For those who don't believe?

Zillah

BrianCalgary wrote:

Jesus claimed to be God. He backed it up with things like healing lepers, making blind see, rising from teh dead, raising others from the dead.

No, a book claims that Jesus did all those things. A book that contradicts itself, let alone other historical records.

Of course I would, I would test what they had to say against scripture. If it was consistent with scripture I would probably accept that they are speaking from God.

What if HE wrote the scripture? I assume you'd say "No, thats ridiculous, you just wrote that yourself". But why is it suddenly fully acceptable if the book is very old? I'd have thought that the older the book was, the LESS reliable it'd be, considering it'd have been written by more ignorant/superstitious people.

You don't have Jesus. You have a book that talks about Jesus.
You don't have miracles. You have a book that talks about miracles.
You don't have ressurections. You have a book that talks about ressurections.

All you have is a book. A self contradictory book. We know for a fact that three of the gospels are wrong, that contradict each other, why assume the remaining one is right? Of course, that ignores the fact that there were dozens of gospels left out, primarily because of the rantings of Irenaeus of Lyons, who had an obsession with the number 4.

EDIT:

On the son/cliff analogy - I assume you'd only ever punish your son to teach him better for next time? Whereas God sending us to HELL for ETERNITY has no merit in terms of discipline, merely revenge.

Dades

Sangre wrote:

If you can't call something irrational or illogical then debates on science and religion aren't going to amount to much.

I'm not being a mod - it's just my opinion that such sweeping statements are worthless. You just described one third of the planet as irrational.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Don't call it pathetic whatever you do!

LOL

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

I'm not being a mod - it's just my opinion that such sweeping statements are worthless. You just described one third of the planet as irrational.

That doesn't make it incorrect to be fair.

Although I do expect brownie points for managing to ignore that one in my post

Dades

Zillah wrote:

That doesn't make it incorrect to be fair.

To be fair, I never gave an opinion on that.

Zillah wrote:

Although I do expect brownie points for managing to ignore that one in my post

That was indeed noted, although Asiaprod hands out the brownie points.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

On the son/cliff analogy - I assume you'd only ever punish your son to teach him better for next time? Whereas God sending us to HELL for ETERNITY has no merit in terms of discipline, merely revenge.

Good point. You're letting your son have freedom, even though you're responsible for him, because you want him to grow up responsible. Makes sense.

Again, though, the analogy doesn't hold. God is punishing you as the final act. Nothing happens afterwards - you don't learn, you don't grow - and even if you did, so what? You're in Hell for eternity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

You have allowed those freedoms to your son because you feel that he is old enough to act responsibly. However:

1. your judgement of his wisdom (so as to exercise due care and attention) is made in comparison to your own, so that you judge him wise enough by your own standards - whereas in comparison to god we are, and remain, infinitely unwise. And the stakes are very high - eternity is a very long time indeed.

That is why God communicates with us through the Bible in order to give us the wisdom we need.

Scofflaw wrote:

2. if your son fell off the cliff 99% of the time he went mountain biking, would you honestly let him do so? That's the kind of stats we're looking at, at least, for getting into heaven.

How would I stop him past a certain age. When he is 14 I could stop him, but when he moves out and goes on his own, not much I can do then.

Scofflaw wrote:

3. It's still not you injuring him when he does fall off. It is God dooming people to Hell. Like it or not, that's the way of it - we don't damn ourselves unless he decides we have - he made Hell, he chooses who goes into it.

And this is where we always will disagree and always get to. God does not damn us to Hell, we damn ourselves. He gives us every opportunity to come to Him and people ignore it or refuse to accept it.

As zillah implies; christianity is the purview of the irrational and superstitious based on a book that is too old to believe and be trusted.

Scofflaw wrote:

Your analogy is at fault, because there are two separate actors - you, and gravity. God is both the parent, and the gravity - the person who warns, and the person who harms. You are only the former.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And every analogy that is attempted to work with God is faulty because it can't be done, only attempted it it's weak way to offer an illustration.

Zillah

BrianCalgary wrote:

And this is where we always will disagree and always get to. God does not damn us to Hell, we damn ourselves. He gives us every opportunity to come to Him and people ignore it or refuse to accept it.

Very important question: If I put a gun to your head and say I will shoot you unless you become a Communist, and you say no, is it fair to say that you are responsible for getting shot?

Another very important question: Would you put no blame on the gunman, because he gave you the opportunity to obey?

BrianCalgary

Zillah wrote:

Very important question: If I put a gun to your head and say I will shoot you unless you become a Communist, and you say no, is it fair to say that you are responsible for getting shot?

Another very important question: Would you put no blame on the gunman, because he gave you the opportunity to obey?

And here our analogies don't quite work. Because God is not pulling the trigger.

In your scenario, the gunman is guilty.

As you can tell I have kids, and they are great kids too. They are teenagers and making their own decisions as they mature. They have a decent understanding of cause and effect. They no that if they engage in destructive beaviour they will end up destroyed.

As it is with eternity, we have recieved the instructions and the warnings, we heed them or we don't.

Zillah

Brian Calgary wrote:

And here our analogies don't quite work. Because God is not pulling the trigger.

What part of this statement is not true?

"God sends me to Hell as punishment for not obeying him."

BrianCalgary

Zillah wrote:

What part of this statement is not true?

"God sends me to Hell as punishment for not obeying him."

No, you choose to get on the path that takes you to Hell. God does not send you there.

this brings up a question, and I will try to phrase it right without offense: Why would an Atheist get worked up about Hell, if they don't believe such a place exists?

And if someone is non-Christian wouldn't they be quite content in a place without Christians or their God?

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

And if someone is non-Christian wouldn't they be quite content in a place without Christians or their God?

That would depend if it were a place of eternal torment or not. If someone has lived a decent life, being eternally tormented simply for not believing in your god would hardly seem very fair.

BrianCalgary

hairyheretic wrote:

That would depend if it were a place of eternal torment or not. If someone has lived a decent life, being eternally tormented simply for not believing in your god would hardly seem very fair.

It wouldn't be fair, if eternity was based on leading a good life. It is based on accepting Christ.

DublinWriter

Schuhart wrote:

should the description of the atheism forum not similarly reflect that it’s a place for discussion of godless matters rather than discussion by godless people?

Sure, but as you are a Christian, forgive us.

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

It wouldn't be fair, if eternity was based on leading a good life. It is based on accepting Christ.

By that rational some one can behave like scum their entire life, and play a get out of jail free card at the end of it.

Sorry Brian, but I just cannot accept that. I believe in justice, in people getting what they deserve as a consequence of their actions. Saying "I'm sorry" right at the end isn't going to cut it for me.

Zillah

BrianCalgary wrote:

No, you choose to get on the path that takes you to Hell. God does not send you there.

He designed how the paths function, right? Putting a time delay on it doesn't change the responsibility.

If I put a gun to your head and tell you that a machine on a ten minute delay will pull the trigger and kill you if you don't become a Communist, and you say no, do you blame yourself for for getting shot? (I didn't shoot you! You put yourself on the path towards being shot! The gunman showed you the way to not get shot and you chose the wrong path)

Because its the exact same as God telling me that in 80 years the automated laws of the universe will send me to Hell if I don't become a Christian.

Me claiming that its an automatic machine pulling the trigger does not absolve me of responsibility, I'm the one who arranged for the machine to do that.

this brings up a question, and I will try to phrase it right without offense: Why would an Atheist get worked up about Hell, if they don't believe such a place exists?

I'm trying to understand your beliefs. Aside from that, I find it hard to resist correcting people with faulty arguments.

And if someone is non-Christian wouldn't they be quite content in a place without Christians or their God?

Hell has been likened to Gehenna, a place of fire and poisons.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

No, you choose to get on the path that takes you to Hell. God does not send you there.

Statement: God has determined the rules of why and whether anyone is sent to Hell - otherwise He is not omnipotent.

Conclusion: Anyone who does go to Hell goes because of God's rules.


Statement: God can prevent anyone from going to Hell, by His grace, whether they have "condemned themselves" or not - otherwise He is not omnipotent.

Conclusion: Anyone who does go to Hell has not been prevented from going to Hell by God.


So, we have God in the position (if you'll excuse the analogy) of a night-club owner, with the power to expel anyone who breaks the rules they have set, or let them away with it at their discretion.

Can you see the problem, though?

BrianCalgary wrote:

this brings up a question, and I will try to phrase it right without offense: Why would an Atheist get worked up about Hell, if they don't believe such a place exists?

Sudoku. Or perhaps chess.

BrianCalgary wrote:

And if someone is non-Christian wouldn't they be quite content in a place without Christians or their God?

Depends on the amount of torture, really...


cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

hairyheretic wrote:

By that rational some one can behave like scum their entire life, and play a get out of jail free card at the end of it.

Sorry Brian, but I just cannot accept that. I believe in justice, in people getting what they deserve as a consequence of their actions. Saying "I'm sorry" right at the end isn't going to cut it for me.

Whereas I see it as being the ultimate in grace. That even though someone has spent their life in sin, that God is so gracious He allows you to play that card.


Or would you rather thumb your nose at the person and say, 'sorry too late'.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

Whereas I see it as being the ultimate in grace. That even though someone has spent their life in sin, that God is so gracious He allows you to play that card.


Or would you rather thumb your nose at the person and say, 'sorry too late'.

Well, it is graceful, but it seems kind of unfair to condemn a well-meaning person who maybe didn't hear the message of Jesus in a way that appealed to them.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Whereas I see it as being the ultimate in grace. That even though someone has spent their life in sin, that God is so gracious He allows you to play that card.


Or would you rather thumb your nose at the person and say, 'sorry too late'.

Isn't that what God usually does?

surprised,
Scofflaw

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

Whereas I see it as being the ultimate in grace. That even though someone has spent their life in sin, that God is so gracious He allows you to play that card.

What does it say about him that he would condemn someone who has treated their fellow man well?

Look at the Westboro Baptist Church. They certainly seem to have accept Jesus, but can you honestly say you think that their behaviour warrants them a place in heaven, or that you would want to spend eternity in their company?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Or would you rather thumb your nose at the person and say, 'sorry too late'.

Personally I'd say you take responsibility for your actions. If you choose to break the law, you take the punishment for it.

You do good, you should be rewarded for it. You do ill, you should be punished.

I guess I hold more towards karma rather than grace.

Zillah

Brian, would you like to address the argument that both myself and Scofflaw have forwarded? You seem to have ignored both our posts entirely...

BrianCalgary

Zillah wrote:

Brian, would you like to address the argument that both myself and Scofflaw have forwarded? You seem to have ignored both our posts entirely...

Sorry, could you repeat them, probably won't even look until monday morning though. So if you really want me to respond, even PM me.

Sorry but I've got a busy weekend coming up.

BrianCalgary

Zillah wrote:

Brian, would you like to address the argument that both myself and Scofflaw have forwarded? You seem to have ignored both our posts entirely...

Sorry, could you repeat them, probably won't even look until monday morning though. So if you really want me to respond, even PM me.

Sorry but I've got a busy weekend coming up.

DublinWriter

BrianCalgary wrote:

Or would you rather thumb your nose at the person and say, 'sorry too late'.

Well, isn't that the whole raison d'etre of hell?

If you don't believe in your God's infinate love, then you'll spend an enternity in firey agony because he loves you so much!

There's no carrot without a stick.

Zillah

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sorry, could you repeat them, probably won't even look until monday morning though. So if you really want me to respond, even PM me.

Sorry but I've got a busy weekend coming up.

Posts 106 + 107.

stevejazzx

Zillah and Scofflaw, I don't think Brian put his argument across that well.
I will attempt to answer your questions from a theological christian viewpoint. This is not my view but just what a clever christian might say.

God is not responsible for what happens to us. He has created the world and given us freewill and we determine our actions going forward. Whether or not we saved by God upon death depends on whether or not we are truly repentent. It is a sin to automatically think that Gods love will save you if you are not truly sorry for your sins, the sin of presumption.
It is true that chosing only one way is correct but from a christian viewpoint the fact God is the creator of the universe gives him a right over all humans to instruct to them the proper code of life. From a christian viewpoint God doesn't show himself or prove himself to us on material level as part of our test of faith. It is true that someone who acted sinfully all their life can be saved upon dying but only if they are repentent, which involves them understanding their sins and really seeking forgiveness for them.


Of course there are many probelms with this outlay as I have asked Brian myself on the christianity forum. The biggest probem to my mind being why? Why is the process necessary for this God to distinguish the good from the bad especially considering that the participants in this 'experiment' don't all have an equal footing.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

Zillah and Scofflaw, I don't think Brian put his argument across that well.
I will attempt to answer your questions from a theological christian viewpoint. This is not my view but just what a clever christian might say.

God is not responsible for what happens to us. He has created the world and given us freewill and we determine our actions going forward. Whether or not we saved by God upon death depends on whether or not we are truly repentent. It is a sin to automatically think that Gods love will save you if you are not truly sorry for your sins, the sin of presumption.
It is true that chosing only one way is correct but from a christian viewpoint the fact God is the creator of the universe gives him a right over all humans to instruct to them the proper code of life. From a christian viewpoint God doesn't show himself or prove himself to us on material level as part of our test of faith. It is true that someone who acted sinfully all their life can be saved upon dying but only if they are repentent, which involves them understanding their sins and really seeking forgiveness for them.


Of course there are many probelms with this outlay as I have asked Brian myself on the christianity forum. The biggest probem to my mind being why? Why is the process necessary for this God to distinguish the good from the bad especially considering that the participants in this 'experiment' don't all have an equal footing.

There remains an essential flaw - Hell. Creating billions of human beings, and condemning billions of them to eternal torment, can never be a just act, because God should not have created them in the first place.

How does one square that particular circle? The bliss of the many does not outweigh the eternal torment of even one, no matter how well-deserved, because it need not have happened at all.

The best that one can do is to say that Hell is actually not torment, but a state of knowing that you are cut off from God, or even that the wicked are simply extinguished. Unfortunately, the Bible describes Hell as a place of torment - so if that is not correct, then the Bible is not inerrant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DublinWriter

Scofflaw wrote:

There remains an essential flaw - Hell. Creating billions of human beings, and condemning billions of them to eternal torment, can never be a just act, because God should not have created them in the first place.

The standard Christian answer to that is to say that "we shall never know the devine mystery of God's will'. It's basically the 'get out of jail card' when they run out of theological road.

In the meantime, they'll act as not to encur God's displeasure as the alternative is a firey pit.

It's a bit like me smacking you in the face, you asking me why I did it and me retorting that the flying spaghetti monster willed it of me and that we shall never know the enternal mystery of his devine will.

Scofflaw wrote:

The best that one can do is to say that Hell is actually not torment, but a state of knowing that you are cut off from God, or even that the wicked are simply extinguished. Unfortunately, the Bible describes Hell as a place of torment - so if that is not correct, then the Bible is not inerrant.

Descriptions of what hell actually is are quite thin on the ground in the bible, as also are appearances by old Nick himself. Most of what Christians consider to be the Devil and/or hell actually come from Zoroastrian folk-mythology.

Zillah

What Scofflaw said.

Also yes, the Devil is a very amusing polyglot of other things. The traditional goat-legged image is from Pan/Satyrs, trying to portray Pagans beliefs as wicked.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

this brings up a question, and I will try to phrase it right without offense: Why would an Atheist get worked up about Hell, if they don't believe such a place exists?

That's a brilliant question. I get worked up about it because:
1. The adversarial nature of it. Whereas atheism is non adversarial about death.
2. The idea that this part christianity genuinely scares people especially young or innocent naive people who don't know how to counter argue it.
I don't agree with this.
3. The idea that a christian who loves God, can still love their God who in their eyes does this to people. Effectively in their eyes, genocide is ok, if God says so.
Say a christian says to me: "Tim are you not afraid that if God is true you could go to hell for rejecting him", I say "well if he is true, and if I did believe it I couldn't him love if I knew he did that to people, I can't relate to how you can."
You either completly reject genocide or you make exceptions.