marienbad wrote: » SO this is a yes than ? All those Muslims go to hell ? All those Buddists ? All those Native Americans ? Gandhi ,Nehru ,Avicenna ,Averroes,Muhammed Yunus, all the ancient Irish Kings and people before St.Patrick , the ancient Greeks Romans and Egyptians on which our civilisation is built all go to hell ? And possibly in heaven Hitler Himmler Heydrich Borman Speer Mengele, Stalin Franco Salazar , virtually every serial killer in the western world ( definitely in heaven -that lot) , Brendan Smyth, Fortune et al . Is my summation correct Philologos . '' If I held to a universalist position - I would be denying the value of jesus' death and resurrection'' - What a thought - so billion and billions go to hell just because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time ! And ISAW with his unending lists of the fatalities from ''there is no god regimes'' - Who needs hitler and Stalin when you have a God like this ? It makes a mockery of the conversation concerning universal rights etc.
philologos wrote: » People who out and outright reject Jesus, will be condemned according to the Biblical text. Honouring God and following Him is good, rejecting God and rejecting His standard is evil. I think it is a Christian's responsibility to share the Gospel with all those around them for a reason. It's really important. If I held to a universalist position - I would be denying the value and significance of Jesus' death and resurrection. If I said that anyone who the world perceives to be "good" should be saved irrespective of whether or not they hate God, I would be cheapening Jesus' death. It would be as if He died and rose again for nothing. I have no issue in saying that if a murderer repents truly, and accepts Jesus that they can be transformed through Him. Likewise rapists, child molestors, torturers anything under the sun that is evil. The problem is that many people don't acknowledge that they have done wrong, and that they need to repent also. Jesus can play a key role in turning peoples lives around, indeed that's why many churches take part in prison ministry. Jesus makes it quite clear in the Gospel that anyone irrespective of how much of a sinner they are can accept Jesus and live for Him. There is a grey area in respect to those who have never heard about Him. I trust God's better judgement in that situation.
ISAW wrote: » What are alternate universes like especially ones we cant measure? They defy empiricism. The science depends on scientists believing in them.
I read somewhere that 93% of internet posters claim things they cant supply any support for.
according to what source?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I don't think that is what Philologos is saying at all. Indeed, you would have to ignore the last sentence of his post (and the rest of it) to reach that conclusion. Perhaps John Stott's "The Cross of Christ" would be of help to you. In particular chapters 1 - 6. Some interesting reviews on Amazon.com. (Though it is important not to confuse reviews of the book with the book itself.)
ISAW wrote: » I read somewhere that 93% of internet posters claim things they cant supply any support for.
ISAW wrote: » according to what source?
What are alternate universes like especially ones we cant measure? They defy empiricism. The science depends on scientists believing in them.
ISAW wrote: » The written word is just a our representation of the concepts which we use to communicate. The primary function of language is philosophy not communication so what is strange about that. Ironically it is difficult to discuss (no pun intended) "right" genetics when we dont agree on what "right" is or what "evolution" is. I mean the words in quotes not the concepts. And in what way do you suggest language or writing were primitive? The nature is a heady topic for which you had best be prepared. for starters it isnt primarily about communication. that is a secondary function.
ISAW wrote: » this is a philosophy called the "watchmaker god" philosophy i think. It is not a mainstream christian ohilosophy. that is assuming such laws exist! thre are theological and/or atheistic philosophies of science which would suggest there might not be laws of physics. Yes but not a theory of everything. quantum chromo dynamics is not sufficient. and physicists admit that a theory of everything while sufficient to explaing matter and how it behaves still would not be sufficient to explain human nature. Also, metaphysics tackles things physics cat such as "should we use atomic weapons" " what is love" " what is value" We cant derive answers to these from physics alone.
ISAW wrote: » Nope. Already dealt with. christianity is not morally relative. it accepts natural law. Mind you this inst exclusive to Christianity there can be secular natural law. but christianity doesnt say "all rules are always the same" in fact Christianity abolished many of the Jewish laws; what matters is the spirit of the law. yes the same act may be fair one time and not fair another time depending on context. But somethings are always wrong. but the pôint about "will of god" is dealt with in the Regensberg quote here it is againhttp://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html and to emphasise the Hellinisation aspect
ISAW wrote: » ther is a lot of handwaving there. i mean yu are mixing academic fields and misattributing th same to all. but you are using "evolution" in two different modes; biological "evolution" of a species is NOT the same as "social evolution" of a society. ther are problems with htis for example we can see where such thinking was used as a justification for ayrianism in Nazism.
ISAW wrote: » Or made himself into a cosmological constant?
ISAW wrote: » there isn't much point discussing a universe in which there are no people and where we cant get to. Not from an empirical physics point of view. From a metaphysical point of view there is. You have just demonstrated it by doing it. You discussed the idea of something beyond the laws of physics -assuming they exist.
ISAW wrote: » This comment illustrates more about the questioner than the nature of God.
Wh1stler ; God chose a very inefficient method of spreading knowledge of Himself. Instead of requiring everyone to be evangelised He could have simply written Himself into our genome thereby removing the need for preachers who run the risk of not being believed. If God values our souls, then why didn't He provide better safeguards for them?
pug_ wrote: » Neither science nor scientists believe in alternate universes as fact. All that can be stated currently is that the maths suggests it as a possibility.
Wh1stler wrote: » You avoid my point; God chose a very inefficient method of spreading knowledge of Himself. Instead of requiring everyone to be evangelised He could have simply written Himself into our genome thereby removing the need for preachers who run the risk of not being believed. If God values our souls, then why didn't He provide better safeguards for them?
As it stands, physics is incomplete and no decent scientist would say otherwise.
But any assumtions made by science are constantly tested until they either break down or don't. It they break down then science adjusts its position and if they don't, a hypothesis remains supported.
Religion doesn't operate that way, it makes an assumption then sticks to it no matter how badly the assumption fares scientifically.
Yes but I hold that natural law is determined by physical processes. And moreover, does natural law apply to all life? Is it wrong for old dogs to have sex with young dogs? Would 'good' and 'evil' exist in the absence of humans? Where does natural law apply outside of a human context?
'Good' and 'evil' are not 'things', they don't exist. They are simply the result of our tendency to differentiate what will benefit us (or society) and what would be harmful to us (and society). Humans are very exploitable and morality is a learned response which helps us get the most use from each other.
Furthermore, if you are going to use a term like 'natural law' you have to be able to define what 'natural' is. What happens to natural law in un-natural circumstances? If it meant the survival of the human species would rape be wrong?
You are being pedantic. I see no reason not to view different societies as single 'super-organisms' that have taken slightly different evolutionary paths due to environmental differences and so forth. I mean, for instance, the West 'evolved' democracy as an adaptation whereas the Middle-East evolved a political system that is incompatible with democracy but perhaps it is the case that democracy wouldn't suit the nature of Middle-Easterners. What is natural to you is not necessarily natural to others.
If there were no humans then who would God speak to?
ISAW wrote: » christianity also relies on greek logos. some science can be argued to rely on belief. all science is not empiricism. telelogical arguments are in the philosophy of science.
ISAW wrote: » how does god avoid explaining it? Of course it is not necessary to believe. If it was you wouldnt have the choice to believe.
ISAW wrote: » Christian fundmentalists were part of putting Bush in power. Bt they are fringe christians. the Pope and most christians opposed the invasion of Iraq! they only assented because they were lied to about WMD and al Khyda bases supported by Saddam!
ISAW wrote: » Same for the Big bang, hubble expansion , random abiogenesis, non interventional evolution, relativity
Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation Many-worlds implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). ... Prior to many-worlds, reality had always been viewed as a single unfolding history.
ISAW wrote: » no. not to mainstream christian theology.
ISAW wrote: » No you miss the point. the physical explanation of matter does not encompass the philosophical implications of language or the soul.
ISAW wrote: » Again not the point. Physics is not sufficient to explain metaphysics. And this view of science is only ONE philosophy . It is naive to assume all science has a single agreed philosophy.
ISAW wrote: » that is part of the History and Philosophy of science (HPS) called the Hypoductive method. HD epistemology is also not sufficient. Kuhn Lakatos nd Popper would all differ on this. I would think if you are interested in Language you could try Lev Vygotsky not really spoken of much today but a bloody genius.
ISAW wrote: » to some things like"rape is always wrong" but in other aspects there is a sociocultural lens. It isnt a choice The Ethical Brain by Michael Gazzaniga ''The Nature of Moral Beliefs and the Concept of Universal Ethics,'' Dr. Zanniga explores whether there is ''an innate human moral sense.'' The theories of evolutionary psychology point out, Gazzaniga notes, that ''moral reasoning is good for human survival,'' and social science has concluded that human societies almost universally share rules against incest and murder while valuing family loyalty and truth telling. ''We must commit ourselves to the view that a universal ethics is possible,'' he concludes. (Sally Satel, NY Times 6-19-05)http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Normative_Ethical_Relativism.htm
ISAW wrote: » Consider the question: Are all moral duties binding on all people at all times or are moral duties relative to culture? Few can think of a third alternative to these two choices. Finding absolutism untenable many simply accept the relativist position.
ISAW wrote: » Nature.
ISAW wrote: » You sociological constructivist normative ethical relativism has problems as detailed in the link above.
ISAW wrote: » Laws of physics if such exist when applied to nature Morality when applied to ethics.
ISAW wrote: » you are committing the same memetic fallacy of comparing society t a biological organism
ISAW wrote: » dunno. i suppose whoever he spoke to before there were humans.
“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you. “You shall not murder. “You shall not commit adultery. “You shall not steal. “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. “You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbour's.”
Wh1stler wrote: » I can't really disagree with this. The scientific community has many levels. Some graduates have faith in their tutors and trust the science on that basis. Some scientists are in the business of finding research money; some may compromise science for political reasons. And of course, there are likely to be corrupt elements at each level in the hierachy of science.
Science is such a powerful tool with its political and military implications that it is inevitable that there are those who would subvert it. The thing about science is though, there will always be those who are genuinely searching for truth and charge themselves with disposing of assumptions. These are the true scientists but we are not talking about them.
I don't know but would each Universe have chosen ones of God? Or would it just be this one?
Sorry, I am lucky to have a choice. Some don't have a choice. And some have a genuine terror of going to a place called Hell. That's not about choice, it's about increasing club membership.
Let me ask you, what are the questions raised by reality such as 'How did the Earth come to be here?' or 'Where did life come from?' that can be succesfully explained by God?
It seems to me that the general explanation is that God just 'zapped' everything into being. (Everything except evil that is.)
What does God tell us about gravity and the speed of light?
By definition, it is not possible to believe in God through the scientific method as there can be no scientific evidence for God. God is irrelevant to science until God can be detected through science.
But faith removes the need for explanations. Faith in God is the answer to all unanswerable questions.
The Pope must have been very surprised to find that politicians had lied to him.
If you ask me, the Pope seems to be out of the loop as far as God is concerned too. I mean, would it have killed God to send Gabriel to visit the Pope and tell him about the WMDs and maybe warn him about dishonest politicians at the same time?
Seriously, the Pope's club has about a billion members. God could have sent a stronger message to the Pope. Or shouldn't the Pope be trying to influence such goings on in the world. All those souls that were robbed of the opportunity of baptism, the Pope should be ashamed he wasn't more vocal about it then and now.
So again, what use is God to the living?
ISAW wrote: » Same for the Big bang, hubble expansion , random abiogenesis, non interventional evolution, relativity all possibilities all theories. Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation Many-worlds implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). ... Prior to many-worlds, reality had always been viewed as a single unfolding history.
tommy2bad wrote: » I think He did, thats why religion has existed as long as man has been around. Why isn't it a compulsion? because that would remove free will and as we can see those who become obsessed with God don't end well or obsessed with anything for that matter.
philologos wrote: » People before Jesus were judged in terms of their acknowledgement of God prior to that point. Jesus is the fulfillment of that fundamental problem that we have as human beings. I can tell an aggressive tone to your last few points. I'm just going to state unequivocally that I will only be continuing this discussion if you're willing to be calm about it. I post on boards.ie recreationally, yes, I do want to post about Jesus on boards, but it'd be better if we did this on acceptable terms. Your entire post is based on the presupposition that humans are inherently good. That isn't the reality. Even if we look to the Ten Commandments, we can see that we are all guilty by God's standard if we're honest about it. Being honest, I've broken every single one of these, if we regard hatred in your heart as being akin to murder as Jesus describes (Matthew 5:21-22), and lust after another as being akin to adultery (Matthew 5:28). On looking to these alone, I realise that I'm guilty towards God and rightfully at the day of judgement according to His standard, I'm guilty. There's nothing I can do about that. Ultimately you think that God's standard is unjustified, but if God is the Creator of this world, and if He has authority over it. He's fully entitled to give us standards to live by for our own good. Ultimately, there's nothing I can do to save myself. Even any good works. Even if I do good works, I'm still guilty before God. It is only by Jesus' saving grace on the cross that I can come to know Him. The idea that this is unfair or ridiculous is absurd, I am guilty before God, and God has done everything in His power to rescue me from my sin. God has bent over backwards for mankind, even though He didn't have to. He rescued us while we still were sinners, while we still hated Him (Romans 5). God has the right to judge, but if we are willing to accept Jesus as our Saviour we can be brought back into relationship with Him. The question is why is man so stubborn, and so prideful? Why doesn't man want to acknowledge the truth about their condition and put things right with God through His Son Jesus who died as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). Why did Jesus die on our behalf - as a ransom for many? If there is no such thing as penalty for sin, Jesus would have died for nothing. Ultimately to claim that it is not fair to God punishes for sin is absurd, especially when He has even sent Jesus into the world to save us.
philologos wrote: » I think it is based on an incorrect presumption, and that's why I'm challenging it. I need to do that if we're going to have a meaningful discussion. The point is that anyone can be saved. They simply need to acknowledge that Jesus is Lord and by His grace to be transformed and live for Him. Ultimately I don't believe I'm any more "good" than a murderer, or a rapist. Before God I'm just as guilty. People who have ignored God, are still guilty for sin. Rejecting God is serious, and it is wrong. It has consequences. I understand that, and that's why I repent of my sin and strive to follow Jesus day to day, because ultimately Jesus is right about the state of my heart and ultimately Jesus is the only one who can bring me back to a meaningful relationship with God. As for those who never heard of it, the Bible is silent on that issue, so it is right for me to leave that to God's better judgement. I've rather clearly stated my position. Jesus came to rescue us from our sin, if one rejects Him one rejects the very means of salvation. Ultimately one will be condemned.
marienbad wrote: » Just to simplify matters- according to Philologos Ghandhi is in hell and Hitler potentially in heaven- is that correct ?
marienbad wrote: » As an added question are the Jews since the New Testament saved or damned ?
philologos wrote: » I've mentioned people before Christ already. I'm not going to engage with rhetoric. I'm also not going to specifically list people. What I will do is state my position and you can do the rest.
marienbad wrote: » And this before we get to infant deaths and aborted fetuses which in Christian terms are human beings - all straight to hell or is the Bible silent on that also ?
philologos wrote: » I've mentioned people before Christ already. I'm not going to engage with rhetoric. I'm also not going to specifically list people. What I will do is state my position and you can do the rest. As for unborn children - I don't see how someone who hasn't been born is capable of sin. Do you?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » You would have to ask him that. Christianity teaches that we are all damned, and justifiably so. It also teaches that we have been offered the gift of salvation. Millions of Jews have lived out their lives both before and after the time of Jesus, some of them even wrote the Bible. I have no idea what their ultimate fate is. Should I know?
