I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?

[freeday]

Wow, this post has gone all over the place.

 

I would postulate that we can't know the answer. It is not our burden to jugde; the authority of judgement is the responsibility of the Father. The bible does not disclose the by-laws of how this judgement will take place in these particular situations, or actually most situations. I feel confident is capitulating to God's discernment and authority through faith.

Such a typical Christian answer. Don't answer, but misdirect.

 

So how can you then judge morality? If the answer isn't clear to you, it means your morality is corrupt! To me it's clear that the innocent survivor deserves Heaven more than the serial killer, so belief in Jesus can not be the only saving factor. It is the Christians who claim morality is absolute, and here is a perfect example of how to judge a moral dilemma in the perspective of the eternal, and you say you can't know? Your excuse is that it is all over the place? It is a perfect example of real, live people, who either will go to Heaven or Hell. And you say you don't know? Then how can you know if any Christian actually go to Heaven, or that non-Christians do not? You don't, do you? So in essence, anyone could potentially be saved and go to Heaven, and your whole religion is just a big game of getting as many adherents as possible. Don't shove "absolutes" in peoples faces, unless you can back it up! So does "absolute" exist, if you have no answer for real life examples?

 

What about the trolley dilemma? I asked it before, and no Christian can give a good answer. It is one of the prime examples of the problems of moral actions, and if moral is absolute, then the trolley dilemma should be easy to solve.

 

The example I gave is something that happens, and any normal person would feel very bad thinking that the serial killer would get off so easy, while the innocent survivor would suffer for infinite time. So in the end, the Christian view on God's justice is skewed and their descriptions of God's actions are in fact immoral. Unless you save God's face by claiming that God gives justice based on some complete different factors than "to believe in Jesus." If morality is as Christians say something that is absolute and easy to understand, then it would be natural to say that the serial killer deserves hell, regardless of his belief, while the innocent survivor would get heaven (where no tears or sorrows exists). Can you really deny this?

 

So what is justice, or ultimate justice, if God gives free pass to those who commit severe crimes and extreme immoral acts, while punishing "unbelief" as an infinite crime?

 

Or lets put it this way, in very simple terms: will I go to Hell? I haven't killed anyone, and I do good to my family, and my friends, and work hard and delinquent. But I don't believe in God or Jesus. Will I go to Hell? If the answer is Yes, I actually believe you are immorally corrupt.

 

Trolley dilemma? what page was this on, i must have missed it. Is this in reference to the runaway trolley and who should you save; if so there is an easy answer.

 

What happened? You used to have more patience with people, instead I sensed some vehemence in your words.

 

The point I was making is that I can not judge your morality; I don't know, you don't know, and nobody knows if you are going to hell. However, the bible gives the reader a good reference of how to get into heaven, which assumes the reader believes what is written. I believe that only God knows this since I feel He makes the decision. Even demons believe in Jesus; therefore I would think that there must be more to getting into heaven than just believing.

[shantonu]

You point out the very clear logical disconnect. Why does "rebelling against an infinite being require an eternal punishment"?

Yes, it surely is.

 

Or think about this, a crime by a finite being (a human) against another finite being (another human) does not immediately requires a life-time sentence! And especially not for the crime of not believing the other person. For instance, my wife say something, and I don't believe her, would that require a life-time sentence as punishment?

 

Christians really do try to find the most outrageous and extreme excuses for their beliefs.

 

Not only are you correct that the "rebellion" is amount no more than unbelief, but the orginal "rebellion" is based on nothing more the curiosity and disobedience. These "sins" seem hardly the stuff that could condemn every single descendent of Adam.

 

What was Adam's crime? Did he kill anyone? No. He merely disobeyed. Read Genesis and you'll see that it's just a simple coming-of-age story. There's an innocent childhood where everything is handed to Adam, followed by curiosity and a bit of mischief, followed by sexual awakening, and then the man and woman realize that they are adults with the adult responsibility of work and child-rearing.

 

It's nothing more than that. Yet there's this vast doctrine built on top of this primitive tale. What is more shocking than the blind belief that is required is the belief that this obedience also paves the way to morality. Thus the Christian carries around two blindspots at the same time: (1) uncritical belief that God requires obedience above all else, and (2) the uncritical assertion that God, as presented in the Bible, is the fountain of all morality. The first blindspot requires a suspension of common sense, the second blindspot requires the suspension of the ability to read, because a simple reading of the Bible shows God behaving in ways that make the Olympian gods seem like paragons of virtue.

[shantonu]

Trolley dilemma? what page was this on, i must have missed it. Is this in reference to the runaway trolley and who should you save; if so there is an easy answer.

 

What happened? You used to have more patience with people, instead I sensed some vehemence in your words.

 

The point I was making is that I can not judge your morality; I don't know, you don't know, and nobody knows if you are going to hell. However, the bible gives the reader a good reference of how to get into heaven, which assumes the reader believes what is written. I believe that only God knows this since I feel He makes the decision. Even demons believe in Jesus; therefore I would think that there must be more to getting into heaven than just believing.

 

But why should we trust the Bible when it seems to have several errors in the printed word? I want to believe, but I can't in the face of the simple fact that the God portrayed in the Bible seems to support things that I know to be immoral, such as slavery, the subjugation of women, and outright murder. Either these things are simple errors in transmission (interpolations or whatever) or they are they represent the accurate views of God, which I cannot support.

 

My insistence and strident tones are not because I want to ensnare apolgists in logical traps but because I really think this problem is not resolvable, try as I might to honestly look at it.

[shantonu]

I really don't see why the apologists are so mute on this subject. It seems to me of huge importance. I suspect that more people reject Christianity because of the Bible's support of slavery than because of the Bible's seeming conflicts with evolution.

 

After all, the conflicts with evolution can be explained away by interpreting the six-day creation metaphorically. So there's no big disconnect there.

 

Most people are not trained in the sciences. If someone really wanted to believe in Young Earth Creation, I would not know enough about science to refute that person. So science, Darwin, evolution, astrophysics and all that never come into play.

 

What does come into play is the immorality of the Bible. We are asked to trust the integrity of a book that was complied in the 4th Century and which contains justification for all manner of moral attitudes that today we find abhorrent.

 

Yet these issues do not seem to trouble the apologists one bit. I find it strange.

[Ouroboros]

Trolley dilemma? what page was this on, i must have missed it. Is this in reference to the runaway trolley and who should you save; if so there is an easy answer.

I can lay out the trolley story tomorrow. Right now I have to do a report... *sigh*

 

What happened? You used to have more patience with people, instead I sensed some vehemence in your words.

I wanted to shake you up buddy. Wake up. Think about it. It is not the good message. The Gospel isn't the good stuff. If it's true that we can only go to Heaven if we believe in Jesus, or we'll get punished for eternity (and according to LNC, that is fair justice), then I think the "good message" is corrupt. So sorry, if I let it out on you, but you need to wake up and realize how twisted the idea is. If someone is punished for a crime which we can agree on to be a crime, then so be it, but the Bible justice isn't like that at all. People are punished for non-issues, while the big crimes go unpunished. It is demoralizing, and maybe that's why many Christians fail to act good? Maybe they can't fully force themselves to be fully good, because they know they can say "sorry" the next minute and get a free-pass? Is that really making people become good?

 

The point I was making is that I can not judge your morality; I don't know, you don't know, and nobody knows if you are going to hell. However, the bible gives the reader a good reference of how to get into heaven, which assumes the reader believes what is written. I believe that only God knows this since I feel He makes the decision. Even demons believe in Jesus; therefore I would think that there must be more to getting into heaven than just believing.

Which is my point, it isn't Jesus that leads you or me to heaven, but other conditions and other requirements. Eternal punishment isn't justice if it's given for minor things and even non-issues. So really, we all can say we are going to Heaven, since we (and you) really don't know. Right?

 

So again, I'm sorry that I scared you, but I wanted you to turn on a couple more light-bulbs and see that something is wrong with the "Jesus is the only way" idea.

[nightflight]

This whole thing about the necessity of "infinite punishment"; in Corinthians 13, the so-called "Love Chapter" it says that "love seeks not its own". Yet the deity postulated here on this thread does seeks his own; he is all wrapped up in concern over his "justice" and "honor".

 

Just a thought.

[Ouroboros]

I really don't see why the apologists are so mute on this subject.

Because deep down, they can feel something is wrong in their religion, but they can't let go of their favorite belief, so they put a band-aid on it and try to pretend it's raining.

[LNC]

This argument makes no sense. It makes about as much sense as a child who believes in an imaginary friend and when an adult asks them where the imaginary friend is if they're real, the child responds "Oh, they're not imaginary, they're just invisible!"

First, that doesn't answer the response that I gave to you. You said that God requires a creator and I responded that you were making a category mistake. The reasoning is that material entities require a cause because of the law of causality and the laws of physics which indicates that matter is not eternal. The same rules do not necessarily apply to immaterial entities. Now your response seems to be based on a presupposition of materialism, is that the case? Do you believe that nothing exists outside of the material realm?

 

How is God a necessary being? You have yet to demonstrate how God is necessary. And going by your logic, since oxygen is necessary for us to live, then no explanation should be needed to explain how oxygen can exist, therefore you should disbelieve in God.

This is simply another category error on your part, as well as a misunderstanding of what it means that God is a necessary being. A necessary being is one that is not contingent, whose existence is not contingent on another thing or being, but is self-existent. God by definition is self-existent, the only being whose existence is not caused by something or someone else, but who is the cause of everything and everyone. Now, that is the philosophical definition of God, the proof is a separate discussion, and there are good arguments that give evidence of God's existence. Oxygen falls into the category of a contingent entity. Oxygen is made up of matter which is contingent and not eternal (again, this is according to the laws of philosophy and physics). That is why you have committed an error in your reasoning.

 

How is a god that runs the whole universe, answers prayers, forgives sins, punishes the wicked, and saves the lost, that exists in all times and all places all at once not complex? To claim such a god is anything but complex would be an insult to your god. Even Jesus said all things are possible with God, so surely a god that can do anything would be complex?

I guess you have not heard of the philosophical concept of Divine Simplicity which was espoused by Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and others. God is not like his creation in that he is does not have any complexity or composition, either physical or metaphysical. There is no distinction between God as subject of his attributes and the attribute itself. The problem in our thinking is that we tend to anthropomorphise God, which is a category mistake and leads to this confusion.

 

God doesn't create morality, it is a reflection of his eternal character. Your questions simply would lead you to an infinite regress which has logical problems of its own. There must be a starting point for everything, whether it is the universe, morality, logic, or anything other that is not infinite or eternal. The fact that some people choose to disobey or not think does not mean that they do not understand morality or don't think logically. I would say that one could not survive if one did not, in some ways, think logically.

That's not what the bible says. The bible says in Isaiah 45:7 that God created good and evil, not that they're reflections of his character. Perhaps you should try reading the bible yourself?

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

 

This is the problem in trying to proof text from an English translation. You have to understand the verse in context and the word meanings from the original Hebrew. The word "evil" to which I am sure you are referring in this verse, could also be translated "calamity," "disaster," or "troubles" as it is translated in other English translations.

 

Whether or not they eventually defeated them is irrelevant to my question. The point is at one point in that chapter, God lost to the iron chariots. It's clear in the text. If Napoleon lost to his enemies but later defeated them, it doesn't change the fact he still lost that one battle. Likewise, if God lost one battle against his enemies, it doesn't matter if he won later because he still lost that battle. So you still have not explained how God could lose that one battle if God is all-powerful. God is either all-powerful or he isn't. You can't have it both ways. I fail to see why this is so hard for you to understand.

So, are you saying that God somehow got stronger between this account and when the iron chariots were actually defeated? How do you reconcile these two instances? Either God was too weak to defeat them or he wasn't. Since they were eventually defeated later, we cannot say that it was God who was limited, but the people. Napoleon was a man who could gain in wisdom and might, God, by definition cannot as he is perfect in wisdom and might. Again, this comes when you read these stories in the larger context, rather than ripping them out of their context to make a point. I would suggest that you go back and read the whole book to find out what was actually happening. You will see that the people would gain victories when they were trusting God and would lose battles when they were disobedient to God. In this case, their obedience had its limits and then failed them.

 

So, you admit that your belief is based entirely on emotions and not any actual truth or evidence? How is emotional reasoning any proof for Christianity to be true?

 

Do you even read my comments before posting your replies? Apparently, you missed what I said. Please go back and read what I actually said as I won't comment on straw man arguments that you post.

[freeday]

LNC,

 

A serial killer is on death-row, and 5 minutes before he gets the needle, he regrets all the murders, ask God for forgiveness, and even ask for Jesus to save him. He is executed. Where did he go? Hell or Heaven? And what is the justification for why he went there? Consider that he was truly honest about his regrets and sincerely prayed to God for forgiveness, and truly wanted Jesus to come into his life.

 

At the same time, the father to one of the victims dies of heart attack, caused by the sorrow and the intense years where the killer kept on appealing. The father was devastated, and had lost all faith in a good God, and lost faith in God completely. He died as an unbeliever. Where did he go? Heaven or Hell? And what is the justification for why he went there.

 

If you can't answer this, I would really seriously doubt you know your own "absolute" moral or truth. If ethics and morals are absolutes, you shouldn't have any problem to answer this, and answer it in such a way that it is morally justified (since morality isn't relative, but absolute). And you should realize that this is not a mere thought experiment, but are a very plausible scenario.

 

So how about it, what is the answer?

 

Wow, this post has gone all over the place.

 

I would postulate that we can't know the answer. It is not our burden to jugde; the authority of judgement is the responsibility of the Father. The bible does not disclose the by-laws of how this judgement will take place in these particular situations, or actually most situations. I feel confident is capitulating to God's discernment and authority through faith.

 

just my thoughts

 

I hear you. LNC dodged and dodged. I guess I can't force him to answer, but maybe you could look at 1 Samuel 5:3 and let me know what you make of it. Was that right? No pressure. I know it's not an easy question and I've been quite a dick about it in the past.

 

I assume you were talking about sam 15:3 since we were discussing killing little innocent babies earlier. I had commented to Chef earlier that I didn't feel we should discuss this since it would accomplish nothing. This ethic dilemma can not be fully resolved in my opinion, which I assume you have the prior knowledge of what I would discuss anyway and have rejected it. If you want, we can start a new thread dedicated to this and I will lay out my thoughts, just not sure we would get anywhere other than a better understanding of what each other is thinking.

 

Remember, I don't come here to convert or save anyone; just to have some interesting conversations and better understand why someone would leave the faith.

[agnosticator]

HanSolo: For instance, my wife say something, and I don't believe her, would that require a life-time sentence as punishment?

 

Yes, if she's really pissed......

[agnosticator]

HanSolo:So how can you then judge morality? If the answer isn't clear to you, it means your morality is corrupt! To me it's clear that the innocent survivor deserves Heaven more than the serial killer, so belief in Jesus can not be the only saving factor. It is the Christians who claim morality is absolute, and here is a perfect example of how to judge a moral dilemma in the perspective of the eternal, and you say you can't know? Your excuse is that it is all over the place? It is a perfect example of real, live people, who either will go to Heaven or Hell. And you say you don't know? Then how can you know if any Christian actually go to Heaven, or that non-Christians do not? You don't, do you? So in essence, anyone could potentially be saved and go to Heaven, and your whole religion is just a big game of getting as many adherents as possible.

 

The example I gave is something that happens, and any normal person would feel very bad thinking that the serial killer would get off so easy, while the innocent survivor would suffer for infinite time. So in the end, the Christian view on God's justice is skewed and their descriptions of God's actions are in fact immoral. Unless you save God's face by claiming that God gives justice based on some complete different factors than "to believe in Jesus." If morality is as Christians say something that is absolute and easy to understand, then it would be natural to say that the serial killer deserves hell, regardless of his belief, while the innocent survivor would get heaven (where no tears or sorrows exists). Can you really deny this?

 

So what is justice, or ultimate justice, if God gives free pass to those who commit severe crimes and extreme immoral acts, while punishing "unbelief" as an infinite crime?

 

Or lets put it this way, in very simple terms: will I go to Hell? I haven't killed anyone, and I do good to my family, and my friends, and work hard and delinquent. But I don't believe in God or Jesus. Will I go to Hell? If the answer is Yes, I actually believe you are immorally corrupt.

 

Right on brotha'!!! I've been saying this in a simpler and condensed version to christians, but they don't seem to get it, or they come up with convoluted reasonings that attempt to go around the question without really answering it. Go figure....

[Ouroboros]

Right on brotha'!!! I've been saying this in a simpler and condensed version to christians, but they don't seem to get it, or they come up with convoluted reasonings that attempt to go around the question without really answering it. Go figure....

Yeah, I know. I tried to lay it out with complete details and cover any hole I could think of, but yet... to no avail.

 

I think Freeday isn't as hardcore on the idea of "Only Jesus Saves," but then again, why call oneself Christian if you don't believe it? Right? But if someone believes only Jesus can save from Hell, then it does make my emotions churn and think of how unfair, unreasonable, immoral, incomplete, and ludicrous the idea is. To say a Hitler deserves Hell, I can emotionally understand that sentence, but to say that little old grandma who never did anyone any harm would go to Hell for just not believing in God? It's evil, at best!

 

It's funny you know, when you confront Christians about the emotional conflict this brings about, they fall back on some semi-rational arguments like, "Well, God must punish unbelief, and yada, yada." They override the emotional disgust we feel (and probably they feel too) with these arguments, and they hope those arguments are reasonable enough, so they can accept the fact it's evil.

 

But then, in the next sentence, when the unbeliever bring up logical contradictions in the Bible or the concept of God, they immediately fall back on emotional support instead! Then suddenly it is all about how the spirit talk to them, or how they feel, or how Jesus saves the day on a jelly-peanut-butter-sandwich, or how walking on water is possible anyway because it's about believing! So any rational argument is contradicted by emotions, and any emotional arguments is contradicted by retarded logic. How crazy is that?

 

If anyone tells me that this is no in fact a sign of delusion, then I don't know what is.

[agnosticator]

..and to think I was a member of one of these crazy churches that used the same tactics to explain themselves into a corner; without realizing it or even caring. The fishers of men had me hook, line, and sinker!

[Ouroboros]

..and to think I was a member of one of these crazy churches that used the same tactics to explain themselves into a corner; without realizing it or even caring. The fishers of men had me hook, line, and sinker!

It's Plato's cave, but the only difference is that we grow up believing (being told by family, society, and preachers) that we should hold on tight to the armchair and not let go. We lock ourselves in. We are the ones holding to the chair, staring at the wall. When we let go, we can get out of the chair, go outside, see the sunlight, see nature and reality, and we go back and tell them to let go of the armrest, but their knuckles are white from holding so hard. They are holding steadfast in panic and fear. Because if we are right, they have lost a lot of invested time and thought, and who doesn't hate to realize he was a fool? It's the same reason why old ladies who are scammed by people who knock on their doors and ask for money, or put them into some convoluted con, defend these people when the truth is revealed. No, seriously. There are examples of old ladies, connect by hundreds of thousands of money in retirement funds, and when the con artist is revealed, they still defend them! And the reason is: they are ashamed of being had. They rather stick to the lie, than admit the truth and look silly. Human nature is our worst enemy...

[freeday]

Right on brotha'!!! I've been saying this in a simpler and condensed version to christians, but they don't seem to get it, or they come up with convoluted reasonings that attempt to go around the question without really answering it. Go figure....

Yeah, I know. I tried to lay it out with complete details and cover any hole I could think of, but yet... to no avail.

 

I think Freeday isn't as hardcore on the idea of "Only Jesus Saves," but then again, why call oneself Christian if you don't believe it? Right? But if someone believes only Jesus can save from Hell, then it does make my emotions churn and think of how unfair, unreasonable, immoral, incomplete, and ludicrous the idea is. To say a Hitler deserves Hell, I can emotionally understand that sentence, but to say that little old grandma who never did anyone any harm would go to Hell for just not believing in God? It's evil, at best!

 

It's funny you know, when you confront Christians about the emotional conflict this brings about, they fall back on some semi-rational arguments like, "Well, God must punish unbelief, and yada, yada." They override the emotional disgust we feel (and probably they feel too) with these arguments, and they hope those arguments are reasonable enough, so they can accept the fact it's evil.

 

But then, in the next sentence, when the unbeliever bring up logical contradictions in the Bible or the concept of God, they immediately fall back on emotional support instead! Then suddenly it is all about how the spirit talk to them, or how they feel, or how Jesus saves the day on a jelly-peanut-butter-sandwich, or how walking on water is possible anyway because it's about believing! So any rational argument is contradicted by emotions, and any emotional arguments is contradicted by retarded logic. How crazy is that?

 

If anyone tells me that this is no in fact a sign of delusion, then I don't know what is.

 

Hans,

sorry i was so whinny earlier. this is where i stand; a belief in Jesus (I mean a life changing belief) is a sure fire way to get to heaven. Past this, Jesus does not give a detailed outline of how he will judge persons. Although the theme, fear of punishment, occurs in the NT; i dont think that Jesus meant this to be his message of salvation. Jesus preached a message of love, not damnation. This is the Gospel i live bye and give testimony too.

 

Also, the little grandma that you suppose will go to hell will probably not in my opinion. The bible states only one sin; rejecting the holy spirit. I believe the translated word was a very harsh word that indicated a vindictive nature.

 

This leads to the question; why would you just talk bad about something. I don't believe in Alah, but I am not going to speak harshities to a person that believes in this. The same with Buhdah or Vishnu. We have discussed over and over, you cant disprove or prove the existence of God with certianty. So why totally discredit Him and blasphemy his name? What good does it do? What would this accomplish?

 

You call our faith unreasonable and immorall; yet we probably share the same moralls. We both frown on stealing, adultry, hate and violence. I feel that a belief in God is a belief that we should love one another. This does not seem unreasonable.

 

Just my thoughts anyway.

[agnosticator]

..and to think I was a member of one of these crazy churches that used the same tactics to explain themselves into a corner; without realizing it or even caring. The fishers of men had me hook, line, and sinker!

It's Plato's cave, but the only difference is that we grow up believing (being told by family, society, and preachers) that we should hold on tight to the armchair and not let go. We lock ourselves in. We are the ones holding to the chair, staring at the wall. When we let go, we can get out of the chair, go outside, see the sunlight, see nature and reality, and we go back and tell them to let go of the armrest, but their knuckles are white from holding so hard. They are holding steadfast in panic and fear. Because if we are right, they have lost a lot of invested time and thought, and who doesn't hate to realize he was a fool? It's the same reason why old ladies who are scammed by people who knock on their doors and ask for money, or put them into some convoluted con, defend these people when the truth is revealed. No, seriously. There are examples of old ladies, connect by hundreds of thousands of money in retirement funds, and when the con artist is revealed, they still defend them! And the reason is: they are ashamed of being had. They rather stick to the lie, than admit the truth and look silly. Human nature is our worst enemy...

 

Yeah, I've heard about these elderly ladies. It's amazing the lengths people go to not look foolish, while it is really obvious (they are already foolish) to the observer who has both eyes open. I didn't get into any arguments with nonbelievers when I was a christian. It was one person who gave me some articles to read that started me on the road to reality. He was an intelligent and kind former church member. I am indebted to him.

[mwc]

God doesn't create morality, it is a reflection of his eternal character. Your questions simply would lead you to an infinite regress which has logical problems of its own. There must be a starting point for everything, whether it is the universe, morality, logic, or anything other that is not infinite or eternal. The fact that some people choose to disobey or not think does not mean that they do not understand morality or don't think logically. I would say that one could not survive if one did not, in some ways, think logically.

That's not what the bible says. The bible says in Isaiah 45:7 that God created good and evil, not that they're reflections of his character. Perhaps you should try reading the bible yourself?

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

 

This is the problem in trying to proof text from an English translation. You have to understand the verse in context and the word meanings from the original Hebrew. The word "evil" to which I am sure you are referring in this verse, could also be translated "calamity," "disaster," or "troubles" as it is translated in other English translations.

So what kind of morality does this reflect? I accept that Isaiah was informing the Messiah Cyrus the nature of this "god." But how moral is a "god" that threatens to remove peace (the accurate reading of this verse...and many like it) when he feels "betrayed?" It's not just a statement to the effect that "I will leave you and whatever happens, happens" but he gives peace and takes it at his own discretion. A much different statement and possibly a veiled threat if one were inclined to see it that way. He appears to be telling his new Messiah to toe the line or things may not bode well for him. A questionable morality at best.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Hans,

sorry i was so whinny earlier. this is where i stand; a belief in Jesus (I mean a life changing belief) is a sure fire way to get to heaven. Past this, Jesus does not give a detailed outline of how he will judge persons. Although the theme, fear of punishment, occurs in the NT; i dont think that Jesus meant this to be his message of salvation. Jesus preached a message of love, not damnation. This is the Gospel i live bye and give testimony too.

 

Also, the little grandma that you suppose will go to hell will probably not in my opinion. The bible states only one sin; rejecting the holy spirit. I believe the translated word was a very harsh word that indicated a vindictive nature.

 

This leads to the question; why would you just talk bad about something. I don't believe in Alah, but I am not going to speak harshities to a person that believes in this. The same with Buhdah or Vishnu. We have discussed over and over, you cant disprove or prove the existence of God with certianty. So why totally discredit Him and blasphemy his name? What good does it do? What would this accomplish?

Wait a minute. First of all, some actually do preach only Jesus saves, and if they come around and if they manipulate our society to fit their agenda, I have to speak up. I have to give my opinion about what I feel about their belief.

 

LNC claims that we have no morals, because we are non-believers. And he states that he somehow knows the right morals, because his morals are absolute. So if his morals are absolute, the dilemma I presented is real and he should be able to take a stance. LNC doesn't guess. He thinks he knows the answers. So he's the one who has the duty to answer, not you.

 

Or, are you saying that free speech about things and any thing in this country is this: talk nice about Jesus and Christians, never say anything bad about Jesus or Christians? Or put it this way, do you have the right to shove your Gospel ideas into conversations with people, but they don't have the right to have an opinion about that said Gospel, or even speak it? When a Christian say that "atheists are immoral" the atheists should just shut up and take it, but when atheists say "Christian's preach a corrupt message," then the atheists should shut up and let the Christians keep on preaching their "gospel?" Isn't that very unfair? Doesn't that show how much you want your view and belief to dominate ours? Doesn't it prove how corrupt your belief is, since you want people who critique your belief should shut up?

 

You call our faith unreasonable and immorall; yet we probably share the same moralls. We both frown on stealing, adultry, hate and violence. I feel that a belief in God is a belief that we should love one another. This does not seem unreasonable.

Agree. We share the same morals, in principle, because in the end, Christians are subjectivists just as much as me or anyone else. We adjust our moral view based on current trends and culture, and we partly push it our own way and influence it, and when a majority agree then morality changes in larger scale.

 

But still, LNC claims that non-Christians, or non-believers, do not have morals, because we have no "absolute" morality to base it on. So my argument goes back to my story, that if LNC is correct, then there is an absolute answer to the question I stated. The fight here is more about LNC's very ultra-religious view and the non-believers. You happen to be somewhere in the middle, and you step into the line of fire, well... you get shot when you do.

 

Let me put it this way, you are as much a "moral relativist" as I am, because neither you or I know the absolute morals. If I'm a relativist, then you are too. If you are not a relativist, well then neither am I. Whatever morality is and does, it's done the same way for both of us. We have learned through society what makes sense and is reasonable. You don't base your morals on the Bible, and neither do I. We both based them on reasons, emotions, and traditions. The Bible doesn't say anything against abortion, but it supports slavery. And yet Christians are in opposite camp to what the Bible say. So a sane Christian, like yourself, and me, we both know that morality isn't as easy as a click of a button in a some old and outdated Book.

[agnosticator]

freeday:This leads to the question; why would you just talk bad about something. I don't believe in Alah, but I am not going to speak harshities to a person that believes in this. The same with Buhdah or Vishnu. We have discussed over and over, you cant disprove or prove the existence of God with certianty. So why totally discredit Him and blasphemy his name? What good does it do? What would this accomplish?

 

You call our faith unreasonable and immorall; yet we probably share the same moralls. We both frown on stealing, adultry, hate and violence. I feel that a belief in God is a belief that we should love one another. This does not seem unreasonable.

 

Just my thoughts anyway.

 

Sorry to butt in. We are exchristians, who have gone through alot of negative experiences because of christians who took the parts of the N.T. you don't accept and used them to hurt people. Also, many parts of the N.T. and some central doctrines are not life-affirming, but immoral.

 

Many christians don't share your views. They believe you can prove that the christian god exists, and the whole bible is true as it reads. If all christians kept their beliefs personal and non judgmental, we would probably not have this site, nor argue with christians.

[freeday]

Hans,

Wait a minute. First of all, some actually do preach only Jesus saves, and if they come around and if they manipulate our society to fit their agenda, I have to speak up. I have to give my opinion about what I feel about their belief.

 

LNC claims that we have no morals, because we are non-believers. And he states that he somehow knows the right morals, because his morals are absolute. So if his morals are absolute, the dilemma I presented is real and he should be able to take a stance. LNC doesn't guess. He thinks he knows the answers. So he's the one who has the duty to answer, not you.

 

Or, are you saying that free speech about things and any thing in this country is this: talk nice about Jesus and Christians, never say anything bad about Jesus or Christians? Or put it this way, do you have the right to shove your Gospel ideas into conversations with people, but they don't have the right to have an opinion about that said Gospel, or even speak it? When a Christian say that "atheists are immoral" the atheists should just shut up and take it, but when atheists say "Christian's preach a corrupt message," then the atheists should shut up and let the Christians keep on preaching their "gospel?" Isn't that very unfair? Doesn't that show how much you want your view and belief to dominate ours? Doesn't it prove how corrupt your belief is, since you want people who critique your belief should shut up?

 

Agree. We share the same morals, in principle, because in the end, Christians are subjectivists just as much as me or anyone else. We adjust our moral view based on current trends and culture, and we partly push it our own way and influence it, and when a majority agree then morality changes in larger scale.

 

But still, LNC claims that non-Christians, or non-believers, do not have morals, because we have no "absolute" morality to base it on. So my argument goes back to my story, that if LNC is correct, then there is an absolute answer to the question I stated. The fight here is more about LNC's very ultra-religious view and the non-believers. You happen to be somewhere in the middle, and you step into the line of fire, well... you get shot when you do.

 

Let me put it this way, you are as much a moral relativist as I am, because neither you or I know the absolute morals. We have learned through society what makes sense and is reasonable. You don't base your morals on the Bible, and neither do I. We both based them on reasons, emotions, and traditions. The Bible doesn't say anything against abortion, but it supports slavery. And yet Christians are in opposite camp to what the Bible say. So a sane Christian, like yourself, and me, we both know that morality isn't as easy as a click of a button in a some old and outdated Book.

 

I see where you are coming from. Yes there are people who think that you can't have morals outside of christianity, sadly of which i was one of them. You don't need the Bible to derive there are universal morals. I would have to look it up, but there are secular ethical theories which believe in universal ethics which are derived from logic outside the bible.

 

as far as free speech, I don't see a problem in questioning Jesus or God. I still affirm that there is no need to blasphemy His name even though you question his existence.

[freeday]

freeday:This leads to the question; why would you just talk bad about something. I don't believe in Alah, but I am not going to speak harshities to a person that believes in this. The same with Buhdah or Vishnu. We have discussed over and over, you cant disprove or prove the existence of God with certianty. So why totally discredit Him and blasphemy his name? What good does it do? What would this accomplish?

 

You call our faith unreasonable and immorall; yet we probably share the same moralls. We both frown on stealing, adultry, hate and violence. I feel that a belief in God is a belief that we should love one another. This does not seem unreasonable.

 

Just my thoughts anyway.

 

Sorry to butt in. We are exchristians, who have gone through alot of negative experiences because of christians who took the parts of the N.T. you don't accept and used them to hurt people. Also, many parts of the N.T. and some central doctrines are not life-affirming, but immoral.

 

Many christians don't share your views. They believe you can prove that the christian god exists, and the whole bible is true as it reads. If all christians kept their beliefs personal and non judgmental, we would probably not have this site, nor argue with christians.

 

It is harder to believe in something that you believe there is no proof for, They are just newer to the journey in my opinion.

[shantonu]

LNC,

 

A serial killer is on death-row, and 5 minutes before he gets the needle, he regrets all the murders, ask God for forgiveness, and even ask for Jesus to save him. He is executed. Where did he go? Hell or Heaven? And what is the justification for why he went there? Consider that he was truly honest about his regrets and sincerely prayed to God for forgiveness, and truly wanted Jesus to come into his life.

 

At the same time, the father to one of the victims dies of heart attack, caused by the sorrow and the intense years where the killer kept on appealing. The father was devastated, and had lost all faith in a good God, and lost faith in God completely. He died as an unbeliever. Where did he go? Heaven or Hell? And what is the justification for why he went there.

 

If you can't answer this, I would really seriously doubt you know your own "absolute" moral or truth. If ethics and morals are absolutes, you shouldn't have any problem to answer this, and answer it in such a way that it is morally justified (since morality isn't relative, but absolute). And you should realize that this is not a mere thought experiment, but are a very plausible scenario.

 

So how about it, what is the answer?

 

Wow, this post has gone all over the place.

 

I would postulate that we can't know the answer. It is not our burden to jugde; the authority of judgement is the responsibility of the Father. The bible does not disclose the by-laws of how this judgement will take place in these particular situations, or actually most situations. I feel confident is capitulating to God's discernment and authority through faith.

 

just my thoughts

 

I hear you. LNC dodged and dodged. I guess I can't force him to answer, but maybe you could look at 1 Samuel 5:3 and let me know what you make of it. Was that right? No pressure. I know it's not an easy question and I've been quite a dick about it in the past.

 

I assume you were talking about sam 15:3 since we were discussing killing little innocent babies earlier. I had commented to Chef earlier that I didn't feel we should discuss this since it would accomplish nothing. This ethic dilemma can not be fully resolved in my opinion, which I assume you have the prior knowledge of what I would discuss anyway and have rejected it. If you want, we can start a new thread dedicated to this and I will lay out my thoughts, just not sure we would get anywhere other than a better understanding of what each other is thinking.

 

Remember, I don't come here to convert or save anyone; just to have some interesting conversations and better understand why someone would leave the faith.

 

I've posted a separate thread on this. 1 Samuel 15 and Joshua made me leave the faith. I remember the day it happened. I was reading these sections and I was appalled. A few weeks later my pastor (I was attending an evangelical church at the time) had recourse to mention Joshua being a great man of faith. I felt physically ill and almost walked out.

 

Again, I'm not trying to trap you with logical contradictions. I'm just pointing out what I think is a really serious problem and what was for me a deal-breaker.

[Ouroboros]

I see where you are coming from. Yes there are people who think that you can't have morals outside of christianity, sadly of which i was one of them. You don't need the Bible to derive there are universal morals. I would have to look it up, but there are secular ethical theories which believe in universal ethics which are derived from logic outside the bible.

Good.

 

as far as free speech, I don't see a problem in questioning Jesus or God. I still affirm that there is no need to blasphemy His name even though you question his existence.

Why is blasphemy outside of free speech, and how do you define blasphemy? I have heard the most outrageous definitions of it. Some claim that just to say "Jesus didn't exist" as to be blasphemy. And the second thing is, why is asking a Christian a question who will go to heaven considered to be blasphemy? What exactly did I do to blaspheme your God? Isn't it just a matter that you were offended, rather than God is so small that he's offended for people questioning his existence or morality? Already the Greek philosophers questioned the morality of their Gods, and see what happened to them. They died. But so did Jesus, Peter, and Paul.

 

--edit--

 

And another point is: if atheism is said to be a religion by Christians, doesn't it mean that Christians are offending our faith when they call us immoral or call Evolution evil? Should we conclude that free speech of offending someones worldview only apply when Christians does it, but atheists have no right to offend back? hypocrisy at its best. If Christians have the right to say atheists are evil, immoral, and are going to Hell for their sins, then atheists get the right to say the same back. It is as simple as that.

[LNC]

But again, Jesus doesn't actually state in John 10:22-39 that he's God. He says that he and his father are one, but that could also mean that they're one in purpose, not literally one. Jesus doesn't say he's God in John 8 either. He says if you hear his words, you hear the words of God. But the Pope claims to speak for God too but that doesn't mean the Pope is claiming to be God. Just that he's claiming to be the authority on Earth for God. Jesus doesn't specifically say it in John 14 either as he says in verse 12 believe him for the sake of his works themselves. If he was claiming to be God, why would he say that and then turn around in the same sentence, say that it's not that important to believe he's God? And if Jesus is God, why did he refuse to be called good and insisted that only God should be called good in Matthew 19:17?

So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good?[a] No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Why is it on the one hand you claim Jesus to be God, but in this verse, Jesus is clearly denying he's God? And what about that verse in John where Jesus was praying to God before he was crucified? Was Jesus just talking to himself and going insane? What about when he was on the cross and asked God why he forsook him? Why would Jesus ask himself why he forsook himself? If the Trinity is true, it makes no sense and it frankly makes Christianity sound like a polytheistic religion. Why not just admit you believe in three gods instead of one then?

I will address the passages in this order:

John 8:58: Jesus unmistakably claims the revealed name of God revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14. The Jewish leaders understood what he meant by this claim and picked up stones to stone him for blasphemy (making himself equal with God.)

John 10:22-39: Jesus says that he is equal in essence to God (10:30). The Jews picked up stones again to stone him claiming, "because you, being a man, make yourself God." Clearly, they understood the implications of what he said. If all he meant was that they were one in purpose, the Jews would never have picked up stones as they believed themselves to be one in purpose with God, and this would not have been a controversial thing for Jesus to say.

John 14: Jesus tells Philip, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." In other words, to see the Son is to see the Father and to see the Father is to see the Son. He says that if you don't believe his words, then believe based upon his works which no mere man could do (or had done in the past or since then.) Nowhere does he downplay his claim of deity.

Matthew 19:17: Jesus does not refuse to be called good as you claim. He merely questions the motives of the person who called him good and clarified that there is a basis for calling someone good. That is a common misunderstanding of that passage. Jesus didn't shun people acknowledging who he was as is the case when Peter declares that Jesus is the Christ (Matthew 16; Mark 8; Luke 9), or when Thomas says when seeing the risen Jesus, "My Lord and My God." (John 20:28). In none of these cases did Jesus rebuke them for these claims or correct them. Instead, Jesus affirms Peter and Thomas for their perception and pronouncements. This would have been a violation of Jewish law if it had not have been true.

 

You also misunderstand the Trinity. Christians don't claim three gods, but one God in three persons. I cannot affirm three gods as that would be to affirm a false belief.

 

No, your position is not logical nor is it consistent. Again, saying not believing something is the same thing as having a belief is like saying not belonging to a club is the same thing as belonging to a club. I don't know how many times you want me to repeat myself before you get it.

OK, so you say that my position is not logical or consistent, but fail to explain why. Your lack of belief in God has implications to it. There are certain things that you must explain with the view that God doesn't exist. Those things cannot be empirically verified, e.g. that objects pop into being uncaused or that matter is past eternal. These things defy science as we know it and are the logical implications that you must hold by faith without any empirical proof. So, as much as you like to say that your non-belief doesn't carry a different set of beliefs with it, it is not the case.

 

Yes, you did. You said if we're atheists, we have no reason to complain when someone does evil to us because you claim we have no morals and you've just lied again by denying you ever said that. If you don't believe we're inherently immoral, why did you argue that we have no morals?

Please give me direct reference to the post in which I made this claim (either date and time or post number will do). I wouldn't have said such a thing since I don't hold such a position. So, either you have confused me with someone else, or you have misunderstood what I said. People can act moral even though they don't have an objective basis on which to rest their moral system.

 

Now you're lying again. First you deny we have to follow a rulebook to get to heaven and then claim this is a misunderstanding of the gospel. Then, you turn around and say that to be saved you have to believe the bible, which is the same thing as believing in a rulebook. Either you have to believe in the rulebook called the bible to be saved or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

Boy, you certainly are a judgmental one, aren't you. Again, reread what I actually said rather than what you interpreted. I said that one must trust in Jesus, not the Bible to be saved, there is a difference. Trying to obey rules to get to heaven will land you in hell. We can never be good enough to earn heaven. Jesus paid the penalty for my sins and my trust is in him alone to merit me heaven, by his death on the cross to pay for my sins. Jesus last words on the cross were, "It is finished," which is the English translation of the Greek word, tetelastai, which more literally means, "paid in full." Jesus final statement was that he paid the debt in full and that payment is applied to any one of us who will trust in him.

 

No, the opposite is what is true. If God exists and controls everything in the universe as you claim, then there is no freewill. You can't have a god that rules everything with an iron fist on the one hand and then tell us we have a choice on the other. The two ideas are entirely incomptabible with each other. It's like how an author writes a story and within the context of the story, the characters might think they have freewill and are making choices, but in reality, they're just made up characters the author created and is controlling with their imagination. Now replace the author with God, the story with the universe, and us with the characters, and tell me how we can have freewill if God controls everything. And where in the bible does it say we have freewill? As far as I'm aware, freewill is not mentioned anywhere in the bible at all.

 

I never claimed that God directly controls everything in the universe - you are putting words into my mouth. I claim that God is sovereign and with his sovereignty he can grant a degree of freedom to his creation. That is the prerogative of any sovereign. There is nothing incompatible about it. The difference between your author example and that of the real world is that we are real people, created in God's image, and that includes real wills. So, your story is not equivocal to the real world. Actually, the term freewill is used times in the Bible.

[LNC]

You will brush this off, but that definition is not accepted nowadays. Christians can get away with explaining the horribly micromanaging edicts put forth in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy because Jesus symbolizes brought forth a new covenant, and atheists can't get away with deriving their own definition free of Christian bias. Again, duplicity abounds.

 

You are clouded by the reality that not everybody agree your religious point of view, therefore they are your enemies. With that point of view, I guess you could call a follower of the Greek or Norse pantheon an atheist.

 

I think the second premise is more valid because an atheist normally discounts any theistic worldview.

 

What I don't get is that if I take a few tenets from Christianity, biology, mathematics, history and make them up into some kind of worldview and I believe that there is no God, why is that logically wrong?

 

I know that it is not generally accepted these days; however, it is up to the atheist to explain why the change in definition is merited.

 

I don't use such explanations. The OT law was for a specific time and people, just as our laws have changed as out times and people have changed. The OT law had a purpose for that people, to protect them as they entered a land with people who followed other gods and had other practices. It was to keep the Jewish people separated from the people around them and to keep their focus on God. If you can show me that the OT law still applies to this time, people, and place, I would be happy to discuss that with you, but you will be hard pressed to make that case. For one, the Temple has been destroyed for nearly 2K years, so there is no animal sacrifice, nor has there been since 70 A.D. That was a central part of OT law. However, that sacrifice was fulfilled completely by Christ's death on the cross.

 

 

I don't believe that I am naïve enough to believe that everyone agrees with me, nor do I see those who don't as my enemies. I hope that I have shown that in my interactions on this site. When called names (which I have been a number of times in this thread), I have not returned fire. When called a liar (which I have been more than once on this thread), I have not returned the epithet. No, I don't see you or anyone else on this site as an enemy, but as a person who has the same intrinsic value as me. I don't call followers of false gods atheists (as they did to Christians in early Rome), but pagans (which is the proper term).

 

Your worldview would be right or wrong based upon how it squares with what we know about the world. That is the test of any worldview. I don't know enough about your worldview to judge it.