Just read a cute explanation as to why God allows suffering etc
A conversation between two people:-
Why does God allow hurting in the world.
God acts like a father.
Whats that got to do with anything?
As a father would you allow your son or daughter to learn to skateboard?
Yes came the reply
But you are well aware that your son will fall off and skin his knees, and yet you still allow it to happen.
Well we all have to learn some time and a little hurt makes us learn and remember.
So you allow your offspring to learn through experiance which sometimes is painful. Thats just what God the Father is doing with his "offspring".
Oh I see now. Hmm.. try the less cute dialogue.
God acts like a father
What's that got to do with anything
As a father would you subject your son or daughter to possible death by a hurricane, earthquake, tsunami or other natural disaster?
No, of course not.
Oops. What exactly is being learned when someone dies of disease or natural disaster? Or an entire city is destroyed by flood or earthquake? The analogy between skateboarding and the other terrible things that occur on this planet is pretty darn absurd.
You can put whatever spin on it you want and add cute little ideas, but none of it adds up in the end because there is nothing to add up.
| Quote: |
| The analogy between skateboarding and the other terrible things that occur on this planet is pretty darn absurd. |
It depends on whether you are looking looking at the human kind as individuals, or the "race" as one single substance. It's just a way of thinking, that's all. | Shewolf wrote: |
| It's just a way of thinking, that's all. |
"Thinking"? ^_^; Is that what is supposed to be happening here? ^_^
Alright, then. Let's give that a try.
Why does God allow hurting in the world.
God acts like a father.
Whats that got to do with anything?
As a father would you allow your son or daughter to learn to skateboard?
Yes came the reply
But you are well aware that your son will fall off and skin his knees, and yet you still allow it to happen.
Well we all have to learn some time and a little hurt makes us learn and remember.
So you allow your offspring to learn through experiance which sometimes is painful. Thats just what God the Father is doing with his "offspring".
Oh I see n- ... wait a minute! You say God acts like a father, right?
Yes, he does.
As a father, would you deliberately do something to your child that will cause them pain and suffering in the future for no good reason?
No, of course not.
So why would you make them vulnerable to skateboarding injury?
What?
Look, my father didn't choose to make my bones breakable, did he? That's kinda what he had to deal with because of the way i was born. If he could have chosen, wouldn't he have made me virtually invincible, like Superman or something?
Uh,... well....
But God does have that choice. When he created me, he could have made me invulnerable to skateboarding. If he really loves me like a father, and a father would want that, why didn't God?
Well, he must have had his ~m~y~s~t~e~r~i~o~u~s~ ~r~e~a~s~o~n~s~ that are beyond human understanding....
Riiiiiight. (Not impressed.) And i'm not finished. Even if skateboarding has to be dangerous, for whatever "mysterious reasons", it doesn't have to be true that we have to want to do it. Do you have any hungering urge to eat live poisonous snakes whole? Or light yourself on fire? No, probably not - most humans don't. But you do have an urge to go out and try adventurous and dangerous things like skateboarding, don't you?
Well....
So if God created us without a desire to completely self-destruct and drink Draino 24/7... why didn't he create us without a desire to do dangerous things, like skateboarding, or sleeping around? If i was this God-father, and i was creating humans, and i knew that skateboarding would hurt them but could not do anything to make skateboarding less dangerous... well then the obvious thing to do would be to make humans who didn't want to do dangerous things like skateboarding.
But God had to give us free choice-!
Ah-ah-ah! Nice try! You see, we can freely choose to drink Draino right now... but we have been created without the inclination. On the other hand, we can freely choose to have sex with multiple partners, skydive, skateboard, and a whole host of other dangerous things... and we have been created with the inclination. God did that. Why? A loving father would not. He would either prevent these things from being harmful, or make us not inclined to do them. God did neither.
Well... uh... God is God and he's beyond human understanding and reasoning!
Then why did you try to explain him to me using human understanding and reasoning?
....I bow in deference
Much better than mine 
| Shewolf wrote: |
| Quote: | | The analogy between skateboarding and the other terrible things that occur on this planet is pretty darn absurd. |
It depends on whether you are looking looking at the human kind as individuals, or the "race" as one single substance. It's just a way of thinking, that's all. |
The human rase (us) learn indeed certain things about vulcano erruptions, tornado's, some dangerous virus(smallpox) etc. And prevent future fatalyties with what we learn, however if they weren't there we didn't need that information. So what do we learn as a race from other people getting killed because of some natural disaster or rampaging virus? What we can use for other purposes (exept preventing people get killed)?
So wouldn't we better of WITHOUT all those things?
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:12 pm; edited 1 time in totalHonestly, I think this argument is a ridiculous one. For both believers and non-believers. Accidents and death and suffering are unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with God. This would be a pretty crappy world if we didn't respect life. You can't respect life if you're not afraid of dying. Yes, people suffer. Yes, it's horrible. But if God set us down on earth and made every decision for us and protected us from every incident, would you want to live in it? I wouldn't. Then I wouldn't be in control of my life. Or mankind, in general, wouldn't be in control. We need to learn for ourselves.
If you don't believe in God, then it doesn't matter anyway. If you do believe in God, then your belief says you die and go to heaven. How you arrive at your final destination, whatever it may be, is controlled by nobody but you and people near you. Natural disasters are just that. Natural. If you're a believer, then realize that this world is based on a set of rules. If you're a nonbeliever who considers himself a scientist, you already know this. Disasters occur because that's how things work. God isn't a sadist, if He exists. He just gave us freedom.
I think you miss the point.
To say that accidents and death have nothing to do with God is to deny that God is omnipotent.
God could quite easily have left us free-will without allowing children and babies to be killed in 'natural' accidents - simply put us on a planet where those things do not happen. If you are Christian you believe that God put us here, on this particular planet. That was a choice he made. He therefore chose to put us in a situation where 'evil' things would happen that would kill innocent people - that has nothing to do with free-will. Does a baby killed in a tsunami believe in God? Does it die as a result of human choices?
As Indi has pointed out - free will is a relative term. We have 'urges' and 'desires' to do some things and we do not have the same desires to do others. Most people have no desire to set themselves on fire. Does that mean that God denied us free-will? No of course not - we just don't exercise the free-will in that instance. In that case why give us urges and desires to do things which are potentially harmful or even fatal? That could rightly be defined as sadistic.
If you are not religious, like me, then of course you would say that natural disasters are just a part of life - shit happens. If you are religious, however, I cannot see how you can say that, since you surely believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient...
| Bikerman wrote: |
I bow in deference
Much better than mine |
Oh, i don't know about that. The saying is "short and sweet", after all, not "verbose and sweet". ^_^;Saying that shit happens doesn't mean that I deny the fact that God is omnipotent nor omniscient. You do bring up a good point, though. The only thing that comes to mind is the idea that perhaps you have to have these things to truly understand the good. Even that could be wrong. It's difficult to speculate on what a being that may or may not exist would or would not do. And if someone truly believes that He is omnipotent and omniscient... one would have to believe what He did was in somebody's best interests. It is a circular argument both ways. It's the same idea as manipulating a philosophy to best suit a person's beliefs. When you hear a situation, normally you develop a gut reaction right away as to the correct solution to a puzzle. Then, you try to come up with reasons to support your claim.
In the case of Utilitarianism, we could say: The greatest good is no suffering. Or the greatest good is people with knowledge and brilliance to overcome suffering. Or... really, anything.
So for non believers: God is omniscient and omnipotent. Everything that happens is because of Him. He intended suffering, then, because it exists and He is omniscient and omnipotent. Answer: He can't exist then.
For believers: God is omniscient and omnipotent. Everything that happens is because of Him. He intended suffering then because it exists. But He is omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, he knows what He's doing. Answer: This person is perfectly content.
The problem is that if you take the premise: God is omniscient and omnipotent. Then try to apply it to problems that affect your personal experiences, the outcome would be different. This is what I mean by... this is a non issue.
| ericf wrote: |
| Saying that shit happens doesn't mean that I deny the fact that God is omnipotent nor omniscient. You do bring up a good point, though. The only thing that comes to mind is the idea that perhaps you have to have these things to truly understand the good. Even that could be wrong. It's difficult to speculate on what a being that may or may not exist would or would not do. And if someone truly believes that He is omnipotent and omniscient... one would have to believe what He did was in somebody's best interests. It is a circular argument both ways. It's the same idea as manipulating a philosophy to best suit a person's beliefs. When you hear a situation, normally you develop a gut reaction right away as to the correct solution to a puzzle. Then, you try to come up with reasons to support your claim. |
Well it is difficult to see how it could be in the best interest of an infant to die in a disaster isn't it?
| Quote: |
| In the case of Utilitarianism, we could say: The greatest good is no suffering. Or the greatest good is people with knowledge and brilliance to overcome suffering. Or... really, anything. |
No. In utilitarianism the morality of an action is dependant solely on its contribution to the general happiness
| Quote: |
| So for non believers: God is omniscient and omnipotent. Everything that happens is because of Him. He intended suffering, then, because it exists and He is omniscient and omnipotent. Answer: He can't exist then. |
No that does not follow. God could be a sadist, or he might not give a monkeys.
| Quote: |
| For believers: God is omniscient and omnipotent. Everything that happens is because of Him. He intended suffering then because it exists. But He is omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, he knows what He's doing. Answer: This person is perfectly content. |
Still doesn't explain how the infant benefits from the deal, or how God's decision to let the infant die is morally just, unless you posit that the death of innocents is simply a way to make the rest of us better in some way - which seems a rather immoral approach to me...Erm. Just thought I'd say the conversation in the first post is taken almost directly from a chapter of Angels & Demons (prequel to the Da Vinci Code). | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Erm. Just thought I'd say the conversation in the first post is taken almost directly from a chapter of Angels & Demons (prequel to the Da Vinci Code). |
Ahh...that's strangely fitting... | Quote: |
| Well it is difficult to see how it could be in the best interest of an infant to die in a disaster isn't it? |
Exactly. The point was that if He's omniscient and you're not, then he must have some other motive that you simply don't understand.
| Quote: |
No. In utilitarianism the morality of an action is dependant solely on its contribution to the general happiness |
I realize. I've read Mill's Utilitarianism. But this is an example and you're arguing semantics rather than trying to understand what I'm saying. An argument for the sake of arguing. The point is that you can take any philosophy and twist it into what you want. According to your definition, my point still stands. You can argue that the greatest happiness will result from no suffering. But you can also argue that the greatest happiness will result from the satisfaction that people feel when working together through hardship. The problem is that none of this is quantitative and so ridiculous claims can be made in either direction and when done appropriately, both sound plausible. I may have not, with my example, given my argument justice but you get the gist.
Probably a better example would be... You're an ambulance driver who always lives by Utilitarianism. You get a call. There are 5 bums you are sure to save on the west side of town and 1 doctor on the east side of town. You are the only person who can get to either. You can either say, "I follow Utilitarianism! I will save the 5 since 5 people achieving higher happiness will be greater than the 1 person." Or you could say, "I follow Utilitarianism! I will save the doctor since he has the potential to save many more people than the 5 bums." Same premise: different outcomes. The reason is that the metric is undefined.
| Quote: |
| No that does not follow. God could be a sadist, or he might not give a monkeys. |
What? Again, that has no bearing on what I was trying to say. I was remarking on the idea that premises cannot rely on conclusions and vice versa. Arguments cannot be a two-way street. A novel is a bunch of papers with words on them, but a bunch of papers with words on them is not necessarily a novel. The conclusion of those statements were irrelevant.
| Quote: |
| Still doesn't explain how the infant benefits from the deal, or how God's decision to let the infant die is morally just, unless you posit that the death of innocents is simply a way to make the rest of us better in some way - which seems a rather immoral approach to me... |
Again, if you concede to the fact that he's omnipotent and omniscient, then you must realize you're not and thus, cannot be certain that there is no benefit which outweighs the morals. If you think about it, Christians believe in heaven. An afterlife which is much better, presumably, than life on earth. Isn't the death of an infant, then, better for the child? (I'm waiting for you to retort that I'm advocating the death of everyone to enter into the afterlife prematurely and thus, be happier and I'm not. I'm saying that it is not outside the realm of possibility that God actually does have a reason for what He does, if He exists.) | ericf wrote: |
| Quote: | | Well it is difficult to see how it could be in the best interest of an infant to die in a disaster isn't it? |
Exactly. The point was that if He's omniscient and you're not, then he must have some other motive that you simply don't understand. |
Well this sounds familiar. ^_^;
Well... uh... God is God and he's beyond human understanding and reasoning!
Then why did you try to explain him to me using human understanding and reasoning?
But in all seriousness, if you claim that God is both omnipotent and omniscient, then there can be no possible reason for suffering. No, not "no reason that we can see or understand" - no reason at all. None.
Why? If God really is omnipotent, then he can theoretically do anything (you can decide whether you want to allow him to be able to illogical things or not - it doesn't matter for this argument), and no one or nothing can stop him. Moral frameworks that we - humans - have developed (like utilitarianism, if that's what you're into) are implicitly defined with human limitations in mind: "the greatest good for the greatest number" is actually "the greatest good for the greatest number that we can manage given our capabilities."
See the problem now? Our capabilities are limited, so we cannot give the greatest good to all. In your ambulance driver case, we can only save the five bums or the one doctor - not both. Our capabilities are limited by the speed of the ambulance and the limit of medical technology. But God is - you say - omnipotent. His capabilities are most certainly not limited, by definition. He could save all six people. There is no reason for any of them to suffer at all.
If there is something that force God to choose who must suffer and who must not, then God is not omnipotent - he is subservient to that greater law. It's not a matter of whether we can see the reason or not - if the reason exists at all, then God is not omnipotent.
But really, it wouldn't even take omnipotence to eliminate all human suffering at all. Seriously, it wouldn't be that hard. We humans could theoretically manage it if we increased our technology - and not by that much, really. If we could build a Dyson Sphere and decent farming robots - bam! - hunger and over-population... solved. If we could develop technological replacements for our bodies that don't feel pain or suffer illness - bam! - no more hurting or disease, or death. We can't do these things now, but it is not that crazy to suggest we will be capable of it some day. So... why couldn't God do it from the start? If he's at least as powerful as we humans will be in two or three hundred years, he has the capability. If he's omniscient, and i can figure it out, then why couldn't he? | ericf wrote: |
| Honestly, I think this argument is a ridiculous one. For both believers and non-believers. Accidents and death and suffering are unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with God. |
WhaTF? god supposedly loves us all, and preventing us from getting killed is pretty easy for an omnipotent being. If ayou're wife is going to die, all you have to do is push a button and she lives, well god has that button and doesn't use it. Yes he really loves us...
| ericf wrote: |
| This would be a pretty crappy world if we didn't respect life. You can't respect life if you're not afraid of dying. Yes, people suffer. Yes, it's horrible. But if God set us down on earth and made every decision for us and protected us from every incident, would you want to live in it? I wouldn't. |
Firstly how do you know it would be bad if we still respected life. HE MAKES decisions for us by starting a vulcano erruption in our face. Also we all die eventually you don't need natural disaster to do that for us, it is "random" or grosly unfair by god.
| ericf wrote: |
| Then I wouldn't be in control of my life. Or mankind, in general, wouldn't be in control. We need to learn for ourselves. |
Still with "random" natural disasters we could make more choises ourselves.
| ericf wrote: |
| If you don't believe in God, then it doesn't matter anyway. If you do believe in God, then your belief says you die and go to heaven. How you arrive at your final destination, whatever it may be, is controlled by nobody but you and people near you. |
Hmm you mean that when we we "go" to somewhere if we believed in it? So when I die I don't exist anymore and when you die you go to heaven/hell?
| ericf wrote: |
| Natural disasters are just that. Natural. If you're a believer, then realize that this world is based on a set of rules. If you're a nonbeliever who considers himself a scientist, you already know this. Disasters occur because that's how things work. God isn't a sadist, if He exists. He just gave us freedom. |
I'm not a scientist but I do know that there are rules this earth goes by tectonicplatesetc. explaines why there are vulcanoes, earthquakes etc.etc.etc. However a god could have easily created an earth without those things.
| ericf wrote: |
| Quote: | | Well it is difficult to see how it could be in the best interest of an infant to die in a disaster isn't it? |
Exactly. The point was that if He's omniscient and you're not, then he must have some other motive that you simply don't understand. |
Aside that this argument is totaly lame and the usually the "last stand" of people who advocate a god who is omnipotent etc.
WHY don't we understand god's motives, couldn't he let us understand? How hard is it, if I do something to someone and he/she doesn't understand why, I'll try to explain why I do that
Unless I am a sadist and try to do some bad things to them. Example like when I try to kill them because I am a psycho I wouldn't bother why i did that. | ericf wrote: |
| Quote: | | No that does not follow. God could be a sadist, or he might not give a monkeys. |
What? Again, that has no bearing on what I was trying to say. I was remarking on the idea that premises cannot rely on conclusions and vice versa. Arguments cannot be a two-way street. A novel is a bunch of papers with words on them, but a bunch of papers with words on them is not necessarily a novel. The conclusion of those statements were irrelevant. |
No it wasn't. There are metrics which apply to the statement which mean that it is plain wrong (it is logically flawed). If you wanted to give an example then you should have used a defensible argument.
| Quote: |
| Again, if you concede to the fact that he's omnipotent and omniscient, then you must realize you're not and thus, cannot be certain that there is no benefit which outweighs the morals. If you think about it, Christians believe in heaven. An afterlife which is much better, presumably, than life on earth. Isn't the death of an infant, then, better for the child? (I'm waiting for you to retort that I'm advocating the death of everyone to enter into the afterlife prematurely and thus, be happier and I'm not. I'm saying that it is not outside the realm of possibility that God actually does have a reason for what He does, if He exists.) |
Well, presuming the infant is not baptised then this would be a grey area wouldn't it? Would the infant actually go to heaven with the stain of original sin unwashed? Most Christians dilly-dally around this issue. One version of Catholic theology is that such infants go to Limbo (on the outskirts of hell). Obviously this is distasteful to many believers so they tend to sweep the matter under the carpet as much as possible and you don't see much mention of Limbo nowadays. The 'hardline' interpretation is that these infants are damned and go to hell. Obviously this is even more distasteful to believers so this doesn't get mentioned at all from the pulpit. Various theologians have tried to make a case for such infants eventually attaining a state of grace and going to heaven but the reasoning is a classic example of theological double-speak and gibberish... | Quote: |
Well this sounds familiar. ^_^;
Cool Well... uh... God is God and he's beyond human understanding and reasoning!
Confused Then why did you try to explain him to me using human understanding and reasoning?
...
Aside that this argument is totaly lame and the usually the "last stand" of people who advocate a god who is omnipotent etc.
WHY don't we understand god's motives, couldn't he let us understand? How hard is it, if I do something to someone and he/she doesn't understand why, I'll try to explain why I do that
Unless I am a sadist and try to do some bad things to them. Example like when I try to kill them because I am a psycho I wouldn't bother why i did that.
|
This is true. It is a cop-out, but just that doesn't mean it is untrue. I've never once said in this discussion whether or not I believe in God. I'm just open to the possibility. The fact that we, as humans, are so limited even if we are the most advanced animals we've heard about leaves me open to the idea that as brilliant as we think we are, we can't reason ourselves out of everything. We can try damn hard. I'm open to that as well and I do try, but chances are likely we won't find anything out regarding this discussion within our lifetimes.
When you think about the way the brain works and how it can be influenced by chemicals or damage and the person can believe a whole different reality to the core of their being, you realize how imperfect we are and how skewed our reality can become. Like the idea of an observer altering the state of an object by observing it. For all the observer knows, they are observing the object in its natural state, but simply by observing it, the object has changed and the observer is incorrect. That's why I'm open to the possibility.
| Quote: |
| Why? If God really is omnipotent, then he can theoretically do anything (you can decide whether you want to allow him to be able to illogical things or not - it doesn't matter for this argument), and no one or nothing can stop him. Moral frameworks that we - humans - have developed (like utilitarianism, if that's what you're into) are implicitly defined with human limitations in mind: "the greatest good for the greatest number" is actually "the greatest good for the greatest number that we can manage given our capabilities. |
| Quote: |
| WhaTF? god supposedly loves us all, and preventing us from getting killed is pretty easy for an omnipotent being. If ayou're wife is going to die, all you have to do is push a button and she lives, well god has that button and doesn't use it. Yes he really loves us... |
I'm just going to quote a snippet, but refer to this and the paragraphs below as well. So now we say, "Ok, He's omnipotent." Why doesn't he do this? Why doesn't he do that? Eliminate suffering altogether? Again, this is questioning the motives of something we know nothing about. This is where the Christian fails to give a good answer. This is the 'cop-out' I referred to earlier. Because a believer doesn't know the answer to the question, "Why are things the way they are?" besides saying this. When they try to answer, they say "God works in mysterious ways" or "He is beyond our understanding." The problem is those arguments rely on the assumption that God exists. That is where faith sets in. Personally, I don't know for sure and I don't claim to.
--
| Quote: |
Firstly how do you know it would be bad if we still respected life. HE MAKES decisions for us by starting a vulcano erruption in our face. Also we all die eventually you don't need natural disaster to do that for us, it is "random" or grosly unfair by god.
Still with "random" natural disasters we could make more choises ourselves. |
I'm sorry, can you clarify your meaning? Are you saying that since we all die anyway, it doesn't matter whether it's a natural disaster or not? If so, I think I addressed that above.
| Quote: |
| Hmm you mean that when we we "go" to somewhere if we believed in it? So when I die I don't exist anymore and when you die you go to heaven/hell? |
??? I'm saying that's what people's BELIEF is. A believer says you go to heaven or hell and a nonbeliever says life ends when you die here. I hope we're not disputing that fact?
| Quote: |
| No it wasn't. There are metrics which apply to the statement which mean that it is plain wrong (it is logically flawed). If you wanted to give an example then you should have used a defensible argument. |
Yes it was. Maybe I'm unable to properly convey my meaning and if that's the case, I apologize. I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing. I am agreeing that it is logically flawed which is why the conclusion to the statements are irrelevant. The whole point of what I said was that you could arrive at different conclusions through the use of flawed logic in the intermediary steps between proposition and conclusion.
| Quote: |
| Well, presuming the infant is not baptised then this would be a grey area wouldn't it? Would the infant actually go to heaven with the stain of original sin unwashed? Most Christians dilly-dally around this issue. One version of Catholic theology is that such infants go to Limbo (on the outskirts of hell). Obviously this is distasteful to many believers so they tend to sweep the matter under the carpet as much as possible and you don't see much mention of Limbo nowadays. The 'hardline' interpretation is that these infants are damned and go to hell. Obviously this is even more distasteful to believers so this doesn't get mentioned at all from the pulpit. Various theologians have tried to make a case for such infants eventually attaining a state of grace and going to heaven but the reasoning is a classic example of theological double-speak and gibberish... |
It feels like we're going around in circles. But, I agree. It is a gray area. This is again trying to question the motives for something we know nothing about. I'm not going to argue for a specific sect that believes one thing about a certain aspect of belief. I wanted a discussion on the broader question, "is there a God? - a higher power?" Still, the point of what I was saying was there is a possibility that what happens to these infants is 'for the best.' And there still is that possibility. The idea that these theologians came up with double-speak and gibberish proves it. It may be double-speak and it may be gibberish and they absolutely don't have any data to back up their claims... but who's to say if God exists that He doesn't work that way? We can't be sure unless the believers are right, then we die. If the believers are wrong, we'll die and that'll be it and we'll never know. | ericf wrote: |
| Quote: | | No it wasn't. There are metrics which apply to the statement which mean that it is plain wrong (it is logically flawed). If you wanted to give an example then you should have used a defensible argument. |
Yes it was. Maybe I'm unable to properly convey my meaning and if that's the case, I apologize. I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing. I am agreeing that it is logically flawed which is why the conclusion to the statements are irrelevant. The whole point of what I said was that you could arrive at different conclusions through the use of flawed logic in the intermediary steps between proposition and conclusion. |
No apology necessary or required. The point is that it is possible to construct a system of logic from scripture that is not fundamentally flawed. It is difficult, for sure, since scripture contains much that is apocryphyl or at least wildely inaccurate.* The only honest approach is to treat scripture literally and interpret parables where they are clearly meant as such. This leads to certain conclusions which are ridiculous in the face of modern science and unacceptible in the face of modern ethics/morality...them's the breaks..
| Quote: |
| It feels like we're going around in circles. But, I agree. It is a gray area. This is again trying to question the motives for something we know nothing about. I'm not going to argue for a specific sect that believes one thing about a certain aspect of belief. I wanted a discussion on the broader question, "is there a God? - a higher power?" Still, the point of what I was saying was there is a possibility that what happens to these infants is 'for the best.' And there still is that possibility. The idea that these theologians came up with double-speak and gibberish proves it. It may be double-speak and it may be gibberish and they absolutely don't have any data to back up their claims... but who's to say if God exists that He doesn't work that way? We can't be sure unless the believers are right, then we die. If the believers are wrong, we'll die and that'll be it and we'll never know. |
I see no such possibility. They (unbaptised infants) either go to hell or they go to limbo. Neither of those options is 'for the best'. The double-speak of theologians is used to try and avoid that conclusion - the bible is pretty clear on the matter.
If you can think of a way in which this 'is for the best' then please ellucidate it. The notion that 'we cannot know therefore it is still possible' does not wash. The bible prescribes certain actions which are supposed to lead to the ultimate reward in heaven. If infants are to be denied that reward through no fault and because of something beyond human control then I would wish to know what possible morality applies here....
*apologies to Douglas Adams (though I am sure he would have approved in the context).You are all looking far to deep into this...very simple answer
a) God does not exist
b) God could really care less
| Bikerman wrote: |
| ericf wrote: | | Quote: | | No it wasn't. There are metrics which apply to the statement which mean that it is plain wrong (it is logically flawed). If you wanted to give an example then you should have used a defensible argument. |
Yes it was. Maybe I'm unable to properly convey my meaning and if that's the case, I apologize. I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing. I am agreeing that it is logically flawed which is why the conclusion to the statements are irrelevant. The whole point of what I said was that you could arrive at different conclusions through the use of flawed logic in the intermediary steps between proposition and conclusion. |
No apology necessary or required. The point is that it is possible to construct a system of logic from scripture that is not fundamentally flawed. It is difficult, for sure, since scripture contains much that is apocryphyl or at least wildely inaccurate.* The only honest approach is to treat scripture literally and interpret parables where they are clearly meant as such. This leads to certain conclusions which are ridiculous in the face of modern science and unacceptible in the face of modern ethics/morality...them's the breaks.. |
I don't quite understand why the only honest approach is to treat scriptures literally and interpret parables where clearly meant. The problem with that is the hand of God didn't come down to write down the scripture. And even if, at some point, he decided to guide the hand of man to write... the Bible has been edited by the church several times. I would imagine the only honest approach is to try to do as we're doing and discuss and refine our own ideas through discussion and analysis.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | It feels like we're going around in circles. But, I agree. It is a gray area. This is again trying to question the motives for something we know nothing about. I'm not going to argue for a specific sect that believes one thing about a certain aspect of belief. I wanted a discussion on the broader question, "is there a God? - a higher power?" Still, the point of what I was saying was there is a possibility that what happens to these infants is 'for the best.' And there still is that possibility. The idea that these theologians came up with double-speak and gibberish proves it. It may be double-speak and it may be gibberish and they absolutely don't have any data to back up their claims... but who's to say if God exists that He doesn't work that way? We can't be sure unless the believers are right, then we die. If the believers are wrong, we'll die and that'll be it and we'll never know. |
I see no such possibility. They (unbaptised infants) either go to hell or they go to limbo. Neither of those options is 'for the best'. The double-speak of theologians is used to try and avoid that conclusion - the bible is pretty clear on the matter.
If you can think of a way in which this 'is for the best' then please ellucidate it. The notion that 'we cannot know therefore it is still possible' does not wash. The bible prescribes certain actions which are supposed to lead to the ultimate reward in heaven. If infants are to be denied that reward through no fault and because of something beyond human control then I would wish to know what possible morality applies here....
*apologies to Douglas Adams (though I am sure he would have approved in the context). |
Is the idea that they'd go to heaven ruled out? We've been acting so far as if God were a rulebook with no mind. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be difficult for Him to realize that a baby wouldn't deserve hell or even limbo. He is God, after all. He's probably not stupid. If you're saying the Bible is pretty clear on the matter that an unbaptized child would go to hell, I'm not sure I buy that. Isn't baptism supposed to be a spiritual cleansing? If the child is unmarred, how can it be that big of a problem?
Ahh, a Douglas Adams fan, eh? Have you read So Long and Thanks for all the Fish: a tribute to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy author Douglas Adams by Helen Stringer? If not, you should. She gathered a ton of his unpublished and obscure published works in that book, including a lot of his ideas of God and his arrival at atheism.
___
| Quote: |
You are all looking far to deep into this...very simple answer
a) God does not exist
b) God could really care less |
Oh snap! It's so simple! He doesn't exist and He also cares because He can care less! Look, again, I'm totally open to debate and to different points of view... but the reason we're having this discussion is to find out more about things. I'm taking everything everyone says and mulling over it for a long time. I've come into this discussion willing to be swayed by arguments. If you feel like elaborating on your nonsensical claims, feel free and I'll pay attention. | ericf wrote: |
| I don't quite understand why the only honest approach is to treat scriptures literally and interpret parables where clearly meant. The problem with that is the hand of God didn't come down to write down the scripture. And even if, at some point, he decided to guide the hand of man to write... the Bible has been edited by the church several times. I would imagine the only honest approach is to try to do as we're doing and discuss and refine our own ideas through discussion and analysis. |
Christians believe that the bible is the inspired word of God and therefore the only honest approach is the one I gave. For me, as an atheist, I don't think anything of the sort and so I can take a variety of approaches.
| Quote: |
| Is the idea that they'd go to heaven ruled out? We've been acting so far as if God were a rulebook with no mind. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be difficult for Him to realize that a baby wouldn't deserve hell or even limbo. He is God, after all. He's probably not stupid. If you're saying the Bible is pretty clear on the matter that an unbaptized child would go to hell, I'm not sure I buy that. Isn't baptism supposed to be a spiritual cleansing? If the child is unmarred, how can it be that big of a problem? |
If you read the bible you will see repeated references to salvation through knowing the Lord/accepting the Lord. You can only be 'saved' according to Christian scripture (NT), by accepting Christ as your saviour. Since babies cannot make that 'acceptance' then......
According to Catholicism (the 'original Christianity' - or at least one of them ) | wiki wrote: |
| The liturgy of baptism in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and Methodist traditions makes clear reference to baptism as not only a symbolic burial and resurrection, but an actual supernatural transformation, one that draws parallels to the experience of Noah and the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea divided by Moses. Thus, baptism is literally and symbolically not only cleansing, but also dying and rising again with Christ. Catholics believe that baptism is necessary for the cleansing of the taint of original sin, and for that reason infant baptism is a common practice. |
I agree that this is a horrible view - I find it repulsive. That is, however, what they believe (or at least what they sign-up to when they say they are Catholic). | Quote: |
| Ahh, a Douglas Adams fan, eh? Have you read So Long and Thanks for all the Fish: a tribute to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy author Douglas Adams by Helen Stringer? If not, you should. She gathered a ton of his unpublished and obscure published works in that book, including a lot of his ideas of God and his arrival at atheism. |
No but I will look out for it... | ericf wrote: |
| Quote: | Firstly how do you know it would be bad if we still respected life. HE MAKES decisions for us by starting a vulcano erruption in our face. Also we all die eventually you don't need natural disaster to do that for us, it is "random" or grosly unfair by god.
Still with "random" natural disasters we could make more choises ourselves. |
I'm sorry, can you clarify your meaning? Are you saying that since we all die anyway, it doesn't matter whether it's a natural disaster or not? If so, I think I addressed that above. |
You said something like we need to value life, people already do, they don't need a natural disaster to kill somerandom people to make clear that life can stop. We already die anyway because we get old or by the hands of others. Natural disasters don't make a lot of sense for the sake of that argument:
| ericf wrote: |
| This would be a pretty crappy world if we didn't respect life. You can't respect life if you're not afraid of dying. Yes, people suffer. Yes, it's horrible. But if God set us down on earth and made every decision for us and protected us from every incident, would you want to live in it? I wouldn't. |
And why do a few random people suffer for the sake of others?
--
| ericf wrote: |
| Quote: | | Hmm you mean that when we we "go" to somewhere if we believed in it? So when I die I don't exist anymore and when you die you go to heaven/hell? |
??? I'm saying that's what people's BELIEF is. A believer says you go to heaven or hell and a nonbeliever says life ends when you die here. I hope we're not disputing that fact? |
I said that because you said:
| ericf wrote: |
| If you don't believe in God, then it doesn't matter anyway. If you do believe in God, then your belief says you die and go to heaven. How you arrive at your final destination, whatever it may be, is controlled by nobody but you and people near you. |
How it doesn't matter? Creationists try to explain everything to us and then it doesn't matter?
And every one has the same final destination, either nothing, heaven/hell or reincarnation etc. | ericf wrote: |
| The fact that we, as humans, are so limited even if we are the most advanced animals we've heard about leaves me open to the idea that as brilliant as we think we are, we can't reason ourselves out of everything. We can try damn hard. I'm open to that as well and I do try, but chances are likely we won't find anything out regarding this discussion within our lifetimes. |
There comes a point where you cross out of the realm of faith and into the realm of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA" really loudly.
Humility is all fine and good, but temper it with realism. We may not have "god-like" intellects, but we're not stupid. We're certainly smart enough to answer some pretty damn complicated questions, as our considerable social and technological advancement demonstrates.
But this question really isn't that complicated, you know. People had it figured out in 5000 BCE (if i recall, off the top of my head, Ancient Egyptian writings going back to that time mention the question). And in 7000 years, we've never changed the answer (although we've refined some amazingly complicated ways of framing the answer, along with the really simplistic ones). You can call it hubris, but i'd say that's a pretty good sign that we've pretty much got it licked. ^_^;
The sad part is you know it, too, but you're stuck in a mental loop that is preventing you from seeing the answer... even when you give it yourself. ^_^; (Which you did, as i will show.) It really is trivially simple - it's so bloody obvious, it's almost a tautology. ^_^ Look:
Presumed fact: God is omnipotent - which means he can do anything.
Therefore:
a: God can prevent all suffering.
Or:
b: God can't prevent all suffering.
Which is correct? Well, duh. ^_^; The answer's right there! Right in the beginning! "He can do anything", ipso fact, he can prevent all suffering (which is something, and therefore part of "anything" ^_^).
You can hedge and say you're "open to the possibility" that there's something you're missing... but that's silly in this case. ^_^; There's simply no room for "possibilities" - the problem is so simple, it's mathematically closed:
| Code: |
"God is omnipotent" ∴ "God can X" ∀ X.
X ≔ "Prevent all suffering"
∴ "God can prevent all suffering"
∎ |
It's a closed problem. ^_^; Saying "maybe there are possibilities that are unknown" is pretty much like saying "maybe there are possibilities that 1 + 1 does not equal 2".
Everyone who knows me knows how hesitant i am to come to any conclusion - when pressured i will refuse to admit that anything is certain, but even without being backed into a corner, i don't go around saying that "this is certain" lightly. Well, this is certain. ^_^; It really is. There is no resolution to the problem of evil without rejecting either "God is powerful", "God is good" or both. Therefore, if God exists, he must be either weak, evil... or crazy (that is, completely without reason; random; mindless).
There are only three ways you can not arrive at the same conclusion:
- Bad logic.
- Denial.
- Not trying.
You're going for option 3, it seems. Alright. ^_^; If that's the road you want to travel - it's your path. i'd call it laziness or cowardice, but it's your choice, not mine. | Quote: |
| Christians believe that the bible is the inspired word of God and therefore the only honest approach is the one I gave. For me, as an atheist, I don't think anything of the sort and so I can take a variety of approaches. |
What about someone trying to find out more? Even Christians question their faith daily. Also, this doesn't take into account the fact that the Bible has been edited and you can't tell me that if it was edited by the church that was God's will or whatever. This goes back to free will. No matter what the church says, I'm pretty sure that if there is a God, he didn't coerce the writing in the Bible. Hypnotism seems below Him.
| Quote: |
If you read the bible you will see repeated references to salvation through knowing the Lord/accepting the Lord. You can only be 'saved' according to Christian scripture (NT), by accepting Christ as your saviour. Since babies cannot make that 'acceptance' then......
According to Catholicism (the 'original Christianity' - or at least one of them Smile ) |
Yes, but again, this assumes that a.) the Bible is God's own will and b.) that God is a rulebook who can't decide anything for Himself. Both of which, I would dispute.
| Quote: |
| You said something like we need to value life, people already do, they don't need a natural disaster to kill somerandom people to make clear that life can stop. We already die anyway because we get old or by the hands of others. Natural disasters don't make a lot of sense for the sake of that argument: |
Alright, well, ignore natural disasters then. This has no bearing on the discussion at hand. Or rather, it does, but at a more specific point. The same unanswerable question remains. I already said I have no idea what a would-be God's motives are.
| Quote: |
| And why do a few random people suffer for the sake of others? |
See above
| Quote: |
How it doesn't matter? Creationists try to explain everything to us and then it doesn't matter?
And every one has the same final destination, either nothing, heaven/hell or reincarnation etc. |
I'm not sure I made my point clear then. This wasn't meant to be an argument at all. I was just saying that either nothing, heaven/hell or reincarnation etc happens. What I meant by "it doesn't matter" is that we'll die and never know the difference. If the believers are correct, we'll die and then finally have our answer. This was just a random musing.
| Quote: |
There comes a point where you cross out of the realm of faith and into the realm of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA" really loudly. |
You've taken on a debater's tone. Your post was full of little innuendos that show an excellent ability to make an argument by making the other person look silly. Likening me to a lazy, silly, ignorant, cowardly child is no way to argue even if it is spread out across your post so that it's not as noticeable.
| Quote: |
| It's a closed problem. ^_^; Saying "maybe there are possibilities that are unknown" is pretty much like saying "maybe there are possibilities that 1 + 1 does not equal 2". |
As ridiculous as it sounds, that is what I'm saying and I have tempered my humility with realism. I already said why I'm open to the possibility. Yes, we think we're pretty smart and yes, we've come up with great solutions to great problems. But like I said, if we're vulnerable to these chemicals and brain damage which completely change our perception of reality, isn't there something to be said there? Who's to say everyone doesn't have some form of this altered perception? That is where the idea that the possibility is still open for me stems from.
| Quote: |
There are only three ways you can not arrive at the same conclusion:
1. Bad logic.
2. Denial.
3. Not trying.
You're going for option 3, it seems. Alright. ^_^; If that's the road you want to travel - it's your path. i'd call it laziness or cowardice, but it's your choice, not mine. |
Really? 3? At least give me 1 or 2. I'm here discussing the matter on a board listening to your views and taking them into account. Not trying would be not thinking about it which I clearly am. If I wasn't trying, I wouldn't be having a one versus the world discussion about it. If I wasn't trying, I wouldn't have read papers by Dawkins, Lewis, Adams, Hawking, Collins, and even Penn Jillette. I would be content in my ignorance. Instead, I try. The problem is when you start getting into the way the universe really works, things start getting hokey. Some concepts of quantum mechanics are insane. Concepts in theoretical physics sound crazy. There's just no way to rule the idea that there is a higher power out completely.
Now, forgive me, but I'm going to stop replying to this thread. It would never end otherwise and replying actually does take a good chunk of my time - especially because it's a 1 vs many debate and I was trying to address everyone. Thanks a lot for a good discussion and thanks to most of you for actually coming into the discussion with an open mind and for not being insulting in your posts. | ericf wrote: |
| What about someone trying to find out more? Even Christians question their faith daily. Also, this doesn't take into account the fact that the Bible has been edited and you can't tell me that if it was edited by the church that was God's will or whatever. This goes back to free will. No matter what the church says, I'm pretty sure that if there is a God, he didn't coerce the writing in the Bible. Hypnotism seems below Him. |
Christians test their faith AGAINST scripture - that is the benchmark. That is exactly what the core Christian dogma requires you to believe - the bible is the inspired word of God. The translations were guided by the hand of God. I can't think of any Christian sects which would say otherwise (I cannot claim to be an expert in all forms of Christianity but I do know a good deal about one of them - Catholicism. In Catholicism it is a fundamental article of faith that the bible is divinely inspired). You could call it hypnotism or whatever - the fact remains that it is a core dogma that the words are 'inspired' by God and therefore must be correct.
I have seen this core belief expressed in many ways, perhaps the most cogent would be | Quote: |
| The proper view of inspiration is that the Bible writers were rendered incapable of error in the reception and communication of God’s revelation to man. |
If you don't believe that the bible is the inspired word of God then what is left? The only accounts of Jesus that we have are in the bible. This means that either:
a) You believe the bible is inspired by God
or
b) You believe the bible is just an account written by men (and therefore fallible)
If you believe the second then what grounds are there for taking any of it seriously? After all there is little or no support from the historical record (certainly for the NT and also for large parts of the OT). How do you decide which parts are accurate and which parts are inaccurate? Do you start with the assumption that the original texts were divinely inspired but then lost some of this in the translations and editing later? That would seem to be inconsistent. Why should the original texts be divine and the later edits not be? After all we must remember that none of the NT is contemporaneous - it was all written well after the events described.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | If you read the bible you will see repeated references to salvation through knowing the Lord/accepting the Lord. You can only be 'saved' according to Christian scripture (NT), by accepting Christ as your saviour. Since babies cannot make that 'acceptance' then......
According to Catholicism (the 'original Christianity' - or at least one of them Smile ) |
Yes, but again, this assumes that a.) the Bible is God's own will and b.) that God is a rulebook who can't decide anything for Himself. Both of which, I would dispute. |
Well, see above. If you believe that the bible is just a man-made account then why would you take it seriously as a basis for your religious beliefs? You might as well consider it as a semi-mythical propogandist account in two parts. One part being an instruction manual for Jews containing a creation-myth, rules for being a good Jew - social and legal codes, and a folk-history of the Jewish people (OT). The other part being an account of a breakaway sect of Judaism and the adventures of its leader (NT). There is no need to attach any spiritual significance to it at all...
(That, incidentally, is exactly how I read the bible)... | Bikerman wrote: |
| Christians test their faith AGAINST scripture - that is the benchmark. |
Can you explain what is meant by the above Christians testing their faith against scripture? How can faith be tested by the Bible? | ericf wrote: |
| Quote: |
There comes a point where you cross out of the realm of faith and into the realm of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA" really loudly. |
You've taken on a debater's tone. Your post was full of little innuendos that show an excellent ability to make an argument by making the other person look silly. Likening me to a lazy, silly, ignorant, cowardly child is no way to argue even if it is spread out across your post so that it's not as noticeable. |
If i wanted to call you (or "liken you", as you put it) to a lazy, silly, ignorant, cowardly child, i would call you a lazy, silly, ignorant, cowardly child.
What i said was that the answer was blatant - right in front of you (and i even went out of my way to point out that you were aware of that) - and that you were being silly to refuse to acknowledge it on the vague hope of "possibilities" that you can't even define. i did not call you "silly". i called doing that silly. And i certainly stand by that.
Furthermore, you know the answer, you even gave the answer ^_^, but you don't like the answer (it seems), so you hedge by saying you're "open to possibilities". What possibilities? Apparently, you don't know, and you don't care. But on the off chance that they might maybe somehow possibly exist, you're refusing to accept a conclusion that's right in front of you... because of? Well, it sure looks like the reason is because you simply don't have the courage to commit to a conclusion. And if that's true, then that is cowardice. Again, i did not call you cowardly. i called doing that cowardly. And i stand by that, too.
But then i gave you the benefit of the doubt (or so i thought! ^_^ but more on that in a minute), and assumed that maybe you didn't see the answer as clearly as i thought you might. But then, the answer is not hard to find. It's pretty easy actually, as i showed. Therefore, the fact that you haven't found it (assuming that you're not in denial), must be that you haven't looked. If so, that would be lazy. And yet again, i did not call you lazy. i called not going for the answer when it is right in front of you and being satisfied with a non-answer (or in other words, "i'm open to possibilities, but not really interested in going to look for them") lazy. And that, too, i stand by.
As for ignorant and a child, you'll have to spell that out for me. ^_^;
| ericf wrote: |
| Quote: | | It's a closed problem. ^_^; Saying "maybe there are possibilities that are unknown" is pretty much like saying "maybe there are possibilities that 1 + 1 does not equal 2". |
As ridiculous as it sounds, that is what I'm saying and I have tempered my humility with realism. I already said why I'm open to the possibility. Yes, we think we're pretty smart and yes, we've come up with great solutions to great problems. But like I said, if we're vulnerable to these chemicals and brain damage which completely change our perception of reality, isn't there something to be said there? Who's to say everyone doesn't have some form of this altered perception? That is where the idea that the possibility is still open for me stems from. |
i honestly can't figure out why you keep talking about brain chemicals and altered perception. ^_^; it's completely irrelevant. No matter what state of mind you happen to be in, whether you're acid or not, logic is logic. The argument is a logical argument. It is logically closed and complete. There's no room for "perception". 1 + 1 is 2 whether you're brain damaged, high or not. Similarly, the problem of evil is solved whether you're brain damaged, high or not.
Yes, it sounds ridiculous, and it is. ^_^; Sadly, you're apparently aware of that, too. Or are you seriously trying to tell me that if i asked you "does 1 + 1 equal 2", you're going to answer "i don't know, because i'm open to possibilities that it is not."? ^_^;
Again, i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and guess not. ^_^; i'm going to guess that because you are aware that there is no rational way 1 + 1 can be anything but 2, you will answer that "yes, 1 + 1 equals 2". So why can't you come to the same conclusion about the problem of evil? Well either you don't understand it, or you can't be bothered to investigate it deeply enough to trust it as completely as "1 + 1 = 2". i assumed laziness... would you rather i assumed incompetence? ^_^;
| ericf wrote: |
| Quote: | There are only three ways you can not arrive at the same conclusion:
1. Bad logic.
2. Denial.
3. Not trying.
You're going for option 3, it seems. Alright. ^_^; If that's the road you want to travel - it's your path. i'd call it laziness or cowardice, but it's your choice, not mine. |
Really? 3? At least give me 1 or 2. |
Seriously? ^_^; You would rather be considered intellectually incompetent or intellectually dishonest rather than intellectually lazy? ^_^;
Alright, have it your way. ^_^;
| ericf wrote: |
| I'm here discussing the matter on a board listening to your views and taking them into account. Not trying would be not thinking about it which I clearly am. |
But you weren't discussing it. You were discouraging discussing it. Look: "I'm open to that as well and I do try, but chances are likely we won't find anything out regarding this discussion within our lifetimes."
If you were actually discussing it, then i would discuss it with you. But when you try to discourage discussion, i have no qualms about chiding you for that.
| ericf wrote: |
| If I wasn't trying, I wouldn't be having a one versus the world discussion about it. If I wasn't trying, I wouldn't have read papers by Dawkins, Lewis, Adams, Hawking, Collins, and even Penn Jillette. I would be content in my ignorance. Instead, I try. |
But you are content in your ignorance. ^_^; You said so yourself! You gave us a long spiel about how "limited" humans are, and how "we can't reason ourselves out of everything". You even said flat out that you don't know the answer, and that was that. ^_^;
| ericf wrote: |
| The problem is when you start getting into the way the universe really works, things start getting hokey. Some concepts of quantum mechanics are insane. Concepts in theoretical physics sound crazy. There's just no way to rule the idea that there is a higher power out completely. |
Er... we're not trying to rule out a higher power completely. We were discussing "Why God allows" suffering etc. Which is the problem of evil.
| ericf wrote: |
| Now, forgive me, but I'm going to stop replying to this thread. |
Which is, of course, a fantastic way to "think about it", which you "clearly are". ^_^; | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Christians test their faith AGAINST scripture - that is the benchmark. |
Can you explain what is meant by the above Christians testing their faith against scripture? How can faith be tested by the Bible? |
Well, what is your faith as a Christian? It is based on the bible. When you have a crisis of faith you doubt what is in the bible (ie you doubt whether God exists). The bible is the benchmark - the membership rules, the thing you sign-up to when you say you are a Christian. (At least that is the way I think about it.....not being a believer I could, of course, be wrong....)lol, Indi... Unfortunately, I'm stopping the discussion for clearly stated reasons. I am very busy and this takes a lot of time out of my day.
As for "the possibilities", I'm open to many. Not only the Christian view. The exact point is that there IS no way to know for sure, no matter how hard we try. It's a fun exercise, however, to try. Which is the why I say I am trying. I just already have a strong idea that the outcome is 'I'll never know for sure.' That's not hedging. That's just what I think. You have a strong idea that you've already come to an outcome. It's not the "courage to commit to a conclusion." That's not logical. A conclusion is coming to a decision about something conclusively. If it is conclusive, it is a sure thing. There's no way to prove something like this. This has nothing to do with courage.
If I'm lazy then Dawkins who spends a whole lot of his time thinking about it is lazy as well.
| Quote: |
| My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. - Dawkins |
Being open to possibilities is not the lazy way out. I actually agree with Dawkins on this point. I have a hard time believing in the religious dogmas created in our past. Committing to an answer without actually challenging your ideas is the lazy way out. I'm still in the process of challenging my ideas and if that seems like laziness to you, you must have an insane work ethic.
Ignorant was the general gist of your idea of me that I got from your post. Childish came from sticking my hands over my ears and saying "LA LA LA" really loudly. That statement, like a lot of what you said, had no bearing on the argument but rather was just a way to make me look bad
_________
You keep going back to what I said about 1+1=2. The only reason it sounds so ridiculous is because it's the example you chose. The reason why that is so logical is because it's logical according to what we can comprehend. We created the number one and the number one and the number two to serve a certain purpose. They are things we understand completely because they are tangible. This is not that simple. Earthly idea + earthly idea cannot yield a heavenly idea if such an idea exists. Going back to what Dawkins said, "My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else."
The reason I bring up chemicals and altered perception was just to illustrate the point that there's a capability limit that we inherently have. It's easiest to see when these things alter our perception. We can be made to see things that are plain wrong.
_________
I would prefer that I made a mistake (different than incompetent) or denial (because then, I would at least be fully informed and ultimately it would be not through lack of trying but lack of character) Saying I'm lazy is a slap in the face. You can't possibly know what sorts of things I've thought about and what sorts of things I've been through. You say that you're uncertain about most things and are not quick to come to a conclusion, but you seemed to have come to a conclusion about me only through what I've written on a message board. I don't know what you mean by "have it your way." What I am like has nothing to do with my perception of myself. I may be one of those three things and I can't alter that by just saying something on the contrary.
But we've stopped talking about a higher power and moved towards you insulting me and me defending myself.
_____________
I am discussing it. I don't understand. I'm telling you what I believe and you're telling me what you believe. This is discussion. I personally believe that we likely won't find out anything within our lifetimes. You personally believe you've already figured it out (unless I'm mistaken. Please correct me if I'm wrong). How am I discouraging discussion when I'm the only one - at least on this board - with this viewpoint and am addressing everyone (up till now, at least).
____________
| Quote: |
| we're not trying to rule out a higher power completely. |
Maybe that's where our misunderstanding arises. The view I have taken is a more broad view, but it defines what happens with more specific issues.
| Quote: |
| Which is, of course, a fantastic way to "think about it", which you "clearly are". |
Again, a snide remark for no reason. I have tried to not insult anyone by ridiculing them instead of discussing the topic at hand. I am "clearly thinking about it" on my own time. Is this not allowed? I must discuss it on a message board in order for me to do so? I already said the reason why I'm not. This takes time. I have little. You succeeded in bringing me back into the discussion not to discuss the topic, but to discuss my apparent ignorance as you finally named me to be. ^ I find it funny when people get pissed off and say they won't reply again, yet two or three posts later they're back with a page long response 
Contradicting/nonsensical passages and verses from the Bible can't really be held against me (what with me being Muslim and all...), and my religion happens to have a "You-Don't-Go-To-Hell-If-You-Don't-Dedicate-Your-Heart-And-Soul-To-Worship-Jesus-Christ-Because-We-Believe-He-Was-A-Human-Prophet-Like-Moses-And-Muhammed-Given-Certain-Miracles-From-God-And-Wasn't-The-Son-Of-God-And-In-Fact-It's-The-Other-Way-Around-Because-You-Actually-Go-To-Hell-For-Worshiping-Others-Besides-God" policy.
Anyway, regarding the original question as to why God allows misfortune to happen to certain people and not to others, I (and other Muslims) believe that God will compensate those who suffered because God allows no injustice. This is why of those who are to enter Heaven, those who lived in poverty will enter first. | ericf wrote: |
| As for "the possibilities", I'm open to many. Not only the Christian view. The exact point is that there IS no way to know for sure, no matter how hard we try. |
This has nothing to do with Christianity at all. This is an almost universal theist problem.
And i don't know or care what "possibilities" you think you are open to because "the exact point" is that we do know. ^_^; You just refuse to admit that (or, possibly, you really don't know but refuse to seek the answer). That is the problem. ^_^;
| ericf wrote: |
| It's a fun exercise, however, to try. Which is the why I say I am trying. I just already have a strong idea that the outcome is 'I'll never know for sure.' That's not hedging. |
*facepalm* ^_^;
But you're not trying! You are saying you don't know, you think you can't know, so you won't even try! That is hedging. ^_^; That's textbook of hedging.
| ericf wrote: |
| A conclusion is coming to a decision about something conclusively. If it is conclusive, it is a sure thing. There's no way to prove something like this. This has nothing to do with courage. |
Oh, good grief. ^_^; We have come to the conclusion "conclusively". The problem is that you're denying that conclusion, for no reason whatsoever. This is not a case of there is some evidence for and some against. There is only evidence one way, and zero evidence for the other side. None, nada, zip. We have the problem of evil that shows that a powerful, benevolent god is impossible, and on the other side we have... a whole lot of nothing. Just religious faith, not one single iota of evidence or reason - not a single one.
So basically you have 100% support for one thing and 0% for the other, then you invent vague "possibilities" to avoid admitting the obvious conclusion.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| ^ I find it funny when people get pissed off and say they won't reply again, yet two or three posts later they're back with a page long response |
i know, eh? ^_^; And all the while swearing that they're crusading for gaining knowledge, while covering their ears and running away. Nope, no hypocrisy there, none at all.I'm just going to add this as a non-humoristic joke
| Indi wrote: |
| Shewolf wrote: | | It's just a way of thinking, that's all. |
"Thinking"? ^_^; Is that what is supposed to be happening here? ^_^
So why would you make them vulnerable to skateboarding injury?
What?
Look, my father didn't choose to make my bones breakable, did he? That's kinda what he had to deal with because of the way i was born. If he could have chosen, wouldn't he have made me virtually invincible, like Superman or something?
Uh,... well....
|
...did your dad buy you the newest toys everytime those came to the market
Of course not, that would have spoiled me
Oh, I see
So you compare toys and capability of injuring yourself
Well yeah, would it be called as a free will, if we weren't capable of nothing?
Capable injuring ourself, that's crazy!
Is it? We also have capability to prevent the bad in the world. If you can't cure a disease, should God give you a medicine? Yes you say, but if you can't score a hoop should he score it for you?
Whatta f...
...so He should do everything for you so you don't have to struggle through your problems. Again I repeat, spoiled kid with no practical skills whatsoever.
He could give us all the skills in the world.
Yes He could, but should he? As a father? Should he help and guide us instead of planting the skills in our heads? Should he plant his own personality, the personality of perfection in your head? Don't you want to be perfect?
Yes, or no, or... I want to remain as me
Superman-me? With no choice but to follow the God?
No choice?
What kind of perfect God would give us opportunity to rot in hell?
YES! What kind?
The kind who gives us free will.
So I guess the free will seems like a villain in this story
Worst villain ever | Tutor wrote: |
I'm just going to add this as a non-humoristic joke
| Indi wrote: | | Shewolf wrote: | | It's just a way of thinking, that's all. |
"Thinking"? ^_^; Is that what is supposed to be happening here? ^_^
So why would you make them vulnerable to skateboarding injury?
What?
Look, my father didn't choose to make my bones breakable, did he? That's kinda what he had to deal with because of the way i was born. If he could have chosen, wouldn't he have made me virtually invincible, like Superman or something?
Uh,... well....
|
...did your dad buy you the newest toys everytime those came to the market
Of course not, that would have spoiled me
Oh, I see
So you compare toys and capability of injuring yourself
Well yeah, would it be called as a free will, if we weren't capable of nothing?
Capable injuring ourself, that's crazy!
Is it? We also have capability to prevent the bad in the world. If you can't cure a disease, should God give you a medicine? Yes you say, but if you can't score a hoop should he score it for you?
Whatta f...
...so He should do everything for you so you don't have to struggle through your problems. Again I repeat, spoiled kid with no practical skills whatsoever.
He could give us all the skills in the world.
Yes He could, but should he? As a father? Should he help and guide us instead of planting the skills in our heads? Should he plant his own personality, the personality of perfection in your head? Don't you want to be perfect?
Yes, or no, or... I want to remain as me
Superman-me? With no choice but to follow the God?
No choice?
What kind of perfect God would give us opportunity to rot in hell?
YES! What kind?
The kind who gives us free will.
So I guess the free will seems like a villain in this story
Worst villain ever |
i hope you don't have conversations like this often. ^_^; This is almost incoherent.
But... it sounds like you are trying to argue the following points:
- Free will requires that we have to be able to hurt ourselves - or if we were invincible we couldn't have free will.
- It is better to struggle to learn something than it is to learn it without struggle.
- If you were unable to suffer, you would be perfect.
- Hell is a gift, an opportunity
Is that about right? ^_^; | Indi wrote: |
But... it sounds like you are trying to argue the following points:
- Free will requires that we have to be able to hurt ourselves - or if we were invincible we couldn't have free will.
- It is better to struggle to learn something than it is to learn it without struggle.
- If you were unable to suffer, you would be perfect.
- Hell is a gift, an opportunity
Is that about right? ^_^; |
Now when you put it like that, yes that's about it. Just adding: opportunities are gifts as itselves. Path where the opportunity leads isn't automatically a gift. But it wouldn't be a Free will if you couldn't choose between Hell and Heaven. Remember the Bible, the Beast has a lot of cool stuff before damnation. | Tutor wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
But... it sounds like you are trying to argue the following points:
- Free will requires that we have to be able to hurt ourselves - or if we were invincible we couldn't have free will.
- It is better to struggle to learn something than it is to learn it without struggle.
- If you were unable to suffer, you would be perfect.
- Hell is a gift, an opportunity
Is that about right? ^_^; |
Now when you put it like that, yes that's about it. Just adding: opportunities are gifts as itselves. Path where the opportunity leads isn't automatically a gift. But it wouldn't be a Free will if you couldn't choose between Hell and Heaven. Remember the Bible, the Beast has a lot of cool stuff before damnation. |
Alright then, let's look at this logically.
Does free will require that we have to be able to hurt ourselves? Or, if we were invincible, we couldn't have free will?
No, of course it does not. That's just silly. Free will means the ability to freely choose anything you want... not to freely get anything you want. Even an invincible immortal could freely want to die... the fact that it is impossible to accomplish does not mean that they can't choose that option.
Or, look at it the other way. You say i have free will, right? Well, right now, i freely choose to not suffer. Wait a minute... i can't make that choice, now can i? Therefore, despite your claims, i don't really have free will, do i? But wait, there's more! i choose to earn a million dollars in the next ten minutes for doing absolutely nothing, just sitting here and spacing out. i can't get that? Then i must not have free will. That pretty much toasts your entire defence of God right there, but let's keep going, let's leave no stone unturned here.
Is it better to struggle to learn something than it is to learn it without struggle?
But why? Seriously, if you're going to claim something, you should be able to justify it. It's not true just because you say it is. So why? Why exactly is it better to learn via struggle than to learn without struggle?
Let's say you have two people, one a poor kid and the other a rich kid. Both study astronomy. Now, the rich kid's parents pay his way, he never has to lift a finger toward earning his diploma. When he can't be bothered to study or go to class, they get him the best tutors to teach him the lessons at his leisure. Meanwhile the poor kid has to work two jobs to pay his way through, torture his body to stay awake in classes and do to assignments, and generally struggle all the way through. At the end, both get PhDs, and both go on to be equally well respected in their field. Now... if they both learned the same lessons equally well, why does it matter that one struggled all the way through and one did not? At the end, what is the difference?
Now, careful here - obviously the one that struggled to accomplish the same goal deserves more respect for his accomplishments than the one that did not... but i'm not interested in praise, i'm interested in the end results. Why would the poor kid be a better astronomer than the rich one?
Would you be perfect if you were unable to suffer?
"Perfect" is generally a tricky word, but in this case it's pretty clear cut. Anything that is "unable" to do something is clearly less perfect than a thing that is otherwise identical but "able" to do that thing. Thus, a being that could suffer would automatically be more perfect than a being that could not. (Of course, even more perfect would be a being that could suffer if it wanted to, but only if it wanted to, and otherwise not suffer at all.)
Is Hell an opportunity or a gift?
Now, ^_^ i've talked with a lot of theists over the years about their beliefs, and i am still regularly flabbergasted by how warped and messed up some of them are. This is a prime example of that kind of thing. See, in my world, an opportunity or a gift is something that is given to you that you can optionally accept. In my world, if i choose to turn down an opportunity, that's just fine (although, i may regret it). If i cannot turn it down it is not an opportunity, it is a requirement. Similarly, in my world, i can refuse a gift - and if i cannot refuse it, it is not a gift, it is a fine. ^_^;
Now, judgement day comes. God says to me, "Indi, your life has been... colourful. And throughout it you've done nothing but slander me. Nevertheless, i am merciful. So instead of punishing you, i am going to give you a gift: Hell!" To which i naturally reply, "Well, shit, i didn't expect to see you here! Hey, i really appreciate the offer, but i couldn't possibly! Not after all the crap i did to you. Really, i'd just feel bad accepting a gift from you. What say we just shake on it and forget it all?" What do you think will happen next? ^_^; Will God say, "Well, shucks, Indi, that's too bad. i had a spot picked out for you and all. Oh well. Hey, it's ok, i'll find someone else who wants it." Or will God say, "Shut up an burn, bastard." If the Bible is any indication, i'd bet on the latter. And, if that's the case... "gift"?
"opportunities are gifts as itselves. Path where the opportunity leads isn't automatically a gift"
So basically, if someone gives me an opportunity to go to Hell, that is a gift, regardless of how it turns out when i accept that gift. Fair enough, but it is still ignoring the most important thing that distinguishes an opportunity from a sentence: choice. See, i can't choose not to go to Hell, now can i? It is punishment, and sentence imposed on me if i don't do what God wants me to do. i can't say no when he "offers me this opportunity" any more than a criminal can say no when a judge "offers him the opportunity" to go to jail for his crimes.
But it wouldn't be a Free will if you couldn't choose between Hell and Heaven
Let me ask you a question. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to stab an innocent bystander or you die, would you say your choice is "free"? If you choose to stab that person and live, what will you tell the judge? "Your honour, i freely chose to stab that person. It was my choice," or, "Your honour, i had no choice. My life was being threatened."
Or, alternatively, you choose not to stab the person, and as a result you are shot and killed. What do you tell God now? "God, i freely chose to be shot in the head. It was my choice," or, "God, that man shot me because i could not kill someone. i chose not to kill, i did not choose to die."The only thing that I can wrap my mind around is that God allows things to happen, (i.e. hurricanes, earthquakes, or whatever) because He has a plan.
And if you try to ask me what God's plan is (i.e. questioning me as to why a 'loving' God would do it) then I will simply have to laugh at you, because we're still debating on the existence of God, but to understand God and His plan ... hah, totally different.
Its funny how gods that don't exist and gods that want us to learn act exactly the same way.
| Indi wrote: |
"opportunities are gifts as itselves. Path where the opportunity leads isn't automatically a gift"
So basically, if someone gives me an opportunity to go to Hell, that is a gift, regardless of how it turns out when i accept that gift. Fair enough, but it is still ignoring the most important thing that distinguishes an opportunity from a sentence: choice. See, i can't choose not to go to Hell, now can i? It is punishment, and sentence imposed on me if i don't do what God wants me to do. i can't say no when he "offers me this opportunity" any more than a criminal can say no when a judge "offers him the opportunity" to go to jail for his crimes.[/b]
But it wouldn't be a Free will if you couldn't choose between Hell and Heaven
Let me ask you a question. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to stab an innocent bystander or you die, would you say your choice is "free"? If you choose to stab that person and live, what will you tell the judge? "Your honour, i freely chose to stab that person. It was my choice," or, "Your honour, i had no choice. My life was being threatened."
Or, alternatively, you choose not to stab the person, and as a result you are shot and killed. What do you tell God now? "God, i freely chose to be shot in the head. It was my choice," or, "God, that man shot me because i could not kill someone. i chose not to kill, i did not choose to die." |
You have the opportunity to follow the path of God or path of Satan. Of course it seems like a obvious choice but like I said, the Beast has a lot of cool stuff. You have the gift to chooce between joys of material or joys of heaven.
If you get killed because of your believes, well, that makes you a martyr. Eventhough it sounds pretty korny. The choice is yours. Joys of material or joys of heaven. | Tutor wrote: |
You have the opportunity to follow the path of God or path of Satan. Of course it seems like a obvious choice but like I said, the Beast has a lot of cool stuff. You have the gift to chooce between joys of material or joys of heaven.
If you get killed because of your believes, well, that makes you a martyr. Eventhough it sounds pretty korny. The choice is yours. Joys of material or joys of heaven. |
How "free" am i if my only choice is to be a slave to God or die (eventually) in horrible torment with the Devil? Follow the path of God or the path of Satan? Why not follow my own path? That's what i'd call freedom.
God isn't giving me any freedom. He is nothing more than a thug holding a gun to my head saying "do it my way or die".
Let me ask this... couldn't God, in his infinite power, make Hell a paradise? Why does it have to be a lake of fire?
Or even if not a paradise: there are many nice places on Earth that aren't nearly as heavenly as Heaven is supposed to be but are still pretty nice - so why can't God make Hell like that?
Hey, why not just leave me and all the other non-believers here on Earth. Just take the believers and go! Use your infinite power to make a machine to run the universe without you, then take your followers, go to Heaven and leave the rest of us be. That sounds just fine to me. I could spend eternity in this universe, no problem. It's not perfect (like Heaven would be), but i'm used to it. Why not just leave those of us who want to be free here to make our own destiny, rather than forcing us to be slaves, and torturing/killing us if we refuse to comply? What's wrong with that, or why is it impossible? The believers would all go to Heaven to be with God and live a perfect, blissful existence... while the rest of us would carry on here as we always have. Why do we need Hell at all? | Indi wrote: |
How "free" am i if my only choice is to be a slave to God or die (eventually) in horrible torment with the Devil? Follow the path of God or the path of Satan? Why not follow my own path? That's what i'd call freedom.
God isn't giving me any freedom. He is nothing more than a thug holding a gun to my head saying "do it my way or die".
Let me ask this... couldn't God, in his infinite power, make Hell a paradise? Why does it have to be a lake of fire?
Or even if not a paradise: there are many nice places on Earth that aren't nearly as heavenly as Heaven is supposed to be but are still pretty nice - so why can't God make Hell like that?
Hey, why not just leave me and all the other non-believers here on Earth. Just take the believers and go! Use your infinite power to make a machine to run the universe without you, then take your followers, go to Heaven and leave the rest of us be. That sounds just fine to me. I could spend eternity in this universe, no problem. It's not perfect (like Heaven would be), but i'm used to it. Why not just leave those of us who want to be free here to make our own destiny, rather than forcing us to be slaves, and torturing/killing us if we refuse to comply? What's wrong with that, or why is it impossible? The believers would all go to Heaven to be with God and live a perfect, blissful existence... while the rest of us would carry on here as we always have. Why do we need Hell at all? |
Hey, we all die. You don't die because you don't follow the path of God. I'm going to die the same way no matter how christian I would be. Just look what happened with Nero. So you cannot really say it's the God or death. I mean we're talking about what happens on judgement day.
I don't really want to take Revelation literally but: if you choose the path of the Beast, then why should God let you rave in the earth which has come a place of vileness? It doesn't matter what you define as the perfect God, as we even don't know how to properly define perfectness itself, heretics are not granted with paradise after a lifetime of aberration. | Tutor wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
"opportunities are gifts as itselves. Path where the opportunity leads isn't automatically a gift"
So basically, if someone gives me an opportunity to go to Hell, that is a gift, regardless of how it turns out when i accept that gift. Fair enough, but it is still ignoring the most important thing that distinguishes an opportunity from a sentence: choice. See, i can't choose not to go to Hell, now can i? It is punishment, and sentence imposed on me if i don't do what God wants me to do. i can't say no when he "offers me this opportunity" any more than a criminal can say no when a judge "offers him the opportunity" to go to jail for his crimes.[/b]
But it wouldn't be a Free will if you couldn't choose between Hell and Heaven
Let me ask you a question. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to stab an innocent bystander or you die, would you say your choice is "free"? If you choose to stab that person and live, what will you tell the judge? "Your honour, i freely chose to stab that person. It was my choice," or, "Your honour, i had no choice. My life was being threatened."
Or, alternatively, you choose not to stab the person, and as a result you are shot and killed. What do you tell God now? "God, i freely chose to be shot in the head. It was my choice," or, "God, that man shot me because i could not kill someone. i chose not to kill, i did not choose to die." |
You have the opportunity to follow the path of God or path of Satan. Of course it seems like a obvious choice but like I said, the Beast has a lot of cool stuff. You have the gift to chooce between joys of material or joys of heaven.
If you get killed because of your believes, well, that makes you a martyr. Eventhough it sounds pretty korny. The choice is yours. Joys of material or joys of heaven. |
Or I have the opportunity to follow neither path. This isn't a black and white issue, don't attempt make it one. There are an unbelievable amount of beliefs and ideologies (the majority, if not all, I would say are quite silly, but they're beliefs and choices of "paths" nonetheless). It's not god vs satan... | liljp617 wrote: |
| Or I have the opportunity to follow neither path. This isn't a black and white issue, don't attempt make it one. There are an unbelievable amount of beliefs and ideologies (the majority, if not all, I would say are quite silly, but they're beliefs and choices of "paths" nonetheless). It's not god vs satan... |
Well, you either go with God or you don't. If you don't, it's the path of the Beast. | Tutor wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | How "free" am i if my only choice is to be a slave to God or die (eventually) in horrible torment with the Devil? Follow the path of God or the path of Satan? Why not follow my own path? That's what i'd call freedom.
God isn't giving me any freedom. He is nothing more than a thug holding a gun to my head saying "do it my way or die".
Let me ask this... couldn't God, in his infinite power, make Hell a paradise? Why does it have to be a lake of fire?
Or even if not a paradise: there are many nice places on Earth that aren't nearly as heavenly as Heaven is supposed to be but are still pretty nice - so why can't God make Hell like that?
Hey, why not just leave me and all the other non-believers here on Earth. Just take the believers and go! Use your infinite power to make a machine to run the universe without you, then take your followers, go to Heaven and leave the rest of us be. That sounds just fine to me. I could spend eternity in this universe, no problem. It's not perfect (like Heaven would be), but i'm used to it. Why not just leave those of us who want to be free here to make our own destiny, rather than forcing us to be slaves, and torturing/killing us if we refuse to comply? What's wrong with that, or why is it impossible? The believers would all go to Heaven to be with God and live a perfect, blissful existence... while the rest of us would carry on here as we always have. Why do we need Hell at all? |
Hey, we all die. You don't die because you don't follow the path of God. I'm going to die the same way no matter how christian I would be. Just look what happened with Nero. So you cannot really say it's the God or death. I mean we're talking about what happens on judgement day. |
Er, i was talking about judgement day. The options are live in Heaven or die in Hell, no? Or, maybe not die in hell, but suffer eternal fiery torment in Hell - which sounds worse to me.
What i'm asking is why the eternal torment? Why is that necessary? Ok, fine, let the believers have eternal paradise. That's fine by me. Good for them. But why does God have to make everyone else suffer eternal torment? Why can't he just not let us into Heaven and instead put us back in a universe like this one? It's not paradise but it ain't that bad. Why the eternal fiery torment?
And you say he's supposed to be all about giving us free will. Where? i don't see it. i see him giving us two options: do what i say and get into paradise, or don't and suffer eternal torment. What part of that is freedom? If he's really given us free will, then why can't i choose to follow my own path? i don't want to go to Heaven, and i certainly don't want to go to Hell - and i don't really have to go to either place, except that God is going to force me to against my will one way or the other.
| Tutor wrote: |
| I don't really want to take Revelation literally but: if you choose the path of the Beast, then why should God let you rave in the earth which has come a place of vileness? It doesn't matter what you define as the perfect God, as we even don't know how to properly define perfectness itself, heretics are not granted with paradise after a lifetime of aberration. |
BUT I'M NOT CHOOSING THE PATH OF THE BEAST!!! ^_^; What part of that is so hard to understand? You say God gave us free will? Fine! Then i will use it! i will follow MY OWN PATH! Let the Devil wage his silly little war with God and let God collect his slaves and take them to Heaven... and let them both leave me alone! ^_^; If i have free will, then let me be free!
But there's the problem right? Because despite what you say, God doesn't give anyone free will. It's his way or eternal torment. There's no freedom there - that's no different from the terms of any captor: "Obey the prison rules and live well... or don't and die."
You've heard of Stockholm syndrome, right? ^_^; Think about what you're saying. Don't just say the words that sound nice, think about them. Does God really give us any freedom? Is giving us the choice to do what he says or else he'll make us suffer really giving us freedom? Seriously, is it? If i were hold someone captive and tell them to serve me or i'll kill them, would you say i was giving that person freedom? Isn't that what God's doing? | Tutor wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | Or I have the opportunity to follow neither path. This isn't a black and white issue, don't attempt make it one. There are an unbelievable amount of beliefs and ideologies (the majority, if not all, I would say are quite silly, but they're beliefs and choices of "paths" nonetheless). It's not god vs satan... |
Well, you either go with God or you don't. If you don't, it's the path of the Beast. |
Or, once again, the path of neither. I do not choose god...I have absolutely no connection to satan. He doesn't exist any more than a god does, in my opinion..nothing more than a myth to keep people remotely moral. So, obviously your breakdown is incorrect as god and satan mean the same thing to me (or should I say the same 'nothing' to me).I'm going to repeat myself. Path of the Beast is not somekind of cult or love for destruction and pain or wearing black and listening Dimmu Borgir. "Path of the Beast" means that you are walking away from the God. You're "own ways" is walking away from the God.
And again about why there is eternal flame
| Tutor wrote: |
| why should God let you rave in the earth which has come a place of vileness? Heretics are not granted with paradise after a lifetime of aberration. |
We come back to the fun quote....
You're really doing nothing different than I. You walk away from Allah, Zeus, Apollo, Lord Krishna, etc. etc. I just walk away from one more god than you.
And Indi has been through the "obey me, worship me, devote everything you do to me....or burn in hell for eternity." It's pretty funny to say the least.
| Tutor wrote: |
| I'm going to repeat myself. Path of the Beast is not somekind of cult or love for destruction and pain or wearing black and listening Dimmu Borgir. "Path of the Beast" means that you are walking away from the God. You're "own ways" is walking away from the God. |
Then i'm going to repeat myself too. ^_^; Where is the choice? You talked about free will and opportunities... where are they? i see only one choice - do what God says or suffer eternal torment. i want to hear how this is freedom, and i want to know where the "opportunities" in this are?
And yes, i get what you're saying about the path of the Beast being anything that is not the path of God - what i'm saying is that that means i have no free choice of my own. i want to choose my own path, by my own free will, and liljp617 is saying the exact same thing, and you're telling me that that's impossible - we have to go with God's path or be tortured. That's not freedom! ^_^;
| Tutor wrote: |
And again about why there is eternal flame
| Tutor wrote: | | why should God let you rave in the earth which has come a place of vileness? Heretics are not granted with paradise after a lifetime of aberration. |
|
And again ^_^; that's not an answer to anything. All you've done is explained why we can't go to paradise. i said fine! i'm ok with that! i don't even want to go to paradise! But just because i can't go to paradise doesn't mean i have to be tortured in Hell!
Think about it - in order for there to exist a place of torment, God would have to create it. But if he's going to create a place to keep all the people who don't deserve heaven, why make it a place of torment? Why not just make a place of eternal mediocrity? ^_^;
And the plain fact is that we know there exists a third option from Heaven and Hell... right here were we are now - our own universe. So there is absolutely no need to send anyone to Hell, and if God does want to send people to Hell he actually has to do extra work! By just doing next to nothing he could put us back in this universe after judgement day and let us go on without him. So why can't he just leave us alone? Let him have his little kangaroo court judgement day, let him take his favourite slaves to go with him to Heaven, and then just put the rest of us back in the universe and go away... there's no need to light up the eternal flame and throw anyone into it, unless he's just one sick puppy and likes to see people suffer for no good reason.You really haven't read the Bible Indi have you? You should, maybe it would give you the exact answers I see you're not getting from me, eventhough I try my best. But there really is no "Hell", 'cos the Hell comes to earth. In the Revelation when the earth is torn down, lake of eternal shame and suffering appears.
And still I'm going to repeat myself with alternative words: You know how selfish people usually make better in life than those who see responsibility for others? Selfish people can choose whether they care about others or not. Selfish people are also disapproved and more unloved than those who are unselfish. It's their own personal hell, matter over reverence. "Hell" over Heaven. Lifetime of hedonism for eternity of suffering. It's not a bad deal now, when you're sceptical over God. He has gave you the choice to believe or not. I believe it's much easier not to believe, that's your price for your choice.
Last edited by Tutor on Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
(stands back to watch in anticipation...anyone who starts quoting Revelations is on seriously dodgy ground)
In the meantime let me give you something to reflect on. (I'm not going to address your previous posting directly since that is a conversation between you and Indi).
We are born into this world. We try to make sense of the world according to our upbringing, inclinations and abilities. The 'common ground' we share is via our senses - what we can see, taste, touch, hear, smell. Science says - OK, based on this, what can we say about the universe? Religion says - there must be a purpose, a 'meaning' to our existence, and each religion explains this meaning/purpose in its own way. Fundamentalists like you get so wrapped up in your own 'meaning' that you think (in fact, you DEMAND) that this meaning applies to everyone - not just yourself. Those, like me, who are travellers through life, seeking answers, get tired and frustrated with those, like youself, that think they know the answers, where the journey ends, what the rules are and how we should travel the road. We (and I speak for myself primarily) think that you may well have found an answer for yourself (and we are happy if your answer brings you joy), but we wonder why you should think that this answer applies to everyone and why your answer should insist on bringing us pain. In fact we sometimes get annoyed that you insist that your particular answer is the only correct answer, and we regard that as arrogant, insulting and, after may years of reflection on the matter, quite amusing.
PS - In my case (I leave Indi to speak for himself), yes, I have read the bible - many times, and I don't think it says what you think it does. In fact I think your last posting is confused, self-contraditory and, ultimately, nonsensical....
I would point by point argue through the garbage that spews forth from tutor's fingers and to my eyes via the internet, but he has no point. So I'm going to say exactly what he was saying but in fewer words:
I'm right and you're wrong, because I said so.
Phew, well there was a lot of dirt flying, it's like the politicians debating before elections. When something is bothering, the insults go flying: Fundamentalist, arrogant, "I'm right you're wrong"-kind of person, etc. I'd like to defend myself from those accusations.
I look anwers from the Bible when it comes to philosophical questions, like we have had right here. I look answers from the science when I'm in doubt about my faith and existing of the God (and sometimes the researchers have also quotes from the Bible 'cos it's the most inclusive collection of writings from the time, even the coherent writings). I'm no student of theology like the reverend Bikerman here, I'm university student of chemistry and physics, but still I'm sure I can give you the side of the (protestant) Christianity better than most others here can.
I'm trying to give you the general protestant-view, which I see as the least fundamentalistic view. Where I personally believe is not in the line in here right now. There were guestions about the christian philosophy and I'm trying to give the answers.
You atheists however are somewhat awful people to negotiate with. I don't face such disrespectfulness or despise when debating generally. I don't know is it the violent and aggressive nature of you US people or generally atheists, but in these forums I've faced a new dimension of offensiveness.
And the guestion between Hell and Revelation. New Testament doesn't talk as much about Hell as does the Old Testament. But still in fact the Revelation has the only details about the eternal flame in the Bible. So eventhough it's pretty unpredictable soil with the Revelation, I have to mention it.
I have not demanded you to believe with me, I thought we were having a general conversation about the christianity, why this why that. And again with the fundamentalist-part: I, as a
Evangelical Lutheran, believe that it's better that you don't believe when it's because of you going through careful thinking, researching and seeking for yourself, than you believe blindly through nothing but your christian friends or the hypocritical government or so.
| Tutor wrote: |
| Phew, well there was a lot of dirt flying, it's like the politicians debating before elections. When something is bothering, the insults go flying: Fundamentalist, arrogant, "I'm right you're wrong"-kind of person, etc. I'd like to defend myself from those accusations. |
Errr..not at all. I don't call people names - I merely said that I find your insistence on a particular truth arrogant. Whether or not you are an arrogant person is something I did not, and will not, address. Fundamentalist is not a term of abuse, it is a descriptive term which discriminates between someone who takes the bible largely in a literal sense - at face value - and others who take the bible largely as metaphor. | Tutor wrote: |
| I look anwers from the Bible when it comes to philosophical questions, like we have had right here. I look answers from the science when I'm in doubt about my faith and existing of the God (and sometimes the researchers have also quotes from the Bible 'cos it's the most inclusive collection of writings from the time, even the coherent writings). I'm no student of theology like the reverend Bikerman here, I'm university student of chemistry and physics, but still I'm sure I can give you the side of the (protestant) Christianity better than most others here can. |
I disagree. Your writings up to this point have been confused and certainly do NOT reflect general protestant theology. | Tutor wrote: |
| I'm trying to give you the general protestant-view, which I see as the least fundamentalistic view. Where I personally believe is not in the line in here right now. There were guestions about the christian philosophy and I'm trying to give the answers. |
'the answers' ? You seem to assume that there is one set of answers and that you have it...again I find this assumption an arrogant one. The traditional protestant view of hell is very similar to the Catholic view - hell is a place of unending torment, it is NOT Earth, it is a distinct place. The historic protestant view is set-out in the Westminster Confession (1642) | Quote: |
| "but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." |
| Tutor wrote: |
| You atheists however are somewhat awful people to negotiate with. I don't face such disrespectfulness or despise when debating generally. I don't know is it the violent and aggressive nature of you US people or generally atheists, but in these forums I've faced a new dimension of offensiveness. |
a) I am not 'negotiating' with you since my aim is not to reach a compromise position.
b) 'You atheists' - don't you think that is a sweeping generalisation?
c) Why do you think your views are worthy of respect?
d) Violent and agressive? Nonsense.
e) I am not from the US
f) What you find offensive is a matter for you. I never seek to offend, merely to comment honestly. If you find such comments offensive then I am sorry that you do, but I am not sorry for the comments. | Tutor wrote: |
| And the guestion between Hell and Revelation. New Testament doesn't talk as much about Hell as does the Old Testament. But still in fact the Revelation has the only details about the eternal flame in the Bible. So eventhough it's pretty unpredictable soil with the Revelation, I have to mention it. |
I'm afraid that is wrong in both cases.
The Jewish (Hebrew Bible) interpretation of an afterlife is very different from the NT version. In the OT Hell is a place of cleansing, not a place of punishment (Gehinom). 'Hell' is a place you go to be cleansed of your sins before going to Gan-Eden (Heaven).
The eternal flames of hell are mentioned outside Revelations - Mark 9:43. | Quote: |
| If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. |
In fact Hell is mentioned repeatedly in the NT
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hel_bibl.htm | Bikerman wrote: |
a) I am not 'negotiating' with you since my aim is not to reach a compromise position.
b) 'You atheists' - don't you think that is a sweeping generalisation?
c) Why do you think your views are worthy of respect?
d) Violent and agressive? Nonsense.
e) I am not from the US
f) What you find offensive is a matter for you. I never seek to offend, merely to comment honestly. If you find such comments offensive then I am sorry that you do, but I am not sorry for the comments. |
a) English is a foreign language to me, sorry if you have problems with the exact meaning of words with me.
b) So I'm debating with Jews? Or maybe Hindus?
c) I don't know by who and how you have been raised, but I tell you if you don't see respect towards others, I'm sorry for you.
d&e) Doesn't matter in this conversation, hope you don't get disrupted with this.
f) So if I call you with fallacious nouns, you don't get offended?
| Bikerman wrote: |
I'm afraid that is wrong in both cases.
The Jewish (Hebrew Bible) interpretation of an afterlife is very different from the NT version. In the OT Hell is a place of cleansing, not a place of punishment (Gehinom). 'Hell' is a place you go to be cleansed of your sins before going to Gan-Eden (Heaven).
The eternal flames of hell are mentioned outside Revelations - Mark 9:43.
In fact Hell is mentioned repeatedly in the NT |
| Tutor wrote: |
| But still in fact the Revelation has the only details |
...not including that the fire has been mentioned in several occasions. The Hell itself has been also mentioned (a lot) outside Revelation, as I already said.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| 'the answers' ? You seem to assume that there is one set of answers and that you have it...again I find this assumption an arrogant one. The traditional protestant view of hell is very similar to the Catholic view - hell is a place of unending torment, it is NOT Earth, it is a distinct place. The historic protestant view is set-out in the Westminster Confession (1642) |
I have been reading questions and then writing some stuff concerning the questions. Sometimes I call it as "answering the questions" or "giving answers on questions". Again I'm pretty sorry that you caught up with giving 'the answers' part. I believe it was totally my fault, not your misconception.
Edit: Cleaning up some offtopic
Last edited by Tutor on Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:07 pm; edited 1 time in total | Tutor wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | a) I am not 'negotiating' with you since my aim is not to reach a compromise position.
b) 'You atheists' - don't you think that is a sweeping generalisation?
c) Why do you think your views are worthy of respect?
d) Violent and agressive? Nonsense.
e) I am not from the US
f) What you find offensive is a matter for you. I never seek to offend, merely to comment honestly. If you find such comments offensive then I am sorry that you do, but I am not sorry for the comments. |
a) English is a foreign language to me, sorry if you have problems with the exact meaning of words with me. |
Well, since we are conducting this debate in English that is the only metric I have. I try not to play on differences, but here the difference is important.
| Quote: |
| b) So I'm debating with Jews? Or maybe Hindus? |
Does it matter? Does the fact that I am an atheist matter to this discussion? The discussion is about your interpretation of the bible. Do you think atheists are not capable of reading and understanding? | Quote: |
| c) I don't know by who and how you have been raised, but I tell you if you don't see respect towards others, I'm sorry for you. |
Tolerance is not the same as respect. I am a very tolerant person. I don't respect views unless they are worthy of that respect. Respect is earned, not simply granted. | Quote: |
| d&e) US&UK have been the most peaceful countries lately I agree. No bullets flying inside or outside borders. |
What has that got to do with anything? You were saying that I (as a US citizen - which I am not) was being violent towards you. I am not. I never have been. I have no intentions of being. | Quote: |
| f) So if I call you with fallacious nouns, you don't get offended? |
I have used no fallacious nouns so what is your problem? | Bikerman wrote: |
| You were saying that I (as a US citizen - which I am not) was being violent towards you. |
I haven't said you are being violent towards me, don't put words in to my mouth. | Tutor wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | You were saying that I (as a US citizen - which I am not) was being violent towards you. |
I haven't said you are being violent towards me, don't put words in to my mouth. |
LOL..you do a good job of that yourself. You questioned whether my violent or aggressive nature was to blame...specifically you said: | Quote: |
| I don't know is it the violent and aggressive nature of you US people or generally atheists |
It was a stupid and insulting comment. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Tutor wrote: | | I don't know is it the violent and aggressive nature of you US people or generally atheists |
It was a stupid and insulting comment. |
You people is more than one person. And I see no insulting about it as I wasn't really saying US people or atheists are violent or aggressive. It was a wonder whether those groups are violent or aggressove by their nature. Let's get back to the topic. | Tutor wrote: |
| You people is more than one person. And I see no insulting about it as I wasn't really saying US people or atheists are violent or aggressive. It was a wonder whether those groups are violent or aggressove by their nature. Let's get back to the topic. |
OK...your point is?That we can get back to the topic after this meaningless chitchat
| Tutor wrote: |
| You really haven't read the Bible Indi have you? You should, maybe it would give you the exact answers I see you're not getting from me, eventhough I try my best. |
Let's pretend i haven't. ^_^ Why don't you tell me exactly where i should look for this information? And don't just tell me "Revelation" - Revelation is 22 chapters, at least 20 of which are probably going to be completely irrelevant to the topic. The Bible is organized into numbered chapters and verses for a reason, so give me verse and chapter numbers.
i assume, of course, that you have read the Bible, right? And it's not just that you got a peppering of verses in Sunday School or whatever, right - you've actually read the Bible?
| Tutor wrote: |
| But there really is no "Hell", 'cos the Hell comes to earth. In the Revelation when the earth is torn down, lake of eternal shame and suffering appears. |
You're contradicting yourself. If Hell appears when the Earth is dismantled, then there is a Hell. If it doesn't exist yet, fine - that just means God has yet to make it - but that still doesn't answer the question i've been asking you over and over and over: how is it freedom when you are given only one choice under threat of violence?
God does not say you can take any path that you want, but if you take the one forbidden one you will be punished - even that is not really freedom, but it's a hell of a lot more free than the deal God gives us. He says: you have one choice, and only one: "do what i say, or else". If you don't do what he says, you will suffer. You're trying to tell me that's freedom, that's a "gift" and an opportunity. And i've asked you no less than three times already: how does that make sense?
Here i go again, number four: if someone were to kidnap you and lock you in a prison, and then tell you to obey their commands or be tortured (possibly to death), can you seriously and rationally claim that they are giving you a "gift" or an "opportunity" to not get tortured? Can you seriously say they are giving you freedom? Because that is exactly what God is doing. i am in the prison of this cosmos - i cannot escape it, no matter what i do - and God tells me that i have to do what he says or i will be made to suffer in the lake of fire. i can't run away from God and do what i want. i can't do anything, except obey him, or suffer eternally. How is this freedom?
| Tutor wrote: |
| And still I'm going to repeat myself with alternative words: You know how selfish people usually make better in life than those who see responsibility for others? Selfish people can choose whether they care about others or not. Selfish people are also disapproved and more unloved than those who are unselfish. It's their own personal hell, matter over reverence. "Hell" over Heaven. Lifetime of hedonism for eternity of suffering. It's not a bad deal now, when you're sceptical over God. He has gave you the choice to believe or not. I believe it's much easier not to believe, that's your price for your choice. |
If you keep repeating nonsense, it doesn't get any less nonsensical. ^_^; Now you're pretending that the only choice is between doing what God says or hedonism. Why is it that you can't see past two options? i don't want to do what God says, and i don't want to live a life of hedonism. i want to follow MY OWN PATH. NOT God's path, and NOT the path you think all immoral atheists have to follow - MY OWN PATH. That is what freedom is.
i don't want to follow God, and i don't want to be selfish - in fact, i haven't lived such a sweet life at all, and i've dedicated substantial chunks of it at significant cost to helping people, although i certainly could have lived a cushy life if i wanted to, maybe even as cushy as the Pope or a televangelist *cough* *cough*. i have lots of reverence for lots of things, for the rights of people, for truth and honesty, and so on. But on the other hand, i have zero reverence for God - ****** him, actually. You see? MY OWN PATH. Not God's path, and not the path of hedonistic selfishness. If God was really about giving freedom, what is wrong with what i'm doing?
You say God "gave" me the choice to believe or not. That is a lie. God forced the choice on me. What's the difference? If i put a gun in front of you and said you had a choice of killing someone or killing yourself, you could tell me to get lost and just walk away. That would be me giving you a choice - you have the option of not taking the choice, and simply walking away. Now if i were forcing the choice on you, i would say kill someone or kill yourself, and if you don't, i'll kill both of you. You see? That choice is forced because you can't not take it. One way or the other, you will be killing someone, directly or indirectly.I can't tell you why, and the reason is simply because I do not know God's plan. Nor do any of us.
I'm teetering on the edge of faith, and I'm in the process of conversion (lot's of paperwork, hah, just kidding). But in all honesty, the most honest, and direct answer you can receive from a believer is simply this:
1) God has a plan.
2) Humans do not understand God's plan.
Let's not be so egocentric to think that we, as humans, know everything about the universe and how it works... Whatever is left is left to God I suppose.
And if you want to attack it as a weak argument, go for it, I suppose it is ... but I really can't explain God to you.
Which I see kind of ironical is that to actually see Indi's point of view I'd have to take a perspective where I assume that God doesn't exist. 'cos now I see that God has gave you the option (opportunity) not to believe, as you seem as no-believer to me right now. And still I see you living a full life in no-forced-believer position.
| Indi wrote: |
| Why don't you tell me exactly where i should look for this information? |
Earlier Bikerman had a moderate link where you can find several mention about hell. But it wasn't the point why I recommended reading the Bible. It's sad how people judge something without even examining it. I hope you haven't been guilty to that kind of mistake. If you have, there's always way to fix it.
Then I have to ask you, where does God force you to? I can't recall was it you who said that believer has to dedicate everything he does to the God. So you think that I, as a believer, dedicate it to God when I listen heavy metal which sometimes curses the God. And I still think it's enjoyable music. Or does my friend dedicate when he leaves his girlfriend? I don't think so. Or should one dedicate its masturbating to God? Please no. We're not expected to dedicate much to the God. But sometimes we choose to dedicate our prayers or moments of prosperity to Him. Indi has repeated the same thing over and over explaining why it is not a free choice to believe in god or not. What he's stated is really pretty simple logic and reasoning that holds up to scrutiny.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Indi has repeated the same thing over and over explaining why it is not a free choice to believe in god or not. What he's stated is really pretty simple logic and reasoning that holds up to scrutiny. |
Point of view. In my opinion I have stated my point with simple logic and reasoning that holds up to scrutiny. If you have something to add to the discussion, go for it. | Tutor wrote: |
| Earlier Bikerman had a moderate link where you can find several mention about hell. But it wasn't the point why I recommended reading the Bible. It's sad how people judge something without even examining it. I hope you haven't been guilty to that kind of mistake. If you have, there's always way to fix it. |
Why rely on my links? You already know that I am not a believer, since I have said so. Yes, I have read the bible many times, so my judgement is not based on ignorance, but surely it is incumbent on you, as a believer, to support your case with YOUR links to scripture, not rely on heathens like me (besides which we are on a new page) | Bikerman wrote: |
| Tutor wrote: | | Earlier Bikerman had a moderate link where you can find several mention about hell. But it wasn't the point why I recommended reading the Bible. It's sad how people judge something without even examining it. I hope you haven't been guilty to that kind of mistake. If you have, there's always way to fix it. |
Why rely on my links? You already know that I am not a believer, since I have said so. Yes, I have read the bible many times, so my judgement is not based on ignorance, but surely it is incumbent on you, as a believer, to support your case with YOUR links to scripture, not rely on heathens like me (besides which we are on a new page) |
So I should ignore all your statements just because you are no-believer? No, as a christian I see you as worthy of a conversationist as I, and as I saw you had a reasonable link to a page where Bibles quotes of hell were mentioned, I thought it would be OK to rely on your source. I see no caps in credibility between different religions' supporters. | Tutor wrote: |
| So I should ignore all your statements just because you are no-believer? No, as a christian I see you as worthy of a conversationist as I, and as I saw you had a reasonable link to a page where Bibles quotes of hell were mentioned, I thought it would be OK to rely on your source. I see no caps in credibility between different religions' supporters. |
Ermm...I'm an atheist - I don't support any religion. I think you should provide your own links to support your own arguments. That would be the correct thing to do. As a 'science-type' person, I am always sceptical of links and references provided by others and I always try to check them out myself. I would encourage you to adopt the same approach. | Tutor wrote: |
| Which I see kind of ironical is that to actually see Indi's point of view I'd have to take a perspective where I assume that God doesn't exist. 'cos now I see that God has gave you the option (opportunity) not to believe, as you seem as no-believer to me right now. And still I see you living a full life in no-forced-believer position. |
How many times am i going to have to repeat this before you answer it? ^_^; Look, i'll even colour it red this time. Let's see if that helps.
Suppose i took you and locked you in a cage that you could not possibly escape from by any means (including death!). Then i told you that if you did not do what i wanted you to do, you would be tortured horribly. Are. You. Free?
Now, keep paying careful attention, because i'm not done yet.
The example above is just like God's case, because there is no way i can escape from God's control, and if i do not do what he has told me to do, he will torture me horribly. If you think the above example is not like the case of God... Explain. Why.
Don't drift off on a tangent yet: i'm almost done, but not quite.
Even if i have you in that cage, and have told you you must do what i say or suffer, you can still choose to ignore me. Do you understand? Let me say it again. Suppose i have captured you, locked you in a cage, told you you must do what i say or you will be tortured... and then you don't do what i tell you to do. Of course, you will be tortured horribly. According to your logic, i gave you the "opportunity", the "option" to ignore me. So let me get the situation clear again: i have taken you, put you in a cage you cannot escape from, and told you to do what i say or suffer horribly. Have. i. Given. You. The. Opportunity. To. Choose. To. Disobey. Me? (Or, did i not give you the option - in fact, didn't i try to take the option away by threat?)
Now, you claim that God has given me freedom (and that's why suffering exists), and that i am exercising that freedom by defying him. Isn't that a little... sick? Let me give you a real life example of what you are promoting. Her name is Natascha Kampusch. She was taken when she was 10, and held for over 8 years by a man named Wolfgang Priklopil who... are you ready?... held her in a cage she could not escape from and told her that if she did not do what he told her to do, she would be punished or even killed. Now, several times throughout her ordeal she disobeyed him - trying to attract attention by making noise, for example. Now, do you have the stones to tell Natascha that Priklopil gave her the "opportunity" to disobey him... the "option"?
It seems to me that he wanted to take away Natascha's freedom, not give it to her. It seems to me that if he had wanted to give her freedom, he could have done it in half measures by not telling her what to do (simply keeping her confined and letting her do what she wanted to do, rather than having her service him), and in whole measure by simply letting her out of his control... but he did neither, and apparently, God intends to do neither either. It seems to me that when she took the great risk of disobeying the bastard (remember, she could have been murdered at any time! and she was certainly punished more than once), she was not being given any kind of "opportunity" from Priklopil. And are you sick enough to tell her that she deserved whatever punishment she got from Priklopil, whenever she defied his orders?
And if not, how in any sense in this universe can you possibly tell me that anyone deserves Hell for defying God's attempt to control them through fear?
| Tutor wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Why don't you tell me exactly where i should look for this information? |
Earlier Bikerman had a moderate link where you can find several mention about hell. But it wasn't the point why I recommended reading the Bible. It's sad how people judge something without even examining it. I hope you haven't been guilty to that kind of mistake. If you have, there's always way to fix it. |
If i had wanted Bikerman to tell me where to look, i would have asked him. i asked you. i know he's read the Bible, and i know that he understands it quite well. But i was asking you, not him, for your understanding... because apparently you understand something in the Bible that neither of us do. You are a Christian, aren't you? That means you have read the Bible, right? Not just heard about it in Sunday School... you've actually read it, right?
That means you can tell me where to look to find anything i need to find.
Or... haven't you read the Bible?
| Tutor wrote: |
| Then I have to ask you, where does God force you to? I can't recall was it you who said that believer has to dedicate everything he does to the God. So you think that I, as a believer, dedicate it to God when I listen heavy metal which sometimes curses the God. And I still think it's enjoyable music. Or does my friend dedicate when he leaves his girlfriend? I don't think so. Or should one dedicate its masturbating to God? Please no. We're not expected to dedicate much to the God. But sometimes we choose to dedicate our prayers or moments of prosperity to Him. |
Of course i didn't say that. That's just silly.
You said that suffering exists because of free will. So i've been asking you - over and over and over and over - do we really have free will? It doesn't look like it to me, and the example i give demonstrates that clearly. But if you're right, then there is something wrong with that example. i'm still waiting to hear what that is. | Tutor wrote: |
| So I should ignore all your statements just because you are no-believer? |
I just have to say this:
No believer of what?
Don't use that it's too general.
