OK, so for whatever reason your doomed to go to hell. Is this necesarily a bad thing?
What if you worship satan? Does he reward you with anything?
and what if I (me being atheist and not believing in god, which i believe is a big sin in itself) live a good life, help people, give to charity, have a lovley wife and kids, work hard. Do nothing wrong, am i still doomed to hell just for not believing and worshipping in "god". if so is this god really the loving creature you claim he is?
because to be honest, even if god caim down from the heavens and told me that he exists, face to face, i dont think i would worship him because he is a bastard, he gave us life and expects nothing more that worship from us, and if we dont he punishes us!?
my mum and dad gave ME life and i dont worship them. I love them but i dont worship them but they dont condem me to death, or hell.
does that make human morality better than that of gods?
Given the Jewish, Christan and Muslim ideas of God, yes we are more morel than God.
According to the bible, "god" actually acts more like satan than any divine all-seeing being.
One hypothesis states that if the bible is to be read accurately, then it is actually the supposed to be the work of satan attempting to masquerade as God. The reasons for this theory include the multiple vengeful acts in the Old Testament, the Temptation of mankind, and the description of worship as a way to salvation. These are things that the devil would want, but that a real god would have no use for.
In any case, it's a fun excersize to read the bible as if it were the work of the great satan, it makes things much clearer.
| Yantaal wrote: |
OK, so for whatever reason your doomed to go to hell. Is this necesarily a bad thing?
What if you worship satan? Does he reward you with anything? |
In Christianity, Hell was created for the punishment of Satan and the rebellious angels that followed him. He does not rule hell nor is he currently there. Hell was prepared to be his eventual place of eternal torment as well. The concept of Satan "ruling" hell is a tradition popularized by Dante. It cannot be supported by the Old or New Testament texts. So no, in the context of Christianity and Judaism, Satan cannot reward anyone.
That being said, he may promise rewards to people. For example when he tempted Jesus Christ, or when he tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden. But in the eternal scheme of things, the rewards are worthless.
| Yantaal wrote: |
| and what if I (me being atheist and not believing in god, which i believe is a big sin in itself) live a good life, help people, give to charity, have a lovley wife and kids, work hard. Do nothing wrong, am i still doomed to hell just for not believing and worshipping in "god". |
As a Christian, I'll speak only for Christianity. The simple answer is yes, you would be condemned to hell. A couple of quick quotes from the New Testament (New International Version) as to why:
Jesus answered, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." John 14:6
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
Thus, Jesus said that only through him could one reach God. And as Paul stated in his letter, we are saved by faith, not by our works.
| Quote: |
if so is this god really the loving creature you claim he is?
because to be honest, even if god caim down from the heavens and told me that he exists, face to face, i dont think i would worship him because he is a bastard, he gave us life and expects nothing more that worship from us, and if we dont he punishes us!?
my mum and dad gave ME life and i dont worship them. I love them but i dont worship them but they dont condem me to death, or hell.
does that make human morality better than that of gods? |
When God created Adam and Eve, He gave them free will. The only restriction he placed upon them was that they could not touch or eat from the Tree of Knowledge.
And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Genesis 2:16-17
Adam and Eve could not have free will without the option of disobeying, IMHO. Thus the tree represented the one way they could disobey. It was God's only restriction. He did not demand groveling. He did not even demand worship. He only asked them to obey Him in this one thing. He provided for all of their needs. They did not have to labor for food or shelter. They would not suffer death. God did not give Adam a litany of "Do's and Don't's." He asked to be obeyed in only one thing.
It is like a loving parent who provides for all a child's needs. If a mother tells her son not to do something for his own protection, is she being unloving? If the child disobeys, might there not be consequences? And by consequences I do not mean maternal punishment (although she may do so), I mean the child may get hurt, such as a burn from a hot stove ("Do not touch the stove."), a broken arm ("Do not climb that tree."), or killed by a passing car ("Do not go out into the street.").
Likewise, Adam and Eve's disobedience brought sin into the world. Hell was not punishment for their lack of worship, it was and is simply a consequence of sin. God, being perfect, cannot coexist with sin. Thus those who are not redeemed are eternally separated from Him.
Sin separates all beings who disobey God from Him. Angels, like Satan, as well as humans. I personally believe angels cannot be redeemed because of their immortality. However, Adam and Eve, and thus all humans, were condemned to mortality after sin came into the race. This mortality offered the hope of salvation through Jesus Christ.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. John 3:16-17
This is God's love, that he offered his only son as a sacrifice to save humans from the consequences of sin.
Respectfully,
M | LeviticusMky wrote: |
According to the bible, "god" actually acts more like satan than any divine all-seeing being.
One hypothesis states that if the bible is to be read accurately, then it is actually the supposed to be the work of satan attempting to masquerade as God. The reasons for this theory include the multiple vengeful acts in the Old Testament, the Temptation of mankind, and the description of worship as a way to salvation. These are things that the devil would want, but that a real god would have no use for.
In any case, it's a fun excersize to read the bible as if it were the work of the great satan, it makes things much clearer. |
Actually, that's pretty much how Christianity began. ^_^
In the early days of Christianity, there were dozens and dozens of sects, and tons of "gospels". There were even sects that believed John the Baptist was a prophet, if not the messiah ("Mandaeanism"), and others that believed the same about Mary. You can see evidence of this in the existing new testament - many of Paul's letters are diatribes against other churches and other beliefs.
One of the earliest Christian thinkers was Marcion, from around 150 CE which is around 120 years after the alleged crucifixion. He was declared a heretic around 200 CE (which was actually noteworthy because the church did not even have a mechanism for determining what was heretical until around 350 CE), and most, if not all, of his writings have been destroyed by the later Christian church.
But at one time, Marcionism was the dominant form of Christianity. You can see evidence of his influence even today. Actually, Marcion is the one who first put the new testament together. Marcion believed that the god of the old testament was actually Satan (in essence), masquerading as God, and Jesus came to put things right. He based this belief on the fact that the characteristics of the old testament God are so wildly different from the characteristics of the new testament God that they could hardly be the same being.
During the purging years around 350-400 CE, the form of Christianity we know today came to force and squashed all opposition, such as Marcionism and the Gnostics. What we have today came down from that, but yes, some of the earliest concepts of Christianity look nothing like today's.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Thus, Jesus said that only through him could one reach God. And as Paul stated in his letter, we are saved by faith, not by our works. |
(After which he promptly turned around and wrote "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.")
| Moonspider wrote: |
...
It is like a loving parent who provides for all a child's needs. If a mother tells her son not to do something for his own protection, is she being unloving? If the child disobeys, might there not be consequences? And by consequences I do not mean maternal punishment (although she may do so), I mean the child may get hurt, such as a burn from a hot stove ("Do not touch the stove."), a broken arm ("Do not climb that tree."), or killed by a passing car ("Do not go out into the street.").
... |
This is a standard apologist failing. God is not like a loving parent at all.
A parent has no control over the behaviour of their child when they are not paying attention, and they cannot protect them from the consequences of their actions past a certain point. A parent says "do not touch the stove" because if the child touches the stove, they will be injured. The parent cannot always be there to prevent the child from touching the stove, and even if they were to consider locking the kitchen to keep the child away from the stove, they are only human and may forget. The parent makes that rule because it is the best they can do given their limited powers.
God does not have limited powers. God could make the stove so that it would not hurt the child, or make the child so that they could not be hurt from the stove. God would always know when the child was about to be hurt by the stove, and always be there to stop the child. Or God could simply make the child terrified of the stove, or implant the child with the knowledge of what will happen if they do. God can do anything, can't he? Thus making a rule is pointless, unless God wanted to be sadistic and test the child.
Same goes for Adam and Eve. If God really didn't want them to eat the proverbial "apple", then he didn't need to put it in reach. Or he could have simply made it so that there would be no harm done if they did. Or he could have stopped them before they did, and told them the serpent was a liar just out to hurt them. Or he could have... anything. He's infinitely powerful, he can do anything.
If Adam and Eve managed to break any rule of God, it was because God wanted them to break it (or do you claim something can happen that God does not want to happen?), which makes the "original sin" little more than a sadistic game with no real point. | Indi wrote: |
God does not have limited powers. God could make the stove so that it would not hurt the child, or make the child so that they could not be hurt from the stove. God would always know when the child was about to be hurt by the stove, and always be there to stop the child. Or God could simply make the child terrified of the stove, or implant the child with the knowledge of what will happen if they do. God can do anything, can't he? Thus making a rule is pointless, unless God wanted to be sadistic and test the child.
Same goes for Adam and Eve. If God really didn't want them to eat the proverbial "apple", then he didn't need to put it in reach. Or he could have simply made it so that there would be no harm done if they did. Or he could have stopped them before they did, and told them the serpent was a liar just out to hurt them. Or he could have... anything. He's infinitely powerful, he can do anything.
If Adam and Eve managed to break any rule of God, it was because God wanted them to break it (or do you claim something can happen that God does not want to happen?), which makes the "original sin" little more than a sadistic game with no real point. |
Would that not be slavery? I can take a man and watch his every move, provide for his every need, and protect him from all harm...if I throw him in prison. As the saying goes, a gilded cage is still a cage. If humans were supernaturally protected from all harm, where would be the need for faith?
My primary problem with most such arguments about God, is that we attempt to place him in a box based upon our own wisdom and understanding, what we perceive as right and wrong, good and evil. I think this to be short-sighted for we are not God. It is akin to an amoeba, if it had a conscious existence, trying to work out with absolute certainty the mind of man using only its experiences as a frame of reference, IMHO.
Even as a born-again Christian there are things in scripture I do not understand regarding God's actions. Even so Abraham in the Old Testament questioned God and argued with Him (over the demise of Sodom and Gomorrah). However I do not believe myself in a position to judge God's behavior. I accept those things I do not understand in faith.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
| Would that not be slavery? I can take a man and watch his every move, provide for his every need, and protect him from all harm...if I throw him in prison. As the saying goes, a gilded cage is still a cage. If humans were supernaturally protected from all harm, where would be the need for faith? |
And the alternative - infinite suffering - is an improvement? Would you prefer having some limited power to do harm at the cost of even one person having to suffer eternally? Even if it were "slavery", i would gladly live as a slave if it spared even just one person infinite suffering.
But that's not the case. Remember, God is infinitely powerful. He can do anything. He can make black white and up down. He can make a universe where we can do whatever we want without restriction and not be able to harm ourselves. He could have designed us to be resistant to temptation rather than easily susceptible. But he did none of those things. He set you up to fail, stacked the deck against you, and then he threatened infinite torment if you fail.
Just because you're not able to do damage does not imply that you are a powerless puppet. Our options are already limited, after all. We don't have unlimited power to do anything that we like - we're already subject to the whims of the universe. Why not make those whims such that there's danger at letting us do whatever we want?
| Moonspider wrote: |
My primary problem with most such arguments about God, is that we attempt to place him in a box based upon our own wisdom and understanding, what we perceive as right and wrong, good and evil. I think this to be short-sighted for we are not God. It is akin to an amoeba, if it had a conscious existence, trying to work out with absolute certainty the mind of man using only its experiences as a frame of reference, IMHO.
Even as a born-again Christian there are things in scripture I do not understand regarding God's actions. Even so Abraham in the Old Testament questioned God and argued with Him (over the demise of Sodom and Gomorrah). However I do not believe myself in a position to judge God's behavior. I accept those things I do not understand in faith. |
This is the old fallback "God moves in mysterious ways". All fine and good, but you can't have it all ways. You can't step up to someone who has asked a question, give them half an answer, and then when they point out the flaws, say "God moves in mysterious ways" and bow out. Either you have answers, or you don't. Pretending that you do when you don't is dishonest. You represented yourself, when answering Yantaal, as someone who had answers - the closest you ever came to admitting that you were just speculating was when you mentioned something about the fate of sinning angels. Yet elsewhere in the same response you pass yourself off as an authority on Christian beliefs.
It's not wrong to say "God moves in mysterious ways". But it is dishonest to imply that there is an understandable logic to his actions until you're cornered.Eternal seperation from God - whether you believe in Him or not - can never be good. And you need to remember, if worshiping Satan, you are worshiping someone who is disloyal and not trustworthy - so be wary.
| Indi wrote: |
It's not wrong to say "God moves in mysterious ways". But it is dishonest to imply that there is an understandable logic to his actions until you're cornered. |
I did not mean to imply there was a complete and understandable logic. There cannot be in a matter of faith.
I'll write more when I have the time.
Respectfully,
M | Indi wrote: |
This is a standard apologist failing. God is not like a loving parent at all.
A parent has no control over the behaviour of their child when they are not paying attention, and they cannot protect them from the consequences of their actions past a certain point. A parent says "do not touch the stove" because if the child touches the stove, they will be injured. The parent cannot always be there to prevent the child from touching the stove, and even if they were to consider locking the kitchen to keep the child away from the stove, they are only human and may forget. The parent makes that rule because it is the best they can do given their limited powers.
God does not have limited powers. God could make the stove so that it would not hurt the child, or make the child so that they could not be hurt from the stove. God would always know when the child was about to be hurt by the stove, and always be there to stop the child. Or God could simply make the child terrified of the stove, or implant the child with the knowledge of what will happen if they do. God can do anything, can't he? Thus making a rule is pointless, unless God wanted to be sadistic and test the child. |
To do so God would have to create a universe that binds all things to the laws of physics except humans, or deny humans the ability to be moral.
In the first case, Adam and Eve in the story of the Garden of Eden were in a perfect world. They did not suffer. They did not toil. All things were provided for them and they appear to have been free to do anything except eat from the tree of knowledge. Thus, God did create a world in which humans could not be harmed.
However, when Adam and Eve disobeyed they brought sin into the world. I personally believe that there are spiritual laws as well as the physical laws of the universe. These spiritual laws, although not directly observable by us necessarily, profoundly impact the universe.
Genesis 3 states that sin brought a number of changes, such as weeds and the fact that humans will have to toil to cultivate food-bearing vegetation. I don’t believe these were punishments, but a natural consequence of man’s sin. All of nature, from the Earth to the most distant galaxies, was thrown into turmoil by Adam and Eve’s disobedience because of some spiritual law that binds human behavior to the creation itself.
Furthermore, I think even God’s actions in the universe He created are bound by those spiritual laws. Thus, even though God is all-powerful and obviously performed miracles that violate physical laws, He cannot act outside of the universe’s spiritual laws without destroying the entire universe. If this were not so, God would not have had to send his son, Jesus, to be sacrificed for the sins of mankind. He could have simply said, “You’re forgiven” and be done with it.
Hebrew 9:22 states, “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”
I think this is due to a spiritual law that underpins the universe. This is also why I believe that angels cannot be redeemed, because they are immortal. Likewise, it is why God feared Adam and Eve might eat from the Tree of Life and kicked them out of Eden.
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Genesis 3:22
Had they eaten from the tree of life, redemption would have not been possible, IMHO.
| Quote: |
Same goes for Adam and Eve. If God really didn't want them to eat the proverbial "apple", then he didn't need to put it in reach. Or he could have simply made it so that there would be no harm done if they did. Or he could have stopped them before they did, and told them the serpent was a liar just out to hurt them. Or he could have... anything. He's infinitely powerful, he can do anything.
If Adam and Eve managed to break any rule of God, it was because God wanted them to break it (or do you claim something can happen that God does not want to happen?), which makes the "original sin" little more than a sadistic game with no real point. |
You asked why God didn’t just make the fruit so no harm would come if they ate it. I think you missed the point. The point is obedience or disobedience. It wasn’t the fruit that was the problem. God could have drawn a circle in the soil and said, “Don’t step into the circle” and the consequences would have been no different.
If God stopped them before they ate, He’d be denying them free will, no?
What difference would it make if God told them not to listen to the serpent? God told them not to eat of the tree.
If God created Adam and Eve so that they were incapable of sinning, would humans have the ability to be moral? What virtue is there in obeying God if there is nothing in our nature to do otherwise? We’d still be nothing more than animals, incapable of having any sort of moral character.
| Quote: |
| After which he promptly turned around and wrote "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." |
Yes, you quoted James 2:24:
You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. (New International Version)
Taken in the context of the chapter, I don’t believe James to be contradicting Paul. James’ letter is complementary, not contradictory. James was admonishing people who had accepted the notion of justification by faith, but they were not living rightly.
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. James 2:14-17
I believe the point here is that anyone can say, “I believe in God and his son Jesus Christ.”
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. James 2:19
However, someone who claims to believe but yet lives a life that does not exhibit obedience truly has no faith at all.
But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. James 2:18
Respectfully,
M
Last edited by Moonspider on Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:50 pm; edited 1 time in total | Indi wrote: |
This is the old fallback "God moves in mysterious ways". All fine and good, but you can't have it all ways. You can't step up to someone who has asked a question, give them half an answer, and then when they point out the flaws, say "God moves in mysterious ways" and bow out. Either you have answers, or you don't. Pretending that you do when you don't is dishonest. You represented yourself, when answering Yantaal, as someone who had answers - the closest you ever came to admitting that you were just speculating was when you mentioned something about the fate of sinning angels. Yet elsewhere in the same response you pass yourself off as an authority on Christian beliefs.
It's not wrong to say "God moves in mysterious ways". But it is dishonest to imply that there is an understandable logic to his actions until you're cornered. |
I don’t assume any one to be an authority unless they come out and say so. For example, you appear to have far more knowledge of church history and apologetics than I do. I’ve only studied the former as part of an undergrad medieval history class and have never studied the latter. So although I concede you are more knowledgeable than I am in those subjects, I will not assume you to be an expert on such matters unless you say you are.
I don’t think I ever claimed to be an “authority,” although you seemed to have assumed so. Even in my public profile the closest thing I can be considered an “authority” upon is manufacturing and military matters. 
I simply debated the questions posed based upon my own knowledge, experiences, and belief system. I thought we were debating something that is by its nature unknowable in an absolute sense, not expecting people to have perfect answers. If I don’t know something, I simply don’t know. I can only answer with what I know and believe. If you wish to debate or dispute my answers, that is fine. It is the reason for the forums, is it not?
However, I don’t think any Christian would say with absolute certainty that they have all the answers, even the most authoritative of Christians.
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 1 Corinthians 13:12
Respectfully,
MYeah. The idea of 'god' is a bit evil, isn't it? Not to mention ridiculous.
Yeah. The idea of 'god' is a bit evil, isn't it? Not to mention ridiculous.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| In the first case, Adam and Eve in the story of the Garden of Eden were in a perfect world. They did not suffer. They did not toil. All things were provided for them and they appear to have been free to do anything except eat from the tree of knowledge. Thus, God did create a world in which humans could not be harmed. |
False. The evidence being, of course, that they were harmed.
| Moonspider wrote: |
However, when Adam and Eve disobeyed they brought sin into the world. I personally believe that there are spiritual laws as well as the physical laws of the universe. These spiritual laws, although not directly observable by us necessarily, profoundly impact the universe.
Genesis 3 states that sin brought a number of changes, such as weeds and the fact that humans will have to toil to cultivate food-bearing vegetation. I don’t believe these were punishments, but a natural consequence of man’s sin. All of nature, from the Earth to the most distant galaxies, was thrown into turmoil by Adam and Eve’s disobedience because of some spiritual law that binds human behavior to the creation itself.
Furthermore, I think even God’s actions in the universe He created are bound by those spiritual laws. Thus, even though God is all-powerful and obviously performed miracles that violate physical laws, He cannot act outside of the universe’s spiritual laws without destroying the entire universe. If this were not so, God would not have had to send his son, Jesus, to be sacrificed for the sins of mankind. He could have simply said, “You’re forgiven” and be done with it.
Hebrew 9:22 states, “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”
I think this is due to a spiritual law that underpins the universe. This is also why I believe that angels cannot be redeemed, because they are immortal. Likewise, it is why God feared Adam and Eve might eat from the Tree of Life and kicked them out of Eden.
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Genesis 3:22
Had they eaten from the tree of life, redemption would have not been possible, IMHO. |
If any of this is true, then God is not omnipotent. You are implying that there is something that is more powerful than God. That contradicts God's own words in the bible. Which is right? You or the bible?
| Moonspider wrote: |
| You asked why God didn’t just make the fruit so no harm would come if they ate it. I think you missed the point. The point is obedience or disobedience. It wasn’t the fruit that was the problem. God could have drawn a circle in the soil and said, “Don’t step into the circle” and the consequences would have been no different. |
You missed the greater part of my point. You understood what I was getting at about the nature of the transgression - it was specious nonsense. If God really didn't want Adam and Eve to be harmed, then the eating of the fruit would not have harmed them. Thus the entire test was arbitrary. It was, as you say, just as foolish as if he'd drawn a circle on the ground.
(In the previous section you suggest that it wasn't an arbitrary test - and that the test actually did matter because God's power is limited. Given that this contradicts what's written in the bible, i'm going to ignore that theory, for now at least, and roll with the assumption that God is omnipotent.)
Given the fact that the nature of the test was completely foolish and arbitrary, it's obvious that the test itself didn't matter - it was just a way to provoke Adam and Eve to disobey. So now comes the big question: what did God want to happen? Well, given that God is omnipotent and omniscient, the only thing that could have happened is exactly what God wanted to happen. Do you disagree? Do you think it's possible to thwart God's will?
In essence:
1.) The command not to eat the fruit wasn't for the safety of Adam and Eve, it was just an arbitrary rule God made up.
2.) God made the rule with full knowledge that they would break it.
3.) They couldn't help but break it because that was how they were made... by God.
As an analogy, imagine i put you in a cell with a chin-up bar, and told you that if you touched the floor you would be punished. You can hang there until your arms are blue, but eventually you're going to fall and touch the floor, and i will punish you. i know this - i designed the "test" that way. The only difference between me and God is that i didn't actually create gravity, or limit your endurance - if i had done those things then it would be an even better analogy.
All of this hinges on the fact that God created us, and that he could have made us any way he wanted to. He could have made us completely non-curious - would that violate free will? No. We would still be free to eat the fruit, we would just be less inclined to do so. The fact that we were made curious means that God intended for us to fail the "test".
| Moonspider wrote: |
If God stopped them before they ate, He’d be denying them free will, no?
What difference would it make if God told them not to listen to the serpent? God told them not to eat of the tree. |
Both of these questions come from my point about how silly and arbitrary the test was, which you agree to above. Actually, you put it very nicely when you say the test was meaningless and he could have drawn a circle on the ground. The points i made, which you question here, were demonstrating that.
First: no, if he stopped them before they ate, then he would have been protecting them from the alleged harm of the fruit, not hindering their free will - but of course there was no harm, and that was never the point. It wasn't about the harm of the fruit, it was about them choosing to disobey. The nature of the test was meaningless, he just needed a rule for them to disobey.
And second, but you now see (i hope) that the rule to not eat from the tree was crap. The fruit was never any real threat. The sin was disobedience, and it wasn't the fruit that caused that. It was the serpent. So if God really didn't want them to disobey, he could have warned them about the serpent, or simply prevented the serpent from being able to contact them.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| If God created Adam and Eve so that they were incapable of sinning, would humans have the ability to be moral? What virtue is there in obeying God if there is nothing in our nature to do otherwise? We’d still be nothing more than animals, incapable of having any sort of moral character. |
i think you and i have a different definition of moral.
What kind of act do you consider moral? Any good act?
What if i went to a hospital and read to the sick? Is that a moral act? Is it really? What if i did this as part of community service for a crime i had done? Or what if i did it because i am a politician, and it would make me look good to the voters? Is it still a moral act?
My definition of a moral act is an act that is performed to eliminate or minimize harm without reward or coercion. If you do something good to get a reward, you are not being moral. If you do something good to avoid punishment you are not being moral. But if you do something good of your own free will for no other reason than the purpose of doing good, you are being moral.
So now, if Adam and Eve had not eaten from the tree, would they have been moral? No. They would have simply been following orders.
It wasn't a test of morality. It was a test of blind obedience, and one which they were intended to fail.
Even everyday Judaistic faith is amoral. You're not doing good for the purpose of doing good, you're doing it because you were told to and will be punished if you don't. Your test, the test for which you will be judged on judgement day, is not to be moral, it is to obey - unquestioningly. Morality just doesn't enter the equation.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| I don’t think I ever claimed to be an “authority,” although you seemed to have assumed so. |
You claimed you were speaking for Christianity, did you not?i notice the fact that god need evil to contrast his good comes up alot in these arguements. would that mean without evil god can not display how good he is? meaning he cant do something? hmmm
| Yantaal wrote: |
| i notice the fact that god need evil to contrast his good comes up alot in these arguements. would that mean without evil god can not display how good he is? meaning he cant do something? hmmm |
No, because God showed how good He was through His creation - which then in turn disobeyed and betrayed Him, and now that evil exists to contrast God's good, and as a constant reminder to humans how we, unforunately, fell short of God's glory.Number one way is to realise that there is no present in hell, only future suffering and past sins. There is also no time in hell, meaning no past or future. So you wouldn't feel anything.
Please tell me if the above theory is at least factually correct, I heard it a while ago but I've never verified it's authenticity.
ill tell ya this much, i dont think god is omnipotent
| Jazradem wrote: |
Number one way is to realise that there is no present in hell, only future suffering and past sins. There is also no time in hell, meaning no past or future. So you wouldn't feel anything.
Please tell me if the above theory is at least factually correct, I heard it a while ago but I've never verified it's authenticity. |
Theres nothing in the bible that says theres no past present or future in hell. | Indi wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | In the first case, Adam and Eve in the story of the Garden of Eden were in a perfect world. They did not suffer. They did not toil. All things were provided for them and they appear to have been free to do anything except eat from the tree of knowledge. Thus, God did create a world in which humans could not be harmed. |
False. The evidence being, of course, that they were harmed. |
Okay. I’ll concede that one. Although they would never have been harmed provided they obeyed that command, you are right. Harm would come (and did) to them if they disobeyed.
| Indi wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | However, when Adam and Eve disobeyed they brought sin into the world. I personally believe that there are spiritual laws as well as the physical laws of the universe. These spiritual laws, although not directly observable by us necessarily, profoundly impact the universe.
Genesis 3 states that sin brought a number of changes, such as weeds and the fact that humans will have to toil to cultivate food-bearing vegetation. I don’t believe these were punishments, but a natural consequence of man’s sin. All of nature, from the Earth to the most distant galaxies, was thrown into turmoil by Adam and Eve’s disobedience because of some spiritual law that binds human behavior to the creation itself.
Furthermore, I think even God’s actions in the universe He created are bound by those spiritual laws. Thus, even though God is all-powerful and obviously performed miracles that violate physical laws, He cannot act outside of the universe’s spiritual laws without destroying the entire universe. If this were not so, God would not have had to send his son, Jesus, to be sacrificed for the sins of mankind. He could have simply said, “You’re forgiven” and be done with it.
Hebrew 9:22 states, “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”
I think this is due to a spiritual law that underpins the universe. This is also why I believe that angels cannot be redeemed, because they are immortal. Likewise, it is why God feared Adam and Eve might eat from the Tree of Life and kicked them out of Eden.
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Genesis 3:22
Had they eaten from the tree of life, redemption would have not been possible, IMHO. |
If any of this is true, then God is not omnipotent. You are implying that there is something that is more powerful than God. That contradicts God's own words in the bible. Which is right? You or the bible? |
I believe that God can do anything provided that it is not against His nature. Thus I do not mean to imply there is something more powerful than God, since the only thing that limits Him is His own nature, which may make up the spiritual laws underpinning the universe. (The latter being my own supposition of course.)
For example I spoke of redemption earlier. You may argue that the need for redemption contradicts God’s omnipotence because He can do whatever He wants. I simply argue that it is impossible for God to ignore sin and thus nullify the need for redemption, not because He is not omnipotent, but because it contradicts His nature.
As a simpler analogy, God may be omnipotent, but He is incapable of doing evil. Does that mean He is not omnipotent? I don’t think so, although you may disagree.
| Indi wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | You asked why God didn’t just make the fruit so no harm would come if they ate it. I think you missed the point. The point is obedience or disobedience. It wasn’t the fruit that was the problem. God could have drawn a circle in the soil and said, “Don’t step into the circle” and the consequences would have been no different. |
You missed the greater part of my point. You understood what I was getting at about the nature of the transgression - it was specious nonsense. If God really didn't want Adam and Eve to be harmed, then the eating of the fruit would not have harmed them. Thus the entire test was arbitrary. It was, as you say, just as foolish as if he'd drawn a circle on the ground.
(In the previous section you suggest that it wasn't an arbitrary test - and that the test actually did matter because God's power is limited. Given that this contradicts what's written in the bible, i'm going to ignore that theory, for now at least, and roll with the assumption that God is omnipotent.)
Given the fact that the nature of the test was completely foolish and arbitrary, it's obvious that the test itself didn't matter - it was just a way to provoke Adam and Eve to disobey. |
I don’t consider it foolish or a provocation, just a rule. I don’t think rules inherently provoke people to disobey them, despite the phrase “Rules are made to be broken.”
For example, because humans are free to do whatever they desire, we as communities set rules all the time. Do these laws serve to provoke us into disobedience? Are they foolish? (Given, some may be. ) No, they simply serve to tell humans in a community what behavior is deemed unacceptable. They are not there to provoke us into disobedience.
| Indi wrote: |
| So now comes the big question: what did God want to happen? Well, given that God is omnipotent and omniscient, the only thing that could have happened is exactly what God wanted to happen. Do you disagree? Do you think it's possible to thwart God's will? |
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9
Yes, I disagree. I don’t think God ever wanted anyone to sin and be condemned. That does not make sense and I believe it insupportable by scripture. However, you are saying that God, knowing what was going to happen, should have stacked the deck so that it would not happen. This contradicts the concept of a universe in which the sentient beings that inhabit it have complete freedom of action.
However, you seem to believe that God stacked the cards against us. I disagree and originally planned to argue that God did not stack the deck at all. But then your comments during our discussion gave me pause, and I puzzled over this for some time.
Why the fruit of the tree? Why not just draw a circle in the sand? Why not some other test?
You said that God could make it so that no harm came to them from eating the fruit. We both agree that God’s admonition, the one rule he set up according to Genesis, was arguably arbitrary, a means of giving them a choice to obey or disobey.
I also think we both agree that no harm came to Adam and Eve from eating the fruit. All of the consequences, death, toil, etc., were from the disobedience.
So why a “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” as the test? My supposition is that God stacked the deck in Adam and Eve’s favor. God, knowing that Adam and Eve may or would sin, fixed it so that in sinning they would gain a wisdom and knowledge without which they and all humans could not be redeemed.
Thus Adam and Eve could have an idyllic existence if they obeyed God, or if they disobeyed, the fruit would help to provide them with an out, a means by which they could be redeemed.
In this regard, I don’t think Satan was even lying to Eve. I suspect Satan thought God was lying to Adam when He said that the day they ate the fruit they would die. Like many of us, Satan thought God meant the fruit would kill them. Satan knew this not to be true, that the fruit would merely grant them something God did not. Perhaps Satan thought God’s action of withholding this knowledge from them as wrong.
But God fixed the test so that even if they failed, they could eventually still gain heaven.
In the same manner, Satan thought that by killing Jesus Christ he could thwart God’s plan for humanity and his own defeat. However, not fully comprehending God’s plan, Satan’s “success” would prove to be the basis for his ultimate defeat.
You asked if I thought it possible to thwart God’s will, though. Oh yes, it is possible to thwart God’s will, in that it is possible for beings to sin. As quoted earlier from 2 Peter 3:9, it is not God’s will that anyone should perish. Yet the Bible is replete with examples of beings disobeying God, from Satan’s angelic rebellion to Abraham having a child by his handmaiden. That being said, I believe God, even like us, adapts to changing circumstances.
Yes, it is awkward in that He can foresee all events. (I personally believe God doesn’t really foresee as we think of it. I believe He is not bound by time, not being part of the creation, and therefore exists simultaneously not just every where but every when.)
I’ve often wondered why sentient beings rebel/disobey. According to the Bible, God created two species of sentient beings: angels and humans. Both sinned in rebellion. The only difference was that when the angels rebelled, there was already a multitude of them. Thus some (a third according to the Bible) rebelled whilst the other two-thirds did not. With Adam and Eve there were no other humans (at least not with souls, but then that is another debate about which I disagree with most Christians). And thus all humans thenceforward were born into sin.
| Indi wrote: |
| As an analogy, imagine i put you in a cell with a chin-up bar, and told you that if you touched the floor you would be punished. You can hang there until your arms are blue, but eventually you're going to fall and touch the floor, and i will punish you. i know this - i designed the "test" that way. The only difference between me and God is that i didn't actually create gravity, or limit your endurance - if i had done those things then it would be an even better analogy. |
I don’t think that an accurate analogy at all. My failure would be based upon pure physics if you added gravity and limited my endurance as you suggested in the “better” analogy. I’d have no choice but to eventually fail as my arms tired. For this analogy to be true, Adam and Eve would have no choice but to sin. So apparently you are arguing that humans do not truly have free will?
| Indi wrote: |
| All of this hinges on the fact that God created us, and that he could have made us any way he wanted to. He could have made us completely non-curious - would that violate free will? No. We would still be free to eat the fruit, we would just be less inclined to do so. The fact that we were made curious means that God intended for us to fail the "test". |
I personally believe curiosity to be a vital part of what makes us human, even vital to our survival as a species. It is certainly vital to the human nature to seek answers and to seek God.
True, God could have created a world in which we had the freedom to do whatever we desired without consequence. But if this were so, we’d be no different than any other animal. A shark has complete freedom within the laws of nature. If it chooses to bite the leg off of a 12-year old girl and cripple her, there is nothing wrong with its actions. If it chooses not to as her supple leg splashes in the water, there is nothing right about its actions. It has no concept of right from wrong and is therefore incapable of doing either good or evil. Likewise, we could not be moral creatures in such an existence.
| Indi wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | If God stopped them before they ate, He’d be denying them free will, no?
What difference would it make if God told them not to listen to the serpent? God told them not to eat of the tree. |
Both of these questions come from my point about how silly and arbitrary the test was, which you agree to above. Actually, you put it very nicely when you say the test was meaningless and he could have drawn a circle on the ground. The points i made, which you question here, were demonstrating that.
First: no, if he stopped them before they ate, then he would have been protecting them from the alleged harm of the fruit, not hindering their free will - but of course there was no harm, and that was never the point. It wasn't about the harm of the fruit, it was about them choosing to disobey. The nature of the test was meaningless, he just needed a rule for them to disobey.
And second, but you now see (i hope) that the rule to not eat from the tree was crap. The fruit was never any real threat. The sin was disobedience, and it wasn't the fruit that caused that. It was the serpent. So if God really didn't want them to disobey, he could have warned them about the serpent, or simply prevented the serpent from being able to contact them.
| Moonspider wrote: | | If God created Adam and Eve so that they were incapable of sinning, would humans have the ability to be moral? What virtue is there in obeying God if there is nothing in our nature to do otherwise? We’d still be nothing more than animals, incapable of having any sort of moral character. |
i think you and i have a different definition of moral.
What kind of act do you consider moral? Any good act? |
My argument concerning the fruit, the serpent, and the test I made above.
I don’t think we have too much of a difference on our definition of moral. I simply think of it as choosing to do right when we can choose to do wrong. And as you pointed out, the attitude of one’s heart can distinguish the same action committed by two different people as moral or immoral (or even amoral). However, sometimes choosing right is choosing to obey
| Indi wrote: |
My definition of a moral act is an act that is performed to eliminate or minimize harm without reward or coercion. If you do something good to get a reward, you are not being moral. If you do something good to avoid punishment you are not being moral. But if you do something good of your own free will for no other reason than the purpose of doing good, you are being moral.
So now, if Adam and Eve had not eaten from the tree, would they have been moral? No. They would have simply been following orders. |
We disagree here. Earlier you also said that God’s rule was a foolish provocation. And here you claim that obeying the rule would not be moral but simply coercion. I disagree with it for this reason.
As I mentioned earlier, we as humans in societies set rules all the time, laws that govern our societies. We do this because humans are free to do whatever they want. No law can physically prevent someone from doing wrong if they so desire. Thus laws are set up to define what behaviors are unacceptable in a given society. They do not provoke us to act illegally as you proposed. On the other hand, is a person who chooses to obey the law simply a victim of coercion? Not always. A person who obeys the speed limit out of fear of getting caught is not being moral. But not all drivers are coerced in that manner. Some actually obey the speed limit out of a desire to obey the speed limit. That, I argue, is moral.
| Indi wrote: |
| It wasn't a test of morality. It was a test of blind obedience, and one which they were intended to fail. |
Once again, we’ll disagree on this. A choice to obey or disobey is always a moral choice, whether it be obeying God, your parents, or a government’s laws. One of the definitions of moral is “conforming to the rules of right conduct.” (moral. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved November 10, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral) If Adam and Eve only obeyed out of fear, then yes, you'd be right. However, if they chose to obey of their own volition, of their own free will, then that is moral. Like you said, it is an attitude of the heart. And I don't think either of us is in a position to judge their hearts' attitudes.
Furthermore, as I’ve argued, I don’t believe God intended for them to fail. However I do think God set it up so that if and when they did fail, humans had a chance at redemption.
| Indi wrote: |
| Even everyday Judaistic faith is amoral. You're not doing good for the purpose of doing good, you're doing it because you were told to and will be punished if you don't. Your test, the test for which you will be judged on judgement day, is not to be moral, it is to obey - unquestioningly. Morality just doesn't enter the equation. |
What you just defined and gave as an example is religion, not faith. There is a huge difference, as Jesus often pointed out to the Pharisees and others. Furthermore, in Christianity your salvation depends solely upon accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, not obedience in anything else. The criminal on the cross who believed is an example. After he believed, he had not the time to do anything “good” before he died.
Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise. Luke 23:43
| Indi wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | I don’t think I ever claimed to be an “authority,” although you seemed to have assumed so. |
You claimed you were speaking for Christianity, did you not? |
Correct I did say that, but did not intend to imply that I was an authority defending Christendom. What I was trying to do was to convey to anyone reading the forum the perspective from which my arguments were coming. I should have worded it differently. “As a Christian, I’ll speak from my perspective as such,” may have been a more apt way of stating it. Sorry about that.
Respectfully,
M | Yantaal wrote: |
OK, so for whatever reason your doomed to go to hell. Is this necesarily a bad thing?
What if you worship satan? Does he reward you with anything?
and what if I (me being atheist and not believing in god, which i believe is a big sin in itself) live a good life, help people, give to charity, have a lovley wife and kids, work hard. Do nothing wrong, am i still doomed to hell just for not believing and worshipping in "god". if so is this god really the loving creature you claim he is?
because to be honest, even if god caim down from the heavens and told me that he exists, face to face, i dont think i would worship him because he is a bastard, he gave us life and expects nothing more that worship from us, and if we dont he punishes us!?
my mum and dad gave ME life and i dont worship them. I love them but i dont worship them but they dont condem me to death, or hell.
does that make human morality better than that of gods? |
I have never seen a better way to put it 
in my point of view you are very right. why would God even doom us to hell if he is a loving force. it doesn't make any sense at all, does it XD
just live life to its fullest and try to have as little regret as possible | Yantaal wrote: |
OK, so for whatever reason your doomed to go to hell. Is this necesarily a bad thing?
What if you worship satan? Does he reward you with anything?
and what if I (me being atheist and not believing in god, which i believe is a big sin in itself) live a good life, help people, give to charity, have a lovley wife and kids, work hard. Do nothing wrong, am i still doomed to hell just for not believing and worshipping in "god". if so is this god really the loving creature you claim he is?
because to be honest, even if god caim down from the heavens and told me that he exists, face to face, i dont think i would worship him because he is a bastard, he gave us life and expects nothing more that worship from us, and if we dont he punishes us!?
my mum and dad gave ME life and i dont worship them. I love them but i dont worship them but they dont condem me to death, or hell.
does that make human morality better than that of gods? |
God made us for the sole purpose of worshipping him. He is the divine creator of everything that we see around us.
I think that you're out of your goddamn mind for thinking that way but i respect that (providing that you also respect that that i think that ur out of ur mind 
) .
Going to hell is under no condition a nice thing. Satan himself is condemned to go to hell and he can't do anything about it. His sole goal at this moment is to seduce as much people as possible to go to hell with him. On this planet he can maybe grant you a few earthly things but outside the realm of this world he has no power anymore. At the moment that Satan will go to hell, he wont be able to give you anything.
I think that God is still just for having hell. He won't just send us there, we all actually deserve it. Think about all the bad things that you have done. Every bad thing that you do, it somewhat disrespecting God's authority. God can punish us for that. I even think that God is more forgiving that us, humans. We can hold grudges forever, but God doesn't. He forgives but you must believe.
If God condemns someone to hell it is not because he hates him but because he deserves it. A judge doesn't also send someone to the ElectricChair because of hate but because of the crime he has committed.
If there wasn't a hell and electric chair people would be justice. It is more to protect the other people. God loves his people and protects them. It is not in His interest to protect the unbeliever cuz they aren't His people. Hell is there so that people are limited to the evil they dare to commit (ofcourse you have a few daredevils but ppl are generally scared to do something if they know which consequences it may bring)
--If you deserve it you will get it-- | defnet wrote: |
| Yantaal wrote: | OK, so for whatever reason your doomed to go to hell. Is this necesarily a bad thing?
What if you worship satan? Does he reward you with anything?
and what if I (me being atheist and not believing in god, which i believe is a big sin in itself) live a good life, help people, give to charity, have a lovley wife and kids, work hard. Do nothing wrong, am i still doomed to hell just for not believing and worshipping in "god". if so is this god really the loving creature you claim he is?
because to be honest, even if god caim down from the heavens and told me that he exists, face to face, i dont think i would worship him because he is a bastard, he gave us life and expects nothing more that worship from us, and if we dont he punishes us!?
my mum and dad gave ME life and i dont worship them. I love them but i dont worship them but they dont condem me to death, or hell.
does that make human morality better than that of gods? |
God made us for the sole purpose of worshipping him. He is the divine creator of everything that we see around us.
I think that you're out of your goddamn mind for thinking that way but i respect that (providing that you also respect that that i think that ur out of ur mind ) .
Going to hell is under no condition a nice thing. Satan himself is condemned to go to hell and he can't do anything about it. His sole goal at this moment is to seduce as much people as possible to go to hell with him. On this planet he can maybe grant you a few earthly things but outside the realm of this world he has no power anymore. At the moment that Satan will go to hell, he wont be able to give you anything.
I think that God is still just for having hell. He won't just send us there, we all actually deserve it. Think about all the bad things that you have done. Every bad thing that you do, it somewhat disrespecting God's authority. God can punish us for that. I even think that God is more forgiving that us, humans. We can hold grudges forever, but God doesn't. He forgives but you must believe.
If God condemns someone to hell it is not because he hates him but because he deserves it. A judge doesn't also send someone to the ElectricChair because of hate but because of the crime he has committed.
If there wasn't a hell and electric chair people would be justice. It is more to protect the other people. God loves his people and protects them. It is not in His interest to protect the unbeliever cuz they aren't His people. Hell is there so that people are limited to the evil they dare to commit (ofcourse you have a few daredevils but ppl are generally scared to do something if they know which consequences it may bring)
--If you deserve it you will get it-- |
with all do respect, but I am not a believer and still in my life, I do as little wrong as possible, I have never comitted a crime nor have I ever used any drugs or smoke. I love my friends and family and I am a very lovable person, many people even share their personal problems only with me. and still I must go to hell just because I don´t believe in God? I don't need a God to know what's right or wrong 
" he forgives but you must believe" <-- so he doens't forgive me because I don't believe? even though I live my life as peacefull and hateless as possible? | defnet wrote: |
Going to hell is under no condition a nice thing. Satan himself is condemned to go to hell and he can't do anything about it. His sole goal at this moment is to seduce as much people as possible to go to hell with him. On this planet he can maybe grant you a few earthly things but outside the realm of this world he has no power anymore. At the moment that Satan will go to hell, he wont be able to give you anything. |
Really ? Hmmm..I shall beg to differ then.
1) Scriptural basis for the fire and brimstone nightmare is quite tenuous. The OT/Hebrew Bible has no concept of such a thing - the word Sheol has been repeatedly mistranslated to mean hell but many scholars are sure it means only death or place of the dead.
Check the acts of the apostles and the picture is the same...
It's in Luke Mark and Matthew where the notion kicks off. ie in the Gospels. Well after the death of Jesus.
There is quite a lot of evidence that the concept was symbollic and clearly understood by the early christians to be so. Plutarch and Origen are both clear that Hell is a symbolic place but Origen argues that it should be spread widely to 'scare simpler believers'.
Here's a couple of sites with more on this
http://www.dpjs.co.uk/hell.html
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/TheBibleHell.html#TheBibleHell
2) Theologically, hell is a tricky thing. Most attempts to reconcile eternal punishment with notions of a infinitely loving god end up in trouble. There are also some interesting points posed by the notions of free will, omnisciene and iredeemable condemnation.
3) It's a nasty concept and it is quite offensive to be told at a difficult time by 2 sincere looking sickos that 'it's too late for your father but not for you and would you like a copy of the watchtower....'. This is one reason there is a note on my door warning any hell and damnation merchant foolish enough to knock that a little bit of hell will be coming their way here and now.
4) It's a problem for the believers as well. Are you a baptist or a catholic....hmm...you MIGHT not go to hell if you picked the wrong one....no promises though....there again the Hindus or the Buddhists might be the lucky winners and then you could try hell from different animals perspectives. Maybe the Muslims have it right in which case a lot of us westerners will be packing swimwear rather than wings and harps...
5) Science to the rescue.....
a) Heaven is hotter than hell. Isaiah tell us that in heaven :
| Quote: |
| the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days. |
OK..where's my calculator...OK...so heaven is getting 1 earth equivalent of solar radiation from the moon and 49 times earth equiv from the sun. That gives us a round 50 times. OK, so heaven will heat up until thermal equilibrium is reached and it will then be giving out 50 times more radiation than Earth and the Stefan-Boltzmann Power Law tells us that
(H/E^4)=50 (E is the temp of the earth in Kelvin and H is the temp in heaven). That makes it about 525 Celcius. Hell must be cooler than that because sulphur vapourises at 446 C and we need some suphurous lakes.
Therefore Heaven is at least 80 C hotter than hell.
b) Thermodynamics is frequently used by rligious fundamentalists to show flaws in evolutionary theory. I think we'll have a bit of turnabout. Let's see what scientists say thermodynamics tells us about Hell.
(Paraphrased from University of Washington chemistry mid-term paper).
Q. Is Hell exothermic or endothermic ?
A. We need to know the rate of souls entering and leaving. It seems a fair bet that non are leaving. If one does a quick count up around the various religions and works out the exclusivity (ie it's us or hell) one quickly finds that you'd have to back a minimum of 7 religions to be even remotely safe from the prospect statistically speaking. Sine nobody actually has 7 religions it is also a fair bet that all the souls are goind to hell.
Calculating the 6 billion population and takind death rates and population increase into account, we soon arrive at the following solution :
i) If Hell is expanding slower than the rate of entry then pretty soon all hell will break loose.
ii) If Hell is expanding faster than the rate of soul entry, the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
Best wishes
Chris[quote="defnet"] | Yantaal wrote: |
| God made us for the sole purpose of worshipping him. He is the divine creator of everything that we see around us. |
Than why are we not just robots who mindlessly worship him? We have imagination, the ability to question and if God wasn't so absent we would all believe in him. So ether God is a moron who can't create a mindless worshiping meshine or there a flaw in your logic.
| Quote: |
I think that God is still just for having hell. He won't just send us there, we all actually deserve it. Think about all the bad things that you have done. Every bad thing that you do, it somewhat disrespecting God's authority. God can punish us for that. I even think that God is more forgiving that us, humans. We can hold grudges forever, but God doesn't. He forgives but you must believe.
If God condemns someone to hell it is not because he hates him but because he deserves it. A judge doesn't also send someone to the ElectricChair because of hate but because of the crime he has committed.
If there wasn't a hell and electric chair people would be justice. It is more to protect the other people. God loves his people and protects them. It is not in His interest to protect the unbeliever cuz they aren't His people. Hell is there so that people are limited to the evil they dare to commit (ofcourse you have a few daredevils but ppl are generally scared to do something if they know which consequences it may bring)
--If you deserve it you will get it-- |
Gandhi was the greatest person to ever live, he and his follower liberated his country through peaceful tactics, he went on hunger strikes to stop religious rioting. He was will to suffer and even die not just to liberate his country but to save lives. But he was Hindu so he's in hell. Dose that sound just? Did he deserve it? No.
God send good people to suffer for all eternity while evil people go to heaven cause he "forgave" them. Thats not a good God, that cruel, evil tyrant. | Moonspider wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Moonspider wrote: | | In the first case, Adam and Eve in the story of the Garden of Eden were in a perfect world. They did not suffer. They did not toil. All things were provided for them and they appear to have been free to do anything except eat from the tree of knowledge. Thus, God did create a world in which humans could not be harmed. |
False. The evidence being, of course, that they were harmed. |
Okay. I’ll concede that one. Although they would never have been harmed provided they obeyed that command, you are right. Harm would come (and did) to them if they disobeyed. |
But of course, God wanted them to come to harm, and to disobey. If he didn't, why did he give them the opportunity to? Was there a need to put the tree there? Was there a reason the serpent was allowed to lie to Eve?
So once again it comes back to the fact that the whole thing was orchestrated to happen the way it did. God knew they would disobey. He set things up so they could, let someone who would tempt and deceive them roam freely and contact them, and stood back and did nothing while they were convinced to disobey and then actually did.
The evidence seems pretty clear that God wanted it to happen. Even granted that God isn't perfectly omnipotent, he's certainly powerful enough to have been able to stop that, and omniscient enough to have known it was going to happen.
So God wanted it to happen. If that's the case, how could Adam and Eve have possibly not disobeyed. God wanted them to - he set everything up so that they would. How could they have outsmarted God? How could they have not done something that God intended for them to do?
i keep getting mixed messages about this. On the one hand, most everyone that believes in God describes him as omnipotent. Even the bible describes him as omnipotent. And you say he is omnipotent. But then i'm told that evil exists because he needs it to, or that we have to be forgiven for our sins before God can accept us, and so on and so forth - all statements that imply that God is not omnipotent. Which is it? Is God omnipotent or is he not?
Observe:
| Moonspider wrote: |
I believe that God can do anything provided that it is not against His nature. Thus I do not mean to imply there is something more powerful than God, since the only thing that limits Him is His own nature, which may make up the spiritual laws underpinning the universe. (The latter being my own supposition of course.)
For example I spoke of redemption earlier. You may argue that the need for redemption contradicts God’s omnipotence because He can do whatever He wants. I simply argue that it is impossible for God to ignore sin and thus nullify the need for redemption, not because He is not omnipotent, but because it contradicts His nature. |
But that - by definition - means that he's not omnipotent. Omnipotent means infinitely powerful, as in capable of doing anything. When you're talking about a being or force that is omnipotent, that means that the word "can't" simply doesn't apply. It's meaningless. There is nothing that an omnipotent being "can't" do. That is the definition of an omnipotent being.
So the moment you say: "it is impossible for God to ignore sin", you're being illogical. You're saying "God can't ignore sin", which would mean that he's not omnipotent.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say he's omnipotent, then say he can't do something.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| As a simpler analogy, God may be omnipotent, but He is incapable of doing evil. Does that mean He is not omnipotent? I don’t think so, although you may disagree. |
Of course i disagree. ^_^ That's like saying he's visible but incapable of being seen. It's self-contradictory, and illogical.
Which means:
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Given the fact that the nature of the test was completely foolish and arbitrary, it's obvious that the test itself didn't matter - it was just a way to provoke Adam and Eve to disobey. |
I don’t consider it foolish or a provocation, just a rule. I don’t think rules inherently provoke people to disobey them, despite the phrase “Rules are made to be broken.”
For example, because humans are free to do whatever they desire, we as communities set rules all the time. Do these laws serve to provoke us into disobedience? Are they foolish? (Given, some may be. ) No, they simply serve to tell humans in a community what behavior is deemed unacceptable. They are not there to provoke us into disobedience. |
i didn't mean that the rule was the cause of the disobedience, i meant that the disobedience would have been impossible without the rule. You can't disobey without a rule to disobey. The fact that that rule was completely arbitrary means that its only purpose was to create a means for disobedience. The rule existed in order for the disobedience to exist, and only for that reason.
Which leads back around to the same conclusion - that God planned for the disobedience, and wanted it to happen. Why? Because there was no purpose to making that rule... other than to give a basis for disobedience. The fact that it existed means that God wanted a means to be disobeyed.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | So now comes the big question: what did God want to happen? Well, given that God is omnipotent and omniscient, the only thing that could have happened is exactly what God wanted to happen. Do you disagree? Do you think it's possible to thwart God's will? |
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9
Yes, I disagree. I don’t think God ever wanted anyone to sin and be condemned. That does not make sense and I believe it insupportable by scripture. |
The problem with scripture is that it is loaded with internal contradictions. The entire field of theological apology revolves around trying to resolve those contradictions.
This is a good example of such contradictions. On the one hand, God is omnipotent. On the other, things happen that he does not want to happen. There is no logical way to resolve those two ideas. One or the other must be false. Just think about it - imagine you were infinitely powerful, and you had the power to control all space and time and bend reality itself to your will. Do you really think that anything could happen that you didn't want to happen? How?
| Moonspider wrote: |
However, you are saying that God, knowing what was going to happen, should have stacked the deck so that it would not happen. This contradicts the concept of a universe in which the sentient beings that inhabit it have complete freedom of action.
However, you seem to believe that God stacked the cards against us. I disagree and originally planned to argue that God did not stack the deck at all. But then your comments during our discussion gave me pause, and I puzzled over this for some time.
Why the fruit of the tree? Why not just draw a circle in the sand? Why not some other test?
You said that God could make it so that no harm came to them from eating the fruit. We both agree that God’s admonition, the one rule he set up according to Genesis, was arguably arbitrary, a means of giving them a choice to obey or disobey.
I also think we both agree that no harm came to Adam and Eve from eating the fruit. All of the consequences, death, toil, etc., were from the disobedience.
So why a “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” as the test? My supposition is that God stacked the deck in Adam and Eve’s favor. God, knowing that Adam and Eve may or would sin, fixed it so that in sinning they would gain a wisdom and knowledge without which they and all humans could not be redeemed.
Thus Adam and Eve could have an idyllic existence if they obeyed God, or if they disobeyed, the fruit would help to provide them with an out, a means by which they could be redeemed.
In this regard, I don’t think Satan was even lying to Eve. I suspect Satan thought God was lying to Adam when He said that the day they ate the fruit they would die. Like many of us, Satan thought God meant the fruit would kill them. Satan knew this not to be true, that the fruit would merely grant them something God did not. Perhaps Satan thought God’s action of withholding this knowledge from them as wrong.
But God fixed the test so that even if they failed, they could eventually still gain heaven.
In the same manner, Satan thought that by killing Jesus Christ he could thwart God’s plan for humanity and his own defeat. However, not fully comprehending God’s plan, Satan’s “success” would prove to be the basis for his ultimate defeat. |
So, essentially, God could not make it harder for us to disobey because that "contradicts" free will (how?). But he can make it easier for us to redeem ourselves, and that's ok. Why? Why is making it harder for us to do one thing wrong, but make it easier for us to do another right? By your logic:
- God making it so that it's much harder to be tempted: WRONG
- God making it so that it's much easier to be redeemed: RIGHT
- God changing our propensity to sin/rebel: WRONG
- God changing our knowledge and wisdom: RIGHT
Does that not smack of a double standard?
And then there's Satan. Satan is extremely problematic for apologists. Your formulation, for example, makes him a hero. And a blithering idiot.
First, the hero: "Perhaps Satan thought God’s action of withholding this knowledge from them as wrong." If that's the case, then Satan was just trying to do what he felt was right, freeing us from what he saw as unjust bonds of slavery. On top of that, he was right. What he wanted to give us is the same thing God wanted to give us, if one uses your interpretation. Satan was being heroic, and doing what God wanted to do, but because he did it without God's permission, God allowed suffering for all of humanity, and eternal suffering for Satan and those who side with him.
Second, the idiot: Much of apologist literature about Satan implicitly assumes Satan is really freaking stupid. A lot of the justification for this is that he is "blinded by pride", but that's completely idiotic in and of itself. If Satan is so disconnected from reality that he thinks he can defeat an omnipotent, omniscient being, then he's hardly much of a threat to anything; he's insane. How is it that Satan can be that crazy, and that dumb, when it's convenient - but when it's convenient for him to be a cunning schemer he becomes that. Satan was God's #1 angel right? Are God's standards that low that his top guy didn't realize when he was orchestrating the crucifixion that he was creating a martyr? Did he really believe that he could get away with thwarting God's plan so trivially simply? Why didn't he kill Jesus as a baby? Or a child? Because he couldn't, right? Because God was protecting him. So then... he didn't think that it was a little weird that all of a sudden he could suddenly pull it off? Come on. Even pulp fiction writers are smarter than that.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| You asked if I thought it possible to thwart God’s will, though. Oh yes, it is possible to thwart God’s will, in that it is possible for beings to sin. As quoted earlier from 2 Peter 3:9, it is not God’s will that anyone should perish. Yet the Bible is replete with examples of beings disobeying God, from Satan’s angelic rebellion to Abraham having a child by his handmaiden. That being said, I believe God, even like us, adapts to changing circumstances. |
An omnipotent being does not have to adapt. An omnipotent being is the proverbial 500 pound gorilla. You don't tell an omnipotent being to adapt to the world, an omnipotent being tells the world to adapt to him.
Those things that you offer as evidence of defiance... are they really? If God did not want them to happen, do you really, really think they could? i don't recall Abraham getting Hagar pregnant was an act of defiance, but let's examine Satan's rebellion. Which of the following stages of the rebellion could God not have known about, and stopped?:
1.) Lucifer's growing dissatisfaction with God.
2.) His idea that he could do a better job.
3.) His idea that he could overthrow God, given enough followers.
4.) His spreading of dissent.
5.) His gathering of followers.
6.) His rallying of followers for the actual rebellion.
7.) The rebellion itself (which is where God finally did step in and put a stop to it... sort of)
Are you telling me that God could not have stopped the whole affair at 1? Or, even before 1?
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Yes, it is awkward in that He can foresee all events. (I personally believe God doesn’t really foresee as we think of it. I believe He is not bound by time, not being part of the creation, and therefore exists simultaneously not just every where but every when.) |
What's the functional difference?
| Moonspider wrote: |
| I’ve often wondered why sentient beings rebel/disobey. According to the Bible, God created two species of sentient beings: angels and humans. Both sinned in rebellion. The only difference was that when the angels rebelled, there was already a multitude of them. Thus some (a third according to the Bible) rebelled whilst the other two-thirds did not. With Adam and Eve there were no other humans (at least not with souls, but then that is another debate about which I disagree with most Christians). And thus all humans thenceforward were born into sin. |
"Born into sin", hm? But, in another infamous biblical contradiction, sometimes it says that sons should not be punished for their fathers' sins (in Deuteronomy), and sometimes it says that they can be (Levitcus).
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | As an analogy, imagine i put you in a cell with a chin-up bar, and told you that if you touched the floor you would be punished. You can hang there until your arms are blue, but eventually you're going to fall and touch the floor, and i will punish you. i know this - i designed the "test" that way. The only difference between me and God is that i didn't actually create gravity, or limit your endurance - if i had done those things then it would be an even better analogy. |
I don’t think that an accurate analogy at all. My failure would be based upon pure physics if you added gravity and limited my endurance as you suggested in the “better” analogy. I’d have no choice but to eventually fail as my arms tired. For this analogy to be true, Adam and Eve would have no choice but to sin. So apparently you are arguing that humans do not truly have free will? |
The analogy stands. Why? Because God is omnipotent, and i have already shown that he wanted Adam and Eve to disobey - otherwise they couldn't have. Unless you want to redefine "omnipotent", then the fact that God wanted Adam and Eve to sin means that they would, regardless of what they wanted.
Now the standard fallback here is to say "well that means that God would not be allowing them free will". Untrue. Take a real life situation for example. Can i manipulate free will? No, i don't have that kind of power, not even close to it. Do you want to eat raw sewage? Let's assume no. Can i make you do it without you wanting to? Sure, i could tie you down and hook a hose up to your mouth. That would be a violation of free will.
BUT! Can i, with finite power, make you do something that is against your natural impulses WITHOUT violating free will? Yes. How? By offering you money. Lots of money. Maybe a hundred bucks. Maybe it will take more... a million. Maybe a hundred billion. Maybe a trillion trillion. Or maybe money isn't enough. Maybe i would have to offer you fame, or power, or maybe there's something specific, like a cure to some disease you have (or i can give you the disease then withhold the cure until you comply). In fact, as long as you are capable of choosing to do something, you can be coerced to do it, provided you can be offered enough incentive. And as long as your incliniation to do that thing is finite, regardless of how small, that incentive will be finite. Which means that even though i am not God, given enough money and power, i can convince you to do anything. It may take a LOT of convincing - more than all the wealth available on Earth - but as long as you have a finite inclination, you will need a finite amount of coercion. That's just the simple math of it (well, as simple as infinite limits get).
As long as you might sin, you can be convinced to sin. Not forced. Convinced. By offering you enough, you will eventually decide to sin on your own. Without forcing our hand either way, God could have designed the cosmos so that Satan was not capable of offering Eve enough to make her choose to sin. That is NOT a violation of free will. As it stands, Satan had to offer very little to Eve.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| We disagree here. Earlier you also said that God’s rule was a foolish provocation. And here you claim that obeying the rule would not be moral but simply coercion. I disagree with it for this reason. |
Are there words missing there? Because the way i'm reading it makes no sense grammatically or logically, and certainly has nothing to do with what i wrote. How can obeying (an action you perform) be coercion (something that makes you perform an action)?
| Moonspider wrote: |
| As I mentioned earlier, we as humans in societies set rules all the time, laws that govern our societies. We do this because humans are free to do whatever they want. No law can physically prevent someone from doing wrong if they so desire. Thus laws are set up to define what behaviors are unacceptable in a given society. They do not provoke us to act illegally as you proposed. On the other hand, is a person who chooses to obey the law simply a victim of coercion? Not always. A person who obeys the speed limit out of fear of getting caught is not being moral. But not all drivers are coerced in that manner. Some actually obey the speed limit out of a desire to obey the speed limit. That, I argue, is moral. |
i say it's not.
(And further, you have completely misinterpreted the meaning of the word "provoke". It doesn't mean "cause", it means "contribute to the cause", "create the circumstances for" or "encourage" - see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/provoke, definition 3 or 4, or the synomyn list. i said the rule provoked the sin. i didn't say it caused it. it encouraged or exacerbated the sin potential because the sin could not have happened without it. It did not actually make the sin happen.)
Any time you peform an action because you have to, you are not being moral or immoral, you are being amoral. Obeying a rule because it's a rule (with no other consideration) is a completely amoral decision. It's neither right nor wrong - you're performing morally at about the same level as a mindless automoton. Obeying the speed limit just for the sake of obeying the speed limit is not a moral choice.
Similarly, obeying the speed limit to avoid being ticketted is neither moral nor immoral. You're not choosing to cause harm, or to minimize harm (except to yourself). You're just avoiding getting hurt. That is not a moral choice, it is an amoral choice.
However, obeying the speed limit because it's safer and will minimize the risk of other people getting hurt is a moral choice. Not because it's the law, but because it is the right thing to do.
After all, not all laws are moral laws. Segregation laws, such as the "Jim Crow" laws were immoral. If you followed those kinds of laws - for example, if you were a teacher and you refused to educate a black child in your white school - would you be moral? By your standard, yes, because you're following society's laws. By mine, no, because whether or not you follow the law has nothing to do with morality - it just so happens that 99% of the time they coincide. When they do, following the law can be moral, but not because you're following the law. When they don't, then it is actually immoral to follow the law.
Or, let's take your example and turn it on its head. What if you were a doctor, and you knew that you had a patient who was dying, who needed you to get to the hospital within 10 minutes. Following the speed limit, it would take you 12 minutes to get there. Is it still moral to follow the speed limit, just because it's the law? Of course not. You have to make your own moral judgement, and decide by judging the traffic on the roads you must travel whether or not the risk of injuring someone else in an accident is unacceptibly high or not. You have to think for yourself, and decide for yourself. You can't just "follow the law" and be moral.
You can't simply acquiesce to the laws of society and call yourself moral. If you're not making moral decisions of your own, then you can't be moral. You would be amoral.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | It wasn't a test of morality. It was a test of blind obedience, and one which they were intended to fail. |
Once again, we’ll disagree on this. A choice to obey or disobey is always a moral choice, whether it be obeying God, your parents, or a government’s laws. One of the definitions of moral is “conforming to the rules of right conduct.” (moral. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved November 10, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral) If Adam and Eve only obeyed out of fear, then yes, you'd be right. However, if they chose to obey of their own volition, of their own free will, then that is moral. Like you said, it is an attitude of the heart. And I don't think either of us is in a position to judge their hearts' attitudes. |
The "rules of right conduct" have nothing to do with laws or rules that people (or gods) set for you. They are determined by what is right, which is far more slippery to define than you seem to think. If it were true that "moral" just meant "following the rules", then everyone who has ever conformed to an immoral law - be it slavery, segregation, or even genocide - is a good person. If the president got "shoot everyone with a turban" signed into law, everyone who did so would be moral.
Clearly that's not true.
Obeying or disobeying a rule is not always a moral choice. If i told you "don't eat pork", and you ignored me, are you evil? Are you good if you obey? No? Then it's not a moral choice. What if i were your district's pastor? Your teacher? Your mayor? Your parent? Your god? Any of those positions change the equation? For me, they don't. Obeying or disobeying the rule is still arbitrary and completely unrelated to any moral basis.
In the case of Adam and Eve, if they had followed the rule out of fear, yes, their obedience would not be moral, or immoral. It would be amoral.
But... if they followed it just because it was a rule... is their obedience now moral? Of course not. That's just mechanical obedience. Toasters follow instructions without question, too - i say toast, they toast; i say how hot and it complies. Are toasters moral? Obeying for the sake of obeying is not moral.
So what conditions would have made obedience moral? Here's the shocker... none.
Obedience is never a moral decision. It is always amoral.
It can become moral or immoral if your obedience happens to involve other factors. For example, obedience becomes moral when you're doing it because you know it's best for everyone that you obey. It becomes immoral when you're doing it despite the fact that you know it's causing harm. But the obedience itself is completely amoral.
Thus, you are never a good person when you just follow the rules. And you are never a bad pesron simply because you do not.
(This is not simply my random opinion: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Morality_in_judicial_systems, where it says "The law considers itself independent of morality, even if the law happens to reflect or intends to reflect morality." Law (rules) and morality, are orthogonal concepts. Morality depents on what is right and wrong morally, not legally or by any other system of rules.)
So Adam and Eve would not have been good if they had simply obeyed God because it seemed like the thing to do. They would have been good if they obeyed God because it would prevent anyone from getting hurt - but then it's not the obedience that would make the act good, but the desire to prevent suffering. Disobedience would not have been immoral unless it would harm someone. So punishing them for disobeying a rule that was arbitrary and meaningless is not just, it's just cruel.
At this point, you probably want to say "but it DID cause harm, people have been suffering ever since". BUT WAIT! There's a problem there, because they did not have the knowledge of the consequences of their sin until after they ate the fruit. They were told they would die (and then they were told, convincingly, that that was a lie). They were not told that anyone else would die or suffer because of them. It's like telling someone "if you push that button, you will receive an electric shock and die", then the push the button and receive the shock, but don't die, then you tell them "well, you will die eventually for pushing that button, and in addition to that, i'm going to go and kill all your friends".
So although we can't determine what Adam and Eve were thinking when they disobeyed, we know this much: they were not aware of the consequences of their sin when they sinned. All they knew is that they were not doing what God told them to do (or rather, doing what he told them not to do). They did not know that billions of humans would suffer because of them. Thus their act was disobedient, but not immoral.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Even everyday Judaistic faith is amoral. You're not doing good for the purpose of doing good, you're doing it because you were told to and will be punished if you don't. Your test, the test for which you will be judged on judgement day, is not to be moral, it is to obey - unquestioningly. Morality just doesn't enter the equation. |
What you just defined and gave as an example is religion, not faith. There is a huge difference, as Jesus often pointed out to the Pharisees and others. Furthermore, in Christianity your salvation depends solely upon accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, not obedience in anything else. The criminal on the cross who believed is an example. After he believed, he had not the time to do anything “good” before he died.
Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise. Luke 23:43 |
Where is this huge difference? All you've done is remove even the pretense of morality. Now you are punished NOT for being evil, but for simply not accepting Jesus as your saviour. You just made Christianity even less moral than i already had.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Gandhi was the greatest person to ever live, he and his follower liberated his country through peaceful tactics, he went on hunger strikes to stop religious rioting. He was will to suffer and even die not just to liberate his country but to save lives. But he was Hindu so he's in hell. Dose that sound just? Did he deserve it? No. |
(Ah, actually. >_< Ghandi was far from a nice person, let alone the greatest. He did and said many things over the course of his life that were, at best, questionable. Many of those he supposedly overcame as he became more "enlightened", but there are still things that remain largely unaccounted for.)While I do not think that the Bible is internally consistent, it does seem that, as others have said, the Biblical view would not include Satan having control over hell. Satan has power in this world only. Hell is supposedly either for his destruction or eternal torment (in comes the inconsistency).
The goodness of God is another matter entirely. I also can not see how a god who acts like a four year old could be considered good, but, oh, well.
(claps hands) All these big posts. 
But where does it say in the Bible that Adam, Eve, Seth, Noah, Joseph, Moses, even Jesus was saved?! So how did they get in Heaven? I wish to know, as