Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 121 to 155 of 155

Thread: Heaven, Hell and Purgatory

  1. #121
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    Quality shitpost, but missing the point regardless. You're missing a rather important thing in regards to the Catholic conception if "eternity". You see, God is eternal, but few ever consider what that means. For instance, God says a million years is an instant and an instant is a million years. You see, for God, the "End of the World" is now. The "Beginning of the world" is now. This is why "deathbed" repentance, among other things, is possible. While ye may have defied God all your life, if at that last moment you repented, God accepts that for, to him, you "always" did in his eyes.

    Granted, this will make your time in purgatory especially painful but you knew that as you made that choice. Again I say unto you all, God is many things, but chief amongst them is Love, Truth, and Justice. You must atone for your sins, all of them, in the end. The only real question the faithful must ask is if they're really and truly willing to endure their "just deserts" from the ultimate judge as it were. If you truly can, rejoice, for ye will join Christ in paradise as surely as that criminal who was crucified beside him did.

    If not, well, I can only pray that your life served as an example to others. A great tale as to why one ought not refuse the divine and merciful hand that is extended in infinite love towards them...
    You seem to think I should fear God's opinion more than my own conscience. That's as though you do things contrary to your conscience because you believe someone else says you should act differently. That is no way to live.

    You also seem to think that I should act out of fear of punishment, and the hope of a reward.

    I do not defy "God". I cannot defy something I don't believe in the existence of.

    Your "God" punished an innocent individual, gives no punishment to his favourites, and gives a disproportionate punishment to the majority despite already had its bloodlust satiated with a sacrifice because they honestly could not believe in it (whether due to matters of fact, disgust at ideology, or pure ignorance). That is the exact opposite of Love, Truth, and Justice.

  2. #122
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Actually, no, accusing Christians for “blind faith” is a common misconception.

    Christians actually embrace the biblical definition of faith. This definition of faith is faith preceded by knowledge;

    One cannot possess faith in God until he/she comes to knowledge of God. Thus, faith is not accepting what one cannot prove:

    --Faith cannot outrun knowledge, for it is dependent upon knowledge (Romans 10:17).
    --Abraham came to faith only after he came to knowledge of God’s promises and was persuaded (Romans 4:20-21)
    --The Apostle Peter says to give a reason for the hope you believe in (1 Peter 3:15)

    People are called upon to have faith only after receiving adequate knowledge. In fact, the Bible demands that the thinker be:

    --rational in gathering information
    --examining the evidence, and
    --reasoning properly about the evidence, thereby drawing only warranted conclusions.

    Paul articulated this when he wrote "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess 5:21), John too echoed the same thoughts when he said to "test the spirits" (1 John 4:1).

    All this in fact, is essentially the law of rationality in philosophical circles: one should draw conclusions which are justified by the evidence.

    "Blind faith" is an exaggeration
    Jesus blessed those who believed without evidence, while notably did not bless Thomas who only believed in the resurrection after he had touched Jesus' body. That is notably in the bible. If Thomas in the gospels was not even able to believe in the resurrection despite allegedly having seen all the miracles that Jesus had done...including resurrect someone from the dead...I can only conclude that these stories were passion plays designed to sway those to convert to Christianity in its early history. If even Thomas did not believe without evidence, then I have good read to believe the miracles were all made up.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Except if God exists, miracles are not a crazy thing ---> That is a reasonable statement

    If an omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being does exist, he could work a number of supernatural miracles:

    --If there was no universe, and he chose to create one, he could speak it into existence (Psalm 33:6-9)
    --He could ensure what writer of His choosing penned what He wanted mankind to know
    --If He wanted to let mankind to know that He created the world and everything in it, He could tell them through his divinely inspired writers.
    A miracle as I understand it is something supernatural - i.e. not natural, contrary to the laws of nature. But by that definition, it necessarily follows that a miracle cannot happen, because every phenomenon is necessarily natural, within the laws of nature. If you point at a miracle, I merely see a natural event.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Naturalistic atheism contends that:

    --Matter came from nothing, yet no such thing has ever been observed to happen (Observation first??).
    --Biological life came from non-life, yet science has known for many decades that, in nature, life only comes from pre-existing life.
    --Water evolved on earth from dust and dirt over millions of years
    --Donkeys evolved from fish
    etc etc

    How is it that all of that does not require faith either??

    Same thing for you. Faith is (not blind faith) preceded by some sort of knowledge.
    "Atheism" is simply defined as a lack of belief in the existence of gods. It does not require any belief, and is not an ideology tied with the baggage you try to pack in with it.

    Again...the only person who says that Something came from Nothing is you. I don't believe that. For all I know, matter is indestructible.

    Define what you mean by "life". That is a very loaded term. We know that in nature, that long-chain molecules such as RNA are able to form - these are normally considered inanimate, lifeless. But the distinction between what is life and what is not life is arbitrary.

    "science has known for many decades that, in nature, life only comes from pre-existing life." - What? "Science" makes no such claim. It is bad science to claim as knowledge something that is unfalsifiable - "you can't prove a negative." - I could well say that by that standard, that completely destroys your argument for "God" - we have not observed this supposedly all-powerful, ever-present being ANYWHERE, at ANY SCALE. Scientists don't make observations such as "We have not observed God" in scientific journals - they start from observations first - no Yahweh "God" being has been observed and defined in a way that could qualify as a hypothesis which could be tested.

    The evidence shows that donkeys did in fact evolve from fish.

  3. #123

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    12,323
    Mentioned
    1128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is you life here. If you behave by one way - you are feeling happier. If you do good to others - this should do better to you too (alike by karma links). If you are accented on good feelings to reality and its parts - you are accepting the Creation and hence God's will and this should help to feel better. If you are feeling the acceptance with own heart/soul (as it's Creation's part) - follow to it - then you are feeling good. If you are feeling joined state with God - you are feeling happy and the life goes not bad also.

    While "Heaven, Hell and Purgatory" after death conceptions should be paganic folklore included to Christianity to be easier understood and accepted. It's some possibly that a part of you as a "soul", what is not your human personality or your mind has after death links to other forms of the life or with other beings - in other dimentions or place/times. The idea about a place where your mind suffers eternally or feels good eternally - looks rather strange. Emotions or sensations relate to bodies, while a soul is something other.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  4. #124
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    1,069
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    You seem to think I should fear God's opinion more than my own conscience. That's as though you do things contrary to your conscience because you believe someone else says you should act differently. That is no way to live.

    You also seem to think that I should act out of fear of punishment, and the hope of a reward.

    I do not defy "God". I cannot defy something I don't believe in the existence of.

    Your "God" punished an innocent individual, gives no punishment to his favourites, and gives a disproportionate punishment to the majority despite already had its bloodlust satiated with a sacrifice because they honestly could not believe in it (whether due to matters of fact, disgust at ideology, or pure ignorance). That is the exact opposite of Love, Truth, and Justice.
    Damn, I don't much like Voltaire but his one prayer is being answered here. "Lord, make my enemies ridiculous" and he stated that God granted it. In his eyes, his enemies were indeed ridiculous somehow.

    You need to read more Catholic theologians/bone up on our dogma. I'd start with Aquinas as he bitch slaps your Atheism so thoroughly that none of your alleged kind has managed to successfully refute all of his points such that you'd convert the average theist to atheism who hadn't already turned their back on God beforehand somehow. After all, if some Chad-tier Atheist had done so oh you bet your ass that essay/book/tome would have been crammed down the throat of everyone who lived because it'd be "The Imperial Truth" made manifest as it were. If you get that reference without resorting to Google than congrats, you're a nerd .
    Last edited by End; 11-03-2020 at 05:13 AM.

  5. #125
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Maizistan
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    1,489
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    Damn, I don't much like Voltaire but his one prayer is being answered here. "Lord, make my enemies ridiculous" and he stated that God granted it. In his eyes, his enemies were indeed ridiculous somehow.

    You need to read more Catholic theologians/bone up on our dogma. I'd start with Aquinas as he bitch slaps your Atheism so thoroughly that none of your alleged kind has managed to successfully refute all of his points such that you'd convert the average theist to atheism who hadn't already turned their back on God beforehand somehow. After all, if some Chad-tier Atheist had done so oh you bet your ass that essay/book/tome would have been crammed down the throat of everyone who lived because it'd be "The Imperial Truth" made manifest as it were. If you get that reference without resorting to Google than congrats, you're a nerd .
    See, in an online debate or discussion, it's pretty useless to say "Aquinas would bitch slap your atheism so thoroughly" when you can't replicate the arguments he'd supposedly use for that purpose, given that Aquinas is in the public domain, you can freely copy-paste, and you can respond in as much time and as many words as you like. If you think something Aquinas wrote could disprove SubT, you have every means of proving that! But you can't seriously expect anyone to go read the entire Summa Theologica any more than I could expect you to watch a thirty-hour video series on how our oligarchs are secretly lizards in people-suits. If no atheist has gone to the trouble of going through, point-by-point, every argument Aquinas ever made, and writing a systematic response, it's because they just don't care, not because they're struck dumb by his brilliance. It would be an extraordinary amount of effort to go through, and for little purpose; nobody's minds would be changed by doing that. As with people who watch lizard-people videos, the only people swayed by Aquinas are people who already believe.

    It's interesting that you apparently recognize this, and try to turn this around: "such that you'd convert the average theist to atheism who hadn't already turned their back on God beforehand somehow". Of course you can't prove this except by tautology: anyone convinced by rational debate to become an atheist must have already "turned their back on God." But I'm curious how you'd explain the fact that debates of this sort far more frequently convince people to leave religion rather than the other way about, and, with a few rare exceptions, people only become religious because they were born into the faith.
    Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 11-03-2020 at 05:43 AM.
    Clicks speed growth.


  6. #126
    peteronfireee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,182
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Jesus blessed those who believed without evidence, while notably did not bless Thomas who only believed in the resurrection after he had touched Jesus' body. That is notably in the bible.
    Sorry, no, here John/Jesus is not supporting blind faith; again, you have to look at the entire context (basically the next verses after the one you refer to, John 20:30-31) of scripture instead of cherry-picking verses to support an agenda.

    In John 20:29, Jesus is actually chastising Thomas for Thomas’ ridiculous requirements for evidence. Jesus is saying "The evidence you have SHOULD be enough... But if you need more, hmm fine here you go."

    In addition, they aren’t saying faith back by evidence is necessarily bad, on the contrary, the whole book of John supports evidence-based faith by illustrating the miracles Jesus performed, so that all may believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    If Thomas in the gospels was not even able to believe in the resurrection despite allegedly having seen all the miracles that Jesus had done...including resurrect someone from the dead...I can only conclude that these stories were passion plays designed to sway those to convert to Christianity in its early history. If even Thomas did not believe without evidence, then I have good read to believe the miracles were all made up.
    Even when Jesus performed miracle after miracle, (some) of the disciples still didn’t believe. I mean, even after the resurrection itself, Jesus decided to stay a little longer, performing miracles for 40 more days. That just goes to show the flaws in human nature. You also see this theme throughout the entire bible where God’s people continually forget / abandon him even though they were shown miracles. Even if miracles were to be performed today, there would still be (some) non-believers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    A miracle as I understand it is something supernatural - i.e. not natural, contrary to the laws of nature. But by that definition, it necessarily follows that a miracle cannot happen, because every phenomenon is necessarily natural, within the laws of nature. If you point at a miracle, I merely see a natural event.
    But the whole point of a miracle is that they’re in a different category of its own and operates outside of the laws of nature / physics.

    ”Atheism" is simply defined as a lack of belief in the existence of gods. It does not require any belief, and is not an ideology tied with the baggage you try to pack in with it.
    Sorry, I didn’t mean to define “Atheism” but the philosophy of Naturalism, let me clarify;

    Naturalism - the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

    Again...the only person who says that Something came from Nothing is you. I don't believe that. For all I know, matter is indestructible.
    Nah, I’m saying something came from something beyond the universe (God). You have proposed that the universe has always existed or it can come from nothing (we just don’t know how).

    Define what you mean by "life". That is a very loaded term.
    Condition(s) that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death

    We know that in nature, that long-chain molecules such as RNA are able to form - these are normally considered inanimate, lifeless. But the distinction between what is life and what is not life is arbitrary.
    And as far as we know, lifeless, inanimate strands of RNA by themselves do not have the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death

    "science has known for many decades that, in nature, life only comes from pre-existing life." - What? "Science" makes no such claim. It is bad science to claim as knowledge something that is unfalsifiable - "you can't prove a negative." - I could well say that by that standard, that completely destroys your argument for "God" - we have not observed this supposedly all-powerful, ever-present being ANYWHERE, at ANY SCALE. Scientists don't make observations such as "We have not observed God" in scientific journals - they start from observations first - no Yahweh "God" being has been observed and defined in a way that could qualify as a hypothesis which could be tested.
    That’s beside the point.

    As far as we know, lifeless, inanimate strands of RNA by themselves do not have the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death

    The evidence shows that donkeys did in fact evolve from fish.

    Last edited by peteronfireee; 11-05-2020 at 11:42 AM.
    "I like to provoke people because it makes them think"

  7. #127
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    Damn, I don't much like Voltaire but his one prayer is being answered here. "Lord, make my enemies ridiculous" and he stated that God granted it. In his eyes, his enemies were indeed ridiculous somehow.

    You need to read more Catholic theologians/bone up on our dogma. I'd start with Aquinas as he bitch slaps your Atheism so thoroughly that none of your alleged kind has managed to successfully refute all of his points such that you'd convert the average theist to atheism who hadn't already turned their back on God beforehand somehow. After all, if some Chad-tier Atheist had done so oh you bet your ass that essay/book/tome would have been crammed down the throat of everyone who lived because it'd be "The Imperial Truth" made manifest as it were. If you get that reference without resorting to Google than congrats, you're a nerd .
    I don't see how dogma can prove the existence of something. Maybe you could refer me to a scientific paper instead?

    Thomas Aquinas' argument - his version of the cosmological argument doesn't prove "God", as it does not explain anything. The universe no more needs a cause than the uncreated God Aquinas was trying to prove. But we can actually observe the universe.

  8. #128
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Sorry, no, here John/Jesus is not supporting blind faith; again, you have to look at the entire context (basically the next verses after the one you refer to, John 20:30-31) of scripture instead of cherry-picking verses to support an agenda.

    In John 20:29, Jesus is actually chastising Thomas for Thomas’ ridiculous requirements for evidence. Jesus is saying "The evidence you have SHOULD be enough... But if you need more, hmm fine here you go."
    I don't know where you get that from. The passage simply does not say that.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Even when Jesus performed miracle after miracle, (some) of the disciples still didn’t believe. I mean, even after the resurrection itself, Jesus decided to stay a little longer, performing miracles for 40 more days. That just goes to show the flaws in human nature. You also see this theme throughout the entire bible where God’s people continually forget / abandon him even though they were shown miracles. Even if miracles were to be performed today, there would still be (some) non-believers.
    "And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation." - Mark (8:11-12)

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    But the whole point of a miracle is that they’re in a different category of its own and operates outside of the laws of nature / physics.
    Where do you get that idea from?

    If something CAN happen, it is within the laws of nature, otherwise it wouldn't be able to happen.
    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Sorry, I didn’t mean to define “Atheism” but the philosophy of Naturalism, let me clarify;

    Naturalism - the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
    Why then did you put "atheism" after the descriptive "Naturalistic"? It seems to me clear that was exactly what you intended to say. Also, the things you ascribed to as beliefs of "Naturalistic atheism" could just as much be the beliefs of someone who only ascribed things to the supernatural or the spiritual.

    I wouldn't consider myself a "naturalist" by your understanding, as it would be a redundant belief. I just prefer to only consider explanations that fit observation.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Nah, I’m saying something came from something beyond the universe (God). You have proposed that the universe has always existed or it can come from nothing (we just don’t know how).
    But what you suggest isn't even falsifiable. It isn't based on any observation either.

    I don't limit myself to only those two hypotheses.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Condition(s) that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death

    And as far as we know, lifeless, inanimate strands of RNA by themselves do not have the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death
    Why do you say that?

    What do you consider the most basic form of life?
    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    I await your scientific paper disproving the theory of evolution by natural selection.

  9. #129
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    The evidence shows that donkeys did in fact evolve from fish.
    I forgot to point out that the dogma of your religion says that humans evolved from dust, that humans were the first life according to one variant of the myth (the other variant in the same book says that the animals of the sea and air were created before humans). In both stories, Adam was created before plants - as we know, we need these in order to breathe.

  10. #130
    peteronfireee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,182
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    On miracles,

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    If something CAN happen, it is within the laws of nature, otherwise it wouldn't be able to happen.
    Another approach can involve looking at the (minimal) facts of one the most important miracles in Christianity, such as the resurrection.

    These facts / data are accepted by both christians and non-christian scholars:

    1. “Jesus died by crucifixion;

    2. “Very soon after His death, His followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus;

    3. “Their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message;

    4. “These things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion;

    5. “James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience with whom he believed to be the resurrected Christ;

    6. “The Christian persecutor Paul … became a believer after a similar experience.”

    These ‘minimal facts’ come not only from multiple eyewitnesses as recorded in Scripture, but from numerous non-biblical sources (admitted by virtually all scholars) — even sources hostile to Christianity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Why then did you put "atheism" after the descriptive "Naturalistic"? It seems to me clear that was exactly what you intended to say. Also, the things you ascribed to as beliefs of "Naturalistic atheism" could just as much be the beliefs of someone who only ascribed things to the supernatural or the spiritual.

    I wouldn't consider myself a "naturalist" by your understanding, as it would be a redundant belief. I just prefer to only consider explanations that fit observation.
    Naturalist; believes in natural causes, not miracles
    Atheist; No belief in God

    All atheists are naturalists, but not all naturalists are atheist

    Naturalistic atheism- A naturalist who happens to be an atheist

    The main point- Since there is some overlap, wanted to point out that atheists also have a belief system / philosophy


    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Why do you say that?

    What do you consider the most basic form of life?
    That's the whole point. Evolutionists / scientists can't even explain how life even begun (or the failure to explain the origin of genetic code)

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I await your scientific paper disproving the theory of evolution by natural selection.
    Some problems with evolution:

    https://evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/


    --Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages.

    --The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution.

    --The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life.”

    --Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;


    --The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant — at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely.

    --The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code.

    --The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.

    --The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species.

    --A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called “junk” DNA.

    --Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I forgot to point out that the dogma of your religion says that humans evolved from dust, that humans were the first life according to one variant of the myth (the other variant in the same book says that the animals of the sea and air were created before humans). In both stories, Adam was created before plants - as we know, we need these in order to breathe.
    Again, you have to read the text more carefully and put things into context.

    Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one; it is about one small part of what happened on the sixth “day” of creation.

    Verse 5 is key to understand what is going on here. It says, “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up.” In other words, at this point agriculture had not yet begun. The shrub of the field and the plant of the field represent crops which sustain human life. At this early point, Adam and Eve were gatherers, not farmers. It was only after they left the garden that, as a result of sin, mankind had to make a living by tilling the earth. Genesis 3:18-19 makes this clear as God tells man that he will begin to eat “the plants of the field.” The Hebrew here is the same as in Genesis 1:5.
    Last edited by peteronfireee; 11-05-2020 at 11:42 AM.
    "I like to provoke people because it makes them think"

  11. #131
    Find your way... Consilience's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    TIM
    ZERO-SUM
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    TL;DR: No one is going to convince anyone other than the undecided. Seems likes a passionate and engaging debate though.

  12. #132

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 7w6 sx/so
    Posts
    1,718
    Mentioned
    81 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i don't think people realized how inadequate and problematic the ideas of hell, heaven, and purg are when they dreamed them up
    ENTj-Ni sx/so

  13. #133

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 7w6 sx/so
    Posts
    1,718
    Mentioned
    81 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    The bible is deeper than you give it credit for







    These would operate outside the laws of nature, that's why they are called miracles.



    Naturalist; believes in natural causes, not miracles
    Atheist; No belief in God

    All atheists are naturalists, but not all naturalists are atheist

    Naturalistic atheism- A naturalist who happens to be an atheist

    The main point- Since there is some overlap, just wanted to point out that atheists also have a belief system / philosophy



    That's the whole point. Evolutionists / scientists can't even explain how life even begun (or the failure to explain the origin of genetic code)



    Some problems with evolution:

    https://evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/






    Again, you have to read the text more carefully and put things into context.

    Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one; it is about one small part of what happened on the sixth “day” of creation.
    The problem with this tactic is circular reasoning. You're citing an unreliable source. That's your prerogative to pick up a book and say its stories are true and happened.

    (I'm talking about your methods)

    I am Christian among other things.
    ENTj-Ni sx/so

  14. #134
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    On miracles,



    Another approach can involve looking at the (minimal) facts of one the most important miracles in Christianity, such as the resurrection.

    These facts / data are accepted by both christians and non-christian scholars:

    1. “Jesus died by crucifixion;

    2. “Very soon after His death, His followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus;

    3. “Their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message;

    4. “These things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion;

    5. “James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience with whom he believed to be the resurrected Christ;

    6. “The Christian persecutor Paul … became a believer after a similar experience.”

    These ‘minimal facts’ come not only from multiple eyewitnesses as recorded in Scripture, but from numerous non-biblical sources (admitted by virtually all scholars) — even sources hostile to Christianity.
    You still haven't produced a body, living or dead. A fact cannot be used a proof of a miracle. It is meaningless to say things happen contrary to the laws of nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Naturalist; believes in natural causes, not miracles
    Atheist; No belief in God

    All atheists are naturalists, but not all naturalists are atheist

    Naturalistic atheism- A naturalist who happens to be an atheist

    The main point- Since there is some overlap, wanted to point out that atheists also have a belief system / philosophy
    Incorrect, not all atheists are naturalists. A baby is not a naturalist, but it lacks a belief in the existence of gods. Atheism does not require a belief system.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    That's the whole point. Evolutionists / scientists can't even explain how life even begun (or the failure to explain the origin of genetic code)
    You didn't answer the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    I suggest you read research papers or books that summarises them by experts in the field of biology rather than limiting yourself to the opinions of creationists.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    On miracles,



    Another approach can involve looking at the (minimal) facts of one the most important miracles in Christianity, such as the resurrection.

    These facts / data are accepted by both christians and non-christian scholars:

    1. “Jesus died by crucifixion;

    2. “Very soon after His death, His followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus;

    3. “Their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message;

    4. “These things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion;

    5. “James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience with whom he believed to be the resurrected Christ;

    6. “The Christian persecutor Paul … became a believer after a similar experience.”

    These ‘minimal facts’ come not only from multiple eyewitnesses as recorded in Scripture, but from numerous non-biblical sources (admitted by virtually all scholars) — even sources hostile to Christianity.
    You still haven't produced a body, living or dead. A fact cannot be used a proof of a miracle. It is meaningless to say things happen contrary to the laws of nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Naturalist; believes in natural causes, not miracles
    Atheist; No belief in God

    All atheists are naturalists, but not all naturalists are atheist

    Naturalistic atheism- A naturalist who happens to be an atheist

    The main point- Since there is some overlap, wanted to point out that atheists also have a belief system / philosophy
    Incorrect, not all atheists are naturalists. A baby is not a naturalist, but it lacks a belief in the existence of gods. Atheism does not require a belief system.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    That's the whole point. Evolutionists / scientists can't even explain how life even begun (or the failure to explain the origin of genetic code)
    You didn't answer the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    I suggest you read research papers or books that summarises them by experts in the field of biology rather than limiting yourself to the opinions of creationists.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Again, you have to read the text more carefully and put things into context.

    Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one; it is about one small part of what happened on the sixth “day” of creation.
    It would be ignorant to treat Genesis as a scientific and historical account.

  15. #135
    peteronfireee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,182
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    You still haven't produced a body, living or dead. A fact cannot be used a proof of a miracle. It is meaningless to say things happen contrary to the laws of nature.
    Produce a body, no. But facts and evidence are tools in the toolkit to extrapolate potential possibilities of what happened (pretty good too, better than no external body of evidence)

    It's the same thing with our evolutionary scientist friends; they extrapolate data from what's known, since we weren't there to observe how the world/animals evolved over time

    It is meaningless to say things happen contrary to the laws of nature.
    Ok, Mr Naturalist

    A baby is not a naturalist
    LOL. *eyeroll*

    Incorrect, not all atheists are naturalists. A baby is not a naturalist, but it lacks a belief in the existence of gods. Atheism does not require a belief system.
    atheism does not require a belief system no, but **atheists** are people and often have accompanying beliefs, such as naturalism

    You didn't answer the question.
    I did, u just read it too literally. You, I, nor anyone else can explain how life started / what it is from an evolutionary perspective.


    So then u look at abiogenesis...

    And still. There are more questions than answers

    I suggest you read research papers or books that summarises them by experts in the field of biology rather than limiting yourself to the opinions of creationists.
    I'm familiar with them

    It would be ignorant to treat Genesis as a scientific and historical account.
    Genesis is an often misunderstood book but contains *many* theological, scientific, and historical gems
    Last edited by peteronfireee; 11-07-2020 at 04:07 AM.
    "I like to provoke people because it makes them think"

  16. #136
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Produce a body, no. But facts and evidence are tools in the toolkit to extrapolate potential possibilities of what happened (pretty good too, better than no external body of evidence)

    It's the same thing with our evolutionary scientist friends; they extrapolate data from what's known, since we weren't there to observe how the world/animals evolved over time
    But do you ignore all evidence that contradicts the bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Ok, Mr Naturalist
    I have no need to give such a label to myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    LOL. *eyeroll*
    Do you have a problem with what I said?
    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    atheism does not require a belief system no, but **atheists** are people and often have accompanying beliefs, such as naturalism
    And Christians sometimes commit genocide if they believe their god has told them to do so. What's your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    I did, u just read it too literally. You, I, nor anyone else can explain how life started / what it is from an evolutionary perspective.


    So then u look at abiogenesis...

    And still. There are more questions than answers



    I'm familiar with them



    Genesis is an often misunderstood book but contains *many* theological, scientific, and historical gems
    @Eliza Thomason doubts that the Earth is "round", seemingly because of reading the bible literally. Can you give examples where you have dismissed the biblical account due to scientific evidence? It seems that you have a habit of limiting yourself to the supernatural.

  17. #137
    peteronfireee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,182
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    But do you ignore all evidence that contradicts the bible?
    I'm unaware of them

    And Christians sometimes commit genocide if they believe their god has told them to do so...
    if one cares to examine the circumstances behind the "genocide", the Bible consistently exonerates itself by offering legitimate clarification and explanation

    @Eliza Thomason doubts that the Earth is "round", seemingly because of reading the bible literally.
    Even if we choose to take every biblical passage literally, we still do not find a clear endorsement of flat-Earth theory.

    It should also be noted that even the supposed “spherical Earth” passages occur in poetic contexts, filled with metaphor and hyperbole. So, the Hebrew Bible has no official “position” on the shape of the Earth, whether round or flat.

    Can you give examples where you have dismissed the biblical account due to scientific evidence? It seems that you have a habit of limiting yourself to the supernatural.
    Can't say I have.

    And not only are scientific mistakes completely absent from its pages, but the writers often exhibit an understanding of the world that was unavailable by human wisdom or understanding at the time. (considering that the entire Bible itself is almost 2,000 years old and some parts of it are approximately 3,500 years old)
    "I like to provoke people because it makes them think"

  18. #138
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    I'm unaware of them



    if one cares to examine the circumstances behind the "genocide", the Bible consistently exonerates itself by offering legitimate clarification and explanation
    Genocide is never justified in my view. Neither is wiping out most life on Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Even if we choose to take every biblical passage literally, we still do not find a clear endorsement of flat-Earth theory.

    It should also be noted that even the supposed “spherical Earth” passages occur in poetic contexts, filled with metaphor and hyperbole. So, the Hebrew Bible has no official “position” on the shape of the Earth, whether round or flat.



    Can't say I have.

    And not only are scientific mistakes completely absent from its pages, but the writers often exhibit an understanding of the world that was unavailable by human wisdom or understanding at the time. (considering that the entire Bible itself is almost 2,000 years old and some parts of it are approximately 3,500 years old)
    The New Testament has the Devil take Jesus to a high mountain where it was allegedly possible to see all the kingdoms of the world. Was this metaphorical in your view?

  19. #139
    peteronfireee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,182
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    The New Testament has the Devil take Jesus to a high mountain where it was allegedly possible to see all the kingdoms of the world. Was this metaphorical in your view?
    I believe it was metaphorical / visionary rather than being transported to Jerusalem and some nearby mountain-top:

    --First, having fasted for 40 days and nights, Jesus was in a physical condition that lends itself to visionary experiences.

    --Second, the text literally says (Mark 1:13) that he was 'in the desert forty days, being tempted' which makes it sound like the temptations themselves also took place in the desert.

    --Third, one would think that if Jesus had actually been standing on top of the Temple in Jerusalem, He would have been quickly noticed. The Roman Fortress of Antonio towered over the Temple construct (watching, like Big Brother, all the happenings at the Temple). The Temple was a very busy place.

    --Fourth, there is, of course, no mountain on Earth in which one could literally see all the kingdoms of the world. Luke 4:5 says that the devil "showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world."

    As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing of significance is lost if it turns out that Jesus' temptation was a visionary experience. The devil is a spiritual being. He didn't need to literally take Jesus to an actual mountain in order to offer Him all the kingdoms of the world.

    Of course, it is possible that the devil literally transported Jesus to the Temple in Jerusalem (perhaps at night where they wouldn't be seen) and to a high mountain (where he could see, in a hyperbolic manner of speaking, everything). If so, I imagine they would have just disappeared from the desert and reappeared at the new location. The devil himself, being a spiritual being, seems to have the ability to show up anywhere in an instant. Perhaps he has the power to take someone with him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Genocide is never justified in my view. Neither is wiping out most life on Earth
    Do you believe killing is ever justified? What about in time of war?
    "I like to provoke people because it makes them think"

  20. #140
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    I believe it was metaphorical / visionary rather than being transported to Jerusalem and some nearby mountain-top:

    --First, having fasted for 40 days and nights, Jesus was in a physical condition that lends itself to visionary experiences.

    --Second, the text literally says (Mark 1:13) that he was 'in the desert forty days, being tempted' which makes it sound like the temptations themselves also took place in the desert.

    --Third, one would think that if Jesus had actually been standing on top of the Temple in Jerusalem, He would have been quickly noticed. The Roman Fortress of Antonio towered over the Temple construct (watching, like Big Brother, all the happenings at the Temple). The Temple was a very busy place.

    --Fourth, there is, of course, no mountain on Earth in which one could literally see all the kingdoms of the world. Luke 4:5 says that the devil "showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world."

    As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing of significance is lost if it turns out that Jesus' temptation was a visionary experience. The devil is a spiritual being. He didn't need to literally take Jesus to an actual mountain in order to offer Him all the kingdoms of the world.

    Of course, it is possible that the devil literally transported Jesus to the Temple in Jerusalem (perhaps at night where they wouldn't be seen) and to a high mountain (where he could see, in a hyperbolic manner of speaking, everything). If so, I imagine they would have just disappeared from the desert and reappeared at the new location. The devil himself, being a spiritual being, seems to have the ability to show up anywhere in an instant. Perhaps he has the power to take someone with him.
    Maybe the resurrection was metaphorical too?

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Do you believe killing is ever justified? What about in time of war?
    I think war is wrong too. But I appreciate that some things are more undesirable than others.

    I believe genocide is always wrong.

  21. #141
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Do you believe killing is ever justified? What about in time of war?
    Also: If I was an omnipotent being, killing would never be justified, full stop.

    If an omnipotent being exists, they are more responsible for any genocide than any single human ever could be.

    This is a key reason why the idea of an omnipotent being existing terrifies me - they are simply inadequate.

    I know people who are incapable of doing wrong to anyone, whose lives are absolutely hell. Not only is an omnipotent being not resolving this, but according to your dogma, if they do not follow the dogma you follow, they will be tortured for eternity.

  22. #142
    peteronfireee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,182
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I know people who are incapable of doing wrong to anyone, whose lives are absolutely hell
    Yes, I agree that there is a lot of pain, hurt, injustice, and a lot of people just flat out suffering all around us, and you wonder why a good God would allow such things to happen…

    The questions you raise are pretty tough questions, but good ones.

    I’m not sure I can answer them sufficiently – I don’t think anyone can, but I will offer what I do know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    This is a key reason why the idea of an omnipotent being existing terrifies me - they are simply inadequate. .
    God alone is a righteous judge, his reasonings for allowing suffering are morally sufficient. Although we may not see it, there IS a greater good through it all. God is ultimately just regardless of whether or not we understand.

    Think about it this way:

    Imagine a parent with a young child learning how to ride a bike. That parent, knowing their child will likely fall and hurt themselves in the process of learning how to ride a bike, goes ahead and watches from the curb as their child tries again and again to keep upright. Their child will fall, scrape knees and palms, maybe cry from the pain of the bruises and the disappointment. But that parent, a good and loving parent, can allow their child to ride, fall, get up again and again because they know the delight their child will feel when she finally stays upright.

    The greater good of the delight and pleasure and freedom their child will feel when she learns how to stay upright on the bike will come through the pain of cut knees and disappointed hopes while she’s learning.

    Now, that is an incredibly simple analogy to understand what is possibly going on at the cosmic level. Scraped knees cannot be equated with the death of a loved one, or the suffering people experience individually or as communities, but we can think that perhaps there is something else going on that we may not or are not able to be aware of, that there might be something that is good that can come from suffering or evil. This is not to say that the ends justify the means—that the end of a potential good justifies great suffering or evil now. What it does say is that there is a possible greater good that can come from utterly terrible events and situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Also: If I was an omnipotent being, killing would never be justified, full stop.
    If an omnipotent being exists, they are more responsible for any genocide than any single human ever could be.
    I wanted to point out “killing” and “genocide,” as you put it, are a bit of a misrepresentation.

    First, if you are referring to Israel committing genocide against the Canaanites, there was no genocide. That’s an utter misrepresentation. There was no racial war here or any commands to pursue Canaanites or to exterminate them all.

    Second, God commanded the nation of Israel to “drive out” the Canaanites out of the land. The land is what was important to these middle eastern people and who had this land was the importance.

    Third, God wanted these petty Canaanite nation states destroyed by dispossessing the people of their land and giving it to the people of Israel – if the Canaanites simply fled nobody would’ve been killed. It was only those Canaanites that stayed behind to resist God commanded to kill.

    So that leaves us with the question, why did God decide to do all this in the first place?

    The Canaanites were due for judgement.

    In fact, God held back for 400 years but by then the people of Canaan became so debauch, vile, and evil.

    If you examine any ancient non-biblical literature, you can read about these tribes/cultures that were so incredibly evil; beastility, human sacrifice, mockery of God, etc it was all really vile.

    At the end of the day, again, God’s reasons are just and morally sufficient.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Not only is an omnipotent being not resolving this, but according to your dogma, if they do not follow the dogma you follow, they will be tortured for eternity.

    The last thing God wants is for anyone to end up in hell. The Bible says that God is “not willing that any should perish” (2 Peter 3:9) and that He “desires all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

    And God did more than simply proclaim his desire that none should perish; he actually proved his desire to save people when he came down to die on the cross for our sins (John 3:16).

    Having paid the penalty for mankind’s rebellion, God now graciously offers forgiveness and everlasting life as a gift (Rom 6:23) to all who will put their trust in Jesus.

    If people reject God’s grace and say “I will have nothing to do with God,” God will, in the end, allow them to have their wish.
    Last edited by peteronfireee; 11-12-2020 at 01:27 AM.
    "I like to provoke people because it makes them think"

  23. #143
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Yes, I agree that there is a lot of pain, hurt, injustice, and a lot of people just flat out suffering all around us, and you wonder why a good God would allow such things to happen…

    The questions you raise are pretty tough questions, but good ones.

    I’m not sure I can answer them sufficiently – I don’t think anyone can, but I will offer what I do know.



    God alone is a righteous judge, his reasonings for allowing suffering are morally sufficient. Although we may not see it, there IS a greater good through it all. God is ultimately just regardless of whether or not we understand.

    Think about it this way:

    Imagine a parent with a young child learning how to ride a bike. That parent, knowing their child will likely fall and hurt themselves in the process of learning how to ride a bike, goes ahead and watches from the curb as their child tries again and again to keep upright. Their child will fall, scrape knees and palms, maybe cry from the pain of the bruises and the disappointment. But that parent, a good and loving parent, can allow their child to ride, fall, get up again and again because they know the delight their child will feel when she finally stays upright.

    The greater good of the delight and pleasure and freedom their child will feel when she learns how to stay upright on the bike will come through the pain of cut knees and disappointed hopes while she’s learning.

    Now, that is an incredibly simple analogy to understand what is possibly going on at the cosmic level. Scraped knees cannot be equated with the death of a loved one, or the suffering people experience individually or as communities, but we can think that perhaps there is something else going on that we may not or are not able to be aware of, that there might be something that is good that can come from suffering or evil. This is not to say that the ends justify the means—that the end of a potential good justifies great suffering or evil now. What it does say is that there is a possible greater good that can come from utterly terrible events and situations.
    I believe it is possible for "good" to exist without "bad". "Good" is not made greater because "bad" exists. You are just engaging in apologetics.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    I wanted to point out “killing” and “genocide,” as you put it, are a bit of a misrepresentation.

    First, if you are referring to Israel committing genocide against the Canaanites, there was no genocide. That’s an utter misrepresentation. There was no racial war here or any commands to pursue Canaanites or to exterminate them all.

    Second, God commanded the nation of Israel to “drive out” the Canaanites out of the land. The land is what was important to these middle eastern people and who had this land was the importance.

    Third, God wanted these petty Canaanite nation states destroyed by dispossessing the people of their land and giving it to the people of Israel – if the Canaanites simply fled nobody would’ve been killed. It was only those Canaanites that stayed behind to resist God commanded to kill.

    So that leaves us with the question, why did God decide to do all this in the first place?

    The Canaanites were due for judgement.

    In fact, God held back for 400 years but by then the people of Canaan became so debauch, vile, and evil.

    If you examine any ancient non-biblical literature, you can read about these tribes/cultures that were so incredibly evil; beastility, human sacrifice, mockery of God, etc it was all really vile.

    At the end of the day, again, God’s reasons are just and morally sufficient.
    Deuteronomy 20:16-18 says that the Canaanites were utterly destroyed. This was an act of genocide.

    Not only were the men, women, and children killed, but every living thing was killed.

    The only thing worse than killing in my view is eternal torture - therefore, the act of genocide against the Canaanites was probably worse than anything the Canaanites had done.

    In any case, the bible is factually wrong, the Canaanites left descendants that survived to this day.

    Another genocide in the bible was when 42,000 Ephraimites were killed simply for being unable to say the word "shibbólet".

    According to the Flood myth, most people on earth except 8 people as well as most life was wiped out. I find this to be pure malice.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    The last thing God wants is for anyone to end up in hell. The Bible says that God is “not willing that any should perish” (2 Peter 3:9) and that He “desires all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

    And God did more than simply proclaim his desire that none should perish; he actually proved his desire to save people when he came down to die on the cross for our sins (John 3:16).

    Having paid the penalty for mankind’s rebellion, God now graciously offers forgiveness and everlasting life as a gift (Rom 6:23) to all who will put their trust in Jesus.

    If people reject God’s grace and say “I will have nothing to do with God,” God will, in the end, allow them to have their wish.
    If sending people to hell is the last thing "God" wants, why then did he create people it intends to send to hell, as literally as the last thing it wants? If you don't want to do something, then you shouldn't do it.

    If I made disbelief something which merited eternal torture and I did not want anyone to go there, then I would do everything in my power to ensure that no one disbelieved.

    To make someone knowing they are incapable of having the "correct" beliefs and yet punishing them all the same is utterly inexcusable.

    "Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the noveltry of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow at sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."

    "By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, -- that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, -- that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, -- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneous with the events, -- that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses; -- by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation."

    "But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." - Charles Darwin
    In my case, it isn't just a matter of me being unable to believe the existence of something without any actual evidence, it's that I find the doctrine of eternal damnation morally reprehensible.

    The Nazis occasionally threw living victims straight into the fires of the ovens at concentration camps, which I find absolutely repulsive. But the dogma of the "God" you follow not only does this, it tortures them for eternity. If you cannot appreciate why I find this morally reprehensible, then I don't think we can meaningfully continue this discussion. But your "God" too also has an uphill struggle if it is genuine in its wish to save me from such a fate - I simply cannot follow a being that engages in torture, nevermind believe in the existence of an omnibenolvolent and omnipotent being who has such a doctrine.

    If it did not have such a doctrine, I'd actually be more likely to believe in an omnibenolvolent and omnipotent being.

  24. #144
    peteronfireee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,182
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I believe it is possible for "good" to exist without "bad". "Good" is not made greater because "bad" exists. You are just engaging in apologetics.
    What are the possible ways (involving good and evil) God could have created the world? There are 4 options:

    1. No world
    2. Creating a world where there is no such thing as good and evil (an immoral world)
    3. Creating a world where we could only choose good
    4. Creating this kind of world, where good and evil exists and we have the freedom to choose

    Out of the 4 options, #4 is the only possible world where love is possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Deuteronomy 20:16-18 says that the Canaanites were utterly destroyed. This was an act of genocide.
    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    The only thing worse than killing in my view is eternal torture - therefore, the act of genocide against the Canaanites was probably worse than anything the Canaanites had done.
    Some context:

    First, the wording should be understood in the context of ancient Near Eastern military narrative. Ancient writings commonly traded in hyperbole—exaggeration for the sake of emphasis—especially when it came to military conquest. The practice is evident throughout battle reports of the time. “Joshua’s conventional warfare rhetoric,” Copan writes, “was common in many other ancient Near Eastern military accounts in the second and first millennia B.C.”
    Therefore, phrases like “utterly destroy” (haram), or “put to death men and women, children, and infants”—as well as other “obliteration language”—were stock “stereotypical” idioms used even when women or children were not present. It decreed total victory (much like your favorite sports team “wiping out” the opposition), not complete annihilation
    https://bible.org/article/canaanites...de-or-judgment

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Not only were the men, women, and children killed, but every living thing was killed
    Some context:

    Women and children probably weren’t targets since the attacks were directed at smaller military outposts characteristically holding soldiers, not noncombatants (who generally lived in outlying rural areas). “All the archaeological evidence indicates that no civilian populations existed at Jericho, Ai, and other cities mentioned in Joshua.”
    https://bible.org/article/canaanites...de-or-judgment

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    In any case, the bible is factually wrong, the Canaanites left descendants that survived to this day.
    Again, although the removal of the Canaanite population was commanded (Deuteronomy 20:17), numerous passages indicate the incomplete nature of the conquest (e.g., Joshua 17:12-13; Judges 1:27-33).

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Another genocide in the bible was when 42,000 Ephraimites were killed simply for being unable to say the word "shibbólet"
    The Gileadites did not kill the Ephraimites “for mispronunciation.” Gilead was at *war *with Ephraim, and killed the fleeing enemy because they were at war. Their pronunciation betrayed their true tribal affiliation when the Ephraimites were attempting to escape via subterfuge
    According to the Flood myth, most people on earth except 8 people as well as most life was wiped out. I find this to be pure malice.
    God actually delayed His destruction of the wicked world by water for many years, while Noah preached righteousness to them. Eventually, however, God’s longsuffering came to an end. The Flood began, and every wicked person on Earth received his just punishment from a loving God who gave them plenty of time to repent. Sadly, rather than follow “all that God commanded,” as Noah did, the wicked world of that time resisted the will of God and suffered a disastrous death

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    If sending people to hell is the last thing "God" wants, why then did he create people it intends to send to hell, as literally as the last thing it wants? If you don't want to do something, then you shouldn't do it.
    If I made disbelief something which merited eternal torture and I did not want anyone to go there, then I would do everything in my power to ensure that no one disbelieved.
    To make someone knowing they are incapable of having the "correct" beliefs and yet punishing them all the same is utterly inexcusable.
    In my case, it isn't just a matter of me being unable to believe the existence of something without any actual evidence, it's that I find the doctrine of eternal damnation morally reprehensible.
    The Nazis occasionally threw living victims straight into the fires of the ovens at concentration camps, which I find absolutely repulsive. But the dogma of the "God" you follow not only does this, it tortures them for eternity. If you cannot appreciate why I find this morally reprehensible, then I don't think we can meaningfully continue this discussion. But your "God" too also has an uphill struggle if it is genuine in its wish to save me from such a fate - I simply cannot follow a being that engages in torture, nevermind believe in the existence of an omnibenolvolent and omnipotent being who has such a doctrine.
    If it did not have such a doctrine, I'd actually be more likely to believe in an omnibenolvolent and omnipotent being.
    This is a tough question and quite frankly, I don’t think anyone or anybody can tell you exactly what God’s intention was for creating people that would eventually rebel against him.

    I do think that ultimately behind his intentions, there is some sort of plan and purpose:

    The Bible says that a day is coming when God will stop evil (2 Peter 3:7-13). He will put evil away forever, and create a new heaven and a new earth, where there will be no death, mourning, crying or pain (Revelation 21:4). In the meantime, God is using the suffering that exists for good (Rom 8:28) (Philippians 1:12).

    I also think it’s related to the fact that he wanted us to choose a relationship with him.

    God himself is a relational being, and in order to have true relationships with his creation, he creates for us the ability to have a choice, an actual freedom, to choose a relationship.

    A relationship without having to choose isn’t really a relationship, but a relationship that’s chosen is real.

    And because we have this choice, we can either choose to love him or reject / separate from him.
    Last edited by peteronfireee; 11-13-2020 at 11:24 AM.
    "I like to provoke people because it makes them think"

  25. #145

    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I generally prefer to avoid these debates, they never amount to anything and at the end of the day... religion is a personal matter, it's up for each person to decide what they believe. And belief is not rational, it is not something you debate over and convince another person about. Belief is a fundamental disposition toward reality and arrived at prior to any reasoning...
    But there are too many philosophical claims in this thread to ignore them all....

    SubT said:
    "I believe it is possible for "good" to exist without "bad". "Good" is not made greater because "bad" exists. "
    Without good and bad there is no choice, but the whole concept of morality is that we can choose the good and avoid the bad. There is no moral imperative without the ability to choose, and so there is nothing normative about morality any longer... it ceases to be morality, it becomes nothing but a description of a given state of affairs.

    Morality is not "this is good", it is "this is the right thing to do". You aren't moral because you are born rich, you are moral because you choose to act a certain way, or at least you will to act a certain way (because sometimes your will is not strong enough).

  26. #146
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    What are the possible ways (involving good and evil) God could have created the world? There are 4 options:

    1. No world
    2. Creating a world where there is no such thing as good and evil (an immoral world)
    3. Creating a world where we could only choose good
    4. Creating this kind of world, where good and evil exists and we have the freedom to choose

    Out of the 4 options, #4 is the only possible world where love is possible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    In one of the stories, the Sun stood still in the sky for 24 hours so that Joshua had longer to commit genocide.

    In the New Testament, during Jesus' crucifixion, there was an impossibly long three hour solar eclipse at Passover - Passover only happens at a Full Moon, while solar eclipses only happen at a New Moon.

    If you concede that the Joshua accounts are hyperbole, then you have utterly defeated your argument in favour of the alleged New Testament miracles, including Jesus' alleged resurrection.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    Again, although the removal of the Canaanite population was commanded (Deuteronomy 20:17), numerous passages indicate the incomplete nature of the conquest (e.g., Joshua 17:12-13; Judges 1:27-33).



    The Gileadites did not kill the Ephraimites “for mispronunciation.” Gilead was at *war *with Ephraim, and killed the fleeing enemy because they were at war. Their pronunciation betrayed their true tribal affiliation when the Ephraimites were attempting to escape via subterfuge


    God actually delayed His destruction of the wicked world by water for many years, while Noah preached righteousness to them. Eventually, however, God’s longsuffering came to an end. The Flood began, and every wicked person on Earth received his just punishment from a loving God who gave them plenty of time to repent. Sadly, rather than follow “all that God commanded,” as Noah did, the wicked world of that time resisted the will of God and suffered a disastrous death



    This is a tough question and quite frankly, I don’t think anyone or anybody can tell you exactly what God’s intention was for creating people that would eventually rebel against him.

    I do think that ultimately behind his intentions, there is some sort of plan and purpose:

    The Bible says that a day is coming when God will stop evil (2 Peter 3:7-13). He will put evil away forever, and create a new heaven and a new earth, where there will be no death, mourning, crying or pain (Revelation 21:4). In the meantime, God is using the suffering that exists for good (Rom 8:28) (Philippians 1:12).
    You say they were commanded to commit atrocities and therefore it was legitimate. This is known as the "Nuremberg defense"...which is no defense at all. If "God" wants to stop evil, then it shouldn't engage in it and tell others to carry out evil on its behalf.

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee View Post
    I also think it’s related to the fact that he wanted us to choose a relationship with him.

    God himself is a relational being, and in order to have true relationships with his creation, he creates for us the ability to have a choice, an actual freedom, to choose a relationship.

    A relationship without having to choose isn’t really a relationship, but a relationship that’s chosen is real.

    And because we have this choice, we can either choose to love him or reject / separate from him.
    I have no choice. I cannot "choose" to believe in the existence of something contrary to what the evidence shows me; I cannot "choose" to follow an ideology I consider fundamentally immoral.

    According to the bible, you are a flawed pot, and not because you choose to be flawed, but because you were made flawed:
    "The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying: “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel!" ~ Jeremiah 10:1-6

    "He who orders his slave to do things that he knows him to be incapable of doing, then punishes him, is a fool." ~ Abu Isa al-Warraq

  27. #147
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by returnofxenu View Post
    I generally prefer to avoid these debates, they never amount to anything and at the end of the day... religion is a personal matter, it's up for each person to decide what they believe. And belief is not rational, it is not something you debate over and convince another person about. Belief is a fundamental disposition toward reality and arrived at prior to any reasoning...
    But there are too many philosophical claims in this thread to ignore them all....

    SubT said:
    "I believe it is possible for "good" to exist without "bad". "Good" is not made greater because "bad" exists. "
    Without good and bad there is no choice, but the whole concept of morality is that we can choose the good and avoid the bad. There is no moral imperative without the ability to choose, and so there is nothing normative about morality any longer... it ceases to be morality, it becomes nothing but a description of a given state of affairs.

    Morality is not "this is good", it is "this is the right thing to do". You aren't moral because you are born rich, you are moral because you choose to act a certain way, or at least you will to act a certain way (because sometimes your will is not strong enough).
    "Good" and "Bad" is a matter of personal taste. I don't "choose" the things I like, but that doesn't mean I enjoyed them less. Therefore, I can only conclude it is possible for "Good" to exist without the "Bad".

  28. #148

    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    "Good" and "Bad" is a matter of personal taste. I don't "choose" the things I like, but that doesn't mean I enjoyed them less. Therefore, I can only conclude it is possible for "Good" to exist without the "Bad".
    Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise - the fact something is a matter of taste does not make it unrelated to choice. For example, if I eat bananas for 3 months straight I might begin to enjoy the taste of bananas. Actually the microorganisms in your gut will change and begin sending you cravings for bananas. Preference is developmental in many ways. Nor does it say anything about about whether a preference is good or bad on a broader level - if you have heart disease, the preference for eating mcdonalds will kill you. Sure you enjoy the taste of it, and you're hardwired to enjoy it, but there's a broader concern. So you might have to choose not to eat mcdonalds, in order to survive...
    And you can extend this broader concern beyond yourself to other humans, that's generally the idea of morality. It's not just some simplistic matter of your personal tastes.
    If it's impossible to chose whether to eat mcdonalds - the outcome is something purely outside of your control - besides the fact this is absurd, the concept deteriorates... there is no longer any imperative toward action, good becomes as I said just a passive assessment of the state of affairs. It's no longer actually morality you're talking about at that point.
    The idea of choice is built into the definition of morality, I think the words 'imperative to act' are actually in the definition.
    Last edited by returnofxenu; 11-13-2020 at 06:15 PM.

  29. #149
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by returnofxenu View Post
    Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise - the fact something is a matter of taste does not make it unrelated to choice. For example, if I eat bananas for 3 months straight I might begin to enjoy the taste of bananas. Actually the microorganisms in your gut will change and begin sending you cravings for bananas. Preference is developmental in many ways. Nor does it say anything about about whether a preference is good or bad on a broader level - if you have heart disease, the preference for eating mcdonalds will kill you. Sure you enjoy the taste of it, and you're hardwired to enjoy it, but there's a broader concern. So you might have to choose not to eat mcdonalds, in order to survive...
    And you can extend this broader concern beyond yourself to other humans, that's generally the idea of morality. It's not just some simplistic matter of your personal tastes.
    If it's impossible to chose whether to eat mcdonalds - the outcome is something purely outside of your control - besides the fact this is absurd, the concept of something being good and bad deteriorates because... there is no longer any imperative toward action, good becomes as I said just a passive assessment of the state of affairs. It's no longer actually morality you're talking about at that point.
    The idea of choice is built into the definition of morality, I think the words 'imperative to act' are actually in the definition.
    If you change your taste, that doesn't mean this is indicative of a choice.

    There are many ways things can be considered "Good" or "Bad", and there is no reason to consider something absolutely "Good" or "Bad".

    "Morality" is purely a subset of aesthetics - it's a matter of taste. Defining an act as "moral" because you consider it "Good" and because you believe it involves an explicit choice is purely the definition of yourself or the thing you decide to give up your agency to when it comes to so-called matters of morality.

  30. #150

    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    If you change your taste, that doesn't mean this is indicative of a choice.

    There are many ways things can be considered "Good" or "Bad", and there is no reason to consider something absolutely "Good" or "Bad".

    "Morality" is purely a subset of aesthetics - it's a matter of taste. Defining an act as "moral" because you consider it "Good" and because you believe it involves an explicit choice is purely the definition of yourself or the thing you decide to give up your agency to when it comes to so-called matters of morality.
    ...? Once again, the fact something is related to taste says nothing about whether choice is involved.

    Do you believe that you can choose to do anything? I'm assuming you accept that a person can choose whether to put a hamburger in their mouth, if you don't believe such a thing is possible than... well, maybe this conversation has to end here. We disagree. I believe it is possible for you to choose to put a hamburger in your mouth, basically. Or to instead eat a banana.

    The choice may not be simple - this goes back to the developmental aspect of choice and patterns of behavior. The choice might be very difficult, but even in such scenarios your will remains. And sometimes the choice is fairly simple and there's not a giant struggle with the will.

    Anything else?

  31. #151
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by returnofxenu View Post
    ...? Once again, the fact something is related to taste says nothing about whether choice is involved.

    Do you believe that you can choose to do anything? I'm assuming you accept that a person can choose whether to put a hamburger in their mouth, if you don't believe such a thing is possible than... well, maybe this conversation has to end here. We disagree. I believe it is possible for you to choose to put a hamburger in your mouth, basically. Or to instead eat a banana.

    The choice may not be simple - this goes back to the developmental aspect of choice and patterns of behavior. The choice might be very difficult, but even in such scenarios your will remains

    Anything else?
    I don't think the question of whether or not we can have free will is answerable.

    But there are certainly many things I cannot choose to do - i.e. things that are contrary to the laws of physics.

    The question has no bearing to me on how I live my life. I do not believe my life is less enjoyable because there's a possibility I have no free will.

    “Further conceive, I beg, that a stone, while continuing in motion, should be capable of thinking and knowing, that it is endeavouring, as far as it can, to continue to move. Such a stone, being conscious merely of its own endeavour and not at all indifferent, would believe itself to be completely free, and would think that it continued in motion solely because of its own wish. This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined.” ~ Baruch Spinoza

    “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.” ~ Arthur Schopenhauer

  32. #152
    Head chef on the SS Diarrhea Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Far away, beyond the gates of space and time
    TIM
    B I T C H
    Posts
    1,998
    Mentioned
    141 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "The psycho-social foundation of Christianity is the repression of the notion that the sin of rape that passed on to Jesus through his very existence as the product of rape would be inherited by Jesus himself. The repression of this sociobiological foundation of Christianity is the foundation of the break between “this world” ruled by the selfish genes, and the “next world” ruled by God. It was this rupture between sociobiological foundation and the striving for a radical alternative that also helped lay the social foundations of Western modernity. Modernity is a transition from biological evolution to postbiological evolution; a transition from the ancient world ruled by the selfish genes to a world in which biology has been totally overcome. For billions of years, life on earth evolved through the ability of some genes to replicate themselves better than other genes. In animals such as humans, sexual reproduction requires sexual intercourse, and hence a strong genetic disposition for sexual desire. In humans, genetic replication, and therefore evolution by natural selection, is dependent on sexual intercourse. Yet with the advent of humans, new replicators commonly called memes posed potential competition to genes. One astoundingly successful complex cluster of memes called Christianity included the belief that sex is “evil”. In evolutionary terms, this implies that genetic self-reproduction is “evil”. The self-replication of memes that claim that sex is “evil”, however, is good, according to Christian evangelists. In short, Christianity turned the values of genetic reproduction on its head. Christian memes radically devalue Christian genes. The seditious genius of Christianity — from a purely genetic point of view — is that it radically attacks genetic replication while simultaneously radically maximizing its own memetic self-replication."

    -- Mitchell Heisman

  33. #153
    2real Outlier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,223
    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Heaven is Hell.
    "The society that separates it's scholars from it's warriors will have it's thinking done by cowards and it's fighting by fools." ―Thucydides



  34. #154
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default


  35. #155
    ⛧Satan-Cat is Queen⛧ Nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Damn, I just finished watching "The Good Place" and I'm really amazed at the writing and thought that went into it. It recognized all the problems listed here and actually addressed them. If anyone likes fantasy tv, especially as it relates to the topic, you'd probably like it.
    The beatings will continue, whether morale improves or not.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •