MovieChat Forums > God's Not Dead 2 (2016) Discussion > There is something about Jesus that ever...

There is something about Jesus that everyone must know...

posted 8 years ago by saad-diablo
229 replies | jump to latest

Ok most Christians believe that Jesus is god but....that is not true....get your facts right....Jesus is not god....but Jesus is a human like us sent by god to guide people and show them the right way....Jesus is a prophet....not god, how can god be crucified and killed??? how can god be in human form on earth? think logically, god is immortal and god doesn't look like us humans because he created us, god is a higher being who can't be seen by us, Jesus is a prophet sent by god....Jesus is not god....and oh...Jesus is not the son of god because god has no children....Jesus is just a prophet like all other prophets sent by god...even some Christians believe in that, one more thing...why are Christians divided?? some say Jesus is god and some say Jesus is the son of god....I don't get why

[–] webwarehouse3 8 years ago

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Exodus 3:14 “God said to Moses: I AM WHO I AM.” John 8: 58 “Jesus said to them : Amen, amen I say to you before Abraham was made, I am.”

John 20: 28 “Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord and my God.”

God the Son is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

[–] ralecar 8 years ago

Web ... excellent response my friend!

[–] webwarehouse3 8 years ago

Thanks.

[–] FilmFlaneur 8 years ago

And still nowhere does Jesus actually say the relevant words. In fact the whole idea of Jesus-as-God only starts with the gospel of John while the suspicion of the 'I am" is that it was created to reflect back on the earlier verse.

But if Jesus was God then that makes his sacrifice a bit less impressive does it not, since a God can never die and would know that. Where's the value in stabbing a shadow? And why does JC refer to God as something extra to himself even to the point of addressing the other outloud ? Why does he never talk about God's past deeds in the first person? Did he not know who he was?

Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

[–] Philip-Skiles 7 years ago

It makes it more impressive. And here's some questions that might be asked to Jesus - Why put yourself through that (the crucifixion)? You're God, why not just enjoy yourself and make yourself comfortable? Why would you sacrifice your own life? - The answer is because only a sacrifice from God could pay for the otherwise eternal sins of those whom he loves and who in turn love him and obey his commandments. No animal or human sacrifice is sufficient to pay for sins, which are all eternal unless paid for by an all powerful and eternal God.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

Why would you sacrifice your own life?

But if Jesus is God then there is no sacrifice, that's entirely the point.

The answer is because only a sacrifice from God could pay for the otherwise eternal sins of those whom he loves and who in turn love him and obey his commandments.

Why is a sacrifice the only way?

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

But if Jesus is God

After he was murdered.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

After he was murdered.

I don't think that suicide by cop, which is essentially what it was, is technically considered murder.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

The arrest of Jesus was not murder by cop. The Temple guards (with no arrest authority) apprehended Jesus and the Romans initially had no interest in putting him to death.

Had Jesus recanted his claim of being the son of God, he would have been guilty of telling a lie. It was not suicide Cosmo.

Lets keep the discussion constructive and believable here.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

The arrest of Jesus was not murder by cop.

So God didn't know the he/she/it or his/her/it's son (depending on your view of Jesus being God or not) was going to be sacrificed? That's the only way that Jesus' entire 'existence' could be anything other than what is essentially either assisted suicide or parental murder. If God knew that Jesus would be sacrificed then God chose to create Jesus, or become Jesus, safe in the knowledge that death would happen which means that - A) God wanted his/her/it's son sacrificed (kind of twisted don't you think?), or B) God became Jesus with a plan to be crucified, which sounds a touch suicidal to me, or C) God is not all knowing and therefore not all powerful. Which would it be kurt?

Had Jesus recanted his claim of being the son of God, he would have been guilty of telling a lie...

Lets keep the discussion constructive and believable here.

Yeah, ok kurt.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

Can you murder someone who can't die? When is it a murder and when is it a sacrifice?

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

You can murder the living body, which was a sacrifice Jesus had to make since he couldn't recant the answer that he gave to the Temple, which was an admission that he was the son of God.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

Where does Jesus say "I am God" kurt?

How many times does God say this in the OT? Why is he so shy when incarnate on earth? Its the one thing one might reasonably expect a deity to tell people.

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] Eric-62-2 7 years ago

Where does Jesus say "I am God"?

"Before Abraham was, I AM."-John 8:58.

Those who presume to have read the NT are generally aware of that particular passage and why the use of "I AM" would to any Jew be regarded as the equating of oneself with God.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

That is still not saying 'I am God' - which was what was asked, and this famous, vague passage, is the only leg you have to stand on. Neither does it resolve the obvious question of why God, who is quick to announce who He is throughout the OT would find it so hard to spell it out in the New.

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] deviates 7 years ago

People have also debated whether this passage has been translated properly from the Greek, so it's shakier still. Even if the translation is correct and meant what some claim, it's so minor and vague as you say, it makes as much sense as releasing the Usual Suspects without the clear twist at the end.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

Translation: It does no good to quote the Bible to militant atheists, because they don't believe in God and consider the Bible to be an ancient comic book.

Thus the reason I never quote the holy scriptures to this lynch mob.

Why bother.

They can do their sniveling for forgiveness on their judgement day, for all the good it will do. But I fully expect that Film, deviates and cosmo will accuse God of being a space alien before these Brit are flushed to hell.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

They can do their sniveling for forgiveness on their judgement day, for all the good it will do. But I fully expect that Film, deviates and cosmo will accuse God of being a space alien before these Brit are flushed to hell.

You have always fully expected a lot, kurt. I expect life is just as much a disappointment to you as death will prove to be, lol.

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] deviates 7 years ago

Translation: It does no good to quote the Bible to militant atheists, because they don't believe in God and consider the Bible to be an ancient comic book.

Actually Kurt, if you bothered to read (and understand) what I wrote, it was actually a point worth considering as a Christian or whatever it is you're calling yourself these days. The Bible has been translated a number of times and the meanings can easily become confused.

Lynch mob

Quit with the persecution complex, what I've pointed out is something that Christian scholars have questioned themselves.

They can do their sniveling

If you change your signature to the whole sniveling atheist routine it'll save you a lot of time.

[–] Philip-Skiles 7 years ago

The Bible states from the outset that man cannot be his own savior. The Bible also states that the penalty for sin is physical and spiritual death (hell), which is the second death. Christ paid the penalty for sin because he was the only one who could endure it. Or, in other words, he had to die. When a regular person dies they either go to an eternal hell or eternal heaven. They cannot be rescued out of hell or kidnapped out of heaven. Christ was the only one able to rise out of hell and into heaven because he is God. Considering all that, think about this: If such a righteous act of self sacrifice were done by a regular human for the sake of the gospel, they obviously would be in eternal heaven. Now if God had sent that person to hell, which the Bible states is clearly eternal for all of man kind, then it would be completely contrary to scripture because we know that it teaches that any regular human who dies while having lived righteously according to the Bible is going to spend eternity in heaven. No where does it say a regular human can or will experience both heaven and hell. Christ is the only one who could, and that's why he was the only one who could pay the price for sin. I hope I helped you understand this subject a little better.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

The Bible states from the outset that man cannot be his own savior. The Bible also states that the penalty for sin is physical and spiritual death (hell), which is the second death.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm happy to accept these two points, though the second isn't black and white.

Christ paid the penalty for sin because he was the only one who could endure it. Or, in other words, he had to die.

But why? Why is it that the only way to fix things, the only loop hole an omnipotent God could find was to impregnate a woman with the human incarnation of himself with the plan of sacrificing himself (temporarily) later in order to pay 'the penalty for sin'?

Christ was the only one able to rise out of hell and into heaven because he is God.

Which again raises the question - how much of a sacrifice is this really when God isn't killed?

It's either a human sacrifice, or a non-human non-sacrifice. Based on what you've said it's the latter. Arguably even the former is a human non-sacrifice because of the resurrection.

As you say, this 'sacrifice' was about sin. Jesus took on the sins of others. It seems to me a pretty immoral way to achieve reconciliation, punishing one person for the sins of others.

And does this not all relate back to a rule invented by God in the Old Testament?

I was brought up as a Christian, but since I became an atheist the more I've read the Bible the more I struggle even with the narrative sense of it. It becomes even more absurd to me if we presume this sacrifice relates back to original sin and take that story literally.

[–] Eric-62-2 7 years ago

Why is it that the only way to fix things, the only loop hole an omnipotent God could find was to impregnate a woman with the human incarnation of himself with the plan of sacrificing himself (temporarily) later in order to pay 'the penalty for sin'?

I find it interesting how there is always in the skeptic's mind this instinct for questioning God's actions and motives as if somehow the fallible mind of man is capable of reasoning a more "just" outcome than that arrived at by the ominpotent Creator of the Universe. I start from the premise that if I accept the presence of God as real in this Universe then as the Psalm says, "What is man that thou art mindful of Him?" and that it takes a presumption of arrogance I am not entitled to to question God's methods. That type of questioning arrogance is how original sin began (as a Christian I do not accept the premise that we discount "that story literally") and its a mindset that I always as a Christian find easy to reject.

But having said that, it seems to me that you fail to consider how God, taking the form of a man through God the Son (the second aspect of the Trinity) and willing to suffer the ultimate pain for the transgressions of the world in keeping with the prophesies of the Old Testament, is ultimately the greatest act of love on behalf of an undeserving world that the God the Creator could undertake. Unless you feel that somehow God should have just said, "okay, all is forgiven, let's reset and restore the Eden dynamic" and that God should have done things more simply by your definition. But what this leaves out is the fact of how God through the death of Christ is offering unto us the world a sign of how redemption is possible, but that it is still up to us to be willing in our fallen state to accept this gift of redemption that will let us achieve eternal salvation.

God in the state of God the Son did suffer death, but through His Resurrection, proved how death can be conquered and how we through our belief and faith and acceptance of that gift offered will conquer death ourselves. If you reject this based on your skepticism of the reality of Christ's Resurrection as a historic event, that's one thing, but I think the attempt to twist the explanation of Christian doctrinal belief into something that is allegedly "immoral" by the standards of modern fallible man is something I would object to quite strenuously.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

I find it interesting how there is always in the skeptic's mind this instinct for questioning God's actions and motives as if somehow the fallible mind of man is capable of reasoning a more "just" outcome than that arrived at by the ominpotent Creator of the Universe. I start from the premise that if I accept the presence of God as real in this Universe then as the Psalm says, "What is man that thou art mindful of Him?" and that it takes a presumption of arrogance I am not entitled to to question God's methods. That type of questioning arrogance is how original sin began (as a Christian I do not accept the premise that we discount "that story literally") and its a mindset that I always as a Christian find easy to reject.

So you believe that we can't or shouldn't question the motives and actions of God. By that logic, how do you know God is real? How do you know he is the God of the Bible? How do you know he is good and moral?

But having said that, it seems to me that you fail to consider how God, taking the form of a man through God the Son (the second aspect of the Trinity) and willing to suffer the ultimate pain for the transgressions of the world in keeping with the prophesies of the Old Testament, is ultimately the greatest act of love on behalf of an undeserving world that the God the Creator could undertake.

Not that I fail to consider, that I fail to understand how exactly a sacrifice (or non-sacrifice) for no reason other than rules invented by God himself is an act of love. On this point, seeing as it's important for the crucifixion narrative, do you take the story of original sin as being literally true?

Unless you feel that somehow God should have just said, "okay, all is forgiven, let's reset and restore the Eden dynamic" and that God should have done things more simply by your definition.

Why not? He's an omnipotent God apparently. Why is a blood sacrifice a good, moral way to mend fences?

I also find it peculiar that mankind, having been given free will, is then punished for exercising it before needing God to sacrifice himself to reconcile.

But what this leaves out is the fact of how God through the death of Christ is offering unto us the world a sign of how redemption is possible,

And that couldn't have been shown any other way than God taking human form and sacrificing his mortal form (for a few days)?

God in the state of God the Son did suffer death, but through His Resurrection

But God didn't die, so there was no death. Even if we want to accept that Jesus is God in another form, he didn't stay dead and walked the Earth days after. That's not a sacrifice, especially not when consider how sacrifices are described to happen in the Old Testament.

I think the attempt to twist the explanation of Christian doctrinal belief into something that is allegedly "immoral" by the standards of modern fallible man is something I would object to quite strenuously.

If that's the case and you are unable, as a fallible man, to consider whether God's actions are moral or not, how do you know he is moral and good?

[–] Eric-62-2 7 years ago

So you believe that we can't or shouldn't question the motives and actions of God.

"When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him?"

If I accept the reality that there is a God who created the Universe and who made the Universe possible for me to exist and to know the experience of life, then I am the last person capable of questioning Him. I find this instinct to believe God must be "unjust" because His actions don't dovetail with humanly ordained standards of "fariness" to represent the ultimate proof of man's separation from God. C.S. Lewis captured the essence of this in "The Great Divorce" when he has one character who refuses to go into Heaven because he feels his "rights" have not been properly respected. His zeal to demand what he perceived as his sense of "justice" in human terms has in the end denied him entry to the greatest gift of God's eternity.

Not that I fail to consider, that I fail to understand how exactly a sacrifice (or non-sacrifice) for no reason other than rules invented by God himself is an act of love. On this point, seeing as it's important for the crucifixion narrative, do you take the story of original sin as being literally true?

The answer is yes. And since I believe there is ample circumstantial evidence for the Crucifixion to be found in the historical record to validate my faith in the reality of the Crucifixion and Resurrection as an event of *revealed history*, then insomuch as the events of man's fall from God is also referenced by Paul, who was given charge by Christ, there is little reason for me to consider this a metaphorical non-event. But if anything, I have often found that those who question the NT Gospels as history are often on shakier ground in trying to posit the alternative answer.

Why not? He's an omnipotent God apparently. Why is a blood sacrifice a good, moral way to mend fences?

Actually it was the most moral way to do so in the context of Hebrew culture as it had been defined in the covenant relationship of God and His chosen people. In Christ we see the sacrifice done as the sign of a new covenant relationship where the old order of ritualistic animal sacrifice in the temple ceremonies is no longer necessary because of the sacrifice made by Christ on the cross. Your revulsion is to me a reminder of how so much of skepticism is rooted through the application of anachronistic, present-day concepts of "fairness" that are not appropriate when studying the Scripture and the meaning of God's word.

I also find it peculiar that mankind, having been given free will, is then punished for exercising it before needing God to sacrifice himself to reconcile.

Why is that peculiar? The punishment was in the disobedience. It was said plainly, "eat of the tree and you will surely die." That is what is known as consequences. We have the "free will" to disobey anything we choose to do so and out of that there are consequences. No one's ever had trouble accepting that concept except it seems when it comes to the matter of realizing that our relationship to God is not one of an "equal footing" where we somehow have the "right" to challenge God.

But God didn't die, so there was no death.

The body of Christ died and underwent the worst form of death that was possible in that time period. The suffering of Crucifixion and all the attendant suffering before that is hardly a minimal thing. And then this turns into an argument saying the sacrifice on the Cross means nothing *because* Christ then subsequently rises from the dead?

The vibe I get from your argument seems to boil down to the idea that if you were confronted with the fact of the Crucifixion and Resurrection as a real event, one that actually happened and thus proved that Christ was who He claimed to be and was the incarnate Son of God, you would thus still reject Him for not living up to your own individual standard of what you would expect God to do.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

If I accept the reality that there is a God who created the Universe and who made the Universe possible for me to exist and to know the experience of life, then I am the last person capable of questioning Him.

So one more time then: If you are unable to question him, How do you know God is real? How do you know he is the God of the Bible? How do you know it's not actually the devil in disguise? How do you know he is good and moral?

If you are unable to judge his actions or behaviour you have absolutely no way to know if God is good, you just presume you he is.

The answer is yes. And since I believe there is ample circumstantial evidence for the Crucifixion to be found in the historical record to validate my faith in the reality of the Crucifixion and Resurrection as an event of *revealed history*, then insomuch as the events of man's fall from God is also referenced by Paul, who was given charge by Christ, there is little reason for me to consider this a metaphorical non-event. But if anything, I have often found that those who question the NT Gospels as history are often on shakier ground in trying to posit the alternative answer.

I asked you if you believed the story of original sin to be literally true, not the crucifixion. There's minimal evidence that Jesus was crucified, zero for a resurrection, and I'm not sure why a person's inability to provide an alternative answer (to what question exactly?) is even relevant.

Actually it was the most moral way to do so in the context of Hebrew culture as it had been defined in the covenant relationship of God and His chosen people.

A rule designed by an omnipotent God that could surely be changed. By what measure is one person dying for the sins of another person moral? Don't point to God and make the transcendent argument, I'm asking you as a moral being how is that moral?

Your revulsion is to me a reminder of how so much of skepticism is rooted through the application of anachronistic, present-day concepts of "fairness" that are not appropriate when studying the Scripture and the meaning of God's word.

I'm not talking about fairness, I'm talking about morality. But apparently that's contextual now.

Why is that peculiar? The punishment was in the disobedience.

Precisely. "You are free to do what you like, but you better do what I say." His imperfect creation acted imperfectly, and so he takes it out on the world. /golfclap. Hell itself is not a method to punish good or evil, but to punish disobedience.

And then this turns into an argument saying the sacrifice on the Cross means nothing *because* Christ then subsequently rises from the dead?

Well for one, it sure doesn't meet the laws on sacrifice laid down by God earlier.

if you were confronted with the fact of the Crucifixion and Resurrection as a real event, one that actually happened and thus proved that Christ was who He claimed to be and was the incarnate Son of God, you would thus still reject Him for not living up to your own individual standard of what you would expect God to do.

A God that expects me to ignore my own moral faculties, giving me no way to actual determine if he is good or not other than his word that he is, who claims to love me so much that he's going to have himself/his son tortured and killed (even temporarily) for me? And that if I say I don't want that I'm going to be tortured eternally?

I would ask you again to explain exactly how that's moral, but we've done that dance already.

[–] Eric-62-2 7 years ago

So one more time then: If you are unable to question him, How do you know God is real?

To me, that is a non-sequitur question. Belief in the existence of God does not come with it the idea that now that I know He exists, I should have the "right" to presume myself equal to God which is the fundamental premise of your argument. It is not my place to resent the idea that God doesn't do things as I would do them and make up my own standards of "fairness". When that happens that in the process only reveals why the concept of original sin is indeed a fundamental reality as it stems from the same impulse.

If you are unable to judge his actions or behaviour you have absolutely no way to know if God is good, you just presume you he is.

To me, this statement involves the presumption that (1) if God exists in the capacity to be the Creator of the Universe and the Creator of all life itself then (2) that same God is also potentially bad and evil. This sets up what I would regard as a straw-man conceit rooted more in the false premise that man is capable of somehow being the equal of God and capable of being "better" than him.

I look at God's actions with the proper level of humility as a fallible human being that I should look at them. I recognize that there are sometimes things I can't understand in the concept of my limited and fallible human mind. I am willing to recognize my own limitations because I deal day-to-day with the ramifications of what my own limitations in life are and that I can never presume to this higher level you and many non-believing skeptics who believe in the evolving perfectibility of mankind.

In that respect, I come back to the reality of what I see rooted in the Resurrection. "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son so that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." That is an *action* I can clearly judge and recognize as a great act that does not square with the image of a capricious God that you prefer to paint. When I start with that as my building block of faith, it is quite clear for me to look at the broader sweep and recognize that there are things I can understand and those that I can't, I must out of humility recognize my own limitations and acknowledge that in the mind of one great enough to create the Universe, justice in its truest sense is made manifest.

I asked you if you believed the story of origin sin to be literally true, not the crucifixion. There's minimal evidence that Jesus was resurrect, zero for a resurrection, and I'm not sure why a person's inability to provide an alternative answer (to what question exactly?) is even relevant.

I answered that question quite clearly that yes, I do. And second, the circumstantial case for the Resurrection (not final evidence; belief in the Resurrection must still come by faith) is there for the discerning Christian. As for "alternate" answers, I refer to the legion of peculiar arguments from ersatz "scholars" of the last couple centuries who have given us such novel flash-in-the-pan bits of silliness like the "swoon theory" or the Passover Plot or John Dominic Crossan and his "the body of Jesus was eaten by wild dogs" thesis etc. that will often attract a lot of attention among the non-faithful but which are rooted in shaky scholarship that would be laughed at if applied to any other historic event. (and then there are those who try to deny the existence of Jesus as a historic figure and prove they never picked up a copy of Tacitus in their lives)

Precisely. "You are free to do what you like, but you better do what I say."

I again don't see what the point of objection is. When a parent disciplines their child for exercising his "Free will" to disobey do you complain about the alleged immorality of the parent? The believing Christian I think has always had no difficulty seeing the relationship to God as that of child to parent. That is why we pray "Our Father, who art in Heaven...." etc. In the context of that relationship, what you're summarizing is nothing to resent or find fault with IMO.

A God that expects me to ignore my own moral faculties, giving me no way to actual determine if he is good or not other than his word that he is, who claims to love me so much that he's going to have himself/his son tortured and killed (even temporarily) for me? And that if I say I don't want that I'm going to be tortured eternally? I would ask you again to explain exactly how that's moral, but we've done that dance already.

I'm more than glad to keep doing it because to me you're proving the point I made earlier how this comes off more as a case of resenting God because he doesn't live up to your *own* standards of what you consider "moral" or "fair" or "just." And then you express a seeming resentment that your unbelief in what God offers might result in punishment as if you expect in the interests of "fairness" to get something for nothing (the idea that one should be rewarded for unbelief on the same footing as those who have believed). That again is what Lewis I felt got to the nub of quite well in "The Great Divorce".

It's far easier for me to believe in the arrogance and pride of man than it is to believe in the evilness of God. What evil exists in the world comes not from God, but from Satan and from those of us who out of our own free will allowed evil to enter into it and separate us from God. Through faith, we can heal that separation spiritually and be better prepared to deal with the evil of the world we live in, though we can not escape it. Perhaps I choose to look at this through what some would call a simplistic lens but I believe that the concept behind God's love and the Good News is simple. We simply have to be willing to take the difficult step of leaving our pride and as the hymn says, surrender all and acknowledge our own limitations.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

The believing Christian I think has always had no difficulty seeing the relationship to God as that of child to parent.

Did your parents tell you off as a child with the caveat that every punishment carries on throughout the rest of your life? No, because infinite punishment for the finite 'crime' of simply not believing in God, or holding yourself to moral standards, is utterly immoral no matter what time period you think you're holding it against.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

infinite punishment for the finite 'crime' of simply not believing in God, or holding yourself to moral standards, is utterly immoral no matter what time period you think you're holding it against.

omg....here's cosmo dictating what God should and should not do. Ask him why he has so much contempt for religion if he doesn't believe in any god. He considers his atheist morals to be superior to God's morals.

These atheists will be sniveling on their deathbeds when the time comes to repent. lol

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Guess what kurt? One doesn't need to believe in God in order to have an opinion on the perceived nature of said deity.

He considers his atheist morals to be superior to God's morals.

Superior to the believed morals of God certainly, but then my morals weren't decided by nomads a few thousand years ago.

Ask him why he has so much contempt for religion if he doesn't believe in any god.

Why don't you show some provable evidence of me showing any sort of contempt for religion or any gods. And before you do, my initial post to which you're responding wasn't one of contempt, it's merely an opinion. Please remember that we don't all have an emotional attachment to things said about religion.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

Superior to the believed morals of God certainly

There...cosmo openly admitted it and bragged about it.

Please remember that we don't all have an emotional attachment to things said about religion.

And the proof of your indifference and contempt.

Amen.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

cosmo openly admitted it and bragged about it

Call it bragging if you like, I wouldn't, but as life has greatly developed over the centuries, and life and morals are vastly different, and improved, from 2000+ years ago when people were initially coming up with the rules and 'truth' about God I certainly do consider myself to me more moral. For starters I would never consider a human, or non-human, sacrifice to be anything other than abhorrent, I'm certainly more opposed to genocide than God is, or at least supposedly was. And most importantly I would never punish someone to an eternity, or even a second for that matter, of punishment simply for holding an opposing to view to me, or more specifically not believing I exist. Frankly I think this gives me a moral superiority over what you, and a great many others, believe of God.

And the proof of your indifference and contempt.

I am curious as to how someone can have both indifference and contempt for something at the same time. Surely contempt makes indifference impossible? And I am indifferent, thank you for realising, now maybe you can understand how being indifferent precludes me from having any strong feelings, positive or negative towards religion.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

I am curious as to how someone can have both indifference and contempt for something at the same time.

You're an idiot. You're contemptible, yet I'm indifferent to your attitude.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

You're an idiot. You're contemptible, yet I'm indifferent to your attitude.

But that wasn't what you said was it. You said that I had both indifference and contempt. That would make you the idiot for either not saying what you meant or, as actually happened, trying to justify your stupidity and the fact that once again you've tried to explain something away in a logical manner with which you've proved yourself inept.

And it's quite clear that you're not indifferent to my 'attitude' giving the fact that you so often seem to respond in a rather sensitive and emotional fashion.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

You said that I had both indifference and contempt.

"You're contemptible, yet I'm indifferent..."

You're still an idiot with a reading comprehension problem.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

"You're contemptible, yet I'm indifferent..."

You can keep changing what you actually wrote all you want kurt, still doesn't change the fact that this is NOT what you said.

You're still an idiot with a reading comprehension problem.

But I understood you perfectly well, after all your wording was hardly complex. You said, and I quote, "proof of your indifference and contempt", this means that I am indifferent and I have contempt. You never said that I have contempt and you are indifferent, so there's no comprehension problems, just your increasing difficulty in explaining yourself followed by you trying to move the goalposts.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

To me, that is a non-sequitur question. Belief in the existence of God does not come with it the idea that now that I know He exists, I should have the "right" to presume myself equal to God which is the fundamental premise of your argument.

You don't need to be equal, whatever that means, to question something or someone.

It is not my place to resent the idea that God doesn't do things as I would do them and make up my own standards of "fairness".

Which amounts to an admission that you are incapable of acting morally, but instead of amorally. You're admitting an ability to judge acts as moral or not.

To me, this statement involves the presumption that (1) if God exists in the capacity to be the Creator of the Universe and the Creator of all life itself then (2) that same God is also potentially bad and evil. This sets up what I would regard as a straw-man conceit rooted more in the false premise that man is capable of somehow being the equal of God and capable of being "better" than him.

There's no straw man, nor is the idea of man being equal, subordinate or even superior to God relevant. Your response supports my original point, you presuppose God is good, rather than being able to make a rational judgement. Every single time you have to think for yourself in this discussion, we've come back to the transcendent argument.

I look at God's actions with the proper level of humility as a fallible human being that I should look at them.

Unquestioning obedience is not a virtue, nor is it a cure for the fallibility of man. History shows quite the opposite.

I recognize that there are sometimes things I can't understand in the concept of my limited and fallible human mind.

And in any other situation where you are unable to understand something, I'm sure when confronted with a question on such a matter you'd answer "I don't know". Yet when it comes to God's nature, you admit you can't stand, but presuppose his nature is good.

That is an *action* I can clearly judge and recognize as a great act that does not square with the image of a capricious God that you prefer to paint.

I thought your fallible mind was incapable of judging God's actions? Whether or not you can describe the crucifixion as capricious or not, it's hard to argue against that in the Old Testament. I've not directly argued that, but more at best a troubling view on morality.

As for "alternate" answers, I refer to the legion of peculiar arguments...

Right, so literally no relevance to supporting the historicity of the crucifixion and/or resurrection.

When a parent disciplines their child for exercising his "Free will" to disobey do you complain about the alleged immorality of the parent?

Free will is not granted to the children by the parent, in fact it could be argue that parenting in many ways acts against it. So that's a huge false equivalence.

this comes off more as a case of resenting God because he doesn't live up to your *own* standards of what you consider "moral" or "fair" or "just."

I don't resent God, I don't believe he exists. But while you see me that way, I see you rendering yourself as amoral.

It's far easier for me to believe in the arrogance and pride of man than it is to believe in the evilness of God. What evil exists in the world comes not from God

A statement that comes almost entirely from a self-admitted unquestioning point of view. You've already stated you have absolutely no way to rationally assess the truth in that statement.

We simply have to be willing to take the difficult step of leaving our pride and as the hymn says, surrender all and acknowledge our own limitations.

I'll acknowledge my limitations, but I won't surrender critical thinking in return for unquestioning obedience. I hope at the least it allows you to have a good impact on your community, preferably by my definition of good rather than your God's ;)

[–] Eric-62-2 7 years ago

You don't need to be equal, whatever that means, to question something or someone.

So you acknowledge that your standard represents assuming a superiority in your mind to God. That frankly ends the argument from my standpoint because your concept of "critical thinking" represents little more than pride and arrogance of human nature that has caused more destruction than anything else.

Which amounts to an admission that you are incapable of acting morally, but instead of amorally. You're admitting an ability to judge acts as moral or not.

I believe I am incapable of acting morally without the guidance of God's revealed Word and God's Law, which forms the basis for the moral law of our civilization to act as my guide. I choose not to be blinded by the false god of pride that God's presence is somehow not required in the formation of what we know to be morally right.

There's no straw man, nor is the idea of man being equal, subordinate or even superior to God relevant.

It's quite relevant I'm afraid, because all of your objections have stemmed from the basic belief that *your* thinking is superior to God and that *you* are superior to God. You have chosen to question the need for God in our lives based on the idea that we should reject anything God has to offer as "wrong" and "unfair" even if God exists and if the events at the core of what Christianity represents, namely the Crucifixion and Resurrection are literally true as historical events. In the end, this hasn't been an argument on behalf of atheism as it is opposition to a God that exists.

you presuppose God is good, rather than being able to make a rational judgement.

Incorrect. The Christian accepts the Bible as God's revelation to man in the actual course of history which in God's revealed Word is that of God offering love even in the face of our endless history of disobedience. Our disobedience leads at times to His judgment, but even in the face of judgment for our sins, we still receive the hope of forgiveness and salvation.

And in any other situation where you are unable to understand something, I'm sure when confronted with a question on such a matter you'd answer "I don't know".

Present me with a situation where you claim I would give an "I don't know" answer because on the core issues of what must one do to be saved, I think Scripture offers total clarity on the subject. There are plenty of things I can say "I don't know" to on the matter of how God chooses to reveal Himself just as I can say "I don't know" on matters of how the Universe functions yet I know it does but these have little to do with the issue of God being a God of Love because that point comes through quite clearly to me in the Scripture of His revealed Word.

In all honesty I'm seeing more a determination to insist God is not good because you wouldn't care for the ramifications of acknowledging that God is good based on your own personal standards of "justice" and "fairness" and what you call "morality."

Right, so literally no relevance to supporting the historicity of the crucifixion and/or resurrection.

They're quite relevant in fact. They demonstrate what happens when alleged "serious" thinkers try to start from the premise that the Gospel accounts are not to be taken seriously as works of history (when in fact their pedigree for the standards of recording history are quite strong by the standards we judge other ancient writings) and come up with nothing but laughable claptrap that wouldn't pass muster if their methodology were applied to any other subject. The case for the Gospels as reliable works of history is a vital part of the case for Christ, and it is something that is too often ignored by the skeptics who usually try to give us the intellectually shallow argument of treating the Gospels and the NT itself as "fairy tales" etc. or who even question Jesus' actual existence (I am going to assume you do not fall in that category)

I don't resent God, I don't believe he exists.

Then why is there this resentment on your part regarding the nature of how God chooses to redeem mankind in Christian doctrine?

I'll acknowledge my limitations, but I won't surrender critical thinking in return for unquestioning obedience. I hope at the least it allows you to have a good impact on your community, preferably by my definition of good rather than your God's ;)

Well first off, the greatest of "critical thinkers" I can name were men of the deepest faith. Augustine, Origen, Aquinas, Luther etc. Through their critical thinking they helped us to understand better how the case for Christ represents more than just "unquestioning obedience" and how we are guided to deeper insight of God's revealed Word through those tools.

And I'm sure you will concede that "unquestioning obedience" is certainly possible to the notion of the absence of God, as such events like the atrocities of state-sponsored Marxist atheist regimes in the 20th century have reminded us.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

your concept of "critical thinking" represents little more than pride and arrogance of human nature that has caused more destruction than anything else.

Exactly. Thank you.

And I'm sure you will concede that "unquestioning obedience" is certainly possible to the notion of the absence of God, as such events like the atrocities of state-sponsored Marxist atheist regimes in the 20th century have reminded us.

Exactly. Amen.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Unsurprisingly you've both completely missed the point of what deviates was saying.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

Accusing someone (or man) of arrogance for questioning a claimed characteristic of God does come across as a lazy way to defend beliefs without really having to do anything.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

Still waiting for your irrefutable proof that God doesn't exist.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

I've never claimed to have irrefutable proof that God doesn't exist, so it's strange you're waiting for some. But as you're the one making the claim, perhaps you should provide good evidence that God does exist.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

Since kurt never refutes any purported proof he is given when asking and just says, baldly, 'that's not proof!' then arguably to him at least all proofs are irrefutable lol

But here is new one for him:

If God was real, and compellingly evidenced, there would no need or requirement for faith.
There is a need and requirement for faith in God.
Therefore God is not real and compellingly evidenced.

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

And

answer

came

there

none.

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

And

surprise

there

was

none.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

The only point that deviates is making is that he's once again on the attack victimizing another person of faith on a GND board purely for sadistic sport, just like you do cosmo.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

So you acknowledge that your standard represents assuming a superiority in your mind to God.

No, literally the opposite; you can be equal, superior or subordinate to someone and still question their actions. I see Topfrog has already touched on this below so I won't bother retreading that ground.

. That frankly ends the argument from my standpoint

A mischaracterisation of my position shouldn't end the argument, however I was thinking something similar based on the fact you continue to render yourself amoral and incapable of justifying any of your presuppositions. In fact the following quote puts it quite nicely:

I believe I am incapable of acting morally without the guidance of God's revealed Word and God's Law

So we're done. I don't have any desire to continue the conversation when you've rendered yourself void of critical faculties when it comes to any question of your God, especially with regards to morality. You've determined God is loving yet have admitted the only way you can tell that is based on God's revealed Word. In other words, he's good because he says he is.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

What evil exists in the world comes not from God

Eric, this is not true. The Bible (Isiah 45:7) tells that

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil : I the Lord do all these things.

Your deity may not be responsible for evil created through the mis use of free will, but it clearly owns responsibility for the natural variety at least.

false premise that man is the equal of God and capable of being "better" than him.

So is it better to have created a form of evil (and then to take pleasure in it as something "good", as God says he does) or not? Would one really want to be an equal in creating evil anyway?

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

Evil could be defined as the arrogance of desire to explore space, or change events in the universe, so your point rings hollow, again. Without evil, we lack ambition and the motives behind much that can be defined as ambition.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

Evil could be defined as the arrogance of desire to explore space, or change events in the universe, so your point rings hollow, again.

Except that the apologists who I have read when explaining away this contradictory passage claim that the evil referred to must be natural evil, like disease and disaster. This 'arrogance' of desire of yours would refer to an act of free will by a person, not all the same class of evil. If you are claiming that Isiah's 'evil' refers to all types, then the moral hole God dug for Himself grows much worse.

Without evil, we lack ambition and the motives behind much that can be defined as ambition.

So: evil - good or bad? LOL

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

So: evil - good or bad? LOL

Very funny. Everyone's entire character and motive decision are part good and part evil in many cases. Evil is a part of everyone whether they deny it or not.

Don't you remember the episode of the original Star Trek that addressed this issue? Kirks personality was split into two separate people. The good Kirk and the evil Kirk. He discovered that the only way the two people could survived is to be merged together into the original Kirk.

Or again in the film 'The Final Frontier' when Kirk exclaims: "I don't want to get rid of my pain. I need my pain."

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So: evil - good or bad? LOL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very funny. Everyone's entire character and motive decision are part good and part evil in many cases. Evil is a part of everyone whether they deny it or not.

So: evil - good or bad?

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

Evil is inherent in all living things. Too extreme is obviously bad, Mr. Clueless.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

So: evil, good or bad?

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

if I say I don't want that I'm going to be tortured eternally?

Essentially you have two option:

A) Go down the Christian route of belief in God and not questioning patently evil acts, spend eternity in heaven without any free will or need for any sort of morality.

or

B) Spend eternity in Hell being punished, all for having the temerity to hold yourself to a moral standard where you understand the difference between right and wrong.

I know which option appeals to me, and apparently that makes me wrong. Go figure.

[–] Eric-62-2 7 years ago

Essentially you have two option:
A) Go down the Christian route of belief in God and not questioning patently evil acts, spend eternity in heaven without any free will or need for any sort of morality.

This again is a false premise. You are judging God committing "evil" acts based on *your* definition of what is "evil" and that isn't so much a demonstration of "free will" as it is the sin of pride.

As for point B and its assumption that rejecting God is representative of showing "temerity" and a "moral standard" (when history has shown how rejection of God is what has typically resulted in the concurrent rejection of moral standards in a society), that too says less about reality and a lot more about the never-ending problem of the sin of human pride.

And it also reveals to me that many atheists don't reject God out of an absolute certainty that He doesn't exist, but more because of a resentment of what God represents to their way of "free thinking". Others carry this resentment and use it as their justification to validate behavior like guilt-free sex to the max in all its forms (this was the mindset of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry). But it comes back to the same basic mantra of "do my own thing!" that somehow represents the "better" and more "enlightened" way when it ultimately is anything but.

Did your parents tell you off as a child with the caveat that every punishment carries on throughout the rest of your life? No, because infinite punishment for the finite 'crime' of simply not believing in God, or holding yourself to moral standards, is utterly immoral no matter what time period you think you're holding it against.

Actually, rejection of God is not a "finite" sin, it is the ultimate "infinite" sin so your premise is fundamentally flawed to begin with. And second, your anger that God doesn't reward unbelief is really when you get down to it an argument for a welfare state standard of "justice" that would be absurd on all levels.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

First off, if you refuse to accept anything God does as potentially being immoral simply because it's God, then you have no point on which to stand regarding any form of god or evil, or any sort of morality, as deviates has quite clearly explained.

Secondly, and you really should understand this, not believing in God, any gods, is not the same as rejecting. Atheism is the lack of belief in any deities, not the rejection of them.

Finally, could you explain how I'm angry at God when I don't even believe in God? And while you're at it perhaps you could explain why you're angry with, and as such have rejected, all of the other many gods that have 'existed' throughout human history? I particularly look forward to you ur answer on the last question.

I'm on an iPad so copy and pasting doesn't always work so well, as such I've given up trying, but your entire last section is nonsense and shows a complete misunderstanding of what atheism and morality are.

[–] Eric-62-2 7 years ago

Secondly, and you really should understand this, not believing in God, any gods, is not the same as rejecting. Atheism is the lack of belief in any deities, not the rejection of them.

That has not been the tone of this particular discussion. What I have seen has had nothing to do with the issue of "does God exist" but rather a curious argument against the God of Christian doctrine based on the notion that Christian doctrine as defined by Christ's Coming, Death and Resurrection amounts to something "unfair" and "immoral" based on *his* particular definition of morality. That is not an argument against the existence of God that is an argument against a God that exists and being angry that His standards don't match my own subjective ones. Spinning the idea that this has been a discussion not rooted around that point doesn't hold water. .

And while you're at it perhaps you could explain why you're angry with, and as such have rejected, all of the other many gods that have 'existed' throughout human history? I particularly look forward to you ur answer on the last question.

That's about as easy a softball as there is for the believing Christian. Our faith is rooted in the belief that it represents a historical truth of how things have happened. That Christ as the Son of God who rose from the dead is an actual historical event. There can be no faith in Christ without that for as Paul said, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, all we preach is in vain. This is the argument that so many who like to demote Jesus into some guru figure no different from Buddha always try to ignore. I give honest atheists like Christopher Hitchens credit for recognizing that you can't find a middle ground between the traditional view of Jesus and the "madman" argument just as C.S. Lewis also eloquently noted in his writings. In many respects, I find the atheist to be more honest than the theologically liberal "Christian" who thinks you can deny the Virgin Birth, the literal Death and Resurrection and still call yourself a "Christian". Christianity, like Judaism and for that matter Islam afterwards is a religion that requires historical truth to justify its existence. I reject Islam because I believe its view of revealed history is false and that Mohammed was NOT who he claimed to be. I accept Christianity because I believe Christ is who He claimed to be and that there is a circumstantial case through traditional historiography to support that (though there can never be a tangible proof; ultimately it still requires faith to believe in Christ as the Son of God).

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

That is not an argument against the existence of God that is an argument against a God that exists and being angry that His standards don't match my own subjective ones.

It seems to me like it's an 'argument' about the believed perception of God as held by Christians, it's not an 'argument' about a God that atheists believe exists, because they don't.

I reject Islam because I believe its view of revealed history is false and that Mohammed was NOT who he claimed to be.

As nicely eloquent as that all was, it isn't really an answer. For starters, as kurt the non-Christian spokesman for all real Christians has informed us, Islam has the same god as Christianity. You rejecting one particular abrahamic religion in favour of another is irrelevant to the question. You may as well explain why you've rejected Catholicism for Protestantism (just an example), it's not the rejection of other gods, it's a rejection of the belief structure surrounding one particular god.

http://www.godchecker.com/ This site just came up on google, so I don't know quite how extensive it is but it's quite colourful if nothing else. Could you go through all of the different gods on there and explain why you've rejected all of them?

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

For starters, as kurt the non-Christian spokesman for all real Christians has informed us, Islam has the same god as

1) Kurt believes in God, and you've been told this repeatedly. More proof that you're just here to insult people of faith.

2) "Christian spokesman" - Copy and post where I claimed to be a spokesperson for anyone, liar. Again...if Christians state a commonly held view, I have every right to quote THEIR viewpoints, and not claim to be speaking for them. This shows how dishonest you are Cosmo.

real Christians

Jesus did not characterize himself as a Christian. How could he? I attend church, but do not embrace Pacifism. Does that make me a Christian or disqualify me as a Christian candidate? At least I'm honest. Cosmo is not.

And if you're going to attack a Christians cosmo, leave my name out of your nasty attacks.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

1) Kurt believes in God, and you've been told this repeatedly. More proof that you're just here to insult people of faith

Not something I've questioned, therefore no insult has taken place.

2) "Christian spokesman" - Copy and post where I claimed to be a spokesperson for anyone, liar.

I've explained this you you many times before, I shan't be doing it again here.

Jesus did not characterize himself as a Christian. How could he?

Why are you asking me, I've not made any claim that Jesus did characterise himself as a Christian, so I've got no idea why you're posting this.

Does that make me a Christian or disqualify me as a Christian candidate? At least I'm honest.

Hang on, are you now claiming that you are a Christian again or not?

And if you're going to attack a Christians cosmo, leave my name out of your nasty attacks.

Show me where I've 'attacked' anyone here please kurt. I will wait but I won't hold my breath, because I quite like being alive,

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

if you refuse to accept anything God does as potentially being immoral simply because it's God, then you have no point on which to stand regarding any form of god or evil,

Now the militant atheist claims to be an expert on God's word. Guess how many times he's misquoted scriptures on GND boards. It's down right vulgar.

Atheism is the lack of belief in any deities, not the rejection of them.

If we were referring to the average garden variety atheists then he'd be correct. But the jerks that hang out on IMDb pro-Christian message boards are rabid, mad dog militant atheists that go on the attack against anyone that supports religion. Check this filthy animal's comment history.

how I'm angry at God when I don't even believe in God?

Cosmo is truthly a Godless, immoral religion hater. I can testify to that. He doesn't hate God. He hates religion and blames religion for all social ills on the planet.

all of the other many gods that have 'existed'

He keeps directing insults at Christians on these boards, and then wips out the multiple "gods" rant. And why would a Christian or any person of faith that believes the scriptures defining the Christian God have any interest in discussing 'gods worshiped throughout human history.' If I was interested in Zeus would we be on this board? lol geez

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

But the jerks that hang out on IMDb pro-Christian message boards are rabid, mad dog militant atheists that go on the attack against anyone that supports religion. Check this filthy animal's comment history.

Oh dear, I don't think kurt's New Year's Resolution is holding up too well lol

If I was interested in Zeus would we be on this board? lol geez

Well, I am 'interested' in Jehovah, Egyptian god kings, Cthulhu and lots of other deities kurt, and yet I am here. Are you saying that this board should be exclusive? Should we get membership cards? Can both Catholics, Mormons and 7th Day Adventists come? Or is it just fundamentalists these days?

As for multiple gods, it can be observed that God refers to Himself once or twice in the plural in Genesis and also warns against other deities elsewhere. And presumably He knows.

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Oh dear, I don't think kurt's New Year's Resolution is holding up too well lol

Be fair, he's not posted much recently, probably too busy having a long old celebration of Trump's election win, and when he comes back after a period of quietness he's always keen to make up for not having been insulting to atheists on here recently.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

Comparative Religious Studies class isn't being held in this room Film. Again...you're lost, and in need of a Boy Scout to help you find your way to the correct discussion board.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

Funnily enough Kurt you don't control what gets discussed here, no matter how annoyed that makes you. The number of off topic threads you post it's funny you even bother to mention it.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

ok deviates...go ahead and start discussing 5,000 gods and I'll join you later.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

How many gods is it again that you don't believe in, kurt?

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

1) The atheist god called 'nothingness after death'.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

So you believe in all other gods?

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

Do you believe that I DO?

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

No I don't think you do, since we are all 99% atheists in this regards, which would be the point. But until you tell me then I won't know, will I?

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] deviates 7 years ago

Which part of 'you don't control what gets discussed here' are you struggling with?

[–] Eric-62-2 7 years ago

And most importantly I would never punish someone to an eternity, or even a second for that matter, of punishment simply for holding an opposing to view to me, or more specifically not believing I exist.

Ah yes, the doctrine of welfare state salvation. The doctrine so typical of those who hate God for being "unfair" because He should in their minds reward non-believers for their non-belief. Much in the way that Marxist thinking operates under the belief that those who don't work should get just as much as those who do.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Ah yes, the doctrine of welfare state salvation.

Where exactly do you get 'salvation' from the understanding that it's immoral to punish people for simply not believing a quite outlandish claim?

those who hate God for being "unfair" because He should in their minds reward non-believers for their non-belief.

Again, for those who are slow to understand, I do not hate a god who I don't believe exists. I do feel that the believed rules set down regarding said god, as written by people thousands of years ago is at best over the top and silly, and at worst deeply immoral. Do you feel it's right that Hades will punish you for having rejected him, and if not why do you hate him?

Marxist thinking

Marxism is a load of bobbins, but I do find it curious that you equate atheism with socialism or communism, which I think is what you were going for. Though I'm not sure which you consider worse. And it suggests a worrying view that you hold for those who don't think the same as you. Fortunately for you we live in a world in which those who desire tyrannical rule can co-exist with those of us who don't. Anyway, I certainly hope you've never, and don't associate with anyone who has ever needed any form of welfare given how much disdain you appear to have for it.

[–] Eric-62-2 7 years ago

Where exactly do you get 'salvation' from the understanding that it's immoral to punish people for simply not believing a quite outlandish claim?

All I'm doing is taking you at your word regarding what you say YOU would do if you were God and concocting your own formula of what you regard to be a "just" model of salvation which is to reward unbelief equally and say that those who reject God should be rewarded with salvation equal to those who believe.

Again, for those who are slow to understand, I do not hate a god who I don't believe exists

Yet there is this obsession with referring to the God worshipped by millions as "immoral" etc. and mocking the methods by which God operates which makes it quite clear that if you *had* to deal with the reality of the existence of the Judeo-Christian God you would reject Him for not acting according to your standards. Now I have no quarrel with acknowledging that if I were confronted with a historic reality that says there is no God, then I could not believe in God but the reason would *not* be because the methodology for salvation is immoral. Repeatedly I've been seeing it made clear by default that if you had to deal with the reality of God's existence according to the Judeo-Christian definition of how history has unfolded, you'd still reject believing in God based on the "unfairness" of how God operates in sending Jesus to redeem mankind for salvation and not opening up Heaven to everyone even if they reject Him. I'm willing to address the hypothetical of what I would have to do if confronted with absolute proof refuting my belief in how history has unfolded. I'm not seeing that from the other side.

Marxism is a load of bobbins, but I do find it curious that you equate atheism with socialism or communism, which I think is what you were going for. Though I'm not sure which you consider worse.

I have yet to see one communist regime that was not mandating state-sponsored atheism, which was also an outgrowth of the Jacobin approach in the French Revolution. We as Christians are frequently beaten over our heads about how immoral Christianity is because of the Crusades (never mind that they began because of militant Islamic behavior and the slaughters of Christian pilgrims and the desecration of historic Christian shrines) and "wars of religion" by atheists who see only nobility and purity in all things they associate with the "Enlightenment" yet they turn a blind eye toward what happens when hostility toward religion is carried to its ultimate end by the state (I am not by any means condemning what we call the Enlightenment in whole; many minds we associate with it were themselves men of great faith)

Fortunately for you we live in a world in which those who desire tyrannical rule can co-exist with those of us who don't

Would that have included those who "desired" the rule of Hitler's Germany in the 1930s?

Regarding welfare, I am for charity to those in need which is a part of every Christian's calling. What I'm not in favor of is the idea that someone should believe they're entitled to receive the ultimate gift for nothing and that he should just sit lazily on his back and say, "I reject God and He doesn't exist but He should still let me go to Heaven just the same". That is the equivalent of abusing charity and it receives no reward in the end.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

All I'm doing is taking you at your word

Except you'r not. At no point have I used the word salvation, or even implied it. You're still viewing everything as if we all really do believe in God, which we don't, as such you only see 'salvation', presumably in heaven, and punishment, presumably in Hell. I have a broader view of things, as well as a less totalitarian outlook, and see that they aren't the only two logical options. Not unless you're attempting to strike fear into people in order to get them to live by God's rules in order to grow your newly created religion in the hope that it catches on and people still believe it several thousand years later. Well would you look at that!

reward unbelief equally and say that those who reject God should be rewarded with salvation equal to those who believe.

Actually, as we're being hypothetical, if I were a just and fair deity I'd reward or punish people based on their actions in life towards others, and do so appropriately, I'd certainly not base it off something as basic as simply believing a claim. As kurt has informed us, a believer only needs to ask for forgiveness before they die to go to heaven. so a murderer would receive an eternity of pleasure whereas someone who doesn't believe but spends their life helping out others gets an eternity of punishment. and you consider this to be unfair?

obsession with referring to the God worshipped by millions as "immoral"

Mentioning something that's relevant to the discussion being had is not an obsession.

I'm not seeing that from the other side.

How are you not seeing the very thing you're responding to? Please try reading what I'm writing, not what you think I must really be saying because I don't believe the same as you. There may not be an historic record that explicitly says there is not God, but history does not show there to have been God, any of the gods you believe in actually. Yes, if there was actually evidence that God is real I would believe that God exists but that doesn't mean I have to accept and praise every action God takes. Blind obedience isn't something I'm willing to go along with, and I wouldn't particularly want anyone else to do so either, yet here you are.

I have yet to see one communist regime that was not mandating state-sponsored atheism

And I have yet to see one communist state succeed and be well regarded by people, certainly so those of us in the west. As I said, Marxism is a load of bobbins and not something you'll ever likely have to deal with in real life.

I am not by any means condemning what we call the Enlightenment in whole

So which bits are you condemning?

Would that have included those who "desired" the rule of Hitler's Germany in the 1930s?

Yes. One doesn't have to agree with something in order to agree with the freedom of people being different. “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed”. Certainly seems like he wasn't wrong about that.

"I reject God and He doesn't exist but He should still let me go to Heaven just the same".

So someone who doesn't believe that God exists believes that God should reward them, even though they don't believe in him/her/it? Again, disbelief in a claim is not that same as rejecting it. Do you think that atheists really do believe in God but have chosen to reject said deity?

[–] Eric-62-2 7 years ago

Except you'r not. At no point have I used the word salvation, or even implied it.

Sorry but that doesn't hold water, when we're talking about God condemning non-believers to Hell. Salvation through God means we receive the gift of eternal life in His Kingdom and glory and this entire discussion has been revolving in significant part on the point of how "unfair" God is to condemn to Hell and eternal suffering those who reject Him. You can't have it both ways and talk about this point and then out of the other side of your mouth say you're not talking about it. That's total double-talk on your part.

Actually, as we're being hypothetical, if I were a just and fair deity I'd reward or punish people based on their actions in life towards others, and do so appropriately, I'd certainly not base it off something as basic as simply believing a claim. As kurt has informed us, a believer only needs to ask for forgiveness before they die to go to heaven. so a murderer would receive an eternity of pleasure whereas someone who doesn't believe but spends their life helping out others gets an eternity of punishment. and you consider this to be unfair?

All you're doing is unintentionally and unwittingly giving me a scene straight out of C.S. Lewis's "The Great Divorce" in the exchange between the angry bitter "Big Ghost" who rails about not getting his "rights" and being upset that a man who committed murder but was forgiven by God when he repented is in Heaven. Because you choose to rail with anger over the "injustice" of the fact that God forgives the repentant you in the end would prefer to condemn yourself. Your sense of "entitlement" that you should be rewarded for the sake of your unbelief based on your deeds alone is little more than the eternal sin of pride. It has no more relevance than the fact that the men Christ condemned as hypocrites and Pharisees were themselves men who did give to the poor but who did so to boast openly about themselves and how good they were.

Don't assume that it's a simple matter of saying "I believe in God". With it must come the humbling of oneself in the sight of the Lord. The recognition that we are sinful beings tainted by the corruption of sin and that only by recognizing our own limits and surrendering our will to God to control and influence our path can we receive the gift. It's not a case of "I'll sin all I want all my life and make sure I repent at the last minute." As Christ can tell the "good" thief on the cross, "Today you shall be with me in Paradise" so can it be true with anyone, regardless of what they have done in this life. All sin is equal in the eyes of God and that's the lesson even believing Christians have to remember to avoid being so overly judgmental ourselves as we must remain mindful of where we too have fallen short of the glory of God in our lives.

How are you not seeing the very thing you're responding to? Please try reading what I'm writing, not what you think I must really be saying because I don't believe the same as you.

For this discussion to work you have to understand where your opponents are coming from and be willing to address the questions we raise instead of insisting that only you have the right to control the terms of the discussion. I have read what you have said and your arguments raise significant questions and objections from the standpoint of a believing Christian that you need to answer instead of brushing them aside. I will put the question to you again: If you were confronted with the knowledge that history has unfolded EXACTLY in the way that believing Christians believe it to have unfolded in regards to the reality of God and the reality of Jesus death and Resurrection, would you still be clinging fast to your standards you argue regarding the immorality of God's standards for salvation as you keep defining them?

And I have yet to see one communist state succeed and be well regarded by people, certainly so those of us in the west.

Really? Try spending some time in a university classroom where Marxist regimes are the only ones ever praised! (The slobbering love affair with Fidel Castro; the romanticizing of thugs like Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevera etc. The fact that the equivalent of Holocaust revisionism is still tolerated for the likes of Stalin and Mao when it comes to their atrocities)

Yes. One doesn't have to agree with something in order to agree with the freedom of people being different. “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed”. Certainly seems like he wasn't wrong about that.

Then under that argument the isolationists of the 1930s were right and Hitler had every right to the Sudetenland and Austria. That's the slippery slope of what you're saying there in that when carried further you end up getting only "peace in our time" as they said.

Do you think that atheists really do believe in God but have chosen to reject said deity?

I think even you would concede that for some people atheism can serve as a convenient excuse to justify behavior that we would call hedonistic, but which if one convinces oneself that it doesn't matter then "eat, drink be merry for tomorrow we die" becomes their philosophy in life. That's certainly not true of everyone. There can also be those who reject God based on what they see as the "unfairness" of God rooted in "why does God allow this to happen if He exists?" That's rooted more in a motive of anger such as "you let this happen, so I'm not going to follow you". It comes in different forms. Likewise, I'm the first to concede that we have many self-professed "Christians" who ultimately when they face the Judgment seat will find that they have not been true believers in their hearts so you can also have those who say they believe but who carry out their lives as if He doesn't and treat it is a mere formality (the once a year churchgoers for instance).

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Sorry but that doesn't hold water, when we're talking about God condemning non-believers to Hell.

Really, it doesn't hold water that a supposedly all-powerful God restricts everything to a strict right or wrong situation, with absolutely no possibility for any sort of neutral outcome? For someone who criticises communist regimes for being anti-religion you don't half seem content with your religion pushing a strict in or out outcome. Believe as we instruct, or don't and suffer endless punishment for all eternity.

You can't have it both ways

It's not a case of having things both ways, it's about the fact that I can be more nuanced and varied in my views than you can because I've not bought into a doctrine of Christianities view of heaven and Hell.

Because you choose to rail with anger

Why are believers so keen on projecting their own emotional connection to things onto others?

It's not a case of "I'll sin all I want all my life and make sure I repent at the last minute.

Well there's a poster on here who appears to be planning on doing exactly that. I hope you put him right.

All sin is equal in the eyes of God

Aye, and that's just as ridiculous a claim as saying that if you don't believe in an unevidenced deity you're going to suffer an eternity of punishment. But if you've picked the correct interpretation, out of the myriad of contradictionary things in the Bible, then no matter what you do as long as you are willing to bow down to God, and really really mean it, in the end you're going to spend forever in Heaven, but you exactly have any free will and you'll spend eternity bowing down to God like soulless automatons. But it's ok because kurt says they have a really good internet connection up there so you'll still be able to email people apparently.

would you still be clinging fast to your standards you argue regarding the immorality of God's standards

Seriously? You wrote that entire paragraph in order to ask me a question to which the answer is: that's been my entire standpoint throughout this discussion, and I've not even come close to offering any point that doesn't fall in line with this. If you want to understand where I'm coming from then just read what I'm posting, it's hardly cryptic.

Try spending some time in a university classroom where Marxist regimes are the only ones ever praised!

Oddly, Marxism fell inline with a lot of what I studied at university and absolutely nobody praised it, at least not as a serious alternative. America (I'm assuming) may well be different, but how many of those students do you think genuinely hold a belief that communism is great, particularly once they've got out of the uni mindset? Communism is a wonderful thing, on paper, but it doesn't work in practice, which is why 'communist' countries don't really succeed, as per my point which you responded to. As it is socialism is great, up to a point, communism is not.

Then under that argument the isolationists of the 1930s were right and Hitler had every right to the Sudetenland and Austria.

Sure, if you want to jump to a conclusion that isn't there. The German population had every right to buy into the Nazi party, Hitler had every right to BELIEVE that he had a right to the rest of the word, but that doesn't mean that he had a right to anywhere outside of the German borders.

I think even you would concede that for some people atheism can serve as a convenient excuse to justify behavior that we would call hedonistic

No I wouldn't. At least not because it seems like you're trying to either blame hedonism on atheism or atheism on hedonistic behaviour. There may be crossovers but there's not actually a correlation between the two. And quite frankly I don't consider there to be anything wrong with people being hedonistic to the point that an 'excuse' is needed to 'justify' their life choices. As long as no harm is being done to those who aren't willing and trusting participants then each to their own as far as I'm concerned.

There can also be those who reject God based on what they see as the "unfairness" of God rooted in "why does God allow this to happen if He exists?"... "you let this happen, so I'm not going to follow you"

Indeed there can, but they wouldn't be atheists if they actually believe God exists and therefore have chosen not to follow those beliefs. They could however be atheist who hold those sort of views, very much in a similar vein to the way that one might hold trenchant beliefs about the politics of Star Wars, but not in a sense that they believe it to actually be true.

I'll slightly rephrase the question then. Do you believe and accept, completely and absolutely, that atheists do NOT believe in the existence of God or gods?

[–] deviates 7 years ago

Oddly, Marxism fell inline with a lot of what I studied at university and absolutely nobody praised it, at least not as a serious alternative. America (I'm assuming) may well be different, but how many of those students do you think genuinely hold a belief that communism is great, particularly once they've got out of the uni mindset?

I teach a lot of Marxist theory, it tends to be the criticisms of capitalism and the analysis of power and control that are praised rather than Communism itself. That and historical materialism in general.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

it tends to be the criticisms of capitalism and the analysis of power and control that are praised rather than Communism itself

Which is largely what was touched upon with me, it was a Geography degree, so we had some socio-political/economic etc. teachings which include aspects of Marxism. Can't say I ever considered it more than being largely outdated and irrelevant, certainly not when I was back in uni anyway. But I made sure to check with Eric first, and he's definitely only focusing on it as a source of communism, so communism it is for him.

[–] Eric-62-2 7 years ago

Really, it doesn't hold water that a supposedly all-powerful God restricts everything to a strict right or wrong situation, with absolutely no possibility for any sort of neutral outcome?

And what is your definition of a "neutral outcome?" Purgatory and the chance to earn your way out of the "waiting zone" to Heaven? I'm not Catholic so I don't hold to the concept of Purgatory and that human actions can somehow impact the salvation of one who is already dead (an extended form of that doctrine, the payment of Indulgences is in fact one of the elements of Renaissance thinking that was behind Martin Luther and the Reformation, an event I believe was fundamentally necessary). But even if I did believe in Purgatory, I still recognize that is a path some believe in that allows one to gain entry through the achievement of salvation based on faith, and not through rejection. You are still not going to get the non-believer into Heaven, which is the outcome you clearly prefer (this is almost coming off like a plea for a Brown vs. Board of Education style decision to "integrate" God's Kingdom with believers and non-believers alike)

It's not a case of having things both ways, it's about the fact that I can be more nuanced and varied in my views than you can because I've not bought into a doctrine of Christianities view of heaven and Hell.

The premise of this discussion is your judgmentalism regarding Christian doctrine and salvation as "immoral" and substituting your own concept of a "just" doctrine of salvation based on *your* conception of "morality". And then you try to insist that you've never been talking about salvation when it comes to your own views, which is trying to have things both ways.

Aye, and that's just as ridiculous a claim as saying that if you don't believe in an unevidenced deity you're going to suffer an eternity of punishment.

No, what's ridiculous is the idea that you, as a fallible human being capable of doing wrong like all other individuals are capable of doing, is somehow more blest with the gift of insight as to what is "just" than the Creator of the Universe and what has been revealed to us through God's Word over time. You believe it's "unjust" to suffer eternal punishment because you demand your "rights" and the idea that people should get something for nothing if they have satisfied *your* criteria of justice. That isn't nuance, that's the narrow and very old sin of arrogance and pride that is at the heart of man's original fall and separation from God through which Christ's death and Resurrection is the redemptive opportunity of how man can be reconciled ultimately to God.

Seriously? You wrote that entire paragraph in order to ask me a question to which the answer is: that's been my entire standpoint throughout this discussion, and I've not even come close to offering any point that doesn't fall in line with this. If you want to understand where I'm coming from then just read what I'm posting, it's hardly cryptic.

Really? I've read your posts and seen a lot of evasion on this point in which the fallback position is basically "well I don't believe God exists so it's irrelevant what I'd do if I were confronted with the possibility that God does exist and that this is the method of salvation we are being offered." If you're now saying that yes, even in the face of revealed evidence that this is how history has unfolded and if you were presented with a concrete reality of a God who sent Jesus to die and be redeemed, you would stand before God and say, "I don't want in because you're unfair." If that is indeed what you are saying, then for me as a believer it's little more than validation of what the Christian believes about human arrogance at its worst (and as I've said before, it's Chapter 4 of "The Great Divorce" come to life).

Oddly, Marxism fell inline with a lot of what I studied at university and absolutely nobody praised it, at least not as a serious alternative. America (I'm assuming) may well be different, but how many of those students do you think genuinely hold a belief that communism is great, particularly once they've got out of the uni mindset?

Actually in our country its more a case of people who are "socialism for thee, not for me" types who love and admire all things socialist and communist but who wouldn't even think for one minute of living that kind of lifestyle for themselves (this would consist of the aforementioned academics and all the Hollywood Fat Cats who right now are revealing their contempt for how the election process works).

Sure, if you want to jump to a conclusion that isn't there. The German population had every right to buy into the Nazi party, Hitler had every right to BELIEVE that he had a right to the rest of the word, but that doesn't mean that he had a right to anywhere outside of the German borders.

But remember the Sudetenland and Austria freely chose Hitler to the detriment of the security of Western Europe. Are you then saying pre-emptive action against Hitler prior to 1939 would have been bad?

No I wouldn't. At least not because it seems like you're trying to either blame hedonism on atheism or atheism on hedonistic behaviour. There may be crossovers but there's not actually a correlation between the two.

That's being intellectually dishonest to say there have been no such examples. The case history of Star Trek's creator, Gene Roddenberry is the classic case of someone who rejected a Christian upbringing solely to justify his lifestyle rooted in all the guilt-free sex he could have in his life (and how he justified the pain he put his first wife through and how he justified resorting to the casting couch to hire actresses, neither of which I think you will agree would constitute behavior anyone should emulate). Such examples do happen, and maybe we can disagree about how often it happens, but happen it does just as I'm free to acknowledge that we sometimes see people embrace a claim to faith that is suspect or shallow.

Do you believe and accept, completely and absolutely, that atheists do NOT believe in the existence of God or gods?

With some, yes, and with others I think it is their fear of wanting to confront what God calls upon us to do and who would rather cling to the things of this world and the desire to "do my own thing" and who resent the idea of God, so their resentment becomes a non-belief of reverse faith.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

And what is your definition of a "neutral outcome?"...

...You are still not going to get the non-believer into Heaven, which is the outcome you clearly prefer

Complete and utter non-existence. No punishment, no 'salvation', just nothing. That would be a neutral outcome. I'm not interested in getting non-believers in to heaven, to me that's essentially just a less fiery Hell anyway, and Purgatory never even crossed my mind.

And then you try to insist that you've never been talking about salvation when it comes to your own views, which is trying to have things both ways.

No because I've not been arguing for any salvation, I've just been arguing against unjust punishment. You're the one who only sees two options, salvation and punishment. I've just offered you a third with non-existence and you yourself have offered a fourth with Purgatory, whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. I hope this clears it up for you.

you, as a fallible human being capable of doing wrong like all other individuals are capable of doing, is somehow more blest with the gift of insight as to what is "just" than the Creator of the Universe

I'll do you a deal, you provide unquestionable proof that God exists and I'll agree to reconsider my own view of moral superiority over a literary character. Until that impossible event happens I'll happily stick with the belief that my own moral code is superior to those "fallible" people who invented the Bible, new or old testament, doesn't matter which.

You believe it's "unjust" to suffer eternal punishment because you demand your "rights" and the idea that people should get something for nothing if they have satisfied *your* criteria of justice.

Please do me a favour and stop projecting your own thoughts onto those of mine. I'm not arguing for any right to get something for nothing, I'm simply stating that the punishment does not fit the 'crime'. Not believing in God has exactly zero effect on any single thing that's provably and objectively real, yet you feel this is worthy of infinite eternal punishment, and that disagreement of this view is somehow expecting a right to something for nothing. It's baffling. Would you expect a shoplifter to get as big a prison sentence as a mass murderer? I wouldn't, so why should the simple fact of not believing one particular claim get punishment when a murderer could potentially get reward simply because they may well believe in a being who refuses to make its (yeah whatever kurt, let it go) existence known beyond any doubt to be real?

that's the narrow and very old sin of arrogance and pride

And you accuse me of being judgmental? Ok, let's discuss arrogance. I believe it's best to do right by my fellow human beings, as long as no harm is being caused to others it's of little interest to me what people believe in. Along with that I don't believe that anybody should suffer a punishment that is more severe than they deserve for whatever they've done wrong, which in this case is nothing at all. You as a Christian who believes in a God who created all things, however, believe that the universe was created specifically for you and you in turn were specifically created because God loves you, and you in particular, oh so much. If that's not arrogance, egotism and pride I don't know what is.

Really? I've read your posts and seen a lot of evasion on this point in which the fallback position is basically "well I don't believe God exists so it's irrelevant what I'd do if I were confronted with the possibility that God does exist

That's not evasion, that's an entirely honest response. My view has been very clear that I don't consider what you believe to be true regarding the afterlife is remotely moral, as such it's irrelevant whether or not God happens to be real in the sense that it doesn't affect, ie change, my opinion.

Actually in our country its more a case of people who are "socialism for thee, not for me" types who love and admire all things socialist and communist but who wouldn't even think for one minute of living that kind of lifestyle for themselves

Which falls in line with my actual point that communism, not socialism because they're different things, hasn't really been successful and isn't actually well regarded. And in that sense I don't consider the ironic opinions of students to be meaningful towards the actuality of something.

all the Hollywood Fat Cats who right now are revealing their contempt for how the election process works)

I think that's potentially less to do with any views of socialism, communism or marxism and more to do with America not really being a democracy. But that's a discussion for another board that I want little to do with.

Are you then saying pre-emptive action against Hitler prior to 1939 would have been bad?

No, nor do I agree that it would have been a good thing to have decided to do such a thing in advance of actually knowing 100% for sure what would happen.

That's being intellectually dishonest to say there have been no such examples. The case history of Star Trek's creator, Gene Roddenberry

What case history would that be, because a little Google search has simply revealed that he turned his back on religion, not necessarily a belief in a god, and I see no mention and no quotes of him claiming that he stopped believing in God to justify any hedonistic behaviour. In fact what I have seen is that he turned his back on organised religion but still held a belief in a possible god. I think you're the one being dishonest here so my point still very much stands, which in case you've forgotten is that while there may be crossover between them there isn't any real direct correlation between hedonistic behaviour and atheism.

neither of which I think you will agree would constitute behavior anyone should emulate

I don't know, nor do I particularly care, what happened with his first wife (I have no interest in Star Trek or anything related to it) but I'm not judgmental over people's actions and lifestyle choices, I'll leave that to you. I will say that while it may not be a lifestyle that I'd want, nor is it one I'd be especially opposed to either, I can't necessarily bring myself to agree with you on this particular point. As I've said before, each to their, it's no concern of mine.

with others I think it is their fear of wanting to confront what God calls upon us to do

In which case they'd have to believe in God, which in turn means that they aren't atheists and don't really belong in a discussion about atheists.

[–] Eric-62-2 7 years ago

Complete and utter non-existence. No punishment, no 'salvation', just nothing

And what I wonder, is supposed to be the benefit of this kind of outcome? It's more like a desperate attempt to avoid facing reality and it reminds me in some levels of how I regarded it as ludicrous when I saw so many people in this last election denying reality and looking for "third way" alternatives to our two Presidential candidates. You were either for one or against the other because the reality is that you were going to face one or the other. So too is it in the choice we face between the consequence of belief or non-belief. And on what level do you decide that "no punishment" is a "just" alternative for some levels of non-believers but not others?

This again is just coming back to the base argument that its your anger at what the choice of belief or non-belief entails that leads you to go insisting on "just" alternatives that only represent the arrogance of the human belief that his way of reasoning is superior to God's. Although what is supposed to be just about "non-existence" and what is your standard for who gets "non-existence" as opposed to damnation is something that would be quite a taxing exercise of subjective judgmentalism on your part and raise even more questions about *your* definitions of what is "moral" or "just."

No because I've not been arguing for any salvation, I've just been arguing against unjust punishment.

Sorry, but it still quacks like a duck, so it's still a duck. You are arguing for a different prescription of salvation rooted in the "saved by non-existence" formula in which you're going to categorize one group of people as allegedly "better" than others to merit this "third way" without specifying what your "standards" are to justify that and why one group of people can go into this "third way". That's still a doctrine rooted in how non-believers can 'save' themselves by having this convenient 'third way' based on *your* insistence that there's nothing good about Heaven. Well sorry, but "imagine there's no heaven etc." might sound lovely to some ears in a bad John Lennon song but its the most substance-free concept I've ever come across in my life.

That's not evasion, that's an entirely honest response. My view has been very clear that I don't consider what you believe to be true regarding the afterlife is remotely moral, as such it's irrelevant whether or not God happens to be real in the sense that it doesn't affect, ie change, my opinion.

That is still intellectual evasion. I at least can have the honesty to admit that if I were presented with a picture of revealed history and reality that say, were to acknowledge that the Islamic interpretation of God was correct than I would have to have the honesty and integrity to convert or that if revealed history and reality revealed there was no God I'd have to become an atheist. You are saying in effect that if you were presented with a similar scenario your response would be to stick your fingers in your ears and go "HMMMMMMM!" and cling to your own belief system in spite of revealed history.

And regarding Gene Roddenberry, I am not being dishonest. He is the one who wanted to recreate God in his own image in terms of looking for a philosophy that would validate his own personal lifestyle. Try reading up sometime about his actual lifestyle in regards to his first marriage and his casting couch behavior and that reveals a man who doesn't possess much of a high intellect on deep philosophical viewpoints (frankly the best piece of writing he ever did was an episode of "Have Gun Will Travel" that is a positive view of Christianity). I don't take seriously wayward Christian preachers like Jimmy Swaggart who got into trouble for their sexual antics and I'm not about to give the same consideration to someone like Roddenberry as an allegedly deep thinker on these matters. But if you say you don't care about what he did in his lifestyle then that is also being intellectually dishonest where you then decide you're going to pick and choose selectively the facts that you can use to make a judgment and declare my perspective of him as "dishonest" and insist that relevant information toward forming that judgment is not going to be factored in.

As for saying you're not judgmental about other people's actions to avoid being critical of serial infidelity and subjecting a wife to mental abuse and anguish through deceit, that really strikes me as amusing in light of how this entire discussion has been centered on your decision to judge God as "immoral". I guess in that case if a man is a wife-beater you're also not going to be judgmental? At what point does your allegedly superior "moral" standard to that of God kick in?

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

Who told you that, cosmo?

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

And what I wonder, is supposed to be the benefit of this kind of outcome?

What is supposed to be the benefit of eternal punishment of people simply for not believing in a particular deity? Anyway, you asked me what my definition of a neutral outcome was. Here it is. What's more neutral than that?

It's more like a desperate attempt to avoid facing reality

Would that be the "reality" of which there is no evidence outside of the Bible? You can't criticise someone for not facing reality when your version of reality has no real evidence behind it.

your anger

Seriously, stop projecting your own emotions on to me and actually read what I'm writing.

represent the arrogance of the human belief

The only arrogance is your belief that the universe was specifically created for you, and that you in turn were specifically created because God loves you so. Do you understand why this is arrogant?

what is your standard for who gets "non-existence" as opposed to damnation

Do you have comprehension problems? It's all there for you. Non-existence would be those who have lived good lives, cared for and about others but simply did not believe in the god you've chosen above all others. You can have your salvation if that's what you'd like, and if you want to offer some, ideally finite, damnation, not necessarily eternal, for those who have spent their lives harming others then fair enough, just leave the rest of us alone. That would be a neutral outcome. Do you understand now?

You are arguing for a different prescription of salvation

Except I don't consider it to be "salvation", in fact I don't consider salvation to be a thing. What I do consider it to be is a completely neutral option to your two absolutes, and as we all know "only a Sith deals in absolutes".

"imagine there's no heaven etc." might sound lovely to some ears in a bad John Lennon song but its the most substance-free concept I've ever come across

I'm not going to argue about your substance free criticsm of the song, but it's only "substance-free" if you've been sold into the idea of heaven. And my view isn't doctrine.

That is still intellectual evasion.

FFS, no it isn't. I stand by my morals because I'm a man of principal. If by some impossible happenstance God revealed him/her/itself then I would happily believe that God exists, but that does not mean that I have to abandon my own morality and inhabit the one that you've bought into. Some of us have a backbone and are willing to stand up for what we actually believe, not simply what we've been told to believe. You said it yourself, you'd entirely change your viewpoint if you found out God was a bit different to what you've been led to believe. That's not the position of someone who has found their own way to faith through finding one that lines up with their own viewpoint, that's the position of someone who is scared to think for themselves and forge their own way through life. Just because you don't like my answer, because you don't understand how someone can be so willing to hold on to their own morality, doesn't make it "intellectual evasion". If their was a history that proved God real then it still wouldn't change the fact that I consider much of it to be immoral. Yes, it's likely that my entire upbringing would have been different, but there's no intellectual honesty in considering something like this by completely dismissing who you are.

And regarding Gene Roddenberry, I am not being dishonest. He is the one who wanted to recreate God in his own image

As I told you, nothing came up on Google, so either provide a link that proves your claim, preferably one with citations, or I'll have to assume your basing this on rumours without facts.

pick and choose selectively the facts that you can use to make a judgment and declare my perspective of him as "dishonest" and insist that relevant information toward forming that judgment is not going to be factored in.

What are harping on about? I don't know anything abut Roddenberry so I have no opinion on what he did. I've not "judged" you, I've declared your claim that he said he turned to atheism in order to justify his hedonism dishonest because I found no evidence of that, quite the opposite actually, and you have offered not evidence of it despite now claiming it twice. So until you offer some evidence then you're still being dishonest about it.

serial infidelity

Not something I'm willing to "judge" others on. We're not all as obsessed with people's sex lives as Christians often appear to be.

amusing in light of how this entire discussion has been centered on your decision to judge God as "immoral".

Yes, but I'm not claiming that everybody should abide by my own morals or suffer the consequences of being different. I'm well aware I'm not perfect, more than that I'm well aware that I can be hypocritical with my actions and that my morals are, to a certain extent at least, flexible enough to allow me to freely alter my views depending upon the situation. I can consider, not judge, God to be immoral at times because that is my right, and if I were a god then everyone would be free to consider me immoral at times if they so wished. And I still wouldn't punish them for all time because of it, because I'm not a dick like that.

I guess in that case if a man is a wife-beater you're also not going to be judgmental?

You don't need to guess anything, I've made it perfectly clear that I have no time for those who purposefully cause harm to others. I would consider anyone who "beats" their spouse poorly and would hope they were justly punished by those who are elected to do the punishing.

At what point does your allegedly superior "moral" standard to that of God kick in?

Well, I know that my morals definitely exist, so...

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Who told you that, cosmo?

I have no idea exactly what it is that you're asking?

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

Assuming you have a brain...who brainwashed it?

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Assuming you have a brain...who brainwashed it?

So not buying into God is being brainwashed now? You don't half come out with some amusing nonsense at times.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

You don't half come out with some amusing nonsense at times.

Proofread much? lol

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Proofread much? lol

Go on then, what's wrong with that particular sentence?

If you don't have anything constructive to add, maybe just don't bother with whese unconnected, irrelevant insults you've become fond of making.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

You don't half come out with...

lol

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

"You don't half..." is a well known, and used, expression. The world is a lot bigger than that of 'kurt' you know. For someone who regularly goes on about "red flags" (I still neither know nor care what that means by the way) you probably shouldn't consider yourself smug about someone using phrases that you're not familiar with, all because you incorrectly think they're 'wrong'.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

It must be a limey thing then. Sounds more like incoherent blather, since you specialize in that skill.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

It must be a limey thing then. Sounds more like incoherent blather, since you specialize in that skill.

That's it kurt, turn to insults after it turns out you're initial criticism was completely unfounded. And I also assume you're using "limey" in a derogatory manner, as that appears to be the only mean of communicating with people that you're aware of.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

initial criticism was completely unfounded

My criticisms are always spot on.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

Is that a Trumpism?

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

My criticisms are always spot on.

At least you've got a sense of humour kurt.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

And chatting with a joke confirms that.

[–] wendellbakerwb 7 years ago

People should know the poster with the screen name Eric-62-2 has bad social skills. He has proven this with hundreds of posts going back many years. You can sample them.

[–] TopFrog 7 years ago

Bad social skills? On the Internet? Quelle horreur!

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Can't help yourself can you? So were you being serious when you said "my criticisms are always spot on"?

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Now the militant atheist claims to be an expert on God's word.

Not even remotely relevant to the post you're quoting.

Guess how many times he's misquoted scriptures on GND boards. It's down right vulgar.

Good luck showing one single occasion in which I've quoted scripture, correctly or not, doesn't matter as it's never happened.

But the jerks that hang out on IMDb pro-Christian message boards are rabid, mad dog militant atheists that go on the attack against anyone that supports religion. Check this filthy animal's comment history.

Slight repetition, but I'll count them. 5 insults in 2 sentences, classic kurt right there.

Godless

Yep.

immoral

Far from it.

religion hater

Not at all, and coming from a man who resolutely doesn't advocate religion, this is somewhat amusing.

He hates religion and blames religion for all social ills on the planet

If you can testify to this then you should be able to quote me shouldn't you?

He keeps directing insults at Christians on these boards

Let me guess, you won't quote me but I'll keep doing it in future, which you'll never quote because it doesn't happen? Otherwise, show me where I've insulted a Christian.

And why would a Christian or any person of faith that believes the scriptures defining the Christian God have any interest in discussing 'gods worshiped throughout human history.

If you actually read my post, rather than simply looking for reasons to get insulted, even when there aren't any, you'd understand why that was asked. Something, by the way, that I don't keep 'whipping out'.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

You are judging God committing "evil" acts based on *your* definition of what is "evil"

Ok then, perhaps you can tell us whether something is evil just as God says it is or because He says so?

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] TopFrog 7 years ago

If I accept the reality that there is a God who created the Universe and who made the Universe possible for me to exist and to know the experience of life, then I am the last person capable of questioning Him.

And from a later message:

your standard represents assuming a superiority in your mind to God.
...
It's quite relevant I'm afraid, because all of your objections have stemmed from the basic belief that *your* thinking is superior to God and that *you* are superior to God.

If I were to encounter a human who had the power of life and death over me, say Hitler, I'd certainly be able to question and have an opinion on the morality of said person's actions.

If I were to encounter a being of much greater power, one able to create and destroy galaxies (and all of humanity) with the slightest thought, I'd still be qualified to have an opinion on the morality of such a being's actions. This would be so even if the being had an intellect that dwarfed my own (knowing much more than I do, and able to perform mental feats far beyond what I could), with me being able to apply a moral standard without asserting superiority over her.

This ability to morally judge a creature of superior power and intellect is still there even if this creature created me, and doing so does not involve me asserting superiority over her, except perhaps in the very limited sense of accepting the possibility that she may have behaved not in accordance with some moral standard of which I can conceive.

And if a being of great power and intellect is a character in a book, a being that may or may not exist in actuality, it doesn't seem to be any sort of a stretch to apply a moral standard to such a being without asserting superiority over him or her.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

I have often found that those who question the NT Gospels as history

The gospels are not primary documents, being written anonymously (authorship being ascribed with varying degrees of certainty by tradition); appear at increasing intervals from purported events, often contain clear inaccuracies; were most likely written in Greek; are not eyewitness accounts, and alone contain details of purported miraculous events striking enough to be not mentioned even by contemporary Jewish writers; they were clearly written by the committed for proselytizing purposes, and with a knowledge of the history of religious mendacity, so, yes, they are easy to question as anything except hearsay.

if you were confronted with the fact of the Crucifixion and Resurrection as a real event, one that actually happened and thus proved that Christ was who He claimed to be and was the incarnate Son of God, you would thus still reject Him for not living up to your own individual standard of what you would expect God to do.

Let's have some real proof or evidence and see.

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] Eric-62-2 7 years ago

Actually the Gospels, in appearing in the area of 30-40 years after the events they describe have a *better* pedigree than so many of the sources we consult for ancient history. Tacitus and Seutonius form our principal understanding of the Caesars yet many of them write about figures more than a century after the events in question. What we know of Alexander the Great comes not from surviving contemporary manuscripts but from historians writing centuries afterward, some relying on source material that is totally lost to us.

Then there is the issue of manuscript reliability (which is important in refuting the liberal scholarship argument of the claims of Jesus divinity being invented afterwards). This essay by Gary Habermas summarizes the argument quite well and shows how the objections you raise have long since been answered or shown to be inaccurate. I can also furnish plenty more by other noted Biblical scholars that address these same points in further detail.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_recentperspectives/crj_recentperspectives.htm#_edn2

You're evading the point of my challenge to you. You made it abundantly clear that you consider the manner in which God offers salvation for people to be rooted in an "immoral" concept so that means on a purely intellectual level, you are saying that you would rant at God for being "immoral" even if these events actually happened. For you to switch gears is being intellectually dishonest because you're then trying to have it both ways and say that "oh, since I don't believe the Resurrection happened, then I can argue about how immoral the whole idea of it is as a means of offering salvation." No you can't. If you are describing it as immoral, then in the interests of consistency you would have to take that position even if you granted the idea of it as an actual historical event. If you're not taking that argument, then you are acknowledging that if the Resurrection is indeed an actual historical event, then you would have to ergo conclude as well that your entire argument about its "immorality" would be wrong as well. This is the point you need to fess up about first.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

Actually the Gospels, in appearing in the area of 30-40 years after the events they describe have a *better* pedigree than so many of the sources we consult for ancient history.

A fair enough observation - but it still does not change the points made. The idea that someone called Jesus once lived and died, was known and his words apparently even quoted is quite a normal claim and one can take Gospel, even though hearsay as normal evidence for such a regular proposition. But extraordinary claims - that a man rose from the dead and performed miracles say, requires extraordinary evidence. This is something that hearsay, unsubstantiated by other contemporary writers is not able to provide. There is nothing contemporary, outside of the claims of scripture, itself hearsay prepared to a purpose years after events, to provide corroborative evidence.

Then there is the issue of manuscript reliability

Thank you for your link, which does not change the nature of my observation. For instance we read from it such admissions as:

Most of the New Testament is available from copies that are only 100-150 years after its completion

i.e. The Gospels are not primary documents.

approximately one and a half dozen non-Christian, extra-biblical sources confirm many details from Jesus’ life and teachings as found in the Gospels. Early Christian writers like Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp provide even more confirmation, writing just ten years or less after the completion of the New Testament

i.e. There is no contemporary substantiation of the central Christian myths.

Reports from such an early date would actually predate the written Gospels. A famous example is the list of Jesus’ resurrection appearances supplied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

Paul, a proselytizer, was just passing on hearsay. (clear from his words "For what I received..." in Cor.)

...critical scholars tend to approach the subject from other angles. Though they recognize a number of the traditional insights, recent scholars are not as interested in the overall trustworthiness of the New Testament text. Their work is largely based on the twin assumptions that the various writings differ in value, and that, even within each composition, there is a mixture of worthwhile and questionable material

Critical scholarship are 'not as interested' in such questions, one assumes, since there is no corroboration for the central, extraordinary central events purportedly described and, for the objective historian hoping to describe such is fruitless. (In fact the one of first significant mention of Jesus, years after his death outside of the Gospels, by Josephus was doctored, I seem to remember, by an unknown Christian to purpose.) In short they have better things to do. Like looking for "insights" apparently. Rather a damning admission from your own link!

i.e. the first, later accounts of Jesus (Thallus, Tacitus, et al) may substantiate a life and death of a man but hardly mention the central Xian myths. The best we get is, from the former is a 'darkness' and 'earthquake' at the time of the crucifixion. (Even here there is no primary documentation). No miracles. No resurrection. Nothing.

And so on.

You're evading the point of my challenge to you.

It was not addressed to me so I have no idea what you are talking about LOL.

But here are some observations

you would rant at God for being "immoral"

If one lacks belief in a deliberate supernatural, then ranting at it would not be logical.

trying to have it both ways and say that "oh, since I don't believe the Resurrection happened, then I can argue about how immoral the whole idea of it is as a means of offering salvation." No you can't. If you are describing it as immoral, then in the interests of consistency you would have to take that position even if you granted the idea of it as an actual historical event

But one can make judgments about fictitious events which are valid. Literary criticism, for instance does this all the time. So your argument does not hold.For my own account I think it is reasonable, or likely, that your Jesus was crucified - not an uncommon end for the condemned at that time. But that makes of him another dead messiah, not necessarily a walking God believed in by the fervent ever since John expressed the idea. This is not to say of course that I am necessarily right, and the First Cause in person pottered around a small area of the middle east two millennia ago. But those making such extraordinary claims are those who need to show proof of them, no those doubting them.

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] Philip-Skiles 7 years ago

What kind of a sacrifice would satisfy you? Remember that regular people that die a Godly person CANNOT enter hell even if they were a martyr.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

What kind of a sacrifice would satisfy you?

Why was any sacrifice at all necessary for an omnipotent God? Blood sacrifices don't satisfy me, quite the opposite. If I were to believe it to be true, I would find the idea of being told I'm sinful so God is going to kill his son to remove those sins at the least a little troubling. I wouldn't want someone to die for something I've supposedly done no matter who they are. Yet if I reject this act of sacrifice as immoral or disturbing I'm to be punished eternally in hell.

[–] Philip-Skiles 7 years ago

I already told you why a sacrifice was necessary. The penalty for sin is death. FYI, you're feeling the same way Jesus's twelve disciples felt when he told them he was going to be put to death. They didn't want that either. They felt terrible after he had been put to death. Christ was put to death because he preached righteousness in the presence of unrighteous people. The unrighteous hate and even revile true righteousness because it is within their nature to hate it. Christ gave people a gift they didn't deserve because he loves them. You ever receive a gift from your parents that you didn't deserve but they gave you one any way because they love you? They gave something of themselves to get you that gift by giving there time and money for it. You're going to say no to that gift? Jesus gave his life that you might live. You're going to say no to that gift? Don't you think God has just as much a right to display his anger with you as your parents do if you say no to that gift? You didn't answer my question as to what kind of a sacrifice would satisfy you.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

I already told you why a sacrifice was necessary.

No, you explained why biblically speaking a sacrifice would do the trick, not why it was necessary. There's a big difference. Why was an apparently omnipotent God's only choice was to torture and crucify himself or his son, depending on how you see it?

Christ was put to death because he preached righteousness in the presence of unrighteous people.

And to fulfill prophecy, enabling God to mend fences with his creation.

You ever receive a gift from your parents that you didn't deserve but they gave you one any way because they love you? They gave something of themselves to get you that gift by giving there time and money for it. You're going to say no to that gift?

It's a false equivalence to compare a gift from a parent to a blood sacrifice. When I was younger I received gifts from my parents that I didn't deserve, but at no point was this gift the murder or torture of someone or themselves. If it had been, even if it were to present me with very real benefits I would have of course said no, as would anyone.

Jesus gave his life that you might live. You're going to say no to that gift?

It's not a gift. This supposed gift rids me (and mankind) of original sin, an act that if we are to take Genesis literally, I did no commit. So a man is tortured and sacrificed as a gift for me, because it forgives me for something I didn't do. I don't want torture or blood sacrifice in my name, so I would say no to that.

Don't you think God has just as much a right to display his anger with you as your parents do if you say no to that gift?

No, I don't and this is where the comparison to a gift becomes dishonest. If I reject a present that my parents have worked hard to buy or make then I am ungrateful, and they have a right to be angry. My rejection of God's blood sacrifice is based on ethics, not gratefulness. His resulting punishment is due to a lack of obedience.

You didn't answer my question as to what kind of a sacrifice would satisfy you.

I thought I was clear when I said that they don't satisfy me?

[–] Philip-Skiles 7 years ago

I think this conversation has that inherent problem that arises when the conversation is on an Internet message forum and not face to face. Where what I say makes a lot more sense to me than it does to you, and where what you say makes a lot more sense to you than it does to me. But my question still remains - what kind of a sacrifice would satisfy you? You obviously don't think Jesus dying on the cross was necessary, so come up with something better if you can. Keep in mind that there is a difference between something that would satisfy you and what would actually work. So tell me, what would be a better sacrifice?

[–] deviates 7 years ago

But my question still remains - what kind of a sacrifice would satisfy you?/quote]
I have answered it twice already, no sacrifice would satisfy me. I would be offended by anyone doing such a thing on my behalf.

[quote]You obviously don't think Jesus dying on the cross was necessary, so come up with something better if you can.

Am I taking the role of an omnipotent God? If so I'd be curious as to why, if being all-powerful, I'm limited to such a bizarre loop hole.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between something that would satisfy you and what would actually work.

That would depend entirely on why you believed it worked, given that Theologians have numerous theories on Atonement.

[–] Philip-Skiles 7 years ago

So hypothetically speaking, you'd rather pay off your own sins?

[–] deviates 7 years ago

In the same sense that if I break the law I should be the one to pay the price, yes. That's not to say it isn't possible for someone else to, for example one person could pay a fine for another. But that doesn't relieve the guilty party of the responsibility of their actions. That's called scapgoating.

But note I'm responsible for my own actions, not those that came before me.

[–] Philip-Skiles 7 years ago

Yeah but punishment for sin is eternal. You can't handle eternal punishment. You can't ever pay off sin. A person in prison doesn't have to suffer eternally. They know there punishment will eventually end, either by meeting the required number of years in there prison term, or they die in prison. Either way, there term ends. In hell, your term never ends. That's why you ought to be grateful there is someone willing to pay for your sins.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

Remind me whose idea was hell again? I should be thankful for God because he decided to have his (im)mortal self/son tortured, killed and resurrected because if I accept it and take that on my conscience he won't have to have me tortured for eternity?

And while we are on the subject, do you really consider infinite punishment for finite sins to be moral? I hope you don't play Eric's amoral card and claim you can't possibly know.

[–] Philip-Skiles 7 years ago

God created hell. God created heaven. God created you. God created everything. Let's not act as if I should be hesitant to tell you all that or that you've trapped me in my own words. I'm not just telling you to be grateful you can avoid hell. I'm also telling you to be grateful that you can have an eternity of peace after you die. You are not entitled to that. Before you even say, "Well I'm not deserving of hell either." I'll say yeah you are. Why? Because for those who are in hell their sins are now never going to be washed out - they are infinite, not finite as you said. Sin will always remain in their heart. They can no longer repent. They have wasted away that opportunity. They are dead now and nothing can be done to bring those individuals out of there torment. Those in hell eternally rejected God and are not innocent. Neither were they innocent in the lives they lived. But while those in heaven may not have lived innocent lives either, they knew they could not save themselves. They repented.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

I'm not just telling you to be grateful you can avoid hell. I'm also telling you to be grateful that you can have an eternity of peace after you die.

If I'm willing to accept torture and human sacrifice on my behalf. I don't.

Before you even say, "Well I'm not deserving of hell either." I'll say yeah you are. Why? Because for those who are in hell their sins are now never going to be washed out - they are infinite, not finite as you said.

It's not the length of time you live with the sin on your conscience that determines whether it is finite or infinite, it's the sin itself. Any sin, no matter how great has a finite impact, causes a finite level of pain. In punishment the same damage and pain is essentially exerted on the 'sinner' over and over for eternity.

But I'm curious now. What is my sin? What wrong have I done to deserve hell? As you're aware, the destination of hell doesn't really come down to deeds but obedience.

[–] Philip-Skiles 7 years ago

Your sin, which you've made known, is that you have not believed in the eternal sacrifice of Jesus or that he is God in the flesh. John 1:1-5 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." Look at the notes on this at http://biblehub.com/kjv/john/1.htm . The theologians agree here that Jesus was the one undoubtedly referred to as the Word. Therefore he is God in the flesh. To your point on sin, sin is not only an act. It is a matter of the heart first. Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" There you see that the heart is full of sin. Your sin remains with you until you repent. The sin is not over after you commit the murder. It still remains in your heart.

[–] TopFrog 7 years ago

That Deviates's sin is not believing that Jesus died to expiate his sins is an idea worthy of Joseph Heller.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Appreciate and rejoice in the sacrifice of a human who isn't really human and wasn't really sacrificed, or don't believe in it and suffer eternal punishment. Because God loves you so.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

Therefore he is God in the flesh.

In which case his sacrifice as a man would have no meaning.

Also please quote where Jesus actually says "I am God". I cannot see it in the Bible while some people, especially of the Islamic persuasion may wish to disagree with the idea. (You'd think they would know, especially as their scholars often claim to be worshiping the same god as you.) Perhaps, if this Jesus-God equivalence was in fact the case, Jesus ought to have asked Himself if He was God for sure when He was, er, talking to God out loud or referring to God in the third person?

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] deviates 7 years ago

Your sin, which you've made known, is that you have not believed in the eternal sacrifice of Jesus or that he is God in the flesh.

So Jesus was sacrificed for my sin of not believing in his sacrifice? That makes very little sense, especially given that we've already covered the fact my sin can't be expunged by the sacrifice. So now this 'gift' of sacrifice has actually become the very cause of my supposed punishment, as without it my sin wouldn't exist. That only further justifies my desire not to have human sacrifice in my name.

[–] Philip-Skiles 7 years ago

No I'm saying you reject the idea that his death actually atoned for sins. I see that what I'm saying isn't helping you understand. I know you feel unsatisfied with these answers, but I've said what I feel is necessary. I can't make you change your mind.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

No I'm saying you reject the idea that his death actually atoned for sins.

Correct, I don't believe. When I asked you what sin I personally had committed making me worthy of hell, you said this lack of belief. If that's my sin then the whole set up seems a little (more) absurd.

You're right I'm a little unsatisfied, but I feel I've understood what you've said. I just think what I see as a barbaric and unnecessary act for an apparently omnipotent God to commit, you see justification for. Our initial paradigms mean we see the same event in very different ways, but if I'm honest it was always going to take an impressive justification to explain away the torture and execution of a man (or God, in which case temporary execution)as something I should be grateful for.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

But my question still remains - what kind of a sacrifice would satisfy you?

It is interesting that one of the Christian faith apparently finds human sacrifice 'satisfying'. A strange word. If JC was 'God' from the beginning of course, then as already observed, it was not a sacrifice at all, not least since a God cannot 'die'. So to be really sacrificed, JC would have had to be a man. But then, last time I checked a man doesn't work miracles. So was your Christ a man, with a 'satisfactory' death but without performing some of the central Christian myths - or was he a god and thus, in your terms, not 'satisfactory' as a sacrifice at all?

You obviously don't think Jesus dying on the cross was necessary, so come up with something better if you can.

Well in an early Hindu myth, Purusha is the primal being who allows himself to be dismembered so that creation can take place. Sacrifice to enable the existence of things in the first place probably trumps sacrifice to keep those things out of hell, since the one cannot come without the other. But such considerations aside, Jesus might just have lived for 2 thousand years as a miracle, and have never died - that would had been an ongoing, indisputable, much less controversial proof, precluding the doubts since. It would also have represented a concrete demonstration of a life eternal in your god, something more than any cruel Passion "that had to happen" etc - and He might even have strolled over to Mohammed to put him right, thus saving even more conflict. As it, pottering round the middle east for 30 years or so, then apparently coming back to life briefly, and not even conspicuously appearing before key decision makers (Caesar or just the local governor, say) let alone enough for the impressing of any contemporary Jewish writers, leaves all sorts of questions.

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] LenaAFoster 7 years ago

Deviates,

I TOTALLY get why you don't understand why that is the only way to fix things. I absolutely get what you are saying. It never made a lick of sense to me either UNTIL I started reading the Bible for myself and opened myself up to the Holy Spirit. I know that sounds very strange but it's true. I was raised Catholic and as a Catholic you never read the Bible and you don't even get into ANY of this that much. You basically go to church repeat after the priest, say your lines and believe in Jesus and God and go through the motions.

To me it just created a kind of "meh" attitude about it. I honestly thought the Bible seemed square and boring and nothing that would hold my interest. Something ancient and archaic and not in tune with modern technology and the needs of modern society etc...

Until I actually picked it up and started reading. The Bible says this.

1 Corinthians 2:6-16

God’s Wisdom Revealed by the Spirit

6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived” — the things God has prepared for those who love him— 10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?”But we have the mind of Christ.

You will get there. You are on the right track. My estimation is that one day the Holy Spirit will hit you like a lightning strike. The reason? It will want to make an impression on you given this long journey... 

But to answer your question, what I find to be true is that the ENTIRE BIBLE is set up as a "Compendium of the Existence of Man on Earth." The entire Bible is set up basically from Genesis to Revelation as a response and cure to FIX the war which occurred from the rebellion in heaven. If you study the Bible deeply and study prophecy you will see how it all plays together in that God is moving through time to basically purify man.

God created man in his image. It just is. We don't know why God did this. God does what he wants. It is his experiment. Not ours. If you accept God, and accept his divinity you accept that he made us and it is for him to have his reasons. But, Lucifer in heaven was a "covering" Angel. He was a very important angel. There is a suggestion that he was in charge of music in heaven. But he was one of the 5 angels which covered the throne of God.

But, if we believe the Bible, apparently angels have a level of free will as well because Lucifer tired of serving God and wanted to be God so he began to "trade" (slander) God. He convinced 1/3 of Gods angels to defect from God and rebel.

Lucifer fought with the archangel Michael in the War in Heaven and Michael cast Lucifer down to Earth. Here in the Garden of Eden Lucifer convinced Eve and Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit (and original sin) was created. What he did was lie to them and convince them that with enough "knowledge" they too could become godlike and have "eternal life."

Well, here's the thing. God was already GIVING them eternal life. There was no need for them to try to get knowledge to try to get eternal life on their own because (1) no amount of their knowledge could give them eternal life because this was something only the one true living God could give (2) they were not gods and would never get that status...that was just the lie they bought from Lucifer. Original sin.

So in this compendium the Bible, the entire Old Testament has story after story of God trying to convince his people (who have free will) that he is the one living God and "trying to fix" the damage from Lucifers damage after the War in heaven. He can't just force folks because of free will. And only pure souls can get into heaven. But it HAS to be through choice. Why? Because look what happened with his throne room angel. That guy did not want to be there. You are better off only letting people in who want to be there and who through free will WANT to be with God.

So, the story of Noah is about God trying to fix the damage from Lucifer corrupting his people made in his image. The flood didn't work though did it. Because you get rid of flesh but the attitude is still there. So, story after story of God finding films to test and who show "allegiance and loyalty" to him (and not other dead idols or nonliving fake gods).

So, phase 2. He sends his son. Second phase of purifying his creation. Jesus comes as part flesh and part God. He shows miracles but does not reveal his divinity. Why not? It would be easier eh to show everyone he is God? Simple. God is refining humanity slowly over time. Thousands of years. Jesus develops a small following. Sets forth the new rules of the game. Now explains a little more of his purpose and Gods plan. He is the way the truth and the life. No one comes to God but through him.

But why? Why is he paying the wages of sin? Because he is not just an ordinary sinful bu man. Only a sinless one can pay the wages of one who has sin. Jesus is the Bridge. We enter into heaven through him. If we trust in him and accept him, we get the benefit of his sinlessness by proxy and get to go to Heaven. But it's much more than that. Again before we were here on Earth there was a war in heaven where 1/3 of the Angels rebelled and Lucifer the king rebel came down to corrupt Gods creation.

Man started off being eternal on Earth. Then they ate of the forbidden fruit and became mortal with original sin. Then through years of corruption the long 1000 year lives of Noah etc were shortened... Jesus was taking an important rehabilitative step with his first appearance by creating FAITH. If he could get people to believe in him by being part man and part God by performing a few miracles, then he could be assured their faith was STRONG. No wishy washy like the 1/3 angels who defected etc and disrupted heaven.

So Jesus made a sacrifice and showed is that we could have eternal life again. Just like Adam and Eve in paradise. But through trust in God. So he dies, leaves the Holy Spirit as a helper and then what happens. Another test of man. In 2000 years, billions of folks have been coming to have faith in Christ sight unseen which means God can be even more assured that those folks will be loyal to him in heaven.

And I spoke about the Bible being a compendium of man on Earth. Because when Jesus returns, this time, the Bible says he will come back not in humble form but rather in majestic glory so that all men will realize he is not man but rather God. Why? It is the further refining of man by God. He had the early period of Noah and Moses where he was trying to get people to trust him as their God, then he sent Jesus to create the snowball effect of faith. Now that there are billions of Christians, it's time to sift the wheat from the chaff and see who is left.

Also, it is noteworthy that in Revelation it says Jesus will reign on Earth among men for 1000 years and at the end of his reign he will loose the dragon (the devil) one last tim for a short while then throw him into the lake of fire. Now why do that if not for a reason? The reason is clear. This whole thing started with the rebellion in heaven and resulting corruption of man on Earth. That is Lucifer convincing folks they could be independent of God and have eternal life with enough knowledge. The original lie.

What better way to sift out any remaining doubters than to loose Satan one last time? To see who doubts God and gravitates to Satan. Much like the 1/3 angels did before Michael the archangel ousted them.

So that's why Jesus must pay the wages of our sin. It's not just out of nowhere. It started with the war in heaven and ends with Jesus destroying Earth and creating a new heaven and a new earth. But God can't have a repeat of what happened in the garden of Eden which is why The Bible is a compendium of man on earth and why prophecy exists and just be fulfilled to get us there.

Galena

*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussion🌈

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

as a Catholic you never read the Bible

Lena, please try and tell the truth, certainly where it is checkable. It will make the rest of your proselytizing more convincing if what one can discover is true and accurate.

the Catholic Church reads the entire Bible to her congregation over the span of three years ... Catholics are also encouraged to read the Bible for personal devotion and study outside of Mass. http://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/do-catholics-read-the-bible/

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] TopFrog 7 years ago

Catholicism often stresses following the Church over reading the Bible. See, e.g., https://youtu.be/KiU5ht5W_lk?t=1542 (the entirety of which I highly recommend).

[–] LenaAFoster 7 years ago

Is this the kind of thing you are going to as educational authority Top Frog? Julia Sweeney was on SNL wasn't she? She is a snowflake celebrity clearly. But she also clearly has no interest in understanding what the bible messages are. Much the same way as skeptic atheists do. They read a passage in the Bible intent on finding a way to twist words in order to mock and ridicule it.

It is what they do. She says that God had to kill babies and women with the flood in the story of Noah so he is a "mean" God. So that justifies (to her) her atheism. Well, God is not human. He is the creator. He is a merciful God but he is also a just God. He's not here to live by human standards and NO it is not a "voting democracy" in heaven. We mortals abide by his rules or we don't belong there.

I think that is something that ticks off atheists.

What she fails to mention is the reason why the flood occurred in the story of Noah. She lacks any insight whatsoever. Doesn't want any. Doesn't care to. Just wants to mock scriptures. She does this with all her mocking of events in the Bible.

The flood occurred because of the War in Heaven. Lucifer came down with his angels and the Bible says the Angels "came unto the daughters of men" and this created an abomination to God, a hybrid race of Giants. The Nephilim taught sorcery witch craft and astrology and magic arts to the women and corrupted Gods creation from the garden of Eden. ONLY Noah and his family were pure and not corrupted in this. That is WHY they were spared but the rest of creation was destroyed.

What she also naively fails to either get or doesn't mention to her audience is that death is not cruel to God. God is eternal. The birds and animals and his creation (it is written in Revelation) will be in the New Earth after this one passes away. There are plenty of scriptures where it says that God cares about his animals, etc.

But to an atheist, death means annihilation. To God that is not so. He can let those animals live eternally. See Revelation as proof of that. But God was going to try to rid the Earth of the hybrid race of Nephilim. His ways are higher than our ways. It's just true. Something atheists can't stand the notion of. A higher power....

But a ding dong like Julia Sweeney, in advancing her atheist agenda does not complete the story does she? She just says in summary, God is "mean" and hurt babies.

No. I did not watch the entire thing. Why would I go to a comic for 2 hours to hear them push atheism through unintelligent and uneducated summary of a book they have absolutely no insight into about a God they clearly hate and are angry with, why?

Why does she hate God anyway? Does she ever really say? Did he not make her a cheerleader in high school or make her like the pretty popular girls so he is "mean"? Who knows... Probably because hating God earns her $$$$$$$$$$$ in show business as she never launched a successful movie or TV career after being booted off of SNL...right???

It's Pat, the movie was a colossal bomb. Budget of $8 million and made $60,000+- at the box office. 2.6/10 IMDB score. Sounds to me like she is bitter and needs a Schtick to earn a living. God is an easy target.

Galena

*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussion🌈

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

The flood occurred because of the War in Heaven. Lucifer came down with his angels and the Bible says the Angels "came unto the daughters of men" and this created an abomination to God, a hybrid race of Giants. The Nephilim taught sorcery witch craft and astrology and magic arts to the women and corrupted Gods creation from the garden of Eden

You know that not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally... right?

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

It puts Lord of the Rings to shame, that's one hell of a fantastical story.

[–] TopFrog 7 years ago

Is this the kind of thing you are going to as educational authority Top Frog?

I was citing it as support for the statement I made, the signal "see, e.g." indicating that it directly supported the statement, and was one example of such support among others. (Refer to Bluebook Rules 1.2(a) and 1.2(e) if you need a refresher.)

I see Julia Sweeney's work as entertaining and thoughtful, but nothing I would consider a rigorous argument. Nor do I think it's meant to be.

No. I did not watch the entire thing.

That's your choice, and I didn't ask you to, but Mrs. Froggy and I watched a two-hour video of Kent Hovind when you linked to it a couple of years back. We probably disagreed with Kent Hovind just about as vehemently as Julia Sweeney got you going.

Why does she hate God anyway? Does she ever really say?

I see you're still possessed of the idea that people who say that they don't believe that God exists really do believe in God, but hate Him. That's incorrect, and your misconception is way more your problem than mine.

[–] LenaAFoster 7 years ago

Where in your post or mine does it say the Catholic Church encourages its MEMBERS to read the Bible for themselves? That's right, the Bible is carved up into little booklets that you find in pews when you sit down and they have readings 1 from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament. We are not encouraged to just go study the bible for OURSELVES. We are LED by priests who are deemed more worthy and knowledgeable by some unknown something or other

But I have found a direct route of reading to bring me much closer to Jesus and God. Unfortunately my doing so may have gotten me burned at the stake in the Middle Ages.

But to be clear I also don't buy into those Christian super churches, etc. I'm not going to substitute a priest and 2000 years of ritual for some Christian superstar wealthy well known pastor with a 20 year career telling me how to think or pray or interpret the Bible either. That's what the Holy Spirit is for. Not a priest or man from a new age super church...

I love my family who are Catholics and individual Catholics have faith which I do not question. But I do not believe Jesus gave exclusive rights to the Catholic Church by simply calling Peter a rock on which he would build his church. Why? Because when Jesus departed he made it a POINT to tear the veil in the temple. The veil separated the elite church leaders from the common people. His message in doing so was that no longer was the grace of God reserved for the elite of the church who filtered it for the people as they see fit. But now, there was a direct avenue between common poor people and God. But the new age churches hold no draw to me either.

So I fail to see how Jesus would have ever intended to simply replace a Jewish ruling class with a Catholic Church ruling class. By the way, in Revelation it says there are "no temples" as Jesus is the temple. And, in Revelation the words are directed to the seven churches of Asia, Philadelphia, Pergamum, Laodocia, Thyataria (so), and NOT the Catholic Church. You ask a devout Catholic and they say he was directing those letters to the "Catholic" Bishops in Asia. How on Earth do we get that from the text?

The text was directed to simple fledgling Christian churches (probably filed with Jewish men and women adhering to Jewish culture) and Jesus had something to say about each of them.

So, no the Catholic Church is not the chosen religion by God (I don't believe that it is the one and only exclusive right way)...especially since it has priests and a pope(like the Pharisees and Sanhedrin and ruling councils) which filter the connection of folks to God. The very thing Jesus stopped with the Pharisees when he tore the veil.

But no I was never told to go to "Bible Study" or had classes on Bible study. My dad had philosophy in Catholic school (private school) but I'm talking about as part of the tenets of the church...and not 2000$ a month private school tuition.

Galena

*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussion🌈

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

Where in your post or mine does it say the Catholic Church encourages its MEMBERS to read the Bible for themselves

But you didn't say 'members', or describe a specific part of the Catholics as the object of your generalisation. And since when is a Catholic not a 'member' of the Catholic church, anyhow?

We are LED by priests who are deemed more worthy and knowledgeable by some unknown something or other

By 'we' do you mean you are a lapsed Catholic or do you include atheists like me among those 'led by priests'? Because I am not.

I'm not going to substitute a priest and 2000 years of ritual for some Christian superstar wealthy well known pastor with a 20 year career telling me how to think or pray or interpret the Bible either. That's what the Holy Spirit is for. Not a priest or man from a new age super church... (blah)... [such beliefs] may have gotten me burned at the stake in the Middle Ages So, no the Catholic Church is not the chosen religion by God ...

Good for you. That was quite a rant against Catholics and Catholicism, btw. It was the Reformation's 500th birthday last week. Its nice to see that all the old internecine Xian rivalries and disagreements are alive and well as ever. Jesus would be proud of you all.

I'm talking about as part of the tenets of the church...and not 2000$ a month private school tuition.

I am not quite sure why you should introduce this disclaimer. It obviously means more to you than anyone else...

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] LenaAFoster 7 years ago

And by the way, the article you posted is ridiculous. It says arrogantly (I might add) "Catholics invented the Bible!" With an exclamation mark. Not true. The first five books are from ancient Jewish books , i.e., Torah (Old Testament) and the New Testament are letters and gospels written by Matthew Luke etc.

It is simply arrogance for the Catholic Church to say only the Pope can talk directly to God and then appoint priests as his surrogates especially when mortal men vote on him. God chooses who he speaks to. Not man. And there are other issues. But the bottom line is that if you speak to Jesus and ask God for guidance he will respond. It's as simple as that. It's about faith and faith and this will start you on the right path to good works.

Galena

*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussion🌈

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

It is simply arrogance for the Catholic Church to say only the Pope can talk directly to God and then appoint priests as his surrogates especially when mortal men vote on him

You are entitled to your opinion. As someone who lack a belief in any preferred version of your faith I will just leave you and the Catholics to it, just noting that, when describing other people it is always best to at least see what they say about themselves and give it some weight. Otherwise the arrogance can be elsewhere.

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] deviates 7 years ago

I appreciate your reply Lena, though after reading, it seems very much geared for the converted. That's not me by some margin.

We've had previous discussions that, put nicely, haven't gone too well. With that in mind I intend to make one small comment, rather than getting in to anything too deeply.

One quote from your post sums up

God created man in his image. It just is. We don't know why God did this.

'It just is' feels like it applies to such much of what's been spoken about with little justification, while being covered by the tracks of 'we don't know'. You've started with the assumption about God and worked you way backwards.

[–] mustangguy809 7 years ago

If I may interject here, perhaps I could clarify the necessity of Christ's Crucification. Or at least attempt.

But why? Why is it that the only way to fix things, the only loop hole an omnipotent God could find was to impregnate a woman with the human incarnation of himself with the plan of sacrificing himself (temporarily) later in order to pay 'the penalty for sin'?

The most important thing to understand first is the misconception from others on how God's perfection is defined. I've had odd individuals challenge me with the paradox of their take on omnipotence, confusing it for perfection in every way conceivable. Of course, this doesn't work as I've pointed out to individuals like this that God cannot be both perfectly good and evil at the same time. Omnipotence doesn't even necessarily mean perfection anyway, but rather incredibly powerful (or perhaps infinitely powerful.) The Bible teaches us that God is perfect love, which makes him perfectly good. So good that, by nature, He cannot even be in the presence of anyone contrary to this goodness (which would later be spelled out for us through an objective Law, given to us by a prophet, Moses.)

Original sin isn't meant to be looked at as blaming others for something you didn't do, it was representative of a sinful nature inherent in all of mankind. A sinful nature made obvious to us by God's Law. God understood from before space-time as we know it that with free will does come a sinful nature, as mankind will find ways to abuse this freedom.

Because God can't be in the presence of sin, sin had to be erased from us. This would be the way to reconnect us with Him. But just as sin entered the world by one man, it could only be removed by one man, thus requiring God to become human. The only difference is that we're all born into sin by the seed of sinful man. Since God cannot sin, it had to be a virgin birth. Jesus wasn't born into sin, nor was He capable (being God incarnate), so His human side was never disjointed from God the way we are upon birth. It wasn't until He bore the sins of the world that He was spiritually forsaken from God. So he died and the sins of the world died with Him. But it couldn't end at death. Death took care of the sin problem but only life brings us out of death to life. So the resurrection was equally important as it's the life we receive when we accept Jesus as Savior; our sacrifice and the reason our sins are washed away, allowing us to reconnect to God. But remember, we have free will. We're not required to be in God's company if we don't want to be. But to be apart from God spiritually is agony for the simple reason that we were created as beings that are complete with God and incomplete without.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

he died and the sins of the world died with Him.

Then surely there is no longer any such thing as sin? Except that apparently sin still exists, which means that Jesus/God's non-sacrifice achieved the square root of fck all in the end.

[–] mustangguy809 7 years ago

Despite the colorful and amusing choice of wording for your response, I think you missed the context behind my attempt at answering Deviates' question. I certainly didn't mean that sin no longer exists as a physical thing. Let me be very clear when I say that sin absolutely cannot be disjointed from free will while we are still alive in this particular space-time existence.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Despite the colorful and amusing choice of wording for your response

👍

I certainly didn't mean that sin no longer exists as a physical thing.

I know, but I also genuinely don't understand what the supposed point in 'dying for our sins' is if it didn't eradicate sin. Before Jesus did everyone go to Hell, Or did everyone go to heaven regardless of anything? What exactly was Jesus' non-death supposed to have accomplished, because I don't see how there's any logical result from it?

[–] TopFrog 7 years ago

Before Jesus did everyone go to Hell, Or did everyone go to heaven regardless of anything?

Read your Dante -- before Jesus all the good people went to Limbo, and in the Harrowing Jesus lead certain prominent Old Testament figures (Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Rachel, Moses, David) out of Limbo for them to go to Heaven. See Inferno, Canto 4. The Bible doesn't clearly describe the Harrowing but it was a part of early Christian traditions. And it is in the Gospel of Nicodemus, which of course didn't make it into the New Testament.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Read your Dante

It's been a long time since I read Inferno and I can't say that I remember all that much of it. So Jesus essentially just put an end to the waiting room then by being sacrificed, despite being immortal?

[–] mustangguy809 7 years ago

Divine Comedy is a fictional allegory.

And I've already addressed your former questions, remember?

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Divine Comedy is a fictional allegory.

I know.

And I've already addressed your former questions, remember?

Yet I still can't seem to understand how 'dying for our sins' has actually done anything if we 'sin' still exists in everyone? There's no logic that I can see behind the supposed sacrifice of an immortal being other than God attempting to correct his original mistake, which itself is quite odd for a 'perfect and unchanging' deity. If sin cannot be disjointed from free will then what's the point of Jesus not really dying from it? If you've answered that somewhere then I've clearly missed it.

[–] mustangguy809 7 years ago

Yet I still can't seem to understand how 'dying for our sins' has actually done anything if we 'sin' still exists in everyone?

I've been speaking spiritually here. What Jesus did eradicated sin from God's eyes, allowing us a way back to Him. It doesn't stop us from sinning altogether (though having the Spirit guide me greatly seems to reduce it), but the blood of Jesus removes the spiritual penalty from all of us. That's why rejecting Jesus as Savior is rejecting spiritual life. Also, he did actually die from it and I don't believe God was correcting an 'original mistake'. I believe the plan was in motion before man even fell. Though, I don't really know what that would look like from God's perspective because we're bound by things like dimensional space-time and I don't think God is.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

You know what, I appreciate the effort but I think I'm just going to chalk this up as being something that simply makes no sense to me, as such I'm going to bow put of this one.

[–] mustangguy809 7 years ago

OK, Cosmo. Sorry I couldn't be more help.

[–] mustangguy809 7 years ago

 I suspect you're joking, Frog. At least I hope you are... There's a reason Acts of Pilate is apocryphal and non-canon.

I'm very fond of Alighieri's Commedia, though. I'm a fan of Aquinas' philosophical views (though certainly not all!), obviously, considering our recent discussions involving America's Constitution and the influences of Natural Law on the Common Law ideals that back some of it, as well as our Declaration of Independence.

[–] TopFrog 7 years ago

Certainly you and I come at this from different perspectives. Not believing that any scriptures are divinely inspired or inerrant, I don't distinguish between the canonical NT works and the apocryphal ones on the basis that former are true accounts while the latter are forgeries. As I see it, all of the NT gospels were put together from a lot of sources and oral traditions, by people who were not eyewitnesses and did not have direct access to eyewitnesses, and who wrote what they wrote for reasons particular to them. (In addition several of the NT letters are forgeries in that they were not written by those traditionally considered to be their authors, but that's getting away from the topic.) A lot of the same goes for things like the Gospel of Nicodemus (aka The Acts of Pilate). You can distinguish between them on a lot of bases, such as when they were written (hard for it to be in the canon when it emerged so late), but I don't draw any bright line between the two.

As far as the Harrowing goes, Dante was only expressing what was the Church's view in his time, and actually still is. See Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 633 (www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm):

Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom": "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell." Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

[–] mustangguy809 7 years ago

Certainly you and I come at this from different perspectives. Not believing that any scriptures are divinely inspired or inerrant, I don't distinguish between the canonical NT works and the apocryphal ones on the basis that former are true accounts while the latter are forgeries.

I understand we see things differently on matters of beliefs, but even objectively speaking, there's no reason whatsoever to believe the Gospel of Nicodemus authentic at all. Not only was it obviously pseudepigraphal, but the writers of Acts of Pilate didn't even use the correct Roman Emperor in its text.

Now I'm not saying that the 'Harrowing' isn't a popular belief in many denominations (certainly not just Catholicism), but this is mainly do to specific interpretations of certain ( mostly Canon) scripture involving the possibility of Paradise/Sheol/Hades, in addition to oral tradition, mostly after its dramatization. I don't think there was a lot of talk about it in the early church as Eusebius' "Church History" doesn't mention it apart from the Acts of Pilate section, which was older and taken from another apocryphal text. And Dante's Inferno had mostly medieval influences and isn't the best place to go to learn about Cosmo's question. Sorry if I came off rude, I really thought you were joking about the Gospel and Dante's connection to it.

Theologically speaking, there's some pretty clear lines between some texts and others, Canon or not, don't you think?

[–] TopFrog 7 years ago

Objectively speaking there are several books in the NT canon that likely or almost certainly pseudepigraphical. And the gospels are almost certainly not eyewitness accounts or directly reliant on eyewitness accounts, efforts by some apologists to establish otherwise notwithstanding. Sure the Acts of Pilate produces a report supposedly from Pilate to the wrong emperor, but Luke says that Jesus was born during a census while Quirinius was governor of Syria, when he didn't become governor Syria until 6 CE (ten years after the death of Herod the Great, who is described in Matthew as being alive at the same time as Jesus), and apparently he didn't have authority over Galilee. (And what evidence is there that Roman censuses required people to return their ancestral cities to be counted? It really makes no sense for census, as opposed to providing proof of the fulfillment of Micah 5:2.)

I appreciate that a lot of ink has been spilled by apologists trying to defend the canonical documents as authentic, but looking through skeptical eyes (rather than through the goggles of faith) a lot of the canonical documents have similar problems to those of the non-canonical documents. That isn't to say that you can't distinguish between them in a lot of different ways, but only that there aren't clear lines of demarcation between the "authentic" canonical texts and the "inauthentic" non-canonical ones. At least that's how I see it.

[–] mustangguy809 7 years ago

I'm not arguing the questions raised from inaccuracies in other texts, that would be another discussion. I'm drawing the clear distinction between those texts which scholars and theologians are pretty much in universal agreement regarding lack of authenticity, even those whom aren't 'lacking objectivity' through 'goggles of faith'.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily in disagreement about similar discrepancies between canonical vs non-canonical texts. The question is how much criteria is met for overall reliability, whether that be historically or other means. But again, that another discussion.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] deviates 7 years ago

The most important thing to understand first is the misconception from others on how God's perfection is defined. I've had odd individuals challenge me with the paradox of their take on omnipotence, confusing it for perfection in every way conceivable. Of course, this doesn't work as I've pointed out to individuals like this that God cannot be both perfectly good and evil at the same time. Omnipotence doesn't even necessarily mean perfection anyway, but rather incredibly powerful (or perhaps infinitely powerful.)

I've never consider omnipotence as referring to anything other than power. I've not mentioned anything to do with perfection.

The Bible teaches us that God is perfect love, which makes him perfectly good. So good that, by nature, He cannot even be in the presence of anyone contrary to this goodness

But surely the Bible contradicts that claim. In Exodus, when God hardens the Pharaoh's heart leading to evil acts, for example.

Original sin isn't meant to be looked at as blaming others for something you didn't do, it was representative of a sinful nature inherent in all of mankind. A sinful nature made obvious to us by God's Law. God understood from before space-time as we know it that with free will does come a sinful nature, as mankind will find ways to abuse this freedom.

The problem I have with this is that Genesis (and perhaps more specifically Romans:5:19) explains original sin in terms of the people carrying the sin of another. It also doesn't explain the only way he can fix the problem of his unruly, imperfect creation is to take human form and sacrifice himself.

But just as sin entered the world by one man, it could only be removed by one man, thus requiring God to become human.

Mustang, I can see why what you have said might make some sense to you and other Christians. I think if I'd asked 'why/how does the crucifixion achieve what God wanted?' then your answer might be more convincing. But as I don't buy in to the crucifixion story I'm still stuck at my original question - Why could an omnipotent God not think of any way to solve this problem other than a barbaric human sacrifice? Why was this the only way?

Jesus wasn't born into sin, nor was He capable (being God incarnate)

Is that because no measure of morality applies to God (see Pharaoh example above, or when God ordered Saul to attack Amalek, and to kill everyone including children and babies) or that the same morality applies to God but his actions are never sinful, thus suggesting the two examples among many others, are justifiable actions?

[–] mustangguy809 7 years ago

I've never consider omnipotence as referring to anything other than power. I've not mentioned anything to do with perfection.

Yes, I know. I certainly wasn't speaking of you. I know you wouldn't do that. I'm not speaking of most of the regulars here, but it was important to mention.

But surely the Bible contradicts that claim. In Exodus, when God hardens the Pharaoh's heart leading to evil acts, for example.

Are you arguing that this was an example of God carrying out evil, only because he 'hardened the Pharaoh's heart'?

The problem I have with this is that Genesis (and perhaps more specifically Romans:5:19) explains original sin in terms of the people carrying the sin of another.

I get that and it's true that we all inherited a disconnect from God after the fall, which was caused by the 'first sin' of Adam. But regardless, it's important to understand that, like I mentioned before, God knew his creation was sinful by nature and that the sin problem was much bigger than just Adam. It simply started with the first man (and it makes sense that it would.) Adam was a sort of 'headship' to us, representing us in death- and we needed a new headship.

I understand the validity of your question, as has long been an objection bred both from legitimate confusion and/or something more from a place of contempt, regardless of belief (as we see presented in famous work like Dawkins' "The God Delusion".) That wasn't an accusation of you being contemptible, but some certainly are.

What I don't understand is how you can bring up Romans to support a point, but miss the key to your question in the very same book.

It tells us there are none righteous and that we all fall short of the glory of God. It tells us we are all guilty of God's Law. It tells us we've received atonement through our Lord Jesus Christ. It's not hard to put this together then, Deviates. Would you not be critical of God for not requiring justice in the face of guilt? He couldn't just waive his arms and said all is forgiven. That's not justice. Also, we have to receive the spirit as reconciliation to God. This is why Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be born again (born of the spirit).

Is that because no measure of morality applies to God (see Pharaoh example above, or when God ordered Saul to attack Amalek, and to kill everyone including children and babies)

Whereas the Mosaic Law that we are guilty by doesn't apply to God, since its laws apply to humans, as I said before, God is still perfectly good. Goodness includes fairness and justice where justice is needed. The Amalekites had been pillaging and raiding not just Israel, but basically any surrounding civilization for centuries. Yes, centuries. They were also given opportunity to repent, just as those during (pre-flood) Noah's time, as was the Pharaoh of Exodus (yes, before God hardened his heart, he had hardened it himself already and it's a matter of interpretation as to whether the statement 'God hardened his heart' meant literally or simply by his actions), the same as Sodom, Gomorrah, and many, many others. All were completely overcome with evil. In the case of Amalek, after generations of evil without repentance, God ordered Saul to eradicate them. If you know what happened after that, then you know what taking pity on an evil culture will result in- and so did God. They were eventually eradicated. God saw to that by 1 Chronicles because he is just. I understand it's a difficult thing to think about (for me too) but understand that, had Saul done what he was supposed to do, there would've been LESS loss of life in the long run. What's more moral in your eyes, more killing for less murder or less killing for more murder? That's not rhetorical, by the way.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

Are you arguing that this was an example of God carrying out evil, only because he 'hardened the Pharaoh's heart'?

What was the purpose and result of God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart? We can argue about Pharaoh's disposition or hardening of his own hear that came before, but that's beside the point.

I understand the validity of your question, as has long been an objection bred both from legitimate confusion and/or something more from a place of contempt, regardless of belief (as we see presented in famous work like Dawkins' "The God Delusion".) That wasn't an accusation of you being contemptible, but some certainly are.

I get the desire to label an opinion contemptible or confused, but I'd rather avoid doing so in return. What I will say is I don't agree that the Bible answers the questions in an acceptable fashion.

It's not hard to put this together then, Deviates. Would you not be critical of God for not requiring justice in the face of guilt? He couldn't just waive his arms and said all is forgiven. That's not justice.

And vicarious redemption is? I'd argue that's not justice, nor is it moral.

The Amalekites had been pillaging and raiding not just Israel, but basically any surrounding civilization for centuries. Yes, centuries. They were also given opportunity to repent, just as those during (pre-flood) Noah's time, as was the Pharaoh of Exodus (yes, before God hardened his heart, he had hardened it himself already and it's a matter of interpretation as to whether the statement 'God hardened his heart' meant literally or simply by his actions), the same as Sodom, Gomorrah, and many, many others. All were completely overcome with evil. In the case of Amalek, after generations of evil without repentance, God ordered Saul to eradicate them.

I understand your attempts to justify the eradication of the Amalekites (even if it does border on genocide) based on their evilness - I can see an argument for justice there even if I disagree. What I don't see a justification for however is the slaughter of those who played no significant role - the women - or no role at all - the children and babies.

What's more moral in your eyes, more killing for less murder or less killing for more murder? That's not rhetorical, by the way

Your argument appears to be that it's moral to murder children and babies for the future crimes they might commit. I think that's a very difficult position to defend.

[–] mustangguy809 7 years ago

And vicarious redemption is? I'd argue that's not justice, nor is it moral.

On what basis would you argue that? The debtor sets the terms of satisfying the debt. Your question was why was that the only way and the Bible answers it. Adam and Eve were warned that they would die if they 'ate'. The Law was brought to us to show us what sin was and we're warned that violating His law meant death. Leviticus tells us our blood is our life force and must be spilled. So God's options seemed pretty limited to me. Our death or, if acceptable, an ultimate sacrifice worthy of satisfying the world of the sin, electively and without force. This expresses love through grace while satisfying justice in God's eyes, both simultaneously. If you disagree, instead of asking a question you apparently already knew the answer to, give me your arguments as to why you disagree.

What I don't see a justification for however is the slaughter of those who played no significant role - the women - or no role at all - the children and babies.

Perhaps your getting the message, but I don't feel like you're getting the point. As I said, this was generational for many centuries, possibly even a millennia. Each time 'innocents' were spared (despite the fact that the Amalekites were especially partial to mass murder of women and babies if they weren't busy raping, beating or committing other atrocities to them as captives), despite God's command, they would grow to commit the same atrocities, murdering, pillaging, starving some to death, nearly eradicating the Israelites at at least one point. So you see, I was attempting to explain, by describing this particular tribe as generationally evil for centuries against another tribe that did absolutely nothing to bring this kind of hatred upon them, was that God new the entire race was evil. All of them, since He has the benefit of hindsight. I'm sure Saul, and later David, didn't complete the task because they were struggling with the morality of it, just like you. But they didn't have the hindsight. If they did, it may have been easier to carry out the justice ordered of them.

I wasn't going to bring this up before because I didn't think a spiritual argument would matter to you in this equation, but then I realized that if we're arguing God's moral decision as part of a narrative in the Bible, then, for the sake of the argument, we have to assume He and His plan for a Savior exists. That said, the perseverance of God's chosen people, the line through which the Savior of the entire world was at stake. God was constantly using prophets and other means to not only protect the lineage from eradication, but to keep them from succumbing to false gods and idols as a culture. Whenever they started to, they were put through trials, demonstrations, etc. to keep them on the right path. This was paramount in God's plan.

Now, it's very easy to take something that seems awful at face value and judge it from a personal pedestal that has never condemned you to choose to kill to prevent mass murder. But is it possible for you to imagine it?

If you had the benefit of hindsight, knew someone was going to be responsible for not just mass murder and many other atrocities, but responsible for these actions within your own family and community, would you kill them to prevent it, even if this person were only a baby at the time of your opportunity? Also, would you consider that an example of justice against evil? If you can't answer these questions then I'm not sure that qualifies you to question God with them. Personally, the mere thought of such a choice is very difficult, as I stated before. But I have considered it, and it no longer makes it easy to immediately condemn such a choice to immorality. I don't know if I could or would, to be honest. But I look at it from a different point of view when I've considered all of the context. And that's the crux of my point.

Saul and David didn't have the hindsight that God did. I'm not basing this on evil they 'might' commit in the future, but evil they did commit in the future. Even we know this from hindsight. From that perspective, it may not be easy to swallow but at least I feel I'm not in a place to judge it, nor any other of God's judgements. And that's what I feel these were: Judgements upon evil and carrying out much-needed justice.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

[It] was that God new the entire race was evil. All of them, since He has the benefit of hindsight...

If you had the benefit of hindsight, knew someone was going to be responsible for not just mass murder and many other atrocities, but responsible for these actions within your own family and community, would you kill them to prevent it, even if this person were only a baby at the time of your opportunity? Also, would you consider that an example of justice against evil? If you can't answer these questions then I'm not sure that qualifies you to question God with them. Personally, the mere thought of such a choice is very difficult, as I stated before.

But that is the point. Your purported God necessarily has perfect hindsight, and foresight, since He is supposedly 'outside of time' and so the choice ought not be very difficult at all. Why would an all-good god not act to prevent evil, or allow it to continue by taking no action? (At least the evil it had not apparently created in the first place). Didn't your Jesus-God condemn those others who just 'walk on by'? Why didn't He just make Hitler's mother, say, miscarry? Don't His people pray and ask for exactly that sort of protection? What use is God if He does not act in the face of known evil?

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] mustangguy809 7 years ago

Read my conversation with Deviates in this thread as I've covered this to the best of my ability. To recap some of what I was saying and apply it directly to your question, temporal punishment was far more necessary to preserve the line to a Savior than after the occurrence. Your reference to God's 'evil' (something I've seen you bring up often recently), when taken in its context and fluidity, is something more closer to describing calamity, much like that of which was brought down upon the likes of Amalek. The Hebrew word for cataclysm or calamity was thought to be synonymous with evil (depending on the translation, you'll find either, or something else synonymous.)

To broaden the philosophy of your central philosophical issue, and assuming God exists, we can perhaps assume either God is a liar and is immoral, or that He knows what the greater good is in every instance of every person, at every time, and acts according to that interest. At the very least, either of those two can objectively be considered as equally valid as invalid, but neither can be claimed as correct or incorrect without more knowledge. I'm just giving you my perspective, which no doubt is as equally influenced by my position on faith as yours.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

Your reference to God's 'evil' (something I've seen you bring up often recently), when taken in its context and fluidity, is something more closer to describing calamity, much like that of which was brought down upon the likes of Amalek.

Indeed, which is why the common exegesis for the evil created by God in Isiah is that of natural evil. But that still leave your all-good deity having designed childhood bone cancer, and tidal waves which kill thousands of the faithful.

we can perhaps assume either God is a liar and is immoral, or that He knows what the greater good is in every instance of every person, at every time, and acts according to that interest. At the very least, either of those two can objectively be considered as equally valid as invalid,

Since God is beyond our understanding, yes any such assumptions can be made, but cannot be proven, since such things are impossible to know (also 'good' and 'evil' are, arguably, subjective concepts, which shift and change, anyway.) God for instance may just as easily be the ultimate joker, fooling us all; or, as this atheist thinks is likely we could just be projecting comfortable anthropomorphic characteristics outwards into a random and blind cosmos. All the Bible offers by way of persuasion is its inspiration, for thinking otherwise - but then, inspiration can be wrong.

It is also hard to see the drowning of all of humanity save a chosen few in with The Flood, say, in anybody's 'interest', not least since those who drowned would, presumably, have had their future chance to repent their misdeed removed.

And if God really does know what is the greater good for me, (that presumably being salvation and belief in Him) He will also know what will work to persuade (not coerce) me quickest to 'coming round'. So why does He not work clearly and unambiguously, to secure that which (the Bible says) He wills and that which will be best for me, and most others, who doubt?

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] mustangguy809 7 years ago

Indeed, which is why the common exegesis for the evil created by God in Isiah is that of natural evil.

That's not what I said. I think the meaning of the word used in its context is closer to our definition of calamity, not evil.

All the Bible offers by way of persuasion is its inspiration, for thinking otherwise...

I'm going to simply say that I disagree with you on this one. My personal journey has offered a lot more than that. But I'm not going to get started on a whole new subject.

And if God really does know what is the greater good for me, (that presumably being salvation and belief in Him) He will also know what will work to persuade (not coerce) me quickest to 'coming round'.

I think that's a flawed understanding of how free will and faith work together.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

On what basis would you argue that? The debtor sets the terms of satisfying the debt.

Which isn't about redemption. Hypotethically speaking it's possible for me to serve the prison sentence of another person, but me doing so doesn't absolve the other person of the guilt of their actions. Or in the case of the vicarious redemption of the Bible, their 'sins'. It's nothing more than scapegoating.

our question was why was that the only way and the Bible answers it. Adam and Eve were warned that they would die if they 'ate'. The Law was brought to us to show us what sin was and we're warned that violating His law meant death. Leviticus tells us our blood is our life force and must be spilled. So God's options seemed pretty limited to me.

I think we might be getting closer to what I'm asking. Why are his options limited? God is omnipotent, and as you stated in your post is able to see the future actions of people - so surely he knew the rules he set (which surely he can change) would lead to this.

Perhaps your getting the message, but I don't feel like you're getting the point. As I said, this was generational for many centuries, possibly even a millennia. Each time 'innocents' were spared (despite the fact that the Amalekites were especially partial to mass murder of women and babies if they weren't busy raping, beating or committing other atrocities to them as captives), despite God's command, they would grow to commit the same atrocities, murdering, pillaging, starving some to death, nearly eradicating the Israelites at at least one point. So you see, I was attempting to explain, by describing this particular tribe as generationally evil for centuries against another tribe that did absolutely nothing to bring this kind of hatred upon them, was that God new the entire race was evil.

I'm a little stunned you're trying to justify the murdering of children and babies in this way. The idea that this was the only way, and that they would inevitably commit the same crimes as their ancestors seems to weigh too heavily on the erroneous thinking that people are somehow born 'evil'. It seems to me the only way you can arrive at this conclusion is by working back from the assumption that God can't do anything immoral. The experiences had by these children before they became adults amounts to child abuse, and rather than deal with that they're to be killed?

If you had the benefit of hindsight, knew someone was going to be responsible for not just mass murder and many other atrocities, but responsible for these actions within your own family and community, would you kill them to prevent it, even if this person were only a baby at the time of your opportunity?

It's a false dichotomy to suggest the only two possible outcomes are I kill them as a baby or they commit mass murder. They are not the only two options, but I understand why if that were the case then God's orders might seem more persuasive. Using this as your hypothetical demonstrates one of my big issues with your justification.

Also, would you consider that an example of justice against evil?

Choosing to murder a child? No, I wouldn't. I imagine neither would you, unless presented in this very narrow God-bound context.

But I look at it from a different point of view when I've considered all of the context. And that's the crux of my point.

It may well seem that way to you. To me it appears you're tap dancing. Attempting to justify what should be immoral actions simply because God commanded them.

[–] mustangguy809 7 years ago

Hypotethically speaking it's possible for me to serve the prison sentence of another person, but me doing so doesn't absolve the other person of the guilt of their actions.

That's right, but only from the perspective of the guilty. From the perspective of the law or authority, the sentence is paid in full and guilt is absolved. And no, it was never about self-redemption. I don't think we're capable and Christianity is the only major religious philosophy that takes us out of the equation, which is one of many reasons I think attracted me.

I think we might be getting closer to what I'm asking. Why are his options limited?

I feel like we've covered this, but I'll attempt to reword a little. It seems obvious to say that a creator would logically be limited by it's creation. God could give us free will or make us automatons. With free will comes evil and with that, guilt. With guilt comes judgement and sentencing, and the law from which that guilt comes from chooses the terms that carry out sentencing. Since the only people in the equation are God and us, it seems logically sound that it necessarily must be one of those two. If there were other options then I wouldn't know what they would be and the only logical choices I could see have been covered. The way it was done is also consistent with free will, in that we get to choose if we accept the life freely given or remain in our death.

The idea that this was the only way, and that they would inevitably commit the same crimes as their ancestors seems to weigh too heavily on the erroneous thinking that people are somehow born 'evil'.

Yes, Deviates, I believe that people are born with an evil nature through free will even outside of a faith in God. I could sense this in myself since before I could even understand the concept of a God. The disconnect very well may be in what you and I define as evil, being philosophical in nature (and another discussion altogether.) I wouldn't mind getting into that more but it looks like the discussion boards are getting shut down so I'd rather wrap up my current conversations beforehand.

It's a false dichotomy to suggest the only two possible outcomes are I kill them as a baby or they commit mass murder.

Let's take a real-world example, then. In warfare, decisions are made that inevitably end up with civilian women and children dying, but the decision makers of the past have, in many cases, decided based on the greater good and the prevention of further evil. This is done without the benefit of hindsight but imagine having that as well, helping to guide their decisions further. Is that immoral to you? When you consider that, try to also consider that God is most likely limited to its creation in many ways (but not outside of it.) Also, it would be helpful for you to note that my purpose here in all of this was more to broaden your perspective than for purposes of justification. That said, by some extensions, my arguments are inevitably going to be justifiable in nature. I do strongly believe in the hierarchy of greater good and in the context of a creator with perfect hindsight, feel that the creator would be a lot more qualified to understand what the greater good is, physically, mentally and spiritually for His creation than you or I.

To me it appears you're tap dancing. Attempting to justify what should be immoral actions simply because God commanded them.

If that's all you've seen from this discussion then one of us failed miserably, I suppose. I'm not going to count me out but I'm not going to count you out, either.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

That's right, but only from the perspective of the guilty. From the perspective of the law or authority, the sentence is paid in full and guilt is absolved.

The guilt is not absolved, the penalty is paid. The guilt still remains with the person who committed the offence. Christianity claims to remove that through vicarious redemption.

I feel like we've covered this, but I'll attempt to reword a little. It seems obvious to say that a creator would logically be limited by it's creation. God could give us free will or make us automatons. With free will comes evil and with that, guilt. With guilt comes judgement and sentencing, and the law from which that guilt comes from chooses the terms that carry out sentencing. Since the only people in the equation are God and us, it seems logically sound that it necessarily must be one of those two. If there were other options then I wouldn't know what they would be and the only logical choices I could see have been covered. The way it was done is also consistent with free will, in that we get to choose if we accept the life freely given or remain in our death.

That explains why it might work, but not why an omnipotent God was left with no other way. We're going around in circles on this point so if this is the extent of the explanation, to save us both from dizziness we can park this point.

Yes, Deviates, I believe that people are born with an evil nature through free will even outside of a faith in God.

Everything we know about the nature v nurture debate suggests that for the most part this is incorrect.

Let's take a real-world example, then. In warfare, decisions are made that inevitably end up with civilian women and children dying, but the decision makers of the past have, in many cases, decided based on the greater good and the prevention of further evil. This is done without the benefit of hindsight but imagine having that as well, helping to guide their decisions further. Is that immoral to you?

Mustang, that's a false equivalence - indirect civilian causalities are not the same as directly ordering the slaughter of women, children and babies. That was part of the objective in the Biblical example being discussed, not an undesired outcome. I'd be more inclined to compare it to the My Lai Massacre - was that moral?

If that's all you've seen from this discussion then one of us failed miserably, I suppose. I'm not going to count me out but I'm not going to count you out, either.

Sure, that's fair. But in any other context you'd admit the intentional slaughter of children and babies is immoral, yet your justification in this incident relies heavily on the idea that God can't do evil. I find the hindsight argument unpersuasive, partly because it suggests we are entirely incapable of making moral judgments because we have no way of knowing what might have happened in the future if the act hadn't been committed. It renders people entirely amoral.

[–] mustangguy809 7 years ago

The guilt is not absolved, the penalty is paid. The guilt still remains with the person who committed the offence.

The guilt is absolved through the eyes of God, not our own. Just as you serving a sentence for me absolves me of guilt from the law, but I know I'm still guilty. I do know I'm guilty; that's how I'm came to meet the Lord.

Christianity claims to remove that through vicarious redemption.

Yes, but from the eyes of God. I'm not really sure how else to restate this so I'm going to drop this one if that's okay with you.

That explains why it might work, but not why an omnipotent God was left with no other way.

Like I said, being limited by his free-will creation will limit His options. But if that isn't satisfactory then I'm fine with moving on from this one, too.

Everything we know about the nature v nurture debate suggests that for the most part this is incorrect.

First, we don't know enough about nature in specific to make that claim. It's like the 'born gay' debate. Second, you and I will almost definitely disagree on what constitutes evil, since we have different worldviews. I don't think we'll have a chance of agreement on this one.

Mustang, that's a false equivalence - indirect civilian causalities are not the same as directly ordering the slaughter of women, children and babies.

When air strikes are ordered on locations where women and children are also located, though not desired, are still knowingly and willfully being slaughtered for what is believed to be the greater good. I believe, in consistency with the Bible, God doesn't desire for any of His creation to be destroyed. He knowingly and willfully ordered it for a greater good, but certainly didn't desire it. I understand the equivalence isn't exactly the same, but more emphasis is placed on the reason behind the action than the action itself.

Deviates, how do we judge morality? Should we look at the action alone and come to immediate judgement or should we consider the reason behind the action first? Throughout this exchange, you seem to be focused entirely on the action only. I've simply been trying to open your eyes to considering the purpose behind the action. If we're assuming God is both real and omniscient, He would know if the purpose behind the action was for a greater good or not more than you or I. This is why I can't get myself to judge. I can't know if it was right or wrong when it comes to an omniscient God. As I mentioned to Film, God could be a liar and ordered it for immoral purposes or He could be honest and the order was necessary and for a greater good. Neither can be taken as objectively factual, but when you immediately condemn it to an immoral action, without considering the reason behind it, you're claiming one as factual, are you not?

But in any other context you'd admit the intentional slaughter of children and babies is immoral, yet your justification in this incident relies heavily on the idea that God can't do evil.

Not true. Any intentional slaughter of children and babies is sad and disturbing for sure, but if the outcome results in less overall net slaughter of children and babies, I wouldn't immediately condemn that to immorality. When it really comes down to it, I would rather less die than more die. Also, the only abortion I wouldn't consider immoral is if the mother's life was in imminent danger. I don't believe a mother should be forced to die in exchange for the baby, therefore I don't believe it's an act of murder. I think it's more of an act of self-defense. And these examples are just off the top of my head.

I find the hindsight argument unpersuasive, partly because it suggests we are entirely incapable of making moral judgments because we have no way of knowing what might have happened in the future if the act hadn't been committed. It renders people entirely amoral.

I disagree. Not having omniscience only means we can't make perfect moral decisions. We are still intelligent and can identify patterns, pay attention to historical outcomes, apply statistics, etc., and use our analysis of such information to make fairly educated decisions on what would be the right thing to do.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

Just as you serving a sentence for me absolves me of guilt from the law

The penalty is paid, your guilt is not absolved. Even I were to serve my own sentence I'm not absolved of my guilt.

Like I said, being limited by his free-will creation will limit His options. But if that isn't satisfactory then I'm fine with moving on from this one, too.

You still have explained why it's the only option, but I'm happy to drop this.

First, we don't know enough about nature in specific to make that claim.

Sociology and Psychology has done plenty of work in this specific area. Upbringings and context have a significant influence on whether people break the law or commit 'evil' acts.

It's like the 'born gay' debate

Not really. 'Gay' has a specific definition and is possible to actually study, while 'evil' is a subjective term that differs significantly when defined by theists of different faiths and atheists alike. It's an unhelpful term to be honest.

When air strikes are ordered on locations where women and children are also located, though not desired, are still knowingly and willfully being slaughtered for what is believed to be the greater good. I believe, in consistency with the Bible, God doesn't desire for any of His creation to be destroyed. He knowingly and willfully ordered it for a greater good, but certainly didn't desire it. I understand the equivalence isn't exactly the same, but more emphasis is placed on the reason behind the action than the action itself.

Isn't exactly the same? They're nothing like each other. God ordered the slaughter of children and babies. What you're describing is collateral damage (I dislike the term but it makes the point). They're entirely different.

Deviates, how do we judge morality? Should we look at the action alone and come to immediate judgement or should we consider the reason behind the action first? Throughout this exchange, you seem to be focused entirely on the action only.

That's not true, I understand the context is important. My argument has always been that I don't believe you can give a context where ordering an army to murder children and babies is moral.

If we're assuming God is both real and omniscient, He would know if the purpose behind the action was for a greater good or not more than you or I.

Which reads as a surrendering of your own critical faculties to fairly blatant circular argument.

This is why I can't get myself to judge. I can't know if it was right or wrong when it comes to an omniscient God. As I mentioned to Film, God could be a liar and ordered it for immoral purposes or He could be honest and the order was necessary and for a greater good.

This feels like an easy out. You've essentially been arguing that this was a moral act and you've been pretty open about your belief in God, so you can say you can't judge but you already have.

Neither can be taken as objectively factual, but when you immediately condemn it to an immoral action, without considering the reason behind it, you're claiming one as factual, are you not?

I'm claiming that as a human being capable of making moral judgments, I fail to see how such acts can be justified except an unsatisfying 'God did it'. Perhaps this is where the famous Steven Weinberg quote comes from: 'With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.'

Not true. Any intentional slaughter of children and babies is sad and disturbing for sure, but if the outcome results in less overall net slaughter of children and babies, I wouldn't immediately condemn that to immorality.

Again, presupposes that those babies will grow up to do the same. The culture that produced their behaviour had been destroyed so how exactly would it lead to more murder? People being punished for their future crimes... Reminds me of a bad Tom Cruise movie.

I disagree. Not having omniscience only means we can't make perfect moral decisions. We are still intelligent and can identify patterns, pay attention to historical outcomes, apply statistics, etc., and use our analysis of such information to make fairly educated decisions on what would be the right thing to do.

When at best your moral evaluation of genocide, including the murder of babies and children, is 'it might be moral because what they will do in the future', your ability to evaluate moral decisions is severely hamstrung.

[–] mustangguy809 7 years ago

The penalty is paid, your guilt is not absolved.

In order for you to qualify to serve my sentence, you'd have to accept my charges and plead guilty to them first. Guilt (from the perspective of the law) would have to transfer from me to you.

Sociology and Psychology has done plenty of work in this specific area.

I was talking about nature, not nurture. Of course one's environment has an effect on how one behaves, but that says nothing about our DNA.

I'm claiming that as a human being capable of making moral judgments, I fail to see how such acts can be justified except an unsatisfying 'God did it'.

Here is the problem. If, in our discussion, we're talking about a God that both exists and is omniscient, then it's inherently flawed to suggest that you could apply judgement or moral reasoning, without omniscience, to that God. But when I point that argument out as being logically coherent, it becomes an unsatisfying 'God did it'. Which means that, here, you question God's ability as being far greater than yours, simply because here it suits your argument to do so. But when you ask why God didn't have unlimited options available to Him regarding our guilt, you're taking an opposing position by essentially invoking the 'God did it' concept yourself, again, because it suits your argument in that scenario. Objectively speaking, I couldn't say with any factual basis that God made the moral choice any more than I could say He made the immoral choice. However, consistent with my faith and beliefs, as well as with the Bible, I believe He made a choice that would result in a greater good (the greater good being the completion of God's plan of spiritual salvation for the world.) It's very simple and rather than continue to repeat myself, I'm going to ask that we try to wrap this up.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

In order for you to qualify to serve my sentence, you'd have to accept my charges and plead guilty to them first. Guilt (from the perspective of the law) would have to transfer from me to you.

That's not the analogy I was working from. During various stages in history and other cultures it's possible to serve someone else's sentence for them. But even if I were to plead guilty for you, the real guilt for the crime still remains with you.

I was talking about nature, not nurture. Of course one's environment has an affect on how one behaves, but that says nothing about our DNA.

It says how far our DNA goes in to determining who we are and how we behave. It's an influence, not the be all and end all. Which is of specific relevance to what we were discussing.

Here is the problem. If, in our discussion, we're talking about a God that both exists and is omniscient, then it's inherently flawed to suggest that you could apply judgement or moral reasoning, without omniscience, to that God. But when I point that argument out as being logically coherent, it becomes an unsatisfying 'God did it'.

Well yes. An omniscient God would know before he's even created man that he'd be murdering babies to try and get his creation to play nice. That's one reason reason why it's unsatisfying, and it's not particularly logical either.

But when you ask why God didn't have unlimited options available to Him regarding our guilt, you're taking an opposing position by essentially invoking the 'God did it' concept yourself, again, because it suits your argument in that scenario.

I'm not invoking that argument there at all, I've been asking why that was the only way God could solve the perceived problem of sin and redemption. Your answer has amounted to 'God did it' though.

Objectively speaking, I couldn't say with any factual basis that God made the moral choice any more than I could say He made the immoral choice. However, consistent with my faith and beliefs, as well as with the Bible, I believe He made a choice that would result in a greater good (the greater good being the completion of God's plan of spiritual salvation for the world.) It's very simple and rather than continue to repeat myself, I'm going to ask that we try to wrap this up.

So the tl;dr of all of this amounts to 'faith' and 'because it's God'. Got it. I'm surprised and if I'm honest a little disappointed by the lengths you've gone to in justifying God's genocide and infanticide, but thanks for the chat.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

An omniscient God would know before he's even created man that he'd be murdering babies

This would be the same deviant that claimed he never questioned God's existence or railed against Christianity.

I'm surprised and if I'm honest a little disappointed by the lengths you've gone to in justifying God's genocide and infanticide, but thanks for the chat.

This would be the same character who claims he has no bias against God, the scriptures or religion. What a friend of theology. jackass.



[–] deviates 7 years ago

This would be the same deviant that claimed he never questioned God's existence

Don't be silly Kurt, I've never claimed that.

or railed against Christianity.

I've made criticisms, if you can't tell the difference then that's not my fault. Unless you're claiming Christianity should be above scrutiny?

This would be the same character who claims he has no bias against God, the scriptures or religion. What a friend of theology. jackass.

I have a bias against infanticide and genocide, which so happens to be in the scriptures as Mustang has acknowledged. - How about you?

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

Don't be silly Kurt, I've never claimed that.

LOL I just caught you this morning typing the nastiest things about God and religion!

Unless you're claiming Christianity should be above scrutiny?

I've repeatedly claimed that Christianity shouldn't be treated like a door mate by you. What you consider to be civil and socially acceptable scrutiny is obnoxious. More evidence that atheists have no inherent moral compass, which is why we need religion in the first place. You've convinced me of that.

I have a bias against infanticide and genocide

You've put God on trial repeatedly without even knowing what you're talking about. Human beings are self destructive and so is satan. You assume that God is guilty of crimes against humanity. Yet you don't even believe in God in the first place.

You're a mess.

And then you think you should be entitled to be admitted into the kingdom of Heaven, on the grounds that 'you've judged yourself as being good.' Maybe you're more likely to be guilty of 'infanticide and genocide' than God is? You sitting back in your deviate's hobbit house doing nothing about starvation and war. Oh that's right, you mailed in a few bucks to a "charity" a few months ago. Big deal, hypocrite.

Mustang has acknowledged. - How about you?

Unlike you, I'm not willing to put God on trial. Here in America, it's worth while to get all the facts first before pronouncing a verdict of guilty. Or at least those of us that dislike Trump value the presumption of innocence until evidence of guilt. I wouldn't know if God has the ability to totally control everything that occurs on Earth, or if we gathered all the facts as to why God made the decisions that he did. But 'deviates the professor' claims to have all the facts, and he's glibly condemned a God he doesn't even believe in to begin with.

cute.

Three years on this board, and you come across as dumber than when I first exchanged unpleasantries with you the first time.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

And then you think you should be entitled to be admitted into the kingdom of Heaven, on the grounds that 'you've judged yourself as being good.' Maybe you're more likely to be guilty of 'infanticide and genocide' than God is? You sitting back in your deviate's hobbit house doing nothing about starvation and war. Oh that's right, you mailed in a few bucks to a "charity" a few months ago. Big deal, hypocrite.

You're a special kind of snowflake aren't you kurt?

Here in America, its worth while to get all the facts first before pronouncing the verdict of guilty.

Unless you're accusing people of militant atheism, or 'ranting', it seeems.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

You're a special kind of snowflake aren't you kurt?

This is why people think you're gay.

Unless you're accusing people of militant atheism, or 'ranting', it seeems.

Just you and your brother deviates.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

This is why people think you're gay.

Oh bless, the little bigot thinks he's 'people'. How cute.

Just you and your brother deviates.

Ok, so "here in America" you don't need to get the facts when it interferes with your pre-judged prejudices? If nothing else kurt, you're consistent with your God complex and bigoted hatred. And your homophobia. And your incorrect claim that you're anywhere near liberal.

Were you an angry child Kurt, or did something bad happen to you when you when you got old?

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

Oh bless, the little bigot thinks he's 'people'. How cute.

You still sound gay.

Were you an angry child Kurt, or did something bad happen to you when you when you got old?

And now you want to be my mother. Also gay.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

And now you want to be my mother. Also gay.

Was your mother gay then?

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

You still sound gay.

Here kurt, do you think your hero Trump will repeal gay rights so that all those nasty homosexuals retreat back inside and don't pollute your world? That's the dream right? That and that only women with big boobs allow themselves to viewed in public, where they'll keep quiet like they're supposed to. And hey, fingers crossed he'll make atheism illegal and start rounding us non-believers up for executions.

Fingers crossed!

And now you want to be my mother. Also gay.

Still not understanding posts correctly. Also, as deviates pointed out, did your mother run off with another woman or do you just not know what gay actually is?

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

What else would we call a guy who sticks to me like glue? lol

A guy wanting to mother another guy? Yeah that's pretty gay intent, Brits.

Not interested cosmo

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

What else would we call a guy who sticks to me like glue? lol

Are you upset that once the boards are closed you won't be able to spend your days rummaging around my comment history?

A guy wanting to mother another guy?

An issue that only you ever bring up, no one else. Have a few mommy issue do we kurt?

[–] deviates 7 years ago

LOL I just caught you this morning typing the nastiest things about God and religion!

Well that's not true, I was critical of justification of genocide and infanticide in the Bible. But your claim was that I supposedly said I'd never question God's existence - being nasty about God has nothing to do with that. I'm more than happy to continue the topic of conversation started with Mustang though.

I've repeatedly claimed that Christianity shouldn't be treated like a door mate by you. What you consider to be civil and socially acceptable scrutiny is obnoxious. More evidence that atheists have no inherent moral compass, which is why we need religion in the first place. You've convinced me of that.

What you advocate is special protection for your religion. You've taken issue with me pointing out potential problems with the fact God ordered what amounts to a genocide. While Mustang was open to discussing the matter, you want it shut down. You want no one to mention such things, despite them actually being in the Bible. That's an advocacy for blasphemy laws and safe spaces.

You've put God on trial repeatedly without even knowing what you're talking about. Human beings are self destructive and so is satan.

Oh, I'm aware of what I'm talking about, Kurt but perhaps you aren't. God's orders about Amalek, 1Samuel 15:3.

You assume that God is guilty of crimes against humanity. Yet you don't even believe in God in the first place.

I'm going to be generous and assume you're just acting stupid. The morality of even fictional characters can be judged. We judge characters in movies to be good and evil all the time.

More evidence that atheists have no inherent moral compass

And here's the difference between the atheists on this board and you, Kurt: You make arguments like this over and over again which have the potential to offend. Do we tell you to stop? Whine for a safe space or special protection for our point of view? No. We ask you to justify your position, if you can. And thus far you've been incapable.

You've put God on trial repeatedly

Stop being a drama queen, I've simply questioned actions in the Bible that ordinarily people would consider immoral. Instead of presenting explanations you've tried your best to prevent any such criticism or discussion.

Maybe you're more likely to be guilty of 'infanticide and genocide' than God is?

God literally orders Saul to commit infanticide and genocide -have you not read your Bible? I would never order such a thing.

You sitting back in your deviate's hobbit house doing nothing about starvation and war. Oh that's right, you mailed in a few bucks to a "charity" a few months ago. Big deal, hypocrite.

I think it's a little uncouth to discuss what one does for charity. Charitable work shouldn't be done as a boast but because you feel it necessary. I do my part, but I have no interest in a d!ck measuring contest over it. Believe what you like with no evidence, you're good at that.

Unlike you, I'm not willing to put God on trial.

Which when we remove your intentionally hyperbolic statement means you're unwilling to question your beliefs.

it's worth while to get all the facts first before pronouncing a verdict of guilty. Or at least those of us that dislike Trump value the presumption of innocence until evidence of guilt.

That's called the burden of proof - so God is innocent of existing due to lack of evidence then?

I wouldn't know if God has the ability to totally control everything that occurs on Earth, or if we gathered all the facts as to why God made the decisions that he did.

I don't believe in God, Kurt. I'm basing my judgement of God's actions based on what the Bible says he did, in the same way I'd judge the actions of any fictional character. We can consider motivations, as Mustang and I did, but I'm curious as to whether you can justify ordering the deaths of babies and young children as moral? Your avoidance of this point is very telling.

cute.

Why do you call Cosmo gay when he uses this word, yet keep using it yourself?

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

I'm more than happy to continue the topic of conversation started with Mustang though.

I'm sure he's sick of you also.

I don't believe in God, Kurt.

no sh*t

And I don't even have to read the rest of the blather.

Why do you call Cosmo gay when he uses this word, yet keep using it yourself?

He calls me "snowflake" and other homosexual pet names. Proof that you don't read the comments.

That's called the burden of proof - so God is innocent of existing due to lack of evidence then?

All you have to do is type: "I don't know if God exists".

And this unpleasant rantfest you started will end. But you can't do that since you're a militant atheist that's purely here to pick fights.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

And I don't even have to read the rest of the blather.

There's no change there, but there's also no blather. You questioned my judgement of God - I explained. I pointed to scriptural issues I had. I showed your desire for special protection of your beliefs, a safe space or blasphemy laws. I explained how one can judge the actions of even those they don't believe to exist.

You ignore all those points of discussion, most of which were part of the discussion you just joined, to instead look to insult. Which makes the next quote more than a little suspect:

...purely here to pick fights.

As for this:

He calls me "snowflake" and other homosexual pet names. Proof that you don't read the comments.

Snowflake means you're quite fragile, a bit sensitive. Which is evidenced by your unnecessarily aggressive reactions to people talking to each other.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

You ignore all those points of discussion

These "points of discussion" were resolved long ago. You have a obsession disorder after losing those arguments.

I showed your desire for special protection of your beliefs

No protection of beliefs on this board, so you're delusional again. What you militant atheist Brits call "special protection" is simply polite respect in the civilized world. You tossed that opportunity away long ago.

Snowflake means you're quite fragile

In America it means you wear panties when you call another guy snowflake.

Which is evidenced by your unnecessarily aggressive reactions to people talking to each other.

Feeling jilted?

Yes, you and your brother cosmo are a mess this week.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

polite respect in the civilized world. You tossed that opportunity away long ago.

"Civility is your pet issue, not mine." - kurt-2000

You've never once been accepting of civility, so stop pretending like you've ever offered anyone the chance when you've constantly thrown it back in people's faces.

In America it means you wear panties when you call another guy snowflake.

I'm not in America am I genius!

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

In America it means you wear panties when you call another guy snowflake.

I'm not in America am I genius!

Well...this is what you look like when you call guys snowflake, cosmo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4scYwd1m_Xg

[–] deviates 7 years ago

These "points of discussion" were resolved long ago.

The discussion I've just been having with Mustang was the first time I'd discussed the Amalekites. Rather than discuss it you throw a hissy fit because I even brought it up. I realise you've struggled with any remotely scriptural related discussions, even with Christians, so maybe it's best you didn't join in.

No protection of beliefs on this board, so you're delusional again.

Precisely the point Kurt - it's what gets you all testy that you're not getting that protection.

What you militant atheist Brits call "special protection" is simply polite respect in the civilized world.

What you're asking for is for no one to question Christianity or God. You're asking for a protection for your belief system and it seems pretty clear that it's because unlike other theists that have visited the board, you're incapable of defending your beliefs. That's fine, don't defend them. But don't getting all antsy because people ask questions and make criticisms. You've enjoyed questioning the morality of atheists. Rather than through a kurt-like fit we've asked you to justify your point. I'm fine with you (attempting to) criticise my positions, but the same can't be said for you.

In America it means you wear panties when you call another guy snowflake.

Now you're equating wearing panties with being gay? You're an odd guy, Kurt. But seeing as you apparently spend an awful lot of time on facebook I'm sure you've seen 'snowflake' used by alt-right or Trump supporters. It's recently be re-appropriated by the left to make fun of Trump's inability to take criticism. Sound familiar?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/28/snowflake-insult-disdain-young-people

Feeling jilted?

Not at all, Kurt. My observation of your increasing aggression says nothing of my reaction to it - which incidentally is 2 parts laughter to one part pity.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

The discussion I've just been having with Mustang

I just scrolled above and I don't see Mustang's name.

I'd discussed the Amalekites

Are they from your home planet?

I realise you've struggled with any remotely scriptural related discussions, even with Christians, so maybe it's best you didn't join in.

What do you base that comment on? I've intentionally spared you from any scripture quote because atheists couldn't care less what the Bible says. It offers no proof to them. This is why I used an entirely different approach, which was to discuss paranormal investigation. Because if it's ever established as a scientific fact that ghosts exist, we'll be one step closer to realizing an afterlife is possible.

'Scripture quotes': lol Go soak your head deviates. I have brains enough to realize such quotes are a waste of typing space for your consumption.

It's like...I have to reintroduce myself to you each week due to your lack of memory.

What you're asking for is for no one to question Christianity or God.

I made no such comment. It's your endless lies that piss me off. You can't even get through the above post without resorting to insane lies.

Now you're equating wearing panties with being gay?

Do I really need to post the snowflake dance again?

your increasing aggression says nothing of my reaction to it

You're reacting to it right now and daily.

[–] TopFrog 7 years ago

He calls me "snowflake" and other homosexual pet names.

You're just wrong about "snowflake" being a "homosexual pet name." What Cosmo said was:

You're a special kind of snowflake aren't you kurt?

This modern pejorative use of "snowflake," whether Cosmo is aware of it or not, appears to have its origin in Fight Club, both the 1996 book and the 1999 movie. In the book:

You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone, and we are all part of the same compost pile.

And in the movie:

Listen up, maggots. You are not special. You are not the beautiful or unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else. We are the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world. We are all part of the same compost heap.

This led to its being adopted by the right wing in the US, as in this "guide to the language of the 'alt-right'" published last November in the LA Times (www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-alt-right-terminology-20161115-story.html)

Snowflake: Short for "special snowflake," a pejorative for an entitled person. Most people protesting Trump are "snowflakes," according to the alt-right, as are anti-Trump celebrities and most liberals.

You're just wrong about this connoting homosexuality. (And in any event I thought that you were associating with folks in the UCC, which is about as a liberal a denomination as there is concerning homosexuality, this side of the Unitarians.)

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

You're just wrong about "snowflake" being a "homosexual pet name."

Then look at this. lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4scYwd1m_Xg

You're just wrong about this connoting homosexuality. (And in any event I thought that you were associating with folks in the UCC, which is about as a liberal a denomination as there is concerning homosexuality, this side of the Unitarians.)

I don't care if cosmo is gay, just so he knows I'm not interested in a date. lol

Froggy do you think Miscella is a guy?

lol

Now I'm starting to wonder.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Why do you call Cosmo gay when he uses this word, yet keep using it yourself?

No self awareness. I keep telling him, but he won't listen.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

I already know you have no self awareness. My hearing is fine.

And stop calling guys 'snowflake', or find yourself a Brit boyfriend.



Ohhh look what I found cosmo snowflake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4scYwd1m_Xg

told ya you were gay and I was right.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

I already know you have no self awareness.

"I know you are but what am I." Classic childish response there kurt.

You still have no idea what self-awareness actually is.

My hearing is fine.

Yet you're incapable of actually taking anything you've been told in, Teachers must have found you really frustrating to teach.

And stop calling guys 'snowflake', or find yourself a Brit boyfriend.

Still pretending to be a non-homophobic liberal are we? I know you don't realise it, because of previously mentioned traits that you lack, but you're nothing more than an immature bigot with serious communication and anger issues.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

but you're nothing more than an immature bigot with serious communication and anger issues.

Maybe I couldn't care less about your issues, and I'm just pulling your chain?

Seems to work...

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Maybe I couldn't care less about your issues, and I'm just pulling your chain?

I don't care if you are, you're still an immature, angry bigot who doesn't know how to communicate properly.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

I'm neither angry nor am I a bigot. Your gayness is not a concern. But I am married.

Now that's proper communication. It's your reading and comprehension skills that come into question.

[–] deviates 7 years ago

I just scrolled above and I don't see Mustang's name.

Keep scrolling then. Film also joined the conversation at times.

Are they from your home planet?

You realise that insult suggests you've not read your Bible, right?

What do you base that comment on?

Because the only scriptural discussions you've had, often with other Christians, you've been shown up.

This is why I used an entirely different approach, which was to discuss paranormal investigation.

Sure, and once they're using scientific methods and the discover ghosts it'll be of interest. But it's pseudo-science as it stands.

'Scripture quotes': lol Go soak your head deviates. I have brains enough to realize such quotes are a waste of typing space for your consumption.

But not brains enough to realise I wasn't asking for scriptural quotes, but a discussion of scripture. There's a difference. Your whole argument for not using scripture is that it won't convince atheists to believe. Well obviously. But not every discussion here comes back to that. Much of mine and Mustang's earlier conversation didn't.

I made no such comment. It's your endless lies that piss me off.

You may not say it as clearly as the quote, but it's what you're after Kurt - you go off the handle every time someone questions Christianity or the existence of God. Your interjection in the conversation between me and Mustang actually started with you whinging that I was questioning God's existence. one post later you implied it's the 'nastiest' thing to say about God.

Do I really need to post the snowflake dance again?

It's weird that you'd avoid the point where 'snowflake' is clearly defined for you, to repeat your weird comment about gay people and panties. I'm not even sure if it's homophobia, I think it's just stupid.

You're reacting to it right now and daily.

With two parts laughter to one part pity.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

nor am I a bigot. Your gayness

Not a bigot, you just happen to be full of bigoted views. Same way you're not a Christian, you just happen to base your entire faith, and all your 'arguments' on Christianity.

I'll accept you're not angry though, just full of hate.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

Cosmo, kurt just made an offensive post in which he called you a "butt pirate", now it looks like he has deleted it - perhaps ashamed of his homophobia. Looks like your assessment is correct.

I am God's #1 Spokesman on IMDB Navaros

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Hey, at least he's expanding his repertoire a bit.

I'm kind of proud of you kurt. Still an angry, hate filled little bigot though.

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

And just to show that I don't hate Brits, I've got a snappy little tune for you.

Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgffRW1fKDk

See...I like Brits.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

"I'm not racist, some of my friends are black"

That's what you sound like kurt.

Se...I like Brits.

I do believe there was some previous mention of proofreading, was there not?

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

That's what you sound like kurt.

Cling to your insult because that's all you've got. And your stalking of me on the Stewart board was rather creepy. Thus the reason I understandably questioned your motives. You do it to yourself cosmo.

I do believe there was some previous mention of proofreading, was there not?

You are correct, and I corrected my mistake. Which is more than I can say for you.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Cling to your insult because that's all you've got.

http://giphy.com/gifs/irony-tOvSJhOalnNss

I corrected my mistake. Which is more than I can say for you

Would that be the mistakes you've never been able to actually point out?

[–] kurt-2000 7 years ago

Actually the admin deleted it. lol

Film you have to click on it and read who deleted it before mouthing off.

[–] CosmopolitanHobo 7 years ago

Don't worry kurt, I think we all know that you don't possess any morals or decency.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

Film you have to click on it and read who deleted it before mouthing off.

Which only suggests that you didn't even have the decency or shame yourself to reconsider an objectionable comment. A pity that.

I am God's #1 Spokesman on IMDB Navaros

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

God doesn't desire for any of His creation to be destroyed. He knowingly and willfully ordered it for a greater good, but certainly didn't desire it.

Er.. since you have already admitted that no one can really know the mind of God and that He could be the ultimate jokester, then how can you know this for sure? And when God created natural evil then pace Isiah does it make sense to say that He 'willed something that He didn't desire'? Why would a perfect being not be able to have both when starting from nothing?

how do we judge morality? Should we look at the action alone and come to immediate judgement or should we consider the reason behind the action first?

As I mentioned to Lena there are some things, such as genocide which any reasonable person might always be expected to condemn, no matter what the 'means to an end' might be. That is why I often surprised when believers defend, by special pleading, the justification of something so prominent in your God's book as The Flood, which purportedly not only killed most of mankind, even innocent babes in arms - and in doing so removed the possibility for any of those slaughtered to eventually repent and so, presumably claim a place in heaven. (It makes no difference whether we see the Flood as a figurative event or take it literally, the sentiments are the same.) It is such regular inhumanity, inspired by doctrine, which makes of me an atheist as much as any other doubts.

We are still intelligent and can identify patterns, pay attention to historical outcomes, apply statistics, etc., and use our analysis of such information to make fairly educated decisions on what would be ...

We can also then, first, use such techniques to decide whether the deliberate supernatural actually exists in the first place, can we not? Morality changes down the years to a certain extent, through a form of genealogy, as philosophers have recognised. Your deity supposedly never does, which ought to make things easier.

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] mustangguy809 7 years ago

Er.. since you have already admitted that no one can really know the mind of God and that He could be the ultimate jokester, then how can you know this for sure?

I'm expressing my beliefs which I admit that, objectively, can't be stated as firm truth. When I said no one can know for sure, I was making the distinction that your beliefs as an atheist could be just as wrong as mine as a theist when it comes to absolute truth.

As I mentioned to Lena there are some things, such as genocide which any reasonable person might always be expected to condemn, no matter what the 'means to an end' might be.

This isn't true, or we wouldn't need to invent a concept called 'personhood' to arbitrarily decide when a human being is a human being, usually for purposes of convenience.

We can also then, first, use such techniques to decide whether the deliberate supernatural actually exists in the first place, can we not?

Absolutely! One of the many reasons for my faith.

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

I'm expressing my beliefs which I admit that, objectively, can't be stated as firm truth. When I said no one can know for sure, I was making the distinction that your beliefs as an atheist could be just as wrong as mine as a theist when it comes to absolute truth.

If you are suggesting that both of us admit that we could be wrong, then I will take your word for it and agree with you. (You might, btw, tell me what would serve to falsify your deity if this is actually the case) But it would be best if you did not meantime continue to make assertions with certainty - such as the previously mentioned "God doesn't desire for any of His creation to be destroyed. He knowingly and willfully ordered it for a greater good, but certainly didn't desire it. " which can be confusing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned to Lena there are some things, such as genocide which any reasonable person might always be expected to condemn, no matter what the 'means to an end' might be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't true, or we wouldn't need to invent a concept called 'personhood' to arbitrarily decide when a human being is a human being, usually for purposes of convenience.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I will still hold that it is reasonable, indeed imperative, to oppose genocide - and personally I always will despite the special pleading which might be made for murderous actions of a purported vengeful deity.

In so far as you drag abortion into things at this point then I can only echo the view that a cluster of cells is not a 'human being' nor a 'person', while the commonly used viability threshold of 24 weeks is a sensible way of dividing that which is, from that which is not allowable for legal termination. If a cluster of cells or a younger foetus was a proper human we might expect death certificates and memorial services for the still-developing by pro-lifers. We do not. Another way of asking this is whether you personally, really call a human zygote a 'person' right from fertilisation? If not, I'd suggest that, in order to draw any line somewhere, you will need be inconsistent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can also then, first, use such techniques to decide whether the deliberate supernatural actually exists in the first place, can we not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely! One of the many reasons for my faith.

Yes, I can see why this would be, since no one speaks of faith when there is evidence.

you're a spunky wanker cockwombler kurt2000

[–] LenaAFoster 7 years ago

He is the Word made flesh to dwell among men (John 1:14). He had duality. All God and all man except for NO SIN. He felt emotion and PAIN of the flesh like you and me. He was crucified after being tortured. He gave his life VOLUNTARILY to pay the ransom for our sins and SUFFERED through an excruciating crucifixion because he loved us.

That is sacrifice. But he also came here to TEACH us how to die which is why he said his seven phrases from the cross.

Galena

*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussion🌈

[–] FilmFlaneur 7 years ago

Why would you sacrifice your own life?

Religious conviction leads to martyrdom all the time as we see every day on the TV even today. One might better ask JC why he did not appear, once he came back to life, to those who had condemned him, or major decision makers like Caesar or the local governor, over and over, and stay around as incontestable evidence for his godliness, for hundreds of years (God being outside of time and all)? It seems strange that having made the ultimate effort he then remained in the same locality and confined himself mostly to a few and all for a relatively short time, too. (Yes I know Paul mentions 'hundreds' when writing later - but he was no eyewitness and he would, wouldn't he?)

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

[–] arh-51749 7 years ago

Well, Jesus rose from the dead didn't he? And maybe he wasn't supposed to refer to himself in the first place.

[–] Moviefan-Two-Kay-Four 8 years ago

Precisely; you beat me to it. The same word used for God's name in the Old Testament, is also used for Jesus' claims of divinity during His ministry. The people of that time knew exactly what he meant, which is why they tried to stone Him...and eventually why the Sanhedrin sought to kill him.

[–] webwarehouse3 8 years ago

Yep.

[–] FilmFlaneur 8 years ago

The same word used for God's name in the Old Testament, is also used for Jesus' claims of divinity during His ministry

Yes, it is almost as if the NT writers had the OT in front of them when composing and editing their work, with a pressing need to make thing tie up, isn't it?

Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

[–] Moviefan-Two-Kay-Four 8 years ago

Not likely, at least in conventional forms. Many people in those days were still illiterate, but they committed large portions of their history to memory. Besides, the first Greek translation of the Old Testament was completed more than 200 years before Jesus was born, which adds problems. Then, there's also elements of prophecy that He had no control over, such as the place of his birth, or His parents taking him to Egypt as a baby. He certainly had no say in how the Roman guard pierced him through the chest with a spear, not breaking a single bone.

[–] FilmFlaneur 8 years ago

Not likely, at least in conventional forms. Many people in those days were still illiterate, but they committed large portions of their history to memory

The original gospels were, scholars agree, most likely each written in Greek, (so your observation about the first Greek translation of the Old Testament was completed more than 200 years before Jesus was born just adds weight to my argument), and in famously elevated style, so 'illiterate' was not the description to be applied to the authors. They are not the freshly minted words of locally impressed peasants and shepherds. And scholars also recognise that often, some later parts of the Bible were written with the earlier parts in mind. Why would they not be? Such processes would explain some notable interpolations for instance. It also would be odd indeed if the OT was not known to the editors/writers of the New for, unless they did, how could know that the earlier prophecies had been fulfilled in the first place?

As for the critical details of Christ's Passion, well these only appear in the gospels anyway (i.e. not even mentioned by contemporary Jewish writers let alone the occupying Roman authorities). The Gospels are essentially anonymous their authorial attributions largely given by tradition to a greater or lesser extent, are not primary documents, thus representing hearsay, frequently copying from each other (which again suggests a tradition of referring to previous documents to enforce consistency), contain some literal inaccuracies (geographical details and the supposed census bringing Jesus' family & etc) and writings which moreover appeared at increasingly longer intervals after the extraordinary events they purport to describe for obvious proselytizing purposes.

Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

[–] spidey-02143 8 years ago

Hmm you should go read a Bible and come back and then try to say what you just said

[–] johnsonium 8 years ago

There is something about Jesus that everyone must know...

...he was just a man. Pass it on.

[–] andrewgoro 8 years ago

You can read book of Hebrews. Although it is more relevant to Jewish people, it talks a lot about Jesus being much more than just a prophet, priest or angel.

[–] Ratchapakinai 8 years ago

God doesn't exist and religion is a myth so I wouldn't worry about it.

[–] aesylvia 8 years ago

This is why trying to claim anything about religion is 'truth' is so absurd. If it's all completely down to selective interpretation, with no objectivity, where the hell do people get the notion that it should be taken seriously, let alone be treated the way it is by its adherents?

I think I know precisely what I mean when I say it's a shpadoinkle day!

[–] arh-51749 7 years ago

And yet, you claim that Christians are offending people.