|
Post by necroshine on Mar 14, 2005 19:21:47 GMT -5
You call yourself a Christian but don’t hold the Christian way of thinking about god. Please elaborate. Why would the Christian bible say you have to believe in jesus to get to heaven then? Are you a Christian that doesn’t believe in jesus? Are you a self called Christian that doesn’t like some of the rules of the bible. instead of just turning your back on all of the non-sense, you have a nicer view of god in your own head making god as nice as you want. Then you ignore what the bible says about god, sin, heaven and hell? I’m sorry but I just don’t understand your view of what god is and which heaven you are talking about.
So you just make up your own version of heaven so everyone will get in? regardless what the bible says you seem to think you can be a good person and as long as you believe in a god any god you will go to a good place when you die. That is no where in the bible.
Very much so. that is what I would call it, medieval. Now that is also why I reject the whole thing. its all midlevel way of thinking. There is no good guy in the sky watching over you. And the boogie man isn’t under your bed. I think we are more complex than that.
But this view of heaven and hell came from the times. And last I check god hasn’t been around to update the bible unless you are a mormon. Are you a mormon?
Sure, fire away.
Guilty! But let me explain. Do you believe in what the bible says? Do you think it is telling you 100% truth? I do not. I know that the bible lies to us. All the people here at atheists anonymous think the same thing. god can not exist and the bible is so backwards to today’s way of living. It is an old book that is not needed anymore. It has done more harm in its history than good. The bible make some people go around and do good things. but religion is the number one reason wars have been fought. Even if there was no religion do you think that man is so evil by nature that we have to have the idea of god to keep us in place? Do you not think that man does good things because they want to? I have a bit more faith in man than most Christians do.
Please share what conflicts you have resolved in the bible. I would like to hear this. all the conflicts in the bible is the reason I reject religion. I’m so happy there is no god. God is the biggest monster I can think of. With all the evil that he has done sometimes I can not tell the difference between god and the devil. At least the devil isn’t responsible for killing as many people as god is. How do you explain them to yourself?
Thank you!! I would like to think that I would be able to beat them in a debate. At least jerry. Being I don’t know as much of the Koran.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Mar 14, 2005 19:29:10 GMT -5
So if god seems to strict then lets loosen up the rules a bit and lets see who we can get. where we had at first “you had to go to church to get into heaven” Then you had “as long as you believe in god you will get into heaven” Now we have. “ as long as you believe in any god then all is good” What is next? “ screw it all why bother” God I hope so.
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 14, 2005 20:17:53 GMT -5
So if god seems to strict then lets loosen up the rules a bit and lets see who we can get. where we had at first “you had to go to church to get into heaven” Then you had “as long as you believe in god you will get into heaven” Now we have. “ as long as you believe in any god then all is good” What is next? “ screw it all why bother” God I hope so. I think you'll find that the history of Christianity, and that of many religions, shows a progression from ignorance and barbarism (often defined by upholding the Law at the expense of the spirit of the law--which you are advocating) to more and more thoughtful faithfulness to the Spirit of the law. What is wrong with refining old ideas to fit new understanding? I can see a whole lot more wrong with rejecting the concept as a whole because of a perceived weakness; we don't cut off a leg when we get an ingrown toenail. No, we tenderly excise the toenail and rejoice in the new, better leg. If you are seeking biblical justification for this type of adaption, look no further than the Pharisees. The Spirit continues to work in us; why reject it as a weakness? I embrace it as a strength, and hope to join those who came before me in building a better Church. God wants no less of me, I think. After all, Christ affirmed the innate moral compass of every human being when he said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
|
|
|
Post by droskey on Mar 15, 2005 0:20:57 GMT -5
Christian Then we have absolutely nothing to discuss here. What could we possibly discuss. By definition whatever God says is good is good and whatever God says is bad is bad. Human beings cannot make value judgements. No further discussion is needed.
Christian I guess you are right. In your trivial scenario, God defines "good", therefore there is nothing "better" than him. However, if we assume that this is true, and that human beings really can't make value judgements, words like "good" and "better" pretty much lose their meaning. What the hell are we talking about?
I'm sure that I don't have to say this, but I don't buy it. First, you haven't established that there is this thing that we can call god. Second, you haven't established that if such a thing exists that it has any interest in what human beings would call right and wrong. Third, if it does have such an interest, you would further have to establish this things arbitrary will is. Then, we might be able to have a meaningful discussion about it.
Again, this is an example of talking in circles. You start out trying to communicate something in what seems to be a rational manner. You then state that this thing which we are discussing is not bound by rationality and, in essence, cannot be comprehended by human beings. This should end the discussion. You argue from faith and I argue from a lack of faith. However, then you try to get me to swallow the idea that I am willfully rejecting the goodness of this incomprehensible thing and therefore "deserve" (by definition) to live the greater part of my existance (i.e. the rest of eternity) in torment.
This whole, "God defines everything" mentality really highlights why atheists and agnostics can't seem to understand Christians and vice versa. The two are really using different vocabularies.
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 15, 2005 14:26:12 GMT -5
I thought we were discussing different conceptions of the nature of hell, at one point... Yep, pretty much. If you posit a Supreme Being, it kind of goes without saying that He would be supreme. You lost me here. How do you come to the conclusion that humans cannot make value judgments, and that the presence of an objective good makes questions of morality meaningless? On the choices we make... you can hear a lot of different people claim to speak with authority about the nature of God; to whom should you listen? Should you even listen at all? The answer to that is largely determined by the value judgments you make. Christ said, "You will know a tree by its fruits." This is a metaphorical statement; he meant that you should consider the consequences of your choices when trying to make such value judgments. Do your choices leave you feeling intensely full of love, satisfied, and without hunger for anything sensate? Are you filled with admiration for your brothers and sisters, and in awe of the world and the beauty of it all? Do you feel as though you have an anchor, a pillar of support that will nourish your soul and allow you to feel at peace with existence, despite the often difficult circumstances of life? Put another way: can you feel pain, without suffering? Can you feel happiness, without pleasure? Can you do these things, and these things only? These are pretty good fruits. They are what spiritual seekers try to find, and they are examples of how we can distinguish good judgments from bad judgments. Just because God has a monopoly on what is right, and He is inerrant, doesn't mean free will is now pointless. Rather, positing a Supreme Being, and free will, makes our choices much more meaningful. I wasn't trying to establish that there is a thing that we can call God. I was simply trying to meet discussion on the nature of heaven and hell. If it is necessary to believe in God in order to discuss these things even in a hypothetical manner, then why is this thread so long? As for whether God would be interested in human ideas of right and wrong... well, it is my faith that all righteousness is derived from God, so we have to look within and without ourselves to find it. I never tried to tell you that you deserve one thing or another. I wouldn't ever presume to suggest what another human being deserves. I suggested in my first reply that our concept of entitlement and what people "deserve" is pretty screwy. I've tried to reiterate that I don't believe God punishes in the sense that we use the term; rather, I think we condition ourselves either to accept or reject being close to God. My speculations about the nature of heaven and hell are all drawn from this simple understanding; if I were to condition myself to hate God, would I really want to spend eternity with Him? It is utterly and completely rational that God is not subject to our laws of logic. You bring up an interesting point about the discussion, one that I've noticed as well. It really is a significant stumbling block to actually getting ideas through, and it is bound up in our language quite a bit. Here is an example I noticed-- I looked in the dictionary for the meaning of "arbitrary," because I sense that you weren't using it correctly in conjunction with God. Here is what I found: m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=arbitrary&x=0&y=0Main Entry: ar·bi·trary Pronunciation: 'är-b&-"trer-E Function: adjective 1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law 2 a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority 3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary -- Nehemiah Jordan> This is worthy of its own thread. The word has so many connotations, most of which I would apply to God, but others I would not. For instance, the first definition: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law This doesn't make sense if God is the HIGHEST judge; there is no law above God. The second definition: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority That works. Now the third: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something By nature, God's preference IS intrinsice nature. I could go either way on this, though, since I know I can't see things from God's perspective. Certainly, though, 'convenience' isn't really an issue for an omnipotent, omnicsient being. The last definition: b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary -- Nehemiah Jordan> Well, this depends entirely on the context in which one sees God's will. This is the heart of what you are saying about speaking different language, using different vocabulary; I would never use 'arbitrary' like this in reference to God, because I understand that no act of His will can be understood by me as unreasonable--wrong or unfair. That requires, among other things, a very closely thought-out, rational, understanding of what the full implications of the term 'all-powerful' are.
|
|
|
Post by droskey on Mar 15, 2005 18:12:03 GMT -5
Christian You are right. I should have found a better way to say this. Nor should I have used words such as arbitrary without being more explicit about what I meant.
This is the point that I was trying to get at, the words good and loving typically conjure up some kind of idea or image in the heads of human beings. We all, more or less, understand what these words mean. Presumably, we usually know good when we see it and we usually know bad when we see it. These are human terms.
Now, I don't believe that there is such a thing as absolute morality. But, hypothetically, let's say that there is and it is defined by God. Now, let's say that I think that doing A is immoral or bad. Let's say I have strong feelings about it. However, according to God, doing A is moral or good. No matter how much you go up and down about God's right to define A as "good" (which I grant he has the right), unless you brainwash me, I will not agree that A is good. Simply telling me that, by definition, A is good doesn't change the fact that I think that it is bad. I still disagree with God, which apparently I can do with moral "laws" (but not physical laws).
This is what is going on with the idea of hell. If hell is eternal and a place of torment (utter sadness) then I don't think you can say that you can say that good is good (in the human sense), all-knowing and all-powerful. Now, the good that I am referring to is by no means absolute. It certainly isn't a defining quality. It is a relative term and that is how I am using it.
For example, I think that murder is bad and I'll call a murderer evil. He's not the most evil (i.e. serial murderer's, Hitler etc.) but he's a bad guy. I think that he is bad because he generally causes suffering, fear and a breakdown of societal order (which is usually beneficial).
Now, creating a conscious entity that is destined to exist in torment for all eternity when another course of action is possible that will result in less suffering is worse than being a murderer. That is how I make that judgement. I judge actions relative to each other. It is meaningless to try to redefine the words "good" and "bad". By simply moving the moral bar to some other level, you don't change the ideas of good and bad.
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 16, 2005 15:58:08 GMT -5
A conscious entity with free will and multiple courses of action available is not pre-destined.
|
|
|
Post by droskey on Mar 16, 2005 16:59:36 GMT -5
Christian Free will is really a moot point if God knows where that entity will end prior to creating said entity. We're talking about God's knowledge and what he chooses to do with that knowledge not whether or not the entity in question has free will.
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 16, 2005 17:45:59 GMT -5
ChristianFree will is really a moot point if God knows where that entity will end prior to creating said entity. We're talking about God's knowledge and what he chooses to do with that knowledge not whether or not the entity in question has free will. No, free will is not a moot point. God lets us choose. He does not intervene in our choice, because then it would not be our choice. It is still our choice, regardless whether He knows what we will choose or not.
|
|
|
Post by droskey on Mar 16, 2005 18:50:09 GMT -5
Christian jacopo Again, the topic under discussion is whether it is meaningful or not to call God omnibenevolent if he allows an individual to end up in hell when he could have done something (or not done something) to prevent it.
An analogy is if I am standing by watching a three year old run around and I see that he is about to run off a cliff. In order to keep him from running off the cliff, all I have to do is reach out and grab him. If I don't do that, I am culpable for him running off the cliff, even if I didn't push him there. My desire for the child to make a good decision at that point has nothing to do with my moral culpability. This isn't exactly the same as with God, but I think that it is a reasonable analogy.
For instance, why couldn't God just create everyone so that we believe in him and do whatever it is that we need to do to get into heaven. He could program us to love him.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Mar 16, 2005 19:38:03 GMT -5
This is where you are wrong. if god knows how I’m going to die and what I am when I die and where I go after I die. I might have free will while I’m here but it doesn’t matter the path I take to get to where I am going to end up because gods knows all. if god knows when he makes me that I will end up in hell then why make me just to torture me forever? Free will is a moot point. It does not matter. God knows all. right?
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 16, 2005 21:29:27 GMT -5
Christian jacopo Again, the topic under discussion is whether it is meaningful or not to call God omnibenevolent if he allows an individual to end up in hell when he could have done something (or not done something) to prevent it.
An analogy is if I am standing by watching a three year old run around and I see that he is about to run off a cliff. In order to keep him from running off the cliff, all I have to do is reach out and grab him. If I don't do that, I am culpable for him running off the cliff, even if I didn't push him there. My desire for the child to make a good decision at that point has nothing to do with my moral culpability. This isn't exactly the same as with God, but I think that it is a reasonable analogy.
Your analogy is very creative. There is a distinction to be made, however. A three-year-old does not understand "cliff." Your analogy posits any poor choice as a blindly ignorant one. Human beings can certainly look within themselves to distinguish good from bad; for this reason, they are not blindly ignorant. The topic of discussion has been kind of all over the place. But... I think if God is omnipotent, He can be simultaneously omnibenevolent and omnimalicious. Therefore, I don't think the question of whether God is "nice" or not has any meaning. God defines righteousness, because He is the progenitor of everything. You just have to submit to the idea, even hypothetically, that an omnipotent creator of everything is always right--and disagreeing with Him is always wrong. Maybe we can go on from there? So, you'd prefer to be mind-controlled? Would you even really exist, if you had not the sensation of making decisions? We have things that are programmed to love us: robotic talking teddy bears. So, if you can't be mind-controlled, you'd prefer to not exist? You'd prefer to not be given the opportunity to make the correct choices? It sounds as though you'd rather a) not truly exist by not being in control of your thoughts, or b) not exist. This truly is nihilism. Sorry if my words are incendiary; it is hard to avoid being so with this subject. I truly do not wish to anger anyone. I think the big thing we're not connecting on here is the nature of choice. Your choices are YOURS. I have no idea, and would not presume to know, how God envisions our free will. However, I DO know, that I have it. And I can choose how to use it. I would not want to be erased from existence because there is a possibility that I might choose to err.
|
|
|
Post by droskey on Mar 16, 2005 23:42:15 GMT -5
Christian Even if the three year old did understand "cliff", would it not be immoral to let him run of the edge of it? But, beside that, I think that the three year old understands "fall down go boom". I still wouldn't let him run off the cliff. I wouldn't give him the opportunity.
Christian Ok, I'll concede this point for now. A hypothetical god of this nature would always be right, albeit in a completely trivial sense. I'm still not comfortable with this idea, though.
Christian
Well, I think that not existing would be better than existing in eternal torment. So yes, I would prefer not to exist. There was a period where I didn't exist and it wasn't bad.
Christian But are these the only two choices? I mean seriously, the free will that we have right now is far from absolute. For instance, if I jump off a cliff, I will fall no matter what I want to happen. I know that if I starve myself, I'll probably get to a point where I don't think of much else other than getting food. I don't think that we even have a choice about what we believe or not. We think that we do. But really we are convinced by arguements. And arguements are either convincing or they are not. How would our free will be so horribly affected if we just all loved God? Why would that be so bad? I mean it is love after all. He doesn't have to labotomize us or anything. I think that I would still be in control of my thoughts. I would just believe in God and love him. He could even allow us to still get angry at him and sin if he wanted to.
Wait a minute. If we use your definition of omnipotence, God could do whatever the hell he wanted without worrying about rationality. He could make us so that we love and obey him without denying anybody free will. Why doesn't he do that?
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 17, 2005 5:39:22 GMT -5
ChristianEven if the three year old did understand "cliff", would it not be immoral to let him run of the edge of it? But, beside that, I think that the three year old understands "fall down go boom". I still wouldn't let him run off the cliff. I wouldn't give him the opportunity. ChristianOk, I'll concede this point for now. A hypothetical god of this nature would always be right, albeit in a completely trivial sense. I'm still not comfortable with this idea, though. ChristianWell, I think that not existing would be better than existing in eternal torment. So yes, I would prefer not to exist. There was a period where I didn't exist and it wasn't bad. ChristianBut are these the only two choices? I mean seriously, the free will that we have right now is far from absolute. For instance, if I jump off a cliff, I will fall no matter what I want to happen. I know that if I starve myself, I'll probably get to a point where I don't think of much else other than getting food. I don't think that we even have a choice about what we believe or not. We think that we do. But really we are convinced by arguements. And arguements are either convincing or they are not. How would our free will be so horribly affected if we just all loved God? Why would that be so bad? I mean it is love after all. He doesn't have to labotomize us or anything. I think that I would still be in control of my thoughts. I would just believe in God and love him. He could even allow us to still get angry at him and sin if he wanted to. Wait a minute. If we use your definition of omnipotence, God could do whatever the hell he wanted without worrying about rationality. He could make us so that we love and obey him without denying anybody free will. Why doesn't he do that? Omnipotence simply means that God has limitless possibilities at His disposal. However He chooses to arrange those possibilities is by nature the absolute correct way for them to be arranged. I think that still stands. When we posit an omnipotent God, all scrutiny of His actions in search of finding fault is simply a waste of time. I have found it much more fruitful to start from the assumption that God is good, and seek deeper understanding about how to respond to the way things are from that standpoint. It seems we have differing ideas of free will, as well.
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 17, 2005 5:53:10 GMT -5
That sounds reasonable; I agree that it would be immoral to keep a child from running off a cliff. However, our relationship with God, and with life in general, is predicated on how we feel and what we think, not simply on what our actions are. You can keep the child from running off the cliff, but you cannot erase his desire to do so. To offer a more precise analogy: what if your own child hated you? Would you attempt to force your child to love you in some way?
Assuming you had the ability to force your child to love you, would you do it?
If you did, would you consider your child's love for you to be genuine? Or would it be closer to self-love?
|
|