Question About Religion

[TK-8252]

Yo, TK:

 

You're misquoting me, man. You meant Totenkopf, right?

 

You're right! Fixing...

[Jae Onasi]

I don't acknowledge the existance of Darth Vader, but I can judge him for the he was in the fictional story of Star Wars, just as I can judge the Biblical god in his fictional story.

 

Look, I know you don't like God. However, the implication that He is a 'b*stard' is really rather upsetting to me. I know you don't like Him. I'm not asking you to like Him or even respect Him. But I'm trying hard to handle your points with respect and the expletives are making it harder. Could you do me the favor of not connecting God with expletives?

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this and how it relates to my post.

 

You asked this question:

Who made up this rule? What gave god the authority to do such a thing? Why can't we try him for crimes against humanity?

 

You accuse Him of crimes against humanity for killing people arbitrarily. But you're assuming that He's killed people. I'm saying He has not killed people, but rather taken them from this world to be with Him. Since they exist with Him and have not been killed, then He cannot be guilty of murder or crimes against humanity.

 

I don't know of many good parents who send their child to be tortured forever in hell by the devil simply because they reject their parents, maybe even for a very good reason (perhaps the child's parents are invisible entities in the sky that never speak to their child, never show themselves, and never offer any evidence of their very existance - like a deadbeat dad).

 

One of my dearest friends had symptoms I felt were consistent with early stage AIDS. Out of love for him, I urged him to get tested so that he could get the treatment started that would save his life. He refused to do that. I could have physically picked him up, tied him in my car, and dragged him over to the doctor to get treatment, but physically harming him and violating his rights in order to comply with my wishes would not have been loving on my part, even if it would ultimately save his life. I had to let him make his own decisions, even though I knew what the outcome would be. He became very ill with advanced AIDS about a year later and died about 16 months after that. If he had gone to the doctor when I asked him to, his AIDS would have been caught at a much earlier stage when it was far more treatable, and he might even still be alive today. But it had to be _his_ choice to go to the doctor, not mine.

 

As a parent myself, one of the most difficult things for me to do is to stand aside and let my children experience the consequences of their mistakes when they make decisions that are wrong--within reason of course, because they are quite young. I can advise them all I want, but if they choose not to listen, then I have to allow them to learn from that mistake, even when it's not pleasant (e.g. if you leave your toys on the ground and mama doesn't see them and steps on them, you have to experience the consequence of a broken toy, even if it's not fun).

When my children are adults, I'm not going to be able to force them to do anything or keep them from doing something to themselves that may be self-destructive (e.g. smoking, drugs). I can love them as much as God does, but I won't be able to take the cigarette out of their mouths and lock them up somewhere so that they can't smoke. The same with God--He's not going to force anyone to love Him if they don't want to.

[Emperor Devon]

Look, I know you don't like God. However, the implication that He is a 'b*stard' is really rather upsetting to me. I know you don't like Him. I'm not asking you to like Him or even respect Him. But I'm trying hard to handle your points with respect and the expletives are making it harder. Could you do me the favor of not connecting God with expletives?

 

I must agree. I have found debates to be so much for enjoyable if you stay civil. Jae has stayed polite to us godless heretics, so it's only natural to do so back. To expect otherwise is hypocritical.

 

One of my dearest friends had symptoms I felt were consistent with early stage AIDS. Out of love for him, I urged him to get tested so that he could get the treatment started that would save his life. He refused to do that. {snip}

 

At the end, though, I assume you weren't blamed for not forcing him?

 

I can love them as much as God does, but I won't be able to take the cigarette out of their mouths and lock them up somewhere so that they can't smoke.

 

To compare this to God and His followers, have you told your kids the negative effects of smoking? Because that wouldn't be on the same degree as religion.

 

The same with God--He's not going to force anyone to love Him if they don't want to.

 

How exactly does Hell factor into this, then? You've implied that in the end, you have a final choice whether to love Him or not. What happens if you refuse, from your perspective?

[Totenkopf]

TK:

 

Hey, I don't get it either, so don't feel bad. I just can't deny His existence, and I can't really explain anything beyond that, nor do I feel obliged to even try. Anyone that says that they can is suffering from delusions of grandeur (a common problem among the various zealots). I'd also be lying if I said that I worshipped Him, because I don't. I'm not trying to take the moral high ground here, because there is none to be had by anyone, anywhere. Even if there was no religion at all (the dream of many Lucasforumites, I've gathered) Earth would hardly be a Utopia. People would still find an excuse to hate and kill each other. Thats human nature, and there's no escape from it.

 

 

Actually, Q, Tk was correctly quoting you from post #148.

[Q]

He was quoting both of us in the same post, and put my name on your quotes, but he fixed it.

[Point Man]

How exactly does Hell factor into this, then? You've implied that in the end, you have a final choice whether to love Him or not. What happens if you refuse, from your perspective?

If you refuse to love Him and to follow His will for you, you will not be allowed to spend eternity with Him in Heaven; you will spend it in Hell. It is like having a grown child in the house. If the child will not follow the rules of the house, the father has every right to say, "You cannot live in this house anymore." Now, God will allow you to make that choice to acknowledge His sovereignty and accept His forgiveness up to the time of your death. But if you choose not to do that, He will not allow you to spend eternity in His house.

[Emperor Devon]

If you refuse to love Him and to follow His will for you,

 

Please clarify. Do you mean His love for you, or His will in general?

 

It is like having a grown child in the house. If the child will not follow the rules of the house, the father has every right to say, "You cannot live in this house anymore."

 

That is different. If the kid leaves, he can buy a house, rent an apartment, etc. He doesn't have to live in the gutter. However, with God the only options seem to be eternal bliss or eternal suffering.

 

Now, God will allow you to make that choice to acknowledge His sovereignty and accept His forgiveness up to the time of your death. But if you choose not to do that, He will not allow you to spend eternity in His house.

 

So there's nothing in between? What about Limbo? What if a couple years after moving into Hell, you genuinely feel love for God? Would you be forced to still suffer?

[Totenkopf]

Limbo was traditionally where souls went that weren't baptized (and probably all the souls prior to the Ressurection that didn't end up in hell). As to your second question, I guess you have to wonder if the condemned truly loves God or just can't take the suffering. My maternal grandmother didn't actually believe God truly sent anyone to hell as she figured we were already there. I think that the eternal punishment idea is one that flies in the face of the concept of a just, loving, but most importantly merciful God.

 

Q-cool, didn't realize I was looking at a fixed version of original post.

[igyman]

If you do not acknowledge His existence, then why are you judging Him?

What renders religion obsolete and unnecessary?

Since I think that god doesn't exist, I can't be judging him, but I can judge religion. I believe that it's holding us back, that it's preventing us from completely turning to science and finding the answers we are looking for, preventing us from making significant technological and scientific progress in areas like cloning, for example, cybernetics also. I believe that science and scientific facts will give all the answers to us and secure our future and our survival as a species, not some antiquated belief.

My philosophy is ''if you need to believe in something, then believe in yourself'', because praying for something won't make it come true, you have to act for your wish to become reality.

[JediMaster12]

Actually igyman, science doesn't give all the answers. There are somethings that haven't been explained yet and the science hasn't been able to disprove it either for that is the goal behind science. As to the example about cloning, you leave out the point of morality. Do you have any idea how many embryos were killed and badly mutated to get Dolly? The point I am trying to make is that scientists are worrying too much about whether or not they can do it than stopping to think if they should.

 

In response to the original question I have to say that was a gross simplification of that. It is bad to kill someone but you wont go to hell. If that were the case then the Christians who are soldiers would be spending eternity in hell since they are killing. As far as I know, God made that a commandment not to kill but he realized that would be difficult to keep. Human beings are violent creatures. Need proof watch chimps fight. Anyway that was when he sent his son Jesus to save us for our sins. The only way to be with him in paradise is to accept God through Jesus name. Gross simplification if you ask me.

[igyman]

Actually igyman, science doesn't give all the answers. There are somethings that haven't been explained yet and the science hasn't been able to disprove it either for that is the goal behind science.

You're right, it doesn't, yet, but that doesn't mean that it can't give all the answers, more importantly all the right answers, which I sincerely doubt when it comes to religion.

 

As to the example about cloning, you leave out the point of morality. Do you have any idea how many embryos were killed and badly mutated to get Dolly? The point I am trying to make is that scientists are worrying too much about whether or not they can do it than stopping to think if they should.

That's exactly the attitude I was referring to. I think this is the wrong attitude when it comes to cloning and I also think that it has been sparked by the Church, more than any other organisation, or group. Just like the abortion topic. Cloning isn't a bad thing and it wasn't imagined as a bad thing either. The primary purpose of its development is to upgrade our medical science and save lives - two words, organ cloning.

Of course, before you can learn to clone only specific parts, you have to learn how to clone the entire body. I won't go into further detail about cloning, because it would be even more off-topic than this entire religion vs. atheism discussion already is.

[TK-8252]

Look, I know you don't like God. However, the implication that He is a 'b*stard' is really rather upsetting to me. I know you don't like Him. I'm not asking you to like Him or even respect Him. But I'm trying hard to handle your points with respect and the expletives are making it harder. Could you do me the favor of not connecting God with expletives?

 

Well, can I at least say that god is worse than Hitler? Please?

 

You accuse Him of crimes against humanity for killing people arbitrarily. But you're assuming that He's killed people. I'm saying He has not killed people, but rather taken them from this world to be with Him. Since they exist with Him and have not been killed, then He cannot be guilty of murder or crimes against humanity.

 

Flooding the world and drowning everyone is killing them. Drowning someone would be killing them.

 

The same with God--He's not going to force anyone to love Him if they don't want to.

 

So what you're saying is that god is saying "Okay okay, you can be gay/a fornicator/atheist/Muslim/Hindu/etc. and that's your decision... BUT - you will spend the rest of time being tortured in hell."

 

the child will not follow the rules of the house, the father has every right to say, "You cannot live in this house anymore."

 

Actually, he doesn't have that right. Kicking a child out to live in the streets would be considered to be child neglect/abuse. But apparently god doesn't have to follow those standards.

[Negative Sun]

Since I think that god doesn't exist, I can't be judging him, but I can judge religion. I believe that it's holding us back, that it's preventing us from completely turning to science and finding the answers we are looking for, preventing us from making significant technological and scientific progress in areas like cloning, for example, cybernetics also. I believe that science and scientific facts will give all the answers to us and secure our future and our survival as a species, not some antiquated belief.

My philosophy is ''if you need to believe in something, then believe in yourself'', because praying for something won't make it come true, you have to act for your wish to become reality.

Amen to that (no pun intended, well maybe a little )

[JediMaster12]

That's exactly the attitude I was referring to. I think this is the wrong attitude when it comes to cloning and I also think that it has been sparked by the Church, more than any other organisation, or group. Just like the abortion topic. Cloning isn't a bad thing and it wasn't imagined as a bad thing either. The primary purpose of its development is to upgrade our medical science and save lives - two words, organ cloning.

Of course, before you can learn to clone only specific parts, you have to learn how to clone the entire body. I won't go into further detail about cloning, because it would be even more off-topic than this entire religion vs. atheism discussion already is.

Then you are questioning morality. Are you saying that you have no morals?

[Negative Sun]

If you refuse to love Him and to follow His will for you, you will not be allowed to spend eternity with Him in Heaven; you will spend it in Hell.

How do I know what His will for me is? How has he ever made this clear to me? And please don't answer the Bible because I consider that to be a fictional story, or at least most of it...

 

It is like having a grown child in the house. If the child will not follow the rules of the house, the father has every right to say, "You cannot live in this house anymore."

But what if that father is a sick and twisted man who beats up his family every day? Does the child still need to follow the rules of the house if it means being molested?

 

Now, God will allow you to make that choice to acknowledge His sovereignty and accept His forgiveness up to the time of your death. But if you choose not to do that, He will not allow you to spend eternity in His house.

Again, that is a very hypocritical statement, so you can be the best, most noble person ever, but if you don't believe in God you will end up in Hell?

[The Source]

How do I know what His will for me is? How has he ever made this clear to me? And please don't answer the Bible because I consider that to be a fictional story, or at least most of it...

 

In order to answer this question, you would have to open the Bible. If you are interested in Christianity, the Bible is the only source for your information. God's will for each person is different. Your destiny is not written in stone, but what God wants for his people is. If you have another religion in mind, you can read their doctrines. It all depends on what your interested in. This is a self preference question. I think.

 

 

But what if that father is a sick and twisted man who beats up his family every day? Does the child still need to follow the rules of the house if it means being molested?

 

I believe Mr. Onasi was referencing a good father. Someone who is caring, nuturing, and patient. Since he was talking about God, he was trying to make a collation for you.

 

Again, that is a very hypocritical statement, so you can be the best, most noble person ever, but if you don't believe in God you will end up in Hell?

 

Hypocritical? Hmm...

Actually, I believe God made it very clear that you have to believe in him to get into heaven. (And- Except his son as your savior) You cannot get into a place, which you don't believe in.

 

If you believe that God is fictional, heaven does not exist to you. Otherwords, atheism is the belief in nothing; therefore, there is nothing to go to. You just die, and there is no heaven.

[Negative Sun]

Actually, I do believe there is something after death, since I believe in ghosts and spirits, I just don't believe in the Christian Heaven that's all...

[igyman]

Are you saying that you have no morals?

I'm not saying that at all. You're missing the point and the point is that with the development of cloning our medicine will advance significantly and more lives will be saved thanks to it. That's why I don't have a problem with the deaths of embrios. The reality is that all the progress we've made so far wasn't made without having to make moral decisions and wasn't made without sacrifices.

[The Source]

Actually, I do believe there is something after death, since I believe in ghosts and spirits, I just don't believe in the Christian Heaven that's all...

Oh Okay.

[Totenkopf]

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

---------------------------------

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite

Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

- hypocrite adjective

 

By definition, God cannot be a hypocrite. But setting aside that distinction (person), how is God putting on a false sense of religion or virtue? You can't refer to the second definition b/c it's made quite clear what is necessary to enter heaven. Said God would actually be hypocritical if He said one set of people can get into heaven one way, but others had to do something different all together. So, technically, God would only be hypocritical if He allowed athiests and non believers to enter heaven , despite their willful and unabating rejection of Him, in spite of telling everyone that they had to accept "Him" in order to enter heaven.

 

An apparent failure by God to operate on your terms of what constitutes virtue (let alone religion), does not make Him a hypocrite.

[Negative Sun]

But you didn't answer my question, so you can be the best, most noble person ever, and you will still end up in Hell for not believing in God?

[Totenkopf]

Actually, I believe that that question was addressed earlier. There are 2 possibilities, apparently. 1. You repent when you meet your maker, provided your given the chance or 2. yeah, unfortunately you go to hell. Two of course presupposes that you pointedly rejected God, not merely going through life never having heard of him. But as I said before, whether you end up in heaven or hell is for God alone to decide. I'm curious as to what exactly you learned about this stuff in school. Surely someone must have addressed these issues at some point. O'course, maybe not. Where I went to Catholic HS (9-12), we got taught a lot of things that weren't legit. For instance, going to church on sunday wasn't necessary if you found something to do that was more meaningful to you, that premarital sex was ok if the relationship was committed and the old bit about no infallible teachings in the church. These things have no place in a Catholic school curriculum as they fly in the face of Catholic teachings. They're of course irrelevant and nonbinding elsewhere.

[JediMaster12]

@ igyman: yes cloning could produce the possibility of organs and such but at the stage we are at now, the moral imperative has jurisdiction especially in the Bible Belt, which was how Bush won anyway.

 

@ Totnkpf: what Catholic school did you go to? To the whole church on Sunday thing: The origin of Sunday being the seventh day was developed when Constatine, a devote pagan until his death when he converted, attempted to indoctrinate his people with Christianity. Sunday was orginally a day of worship for the sun god. It was a holy day and naturally the whole Sabbath thing fit in nicely. The Jews literally believe in the seventh day and to them the Sabbath or Shabbat is Saturday. The church is not a building but its people. The purpose of church is for fellow believers to congregate and study and share their faith.

The premarital sex thing: Moral issues and such that I will not delve into seeing as it is my personal opinion that it is wrong anyway.

The infallible teachings of the Catholic Church: Pure baloney! Tradition is very hard to break when the mindset is establish. Look at the sale of indulgences when Luther posted his opposition on the church doors. Paying money so that even a dead persons sins can be forgiven, a scam if you ask me and not at all in accordance with what the Bible says. The praying to the Virgin was something that was used as a conversion with the Mexica/Aztecs with the appearance of the Lady at Guadalupe to Juan Diego. She is associated with one of the fertility mother goddesses and I could go on but I wont. Anyway some teachings still fall right and others are a result of longstanding tradition. However, if you read the Bible, Jesus himself says something along the lines that non one can come to the Father except through him. Simply put, if you believe in God, the Father and you believe that he sent His only begotten Son so that he may die for your sins and you believe that with all your heart, you will be saved.

 

Sorry for the long winded talking. I am an anthroplogist and things like the history of the cross and other things fascinate me.

[Jeff]

Paying money so that even a dead persons sins can be forgiven, a scam if you ask me and not at all in accordance with what the Bible says.

Obviously, that's why this isn't practiced anymore.

 

And Constantine chose Sunday as the day of worship because it was the day when Christ rose from the dead, I'm pretty sure.

[Totenkopf]

@ igyman: yes cloning could produce the possibility of organs and such but at the stage we are at now, the moral imperative has jurisdiction especially in the Bible Belt, which was how Bush won anyway.

 

@ Totnkpf: what Catholic school did you go to? To the whole church on Sunday thing: The origin of Sunday being the seventh day was developed when Constatine, a devote pagan until his death when he converted, attempted to indoctrinate his people with Christianity. Sunday was orginally a day of worship for the sun god. It was a holy day and naturally the whole Sabbath thing fit in nicely. The Jews literally believe in the seventh day and to them the Sabbath or Shabbat is Saturday. The church is not a building but its people. The purpose of church is for fellow believers to congregate and study and share their faith.

The premarital sex thing: Moral issues and such that I will not delve into seeing as it is my personal opinion that it is wrong anyway.

The infallible teachings of the Catholic Church: Pure baloney! Tradition is very hard to break when the mindset is establish. Look at the sale of indulgences when Luther posted his opposition on the church doors. Paying money so that even a dead persons sins can be forgiven, a scam if you ask me and not at all in accordance with what the Bible says. The praying to the Virgin was something that was used as a conversion with the Mexica/Aztecs with the appearance of the Lady at Guadalupe to Juan Diego. She is associated with one of the fertility mother goddesses and I could go on but I wont. Anyway some teachings still fall right and others are a result of longstanding tradition. However, if you read the Bible, Jesus himself says something along the lines that non one can come to the Father except through him. Simply put, if you believe in God, the Father and you believe that he sent His only begotten Son so that he may die for your sins and you believe that with all your heart, you will be saved.

 

Sorry for the long winded talking. I am an anthroplogist and things like the history of the cross and other things fascinate me.

 

 

Sunday is traditionally when the Catholic church marks the "Sabbath" (Keep Holy the Lord's day), but perhaps I should have said attend Mass to spare you any confusion. As to the other stuff, my point wasn't that they were inherently good/bad or true/false. Simply put, parochial school teachers are not hired to teach things that fly in face of that's faith's beliefs.