Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I just have to wonder why god didn't "act" upon Adam and Eve's children to remove "original sin" from them, thus saving us and everyone else a whole lot of trouble.
I have to wonder which bible verse it was that said "and this original sin shall be commuted onto all people forever until the end of time through the pairs of human chromosomes that won't be discovered for thousands more years." I wonder if CRISPR tech can solve this problem if it exists!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The universe demonstrates the majesty and glory of God and teaches us that the reason for it (and us) is that we might know God who has purposed our existence.
But you've made not one step toward showing why your version of god is correct and all others are wrong. This is the point of the whole idea: you just say "God created the universe for the sole purpose of creating people who would say how awesome he is all the time," you have skipped many, many steps and only created more questions. Remember, the bible is the CLAIM, not the evidence. This is where your god comes from, the bible, it's where his character and all of the quotes you are taking come from. Of course the bible says god's real, otherwise who cares about the bible. Please feel free, at any point, to demonstrate EVIDENCE that your god's real and your assessments of its purpose are in any way accurate.
For clarity: the bible is not evidence of itself or anything in it. Otherwise, I will start claiming that this world used to be Westeros and you better figure out which of the seven gods of Westeros you worship, because they're real because they're in a book!
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
You'd think, right? Except the only believers who've answered have all chosen to burn forever rather than be wrong. I can't say it's surprising. I just wonder if believers find that at all elucidating, but I think chances are slim.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
But what about the 10% or so of the population that has no religious beliefs? I understand this is meant for theists to answer but still there must be something for former athiests in this scenario.
My answer is that you'd immediately have to say "Oh, well that's a surprise, but here it is, proving it and removing all doubt, something supernatural definitely exists." The scenario doesn't require submission beyond recognizing this fact, because if it had, then we run the risk of spinning out into all sorts of "well what if it told you to do THIS repugnant act" and I don't think that gets very far. You either recognize the supernatural being for what it is, i/e/ not what you grew up worshiping (n my case, not the typical JudeoChristian god), or you say "Nope, that's for sure the anti-Christ and I'm still right" and you burn in whatever eternal pit of punishment you grew up fearing (hell, in my case).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
You can give reasons for things in the universe but not the universe itself.
I'll skip that you're using two different definitions of reason in the same sentence here so that I can ask you, since you seem to know, what is the reason for the universe, exactly?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@Mopac
According to you if a being says I am god we are supposed to buy it.
No. According to the OP:
...almighty power DOES exist, and said power has provided evidence overnight to the entire earth ...It's all over the news, it's doing interviews, it's demonstrating its powers, it's explaining the meaning of life, etc. etc. In short, there is literally no way to deny its existence
Now you might quibble that instead of 'existence" I should have used 'deity' or 'divine powers,' but we already clarified that. The point is there's no more believing it any more than you believe that water's wet. It simply becomes a fact accepted the world over, and when it's your turn to choose up or down, you say "No, this isn't true because then I'd be wrong."
What you are asking commes from a fundamental misunderstanding concerning the nature of The Son's person.
What you are saying comes from a fundamental misunderstanding concerning the topic at hand: the being proves there's no Jesus. What do you do? You already answered you'd choose punishment rather than change your mind.
There's a whole thread on justifying why you believe what you believe. This thread's about what you'd do if presented with incontrovertible evidence that WHATEVER you believe is 100%, undoubtedly incorrect, and you have the chance to recant or be punished for what then becomes willful ignorance. You don't believe in eternal punishment, okay, but that wouldn't stop you from being eternally punished in this scenario. I think you're like the other two theists who voted: they'd rather cling to their beliefs in the face of fact.This is simply a strawman which is why it can't be answered.
How is it a straw man, exactly, this question? You're basically saying "I read the original post, but I'm still right so this is not worth talking about under these terms." THe question is simple and I don't find it a straw man at all: if presented with an irrefutable fact that whatever you believed up until this very moment was unmistakably incorrect, would you change your beliefs to fit the facts. Simple idea =/= straw man, as far as I can tell. I'm not trying to trick anyone, in fact i'm not even arguing either side. I'm creating a choice that two people have already answered (both choosing punishment), one person said couldn't be answered with any certainty ("I don't think I can play this one") and you, who have said "all religions are right and wrong, and since I am smarter than both sides and have special knowledge, I don't see the point in participating."
Brutal, the deist I believe, answered how I'd answer: if it's incontrovertible proof, then sure, I'd have to admit it and welcome our newly revealed deity into whatever life was left here.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
So to make it very clear, to say Jesus Christ doesn't exist is to say there is no truth, because Jesus Christ is The Truth.
And to make it even clearer, even if presented with undeniable evidence that Jesus from your bible never, ever existed, you'd still believe he did. Right? Or would you say "I love truth so much that even when it doesn't fit with what I want or what I used to think about it, namely that it was also Jesus, that I'm going to have to abandon anything related to Jesus because it clearly and unquestionably was not true."
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Why would God only relate to one group of people when every soul comes from the Creator? common sense man....
I cut all that other stuff down to just this. Demonstrate the creator and then convince every religion ever, each of them exclusive of the other, that they were all wrong and YOU'RE right.
Someone with an Omnist view doesn't have to do any of that, which is my point. And there is no eternal punishment, that's a farce. Religions are observing from the same source mixed in with many things.
Then maybe someone with an omnist view can just say "I don't want to play by the rules of the experiment" and not post? There's a whole thread on justifying why you believe what you believe. This thread's about what you'd do if presented with incontrovertible evidence that WHATEVER you believe is 100%, undoubtedly incorrect, and you have the chance to recant or be punished for what then becomes willful ignorance. You don't believe in eternal punishment, okay, but that wouldn't stop you from being eternally punished in this scenario. I think you're like the other two theists who voted: they'd rather cling to their beliefs in the face of fact.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The dumbest thing about this is if some being shows up and says I am god atheists buy it.
You continue to struggle with the whole idea. There is no more "believing" in any god once this thing shows up. It's there, there's proof of it. Everyone would "buy it" the same way that we "buy" that the sun rises every day from the east, or that we buy "water is wet." Maybe sit out further posts until the next time whatever institute you're in brings you back to the library and your handler forgets to keep you away from the public access computer. You're mad, I get it. It's tedious when you don't add anything at all. Just because I believe YOU are mentally ill does not mean I believe THEISTS AS A GROUP are mentally ill. And before you say it, no, believing you are mentally ill doesn't make me a bigot.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You can't prove there is no Truth.
Not a claim I've ever made. Also, not the topic.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm not sure how that pertains the thought experiment at hand. You've voted, you already took on punishment. In fact, you even say if it WAS Jesus, you wouldn't believe it was Jesus! I don't get you at all. EDIT: This was for Mopac, not you Eternal. This next one's for you.
wasn't always in this position I had to come to a place where I know this is true and I can answer anything you need to know.
I'd ask how you know you're right and everyone else is wrong, what is the proof and why so few agree with you. But I think the words realms and planes and spiritual and revelation will be in there, the hallmarks of bullshit deepities. It's also not the topic at hand. TO make your view the topic at hand, the being that shows up is not ALL gods, and doesn't agree with you, you've been wrong, but it's willing to allow you to continue your existence and avoid eternal punishment provided that you renounce your former convictions as false. Would you do so? Say "I am clearly wrong, you are the true deity," or would you say "Well in fairness to me, I believed in ALL gods and religions, so technically, I DID believe in you" knowing that this being would be able to unequivocally confirm if it was in your venn diagram of viable deities.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
It seems a bit of a false equivalency: I'm not going around claiming that squares REALLY only have three sides and those who think they have four are all deluded, then being presented with incontrovertible evidence of a figure with four equal edges and only right angles being a square and still choosing to say "fine, but the one with three sides is still the only square."
Given how little sense I can make of anything that guy says in response to any question, I'm not sure the problem lies with my thought experiment. I've had plenty of people take this one on without all this struggle, believers and non-believers alike, too.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@Mopac
What's hell got to do with it? I said whatever form of punishment you might believe in. Rather than acknowledge the true god that wasn't yours, you chose, as Mopac did, to go to eternal punishment. Not sure what I got wrong there. There's only two choices. That's how the experiment works. If you're struggling with this one, please don't bother with the next one, they only get more difficult.
And Mopac, you're coming from you believe in Jesus and even when presented with incontrovertible proof that there wasn't any jesus or god or ultimate truth, you chose to deny it anyway and be punished forever. Again, where is that incorrect?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I know, you chose punishment, I got it.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
And two-for-two believers who don't understand what a thought experiment is supposed to be.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Mark two believers out of two who've responded as pro-punishment, got it!
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Yeah, imagining a scenario is very different from it actually happening. That's why it's a thought experiment. I mean if the trolley problem were ever really presented, I don't think anyone can know what they'd do, but they can certainly speculate and discuss it.
Consider yourself reamed!
It's a thought experiment, I'm not asking for a prediction of what will happen when this happens. As an atheist, what would your response be? I can say for myself, I would have to submit, because all I've been asking for is evidence, and there it would be. It doesn't make me feel great to say, but that's kind of the point of a thought experiment.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
f divine command theory leaves the why out then I am not sure that I am in agreement with it totally. I do take the view that God determines morality - it flows out of his character.
It doesn't leave out the why inasmuch as divine command IS WHY. If, in fact, morality flows from his character (and again many biblical instances where he does things that are at best morally dubious), then anything he does has to be moral because that's that. You can't ask why it's moral, it's moral because god did it. The alternative is that an action is moral independent of if god does it or doesn't, which presents a problem for god, as suddenly he's subject to morality, not the dictator thereof. You do seem concerned as to why he does some things, but then you write it off as "hidden will." That seems like hand waving in the face of a difficult question. THe ol' mysterious ways, I guess.
I don't think we should take the morality of the 21st century and apply it to other times and cultures as a means of judging them good or bad... I think it is incorrect to apply their culture's morality to our own time.
Yet you do think we are compelled to follow the bible, a collection of books of questionable authorship from over 1700 years ago, and apply their morals to today? I agree, we shouldn't apply our morality to other times, but then you're not arguing for subjective (as in SUBJECT TO the times you live in) morality, you're arguing for an objective and unchangeable moral source point (god of the bible).
You talk about slavery. the bible never talks about owning people like mules. Its slavery was very different in nature to the many other forms of slavery throughout history. For example, a slave could work his way out of slavery - it was debentured slavery. I am not saying it is right or wrong - but it certainly was not the same as owning a mule. I am not sure what you are referring to in relation to sending someone to death for a crime you committed.
It amazes me how often theists ignore this or change it into something it didn't mean. Here's the verse from KJV, Leviticus 25:44-46: 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." That's instructions on where to buy slaves, THEY BECOME YOUR PROPERTY. You can will them to descendents like a piece of jewelry. You're not saying it was right or wrong? So are you saying that this part of the bible, god didn't inspire? Wouldn't that make us question why it's in there? Maybe you can point me to the bible quote where Jesus says "Also, we got that slavery thing TOTALLY wrong. From now on, under no circumstance are you to own another human being as property."
Let's not forget the sexual slavery that fathers sold their daughters into either. From Exodus: "And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money." Again, let me see the verse wherein Jesus says "also don't sell your daughters into sexual slavery." I'll wait.
God did not make Jephtha make this oath / The bible does put god in control of all things.God is the author of all things - but God also gave humanity free will
These are mutually exclusive positions. Please rationalize how god didn't set into motion a set of circumstances that led to Jephtha having to burn his daughter alive. This is a morally repugnant character who had the power to send out Jephtha's favorite dog, right?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
So it's punishment you're choosing then? Again I'm trying to help you find the topic at hand. It's either punishment or admit you're wrong, there aren't any other choices.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Remember now, this is unquestionable evidence.
From the original OP. Unquestionable: CANNOT BE QUESTIONED. Is there like a remedial version of the internet you might find easier? I'm fine engaging with theists. You never engage anything, you simply complain and shit on stuff and act like this angry goofball, it's impossible to take you seriously. Yet here you are, taking up space.
Let me try to help: you would think it was a liar and choose punishment. Is that right?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
It's like you've never met a point you couldn't miss. The rules of the thought experiment are clear, and changing them only makes me think you're afraid of your own answer. Again if you don't want to participate...well, let's try language you have used in the past, let's see if I can get it right...(ahem)
"Then fuck off, you bigot tard muffin."
You're not COMPELLED to reply to my topics. I never understand why you take the time to respond "I don't want to play this game!" Just skip it, dude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
How would you argue against this? [accidentally deleted the part where you say evil is something but not a thing, sorry]
First I'd start by pointing out that this is obviously self contradictory and seems to violate the idea that A can only be A, it cannot be both A and B at the same time, so I'd say this starts off on very poor footing. It doesn't take long to get to this, either:
In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.
It is either a thing or not a thing. Do you have another example of something that's both a thing and not a thing, one, and two, this intimates that god didn't create everything in the known universe, which is what you would go on to argue. Futher:
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.If there are no standards of morality - you can't say anything is evil
The standard of morality I presume you're using is the god of the bible. This character commits or sanctions a lot of acts we'd call evil, but you excuse with special pleading and divine command theory (which is again it's moral if god does it, like killing all the babies in the global flood or turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt: these are moral actions because if they weren't god wouldn't do them). That seems an extremely precarious standard of morality. Or maybe it's the ten commandments, of which four pertain to how you talk to god, but zero pertain to rape or slavery or the internet or weapons of mass destruction.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Perhaps it's not clear: the almighty deity REMOVES any doubt. Like for the first time ever. It literally elimiates the ability to doubt it, like it takes that part out of your brain. Now what? Also if you don't want to participate, don't.
Created:
Let's say tomorrow you wake up to find that indeed, an almighty power DOES exist, and said power has provided evidence overnight to the entire earth of its existence. It's all over the news, it's doing interviews, it's demonstrating its powers, it's explaining the meaning of life, etc. etc. In short, there is literally no way to deny its existence. There's one problem though: it's some god OTHER than the one your grew up worshiping. To use the Christian example, it's definitely not Jesus or the holy spirit or god or the ultimate truth, it's absolutely something or someone different. Good thing for you, though, this deity is granting amnesty from retribution for not believing in it, for a limited time! It knows it could have communicated better, or been more present, but the long and short of it is that he doesn't blame you. He does, however, demand that you present yourself to him within 48 hours, bend the knee and renounce your old belief. You can do it and enjoy his good graces, or you can deny it, and be sent to some equivalent of the punishment you used to fear from your old religion.
Would Christians then immediately renounce Jesus? Muslims Allah? Hindus their pantheon? Etc. Etc. Etc. Remember now, this is unquestionable evidence. There's no doubt this thing exists.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
your last question asks the question - I think - is eternal torture commensurate with sin - even not believing in Jesus. The very question in my mind reveals an ignorance that is astonishing and startling. Obviously if Jesus is a made up person or is not God then it makes sense to sort of ask this question. Yet, on the other hand, it amazes me that you could be such an ignorant person, given you seem reasonable at other times. it is like you have just shut you eyes, your brain is switched off and you are pretending to be a fool. You obviously have never even come close to grasping who the God of the bible is. your question discloses that. no offence meant - but seriously.
Can you get into heaven if you don't believe in Jesus? If you don't get into heaven, don't you end up in hell? I'm not sure what you think I'm so ignorant about. I am pretty sure I've got a good biblical grip on who the character god is in the bible, and he's not all lovey dovey and warm.
Now picture for a moment - this God with all of this power and knowledge - for whatever reason purposes to make humanity. He did not need to - but decided to. He puts this humanity onto a beautiful world - and actually puts this human in charge of the world. He did not want to make humanity his slave. He made him co-regent.
So let me see if I understand what you're saying. He didn't need to make humanity, but he eventually CHANGES HIS MIND about his creation and puts humans here. He doesn't want them to be his slaves, but he does get super duper mad, so mad that he drowns the lot of us eventually, and not only that, but also creates a place where we can be tortured forever if we displease him. I'm not sure that's what a CO REGENT is. With all his power and knowledge, there would be no reason to create this realm of punishment because that would mean he created something that was flawed by design. To borrow a phrase, we are born sick and commanded to be well otherwise you burn forever. What part of that is essentially incorrect?
and then you have the audacity to ask the question about whether not believing this God exists deserves some kind of eternal punishment.
Yeah, I have the audacity to ask. You don't have the audacity to answer. I'll ask another way: would an aborigine baby in the Australian wilderness, whose parents have their own gods, never heard of your god, if this baby is eaten by wolves, does the baby go to heaven? If yes, please demonstrate how CHristianity applies to this baby from the bible. The uncomfortable truth is that the bible says that this kid is doomed. Justice?
don't get me wrong - but you don't believe in god now. And you do believe in death obviously. What is death from your point of view? It is eternal nothingness. You cease to exist - blackness. Can you imagine saying to Michael Jordan - who?Do you think God has no pride? Why? Do you think that God is a walkover coward? Why?God is holy. Do you even know what the word holy means? what would happen if matter and anti-matter met? why?
Death from my point of view is the exact same thing as when a candle goes out. The flame doesn't GO anywhere. It's gone. The smoke rises for a while and then it's gone, too. And yeah, I can imagine saying to Michael Jordan "who" because that happens to everyone. How many baseball players don't know who Larry Doby is? Or Roberto Clemente? My son has no idea who Michael Jordan is. He knows the ones he can see play today. I'm not sure what your point is, except you think God is basically Super Michael Jordan? I'm kidding.
I don't know why god would need to have "pride." I'm proud of my accomplishments, but largely then ones I didn't think i could accomplish. If I knew for an incontrovertible fact that I could, as you say, speak into existence an entire universe, then pride becomes pointless. I can't impress myself and I have no equal to wow. But the bible definitely says he's a proud god. And jealous and wrathful. Why do you think god needs to have pride? I guess I also DO think the character's a coward, since his miracles have an inversely proportional relationship to the presence of scientific advancement and video. The character has quite a few shortcomings, certainly not worthy of worship.
What's the word holy mean? Why's that matter? What's the matter and anti matter question besides a non sequitor or a red herring?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Intercessory prayer is prayer on behalf of another. But prayer of any type is conversation. I just can't talk to someone and expect them to do what I ask. It requires a relationship. and sometimes what I ask is wrong. praying on behalf of someone else - does several things. Firstly it demonstrates that you care for them. Secondly, it demonstrates that God is the one who can do something about it. But it also acknowledges that you know that God is the one who can do something about it. We don't know what God will do - but we ask - and this enables us to grow in faith.
I have a number of issues here: intercessory prayer is asking god to intercede. Mainly it's the last sentence: how do unanswered prayers enable you to GROW in faith? I'll lay it out a little more clearly. You find out, sadly, that a relative of yours has contracted Alzheimer's. If you believe God has a plan, then he PLANNED for this loved one to contract Alzheimer's, planned for you to be sad about it, so sad that you beg him to change his plan. Maybe. Because you don't know if that plan includes the idea that because your loved one got Alzheimer's, their having it may be the final piece of the puzzle to curing it. THAT could be the plan. OR, he planned for them to get Alzheimer's just because, or for any number of other reasons. Your praying for God to intercede in this plan, his own plan, would mean that you are trying to convince god to change his mind. This goes against him having a plan, number one, but number two, if you pray for him to save your loved one and they die, how does this unanswered prayer, with no indication of WHY it went unanswered, make your faith STRONGER? If a human being told you they were going to do something if you asked them to, you asked them to do it, then they didn't do it, didn't explain why they didn't do it, and furthermore you never heard from them again, would you trust this person more or less?
perhaps it is because we need faith and to grow in it. Perhaps we need to continue to realise that God is the master of the universe and we are dependant upon him. We ask him because he wants to us to tell him - what we want. I don't think that is cruel, even though I know he knows. Often God answers even when we don't ask him. but given that I love God and tell him anything - I don't have any reservations telling him again and again.
This doesn't answer the question about the point of intercessory prayer if god truly is omniscient, and instead, raises more questions than answers. Why does god want us to tell him what we want if he doesn't plan on doing anything about many, many, many of the prayers he hears? How is that not cruel: beg me for mercy and I'll let you labor under the illusion that I might grant it, even though I know already if I do or do not.
Of course God knew what humanity would do. it did not stop him because his plan included this - and in the end all of us will see why and simply marvel at his reasoning. man did not invent evil. Evil is not an invention. Evil is just disobedience.
If god's plan included man doing evil, knowing humanity would disobey, then why's he mad about it? It was HIS plan. This is one of the many arguments that opened my eyes to how contradictory all of this stuff is, this one and the talk about how Judas Iscariot burned in hell and was beset upon by demons. Wasn't he only doing what he was supposed to do IN GOD'S PLAN? Why get mad or punish him?
Created:
I'm putting this guy on my list of people I wish would stay off my side (atheism), and probably out of reasonable conversation entirely.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
If you had an ant farm you could do whatever you wanted to it.If you wanted to kill 3/4 of the ants just to see what happens, are you morally obliged not to? Your desire to kill 3/4 of the ants is all the justification needed to do it.
I am not the moral arbiter for the ants, though. Nor am I all powerful and able to achieve whatever it is I'd want to achieve by killing them, without killing them, whether it's scientific research or sadistic pleasure. I didn't lovingly craft each of the ants and see their fates from start to finish, nor do I forgive ants sins, grant ants an afterlife where they're either not in the ant farm or forever being burned by magnifying glasses. I would therefore say there are some problems in direct analogy here.
I think there's a better analogy in robotics, AI and eventual robot sentience. Of course I did just read an article about the moral implications of sex robots, and I watched some Black Mirror two months ago, so I've kind of got that stuff on the brain!
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Christians are not in principle superstitious - in fact we often go to great lengths to ensure people give up their superstitions.
Well, that's one way to put it.
We don't believe in magic or manipulation.
No, but the largest Christian church in the world DOES believe that if the right person says some magic words over a cracker, that it turns into 2000 year old flesh that has the ability to save you from being tortured forever.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
For me some things are no brainers. One, there is a God. Two life must have meaning. Three, justice must eventually occur. Four, if this does not occur during life - which obviously it does not, then it must occur after life. This implies - after life. what will that look like is another matter - for me - the Christian position makes the most sense so far. That may be because I was born in the West. It is not because I was born into this idea though- my ideas of afterlife are significantly different from my culture and from the family I was born into.
I think I agree: the only way to start with these assertions is by turning off the part of your brain that says "Wait, why is that a must?" If you axiomatically begin with "There is a god," not only have you not justified that position with a why, but you specifically skip steps and move it to there must be THIS god you believe in. I made a topic on this and I'm not sure you participated. Beyond that, WHY must life have meaning? You assert it, there must be a reason you do so beyond "because otherwise I'd be really uncomfortable." WHY must justice eventually occur? What if it doesn't? Who defines it? Why must it occur after life? And would eternal torture as punishment be commensurate justice for a sin like not believing in Jesus because you grew up in Laos or Burkina Faso?
You don't demonstrate any reason to follow any of these 'no brainers', and I bet you don't display a lot of curiosity in doing so yourself. You are indeed not using your brain.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Here's another paradox for you... where would someone like me go if i believe in Christianity? Hell is obviously hell... but so is heaven to me. I think wiping my mind, wiping my negative emotions / darkness, and living eternally is hell. I'm scared to death if that is what happens in the afterlife. If i believe in Christianity... it's either i go to an obvious hell, or a hell with a smile. So where do i go?
It's not really ANOTHER paradox, but I'm not really sure what 'someone like (you)' means. I know you've largely made up your own version of faith and supernatural and realms and levels, right? Then the answer is you go to hell where you'll be eternally tortured for your blasphemy and potential apostasy. It seems pretty straightforward to me in your case. You aren't a Christian, you go to hell. I'm not a Christian, I go to hell. The problem isn't with us. It's a problem for Christians.
Created:
I am not sure it was without provocation. Certainly, it was the promised land by God to the Israelites. By all accounts the people in Canaan were fighting with each other anyway and war was inevitable with or without the Jews attempting to settle.Still, you might have a point. Although I am sure the people in Canaan were not going to simply let Israel settle in the land near them.It is my understanding that the people of Canaan were full of quite evil and repugnant people - and were essentially nations that God had allowed mercifully to remain for an extra generation, until their time was done.It is my opinion - that God would not have requested Israel to take over the land if the people were god fearing people who cared for the land and the other people. Still that is my view based upon a particular view I hold too.
Your opinion is kind of a problem, in that you're literally adding something to the biblical text that isn't there. It's not unusual, often Christians do this because they're actually better people than the god of the bible. You yourself admit that it's not there, that it's based entirely on your own particular view. This places your view above the word of god in the bible; you are, congratulations, morally superior to this character who is not only so powerful he could literally accomplish this promised land business ANY OTHER WAY he wanted to, but instead, he chooses to send in an army of Hebrews to not only put these people to the sword, but OTHER people too down the road, some of whom will suffer incredible atrocities like being raped and kidnapped and enslaved as the spoils of war. Couldn't he have made more land? Deleted them himself, even? really 'merciful,' to 'allow' them to remain just long enough to get slaughtered by their neighbors. Praise his loving name!
Can I ask where you got your 'understanding' of the Canaanites being "evil and repugnant" people if it isn't the bible? Almost no one has ever discussed Canaan, as far as I can tell, outside the bible, most people get their info about this nation from that book. Given that this book is written by Hebrews for Hebrews, it's certainly sensible that such propaganda would be present in the text, I mean have you ever seen some of the stuff about America in North Korean museums? In their history books? Given the age they lived in, wanting some sort of holy justification for what they were about to do, maybe to move some of the wishy washier ones off the fence of "let's not go kill them" to "we must kill them."
God did not command anyone to stone non-virgin wives to deathSo the word of your god lies again?go and get the verses from the bible and show it to all of us. Or are you having trouble finding them?
Deuteronomy 22:20-21:
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.
Pretty clear. The good news is that if the dude accuses her of being a slut and the parents have her bloody sheet to show the town, HE gets stoned to death, so...fair's fair? Also, I bet women LOVED this whole process.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't understand your final paragraph. But the idea of divine command theory sounds intriguing. I certainly take the view that God Almighty is a moral being. But not moral in that he can do right and do wrong. But moral in the sense that he determines what is right and wrong. I take the view that morality is truly following God's morality.
Let me see if I can help. It sounds like above, you ARE a divine command theory person: whatever god does, it has to be right, it literally CANNOT be wrong. Wipe out the whole earth with a flood because your plan went exactly as you foresaw it? Moral, because that's what god did. It's an extreme example, but in essence, divine command theory removes the 'why' anything is moral, and boils it down to 'that' it is moral because god said so. In other words, actions are not in and of themselves moral or immoral, except by divine decree. That's where the dog comes in: if you woke up tomorrow and were sincerely convinced that god commanded you to strangle every dog you saw, then suddenly NOT STRANGLING THE DOG is the immoral act. Your answer seems to be, at least here, that you'd enthusiastically strangle the dogs. A true believer, but I'm glad I'm not your neighbor :). I kid! But then things get confusing for me. You say:
It is absurd to place 21st century morals on any culture prior to it, unless you believe that morals are self existent apart from one's own culture. Hence you take either the command divine view - which you don't or you believe that absolutes exist apart from time and culture. And if that is the case, I would love to see your theory to support such a thing.
If it is absurd to place our morals onto the morals of iron age shepherd culture (I'm not sure I agree, but more on that in a moment), then why is it not absurd to do the inverse? To expect their morals to comport with our society? Several have pointed out other examples, but let's take the easiest one. Was it ever MORAL to own another person like you'd own a mule? Not was it ALLOWED. Was it MORAL. Or, the central one: is it ever MORAL to send someone to their execution for a crime that you know YOU committed?
Mopac, you are incorrect. She was not punished. She was the victim, the innocent victim here. He made a foolish vow - and then went through with it.
As to the story of Jephtha, I'm afraid this seems inconsistent: by divine command, she was NOT an innocent victim at all, she was simply collateral damage. God knew when Jephtha made the vow what he'd send out of the house first, right? It wasn't the goat or the pig. God was certain as author of all things that it was the daughter who'd get burned alive. But it's OKAY. In fact, burning her alive is moral! Because that's what god said would happen. There can be no innocent victims under divine command.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
God is also our Father. We are his children. We have a relationship. This means talking to each other.
This is not intercessory prayer. This is conversation as described, which is entirely different and probably has some inherent theraputic value, not because god's there, but because we can gain a perspective from meditation on a subject. The difference between your children and you talking, and people and god talking, well, it's more than one, and all signficant. Two people can hear you say the same thing at the exact same moment, for example. Your one child might hear you say something to another child and both could verify what was said.
In the bible, God tells us to pray to him. He also tells us to ask him for things. There is a sense of comfort too when we do seek his advice - a knowledge that he knows that we have not forgotten to ask him. Prayer of course is the ultimate sense of dependency upon someone else
I know that he tells you to pray. Why, is the question, if he has a plan, would he encourage you to, I don't know, pray for your sick dad to recover if he knew his plan was to kill him anyway? Doesn't that seem cruel? And you nailed the part about dependency, I agree.
(Actually he did create a world without sin and where everyone did what was good, yet man's first decision - was to do evil)
Did he not know that was going to happen? Are you saying man invented something god didn't (evil)?
Created:
THis came up in a topic earlier and would derail an entire conversation. I thought why not give it its own topic to derail!
Divine command theory, put very simply, is the idea that any act god commands is a moral act, because god is the arbiter of all morality unchanging forever. Is this the case? Or is a moral act moral of its own merits? Example:
Tomorrow you wake up from a very, very vivid dream in which what you take to be god has commanded you to go outside, and suffocate every dog you see, no matter what. The instant you see the dog, if you don't strangle it, you are in violation of god's command. Is strangling the dog a moral act?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The Christian God is the same God revealed in the OT. The Bible is a progressive revelation of God. As I mentioned in a previous post, Moses was given the task of compiling the accounts from creation forward as lead by God.
This does not answer the question: why is this god the one that created the universe? Your answering "Is this god consistent with this other character also called god?"
There is evidence that dinosaurs existed with humanity.
Is that evidence in stories in the bible? Because scientists almost uniformly agree (like above 99%) that dinosaurs died out 65 million years before people of any kind ever show up. And more than dinosaurs go extinct. 99% of all species that have ever existed on this planet have gone extinct. What's the 'meaning' in that?
The Bootes void in relation to what?
YOu're the one who says there's "meaning in" the universe. I'm asking, then, what's the "meaning" intended in something like the Bootes void? You seem quite certain that you've identified meaning in everything (as in some sort of intention by some unseen agent creating it), please help my understand what the holy meaning of the Bootes void is.
Evidence of the collision of the two galaxies to follow: PROPHESY!
It's math.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I know Jesus, bro. I know a couple of them, real life Jesuses (Jesi?). Whatever you say is meaningless not only to me, but to anyone else here, because you don't know how to use the English language, you don't have any positions you're willing to take and support with anything besides your juvenile "because that's how it is," because you actively remove the meaning or sense in it. It's insane. It's like performance art.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Responsibility? Like guilt?
If I meant guilt, I'd have said guilt. Responsibility. Is the ultimate reality RESPONSIBLE for the existence of childhood cancer and a disease that literally robs a person and their family of that person, while they're still alive?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
No, I'm the one saying no one is going anywhere, we just end up recycled back into natural elements as the laws of conservation demonstrate. Is being a believer in Jesus required for entry into heaven?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Does the ultimate reality bear any responsibility for the existence of childhood cancer? Alzheimers?
Why is this so difficult to answer? It's a yes or no. I don't believe in god, so it's not possible to assign blame that way.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
But don't you already say that, who goes to heaven or hell, when you say stuff like "well that person's a Roman Catholic and heretic" or "this person's a protestant and therefore a heretic" or "that person's a jew / gay / not in my orthodox"? That weak ass answer grates on my nerves. I know deep down you're in full belief you're going to heaven, and at the exclusion of others, but when directly confronted christians don't want to stand up and say it. I have more respect for Westboro Baptist types than I do for the "i don't get to judge, only god does" types. While WBC is a deplorable bunch of people in general, at least they have courage of conviction. Doesn't make them any less gross as a group or as individuals, but they stand for something. Grow a pair of balls and say yeah, atheists, you're going to hell, full stop.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
If things in the world don't go the way you'd like, do you you curse reality for being contrary to how you'd like it?
Nope. I say wow, bad things exist for some reason or no reason. Maybe I should do my best to not add to the pile, or maybe I should try to help. There, I've answered. Now answer mine. Here it is again:
Does the ultimate reality bear any responsibility for the existence of childhood cancer? Alzheimers?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Remember, I don't listen to any of them, to me you all have an equal chance of being right. I don't deny reality. I live in it. Now, I will ask again:
Does the ultimate reality bear any responsibility for the existence of childhood cancer? Alzheimers?
At least I'm getting you to shine a bit of a better light on religion in general and yours specifically, though it's nothing we didn't already know: you can only believe your faith if you believe it already, you both have free will and do not have free will, you can act outside of god's will but not against his plan, and the bible, a manual for all of mankind at all times, is only to be read by professionals so take whatever they tell you and do it. Even if that something seems atrocious on the surface.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
So for you, the answer is "c"? Wouldn't that then diminish that person's heavenly bliss in some way, thereby making perfect heaven less than perfect? It's a twist on a question I've asked my mom whenever she gets upset thinking that as an atheist, she won't get to see me when she passes away in heaven. If heaven allows you to miss me, is it really all that great a reward? If heaven gives you a copy of me, one that comported with Christian principles in some way, would you know it was not the me you knew? If heaven removes your memory of your otherwise decent son, because he didn't check the box that said yup Jesus, are you really you in heaven?
The answer was "why do you have to ask all those questions?" Gotta love parents :).
Created:
-->
@Mopac
It is a bad idea to marry someone who is of a different religion than you.I wouldn't ever recommend it.
Because invariably one of you must end up burning in hell for eternity? Or another reason? Do you have any answer to the question in the original post?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
First, Pharaoh would not submit to God's commands to let His people leave Egypt, over and over again. He knew what would work. Second, any innocent life would be restored by God to a better place.
This is less than genuine. I'm not trying to fall into the trap of arguing god's morality because he doesn't exist, but for real now. From Exodus: "And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them;" Could he not have simply softened Pharaoh's heart? Instead of using his immense power to slaughter children unrelated to this dispute, could he not have simply...freed the Israelites himself if it was his will? Can you point to anyplace in the scripture where egyptian children born centuries before christ were allowed into heaven? Under what condition was that?
Not only this, these people that He charged them to remove from the land were evil, practicing child sacrifices and other abominations. His practice with these covenant people was to use them or another nation in the judgment of wrongful actions.
He didn't charge them to remove them from the land. They weren't on an eviction edict. Please be honest about your arguments. Here's the verse from KJV: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
I ask again: is this the only option for an all powerful character? A character that also purportedly covered the earth to the highest peak in water to wipe out his creation. A character that rained brimstone from the sky on one city because they were just sooooo wicked, and one poor guy's wife happened to get turned into salt.
As for rape, Israel did that against His will, not because of it.
Did he specifically say "but don't rape them"? How do you know it wasn't his will? And why did the protection of god, all powerful, not extend to this select group of women who he MUST HAVE KNOWN WOULD BE REPEATEDLY RAPED.
Let's ignore all the problematic bible stuff, because really you're not arguing it honestly or consistently. In short "this was the only way" and "cultures were different" run directly counter to a pair of beliefs you profess to hold: god is all powerful and can do anything, and the bible applies the same today as it did then, even though cultures are different. Let's just move on to a more interesting idea.
Divine command theory, very simply: something is moral because god says it's moral. Thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I don't believe the temple prophecy is all that impressive, I know that's your big one. First of all, it's not accurate, until you add some weird multipliers that make a month or a week or a day into a year or a decade or an hour, and there's no reason to do it. 70 days = 70 days. 490 years =/= 70 days without gymnastics, first of all, and second of all, is it even that impressive to imagine that the ruling Romans would tear down the Jewish temple if they continued to misbehave? it seems the sort of thing that a lot of people could predict, and that's granting it was a prediction at all. Again, those books are of questionable authorship. Try it again, as I said, without bothering with the bible, because god would have had to be there before the book (the bible isn't older than 2000 years. Maybe books in it are, but the ones you care about, the NT, aren't close to that). Why is your god the one who must have created the universe? That's the whole question.
Are we not even going to get to hear your interpretation of the "meaning in" the Bootes void? Or the "rationale" of colliding two galaxies together when humanity will be long gone? The 99% extinction rate predates the existence of mankind by literally hundreds of millions of years. Your answer seems to somehow say "well, only if all the evidence is true! If It isn't, then Jesus!" Please tell me you don't think dinosaurs went extinct because someone ate a magic apple.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Then why do Christians tell each other they'll meet again in heaven?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
...you have free will...Obviously, we don't truly have free will...
I think we're done here. It can't be both. You are literally occupying two exclusive positions. You either have or do not have free will. These are dishonest arguments.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Does the ultimate reality bear any responsibility for the existence of childhood cancer? Alzheimers? Our standing disagreement over terms and whatever version of reality we live in aside, you should still be able to answer the question. If reality contains children getting cancer, and reality has a plan for all people, then it plans for some children to die of cancer before every uttering a word to their mom or dad, right?[Ultimate reality crap]
Must be tough to win new converts if the only people who can interpret your book are in your church already. The bible's supposed to be a manual for every person on earth, is it not?
I guess my knowing you ARE orthodox would go to how you know anyone is or isn't a Christian that says they are. You're the one who brought up identity. I go by what people say they are. I don't know how else to do it.
Created: