It is because God is righteous, that He is just. He's just insofar as He desires punishment for wrongdoing. He's merciful insofar as He has already sent Jesus into the world to pay this penalty.

One day, Jesus will return to judge the world, Jesus is coming back, and on that day, He will rightfully judge the world. Will He say "Good and faithful servant. Come and share in your masters happiness"? Or will one be thrown into the darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth?

marienbad: That is the Gospel, that is what mankind needs to hear. That's why man needs to repent and turn to Jesus. That's what God has said, that's what God has declared.

I'm simply saying this - stop being foolish, stop being stubborn, stop running from Jesus, stop avoiding the topic. Stop ignoring the knock on the door. Give Jesus a chance, give His word a chance.

I say this for your own sake. It is for your own good that you consider this, and not ignore it. Please do not treat this message flippantly. I post this because I hope that one day God will dwell richly in you, I post this because I believe that one day you might not run any more. I post this because I long for you and others to believe in Jesus and have life in His name as He promises us.

PDN · 07-05-2012 11:27pm

philologos wrote: »

You're ignoring why it is a problem. It isn't unbelief that keeps us from the Kingdom of Heaven in and of itself.

The Lord God created us, in His image, that we are to reflect His glory in His creation. He in His loving rule gave us commandments that we might follow after Him, these commandments were given for our own good rather than our own detriment. God as Creator has full authority to do this, and indeed He does this because He cares for us and He loves us and wants us to do what is good.

Man decided to reject the Lord by sinning against Him, man decided that he wanted to break away from God and do things their own way. As a result of their rejection of God, they did what was clearly wrong, and fell into sin, choosing to follow their own selfish desires above and beyond God. As a result of breaking God's commandments they deserve punishment, they deserve to be condemned. They are guilty under God's commandment.

God in His mercy, sent Jesus Christ into the world to live, teach, and ultimately to be crucified in our place, so that we might be forgiven. That we might have a new relationship with God. That we can be forgiven, and live for Him is a grace upon grace. We deserve to be sent to hell. I deserve to go to hell. The good news is that God loves us enough not to send us there if we're willing to truly repent. The good news is by Jesus, we can have eternal life rather than eternal condemnation.

If we are still stubbornly unwilling to believe and trust in Jesus, we are condemned. Not because of unbelief - but because our sin will remain unpunished - therefore without Jesus we must bear it ourselves.

Hell exists because God is good. It is because God is profoundly angry at wrongdoing, and it is because God cannot tolerate what is evil to enter the Kingdom of God. It is because God is righteous, that He is just. He's just insofar as He desires punishment for wrongdoing. He's merciful insofar as He has already sent Jesus into the world to pay this penalty.

One day, Jesus will return to judge the world, Jesus is coming back, and on that day, He will rightfully judge the world. Will He say "Good and faithful servant. Come and share in your masters happiness"? Or will one be thrown into the darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth?

marienbad: That is the Gospel, that is what mankind needs to hear. That's why man needs to repent and turn to Jesus. That's what God has said, that's what God has declared.

I'm simply saying this - stop being foolish, stop being stubborn, stop running from Jesus, stop avoiding the topic. Stop ignoring the knock on the door. Give Jesus a chance, give His word a chance.

I say this for your own sake. It is for your own good that you consider this, and not ignore it. Please do not treat this message flippantly. I post this because I hope that one day God will dwell richly in you, I post this because I believe that one day you might not run any more. I post this because I long for you and others to believe in Jesus and have life in His name as He promises us.

It's as if a murderer tried to run away from the police but got caught because he didn't run fast enough.

Would we say, "It seems very unfair that he got sentenced to life imprisonment just for not being able to run fast."?

marienbad · 07-05-2012 11:34pm

I give up

Pushtrak · 08-05-2012 11:56am

philologos wrote: »

You're ignoring why it is a problem. It isn't unbelief that keeps us from the Kingdom of Heaven in and of itself.

You're ignoring why it is a problem. It isn't unbelief that keeps us from getting presents from Santa Clause. Santa Clause cares for us, and wants us to be good and wants to give us presents. Man decided to do bad things, as a result from this we will get a lump of coal. We deserve coal. We're wicked as under Santa's commandment.

The point I'm making is, you can not see it from the perspective of one who doesn't believe there is a god. I don't object to any of the 10 commandments outside of placating the ego of god. But, imagine if in the scenario I concocted, for any wrong doing I had said you ought to pray. Would you be more likely to pray to Santa? No, of course not. Would you be worrying about getting some coal instead of presents? Again, no, of course not.

Andrewf20 · 30-05-2012 12:42am

Hey folks, Just reading Genesis 3. Im interested as to how people make sense of this one? How could she see the apple if her eyes were not opened yet?

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

HamletOrHecuba · 30-05-2012 1:21am

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Hey folks, Just reading Genesis 3. Im interested as to how people make sense of this one? How could she see the apple if her eyes were not opened yet?

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Of course they could see before but they were clothed in a garment of Glory, of Grace, and that is what was stripped from them so that they became naked. We are clothed in the same garment though because of our fallen nature we dont see it clearly at Baptism- the Church is the Garden of Paradise come to us again in a very real sense.

"...it wasn't the eating from the tree that opened their eyes: they could see before eating. Instead, the eating from this tree was the symptom of their disobedience and the breaking of the command given by God; and through their guilt they consequently divested themselves of the glory surrounding them, rendering themselves unworthy of such wonderful esteem. ...because of the Fall, they were stripped of grace from above... [So] they were not really naked [before the Fall]: the glory from above garbed them better than any garment... You see, transgression of the command entered the scene and snatched away that novel and remarkable garment - I mean the glory and favor from above enveloping them - and it both lent them an awareness of their nakedness and also clad them in unspeakable shame."

St. John Chrysostom.
Sermon on Genesis Chapter 3.

Andrewf20 · 30-05-2012 1:30am

But it says:

"...and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."

This seems to simply refer to a visual awareness of their physical nakedness.

PDN · 30-05-2012 10:52am

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Hey folks, Just reading Genesis 3. Im interested as to how people make sense of this one? How could she see the apple if her eyes were not opened yet?

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Yeah, that's it, they were physically blind before they ate the fruit. :rolleyes:

Btw, it doesn't mention an apple.

Zombrex · 30-05-2012 3:10pm

marienbad wrote: »

I give up

I think that is wise.

As I've said before the resurrection story is like one of those optical illusions of the impossible shapes. Look at one bit at a time (as Christians tend to do) and each piece seems to make reasonable sense. The problem comes when you look at the whole thing as one supposably coherent concept. Then it becomes a contradictory mess.

Of course you cannot make someone look at the whole in such a manner. So arguing with people about this it always just goes back to the pieces with the person you discussing it with going "Well this piece makes sense, it is important to have justice. And this piece makes sense, God loves us so obviously would like to forgive us" etc. They won't see the contradictions between the different pieces unless they are prepared to look at it as a whole, and frankly I've yet to meet someone on this forum who is prepared to do that.

PDN · 30-05-2012 6:44pm

Zombrex wrote: »

I think that is wise.

As I've said before the resurrection story is like one of those optical illusions of the impossible shapes. Look at one bit at a time (as Christians tend to do) and each piece seems to make reasonable sense. The problem comes when you look at the whole thing as one supposably coherent concept. Then it becomes a contradictory mess.

Of course you cannot make someone look at the whole in such a manner. So arguing with people about this it always just goes back to the pieces with the person you discussing it with going "Well this piece makes sense, it is important to have justice. And this piece makes sense, God loves us so obviously would like to forgive us" etc. They won't see the contradictions between the different pieces unless they are prepared to look at it as a whole, and frankly I've yet to meet someone on this forum who is prepared to do that.

In other words, "Hey it's contradictory - of course, when pressed, I can't point to a single actual contradiction - but why let that be an obstacle? All I have to assert is that anyone who doesn't share my opinion of it as contradictory is refusing to see it as a whole."

Pwpane · 30-05-2012 9:05pm

PDN wrote: »

In other words, "Hey it's contradictory - of course, when pressed, I can't point to a single actual contradiction - but why let that be an obstacle? All I have to assert is that anyone who doesn't share my opinion of it as contradictory is refusing to see it as a whole."

This might help:

PDN: Post 4335: "If the atheist has chosen to reject the Gospel of Christ, then I believe his judgement will be to spend eternity separated from God."

PDN: Post 4372: "I pointed out that Christians do not believe that people are punished eternally for simply choosing not to believe in God."

PDN: Post 4378: "We were not discussing what was certain entrance to hell. We were discussing why people would go to hell - ie what people are sent to hell for."

These may not seem contradictory to you, but they are symptomatic of the general problem with the 'logic' presented to convince people.

PDN · 30-05-2012 9:07pm

Pwpane wrote: »

This might help:

PDN: Post 4335: "If the atheist has chosen to reject the Gospel of Christ, then I believe his judgement will be to spend eternity separated from God."

PDN: Post 4372: "I pointed out that Christians do not believe that people are punished eternally for simply choosing not to believe in God."

PDN: Post 4378: "We were not discussing what was certain entrance to hell. We were discussing why people would go to hell - ie what people are sent to hell for."

These may not seem contradictory to you, but they are symptomatic of the general problem with the 'logic' presented to convince people.

They aren't contradictory. As you would see if you read them in context rather than quote mining.

So, the general problem is that people like you can't be bothered to take the time to listen to what other people are acually saying.

Pwpane · 30-05-2012 9:21pm

PDN wrote: »

They aren't contradictory. As you would see if you read them in context rather than quote mining.

So, the general problem is that people like you can't be bothered to take the time to listen to what other people are acually saying.

Touchy! That's the second post in a row you've replied to with anger.

Problems of logic and reasoning are a major stumbling block in the arguments I've seen put forward in support of religion on this forum. And the recurring claim from Christians that atheists cannot point out any contradictions when their own posts are full of them. I've just spent a while reading the last pages of this thread and your own posts are a case in point, as I tried to illustrate. I did read your posts in context. Re-reading several times didn't help. If you are trying to be clear in order to explain your beliefs, you're not being successful.

I think Zombrex made an excellent point above regarding the whole picture - that you just can't see the wood for the trees.

Zombrex · 30-05-2012 9:45pm

PDN wrote: »

In other words, "Hey it's contradictory - of course, when pressed, I can't point to a single actual contradiction - but why let that be an obstacle?

I can point to many contradictions, as I have with you many times. And any time I've discussed them with you you focus on the two (or more) individual points of doctrine and their non-contradictory logic (ie the individual pieces of the impossible shape) but refuse to look at the whole (the impossible shape made up of the individual pieces).

We just go around and around with you continuing to explain to me that the individual logic of each piece (ie God loves humanity), which ignoring my requests to look at the big picture and the inherent contradictions there.

A simplified example is the contradiction between God's nature adhering to a sense of keeping his word and a sense of justice (sounds reasonable) and the notion that God loves us and wishes to forgive us for sinning against him (sounds reasonable). As two individual isolated notions both are fine. But they are contradictory to each other. If it is part of God's nature that he punish sin it cannot also be his nature that he forgives sin. Which the early Christians knew which is why they came up with the nonsense concept that our punishment was some how transferred to Jesus, so we could be both punished and not punished at the same time.

What you are going to tell me is that it is perfectly reasonable that God adheres to justice, and that it is perfectly reasonable that God loves us and wishes that we are with him in heaven, but when pressed on the need to marry these two concepts I predict we will get no where, with you returning to wishing to discuss the two concepts independently of each other. The same with all the other components of the resurrection (another good one is the concept that Jesus is an innocent who can volunteer to accept the punishment on our behalf and the concept that he is in fact God and was sent to Earth by the "Father" in order to fulfil this role). I could go on and on and you will go on and on telling me how reasonable the individual pieces of the story are.

So again it raises the question what is the point. If you have already made your mind up that there isn't any contradictions, but at the same time refuse to look at where the contradictions actually are I don't see any particular value in the discussion.

Which is why I think marienbad made the right choice.

PDN · 30-05-2012 9:51pm

Pwpane wrote: »

Touchy! That's the second post in a row you've replied to with anger.

Your mind reading skills are as lamentable as your comprehension. No anger here whatsoever - this thread has been going long enough for me to get used to this pattern.

Atheists claim there are contradictions. Christians press them to name specific contradictions. Atheists retreat to generalities.

If anything it causes boredom rather than anger.

I think Zombrex made an excellent point above regarding the whole picture - that you just can't see the wood for the trees.

That might carry more weight if, just for once, you actually pointed to a tree. But until you do so then all you have is an imaginary forest of imaginary trees.

Now to address the specific quotes of mine that you have taken out of context:

1. Christians believe that hell is the consequence of the totality of the sins that reach of us commit. The way we can avoid this is by accepting the Gospel message.

2. People, therefore, are not punished for simply not believing in Christ (no more than a murder receives life imprisonment simply for not running fast enough when pursued by a policeman).

3. Post 4378 was pointing the above out to someone who was confusing themselves and were not thinking very logically.

Now, you can disagree with these beliefs, as is your perogative. But there is no contradiction whatsoever.

Pushtrak · 30-05-2012 10:38pm

PDN wrote: »

In other words, "Hey it's contradictory - of course, when pressed, I can't point to a single actual contradiction - but why let that be an obstacle? All I have to assert is that anyone who doesn't share my opinion of it as contradictory is refusing to see it as a whole."

PDN wrote: »

Your mind reading skills are as lamentable as your comprehension. No anger here whatsoever - this thread has been going long enough for me to get used to this pattern.

Atheists claim there are contradictions. Christians press them to name specific contradictions. Atheists retreat to generalities.

If anything it causes boredom rather than anger.

That might carry more weight if, just for once, you actually pointed to a tree. But until you do so then all you have is an imaginary forest of imaginary trees.

No bible contradictions? Hm... Incongruence or what, then?

Andrewf20 · 31-05-2012 12:44am

Its interesting how people read things in the bible and come to opposing conclusions. Heres another one that I see as a potential conflict of ideas. There are many verses in the bible that imply God is omnisicent (all knowing), but in Genesis 3:

"...and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?” "

But surely God would know where he is at all times if he was omnisicent, and therefore I would be expecting somelike like:

"...and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God knew where they were hiding...”

Doc Farrell · 31-05-2012 12:54am

These last few pages are turning into an ad for specsavers.

Pushtrak · 31-05-2012 1:01am

According to the apologetics, god is omnipotent in that he can do anything that doesn't go against his properties. Or, he can do what he can do.

Andrewf20 · 31-05-2012 1:13am

PDN wrote: »

Yeah, that's it, they were physically blind before they ate the fruit. :rolleyes:

Btw, it doesn't mention an apple.

Im only interpreting it as I read it. It says "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked, so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves". To me this suggests that their physical eyes were closed before hand.

But then then I get stumped again, previously in Genesis 2 it says:"Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." So I ask myself why would they make fig leaves to cover themselves in Genesis 3. Help!

Its almost as if the story has a much deeper meaning to its apparently basic language. I trying and I honestly cant get my head around it. I guess its almost like reading Animal Farm for example. The only issue here is that it sets a precident of ambiguity in which a number of different conclusions may be right imo.

Pushtrak · 31-05-2012 1:22am

Andrewf20 wrote: »

PDN wrote: »

Yeah, that's it, they were physically blind before they ate the fruit. :rolleyes:

Im only interpreting it as it best sounds to me. It says "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked...". Suggesting that their eyes were closed before hand. Why would this line not refer to their physical eyes?

There are good arguments against christianity and there are bad ones. This one isn't really all that great. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2&version=NIV

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Apparently, knowing you are naked has some relation with knowing good and evil. Well, so says the bible.

The issue of course, is that when you take reality in to account, there was no Adam and Eve. No garden of eden. No forbidden fruit. No fall. No original sin. Just, as per in a previous post, a lot of contradictions.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments