Luc Solar Posted June 26, 2003 Share Posted June 26, 2003 (Been away for quite a while...so how 'bout I start a religious thread!? ) So here's my current problem with christianity: Can one Believe if one does not believe? Can you somehow generate "faith" in god even though you don't really believe in it? See, the thing with christianity is this: nobody can can live up to the expectations of God. No matter how good you are, you're still a sinner and should end up in hell. The reason why we aren't all going to hell is because Jesus died for our sins, and God forgives us IF we repent and "believe". It's quite simple: if you don't have "faith" you end up in hell period Your actions are not decisive. Faith is. Believing in God - you know the drill... Again: How could one control what they believe in? IMHO it's not something you can choose, it's not something you can do just because you want to. Example: How many of you believe that Finland will win the world championship in soccer, basketball and volleyball....76 years straight without losing a single point to anyone? Excercise 1: How many of you can honestly tell me that you believe what I said? No-one? Ok. Excercise 2: Now try really, really hard to believe. Put your mind into it..you *want* to believe...you *must* believe! So what happened? Do you believe me now? Is it a willfull choice? Can you intentionally manipulate your mind into believing what you want? To sum it up: the basics of christianity, the heaven/hell-thingy combined with "your deeds matter not, but only your faith" is flawed. I say: You deeds are what matters, not what goes on in your head, because that is something that no-one can control. If you see a beautiful woman something happens in your brain, like it or not. That doesn't make you a bad person. What does define you and your worth as a person are your actions, not your thoughts. Never thought that pulling the rug under christianity was this easy, but it honestly is. You can not trick yourself into "believing" without being a hypocrite. Note that I said nothing about God or Jesus as such. My comment is only about the "you must genuinely believe or you will be thrown to hell"-scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Originally posted by Luc Solar ....IMHO it's not something you can choose... Nothing is choice, so you have 2 possibilities: 1) God does not exist, because with no free will there is no choice, ergo no responsibility, hence no judgement, thus no Big Judge in the Sky. I'm speaking ultimately here, not relatively. 2) God does exist and as we are created in his image and have eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, he is only as capable of reason as we are, and thus can be mistaken about a great many things, despite of or even due to his age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted June 28, 2003 Author Share Posted June 28, 2003 (Oopsie.. I forgot to mention what the "Excercise 1" is..lol! ) Another thing >>we tend to use the following as arguments against the existence of god: God does "bad things" in the bible; He is mean, unfair, vengeful and brutal. God contradicts himself in the bible numerous times and says stuff that we know is not true, which means that god does not know everything or simply makes mistakes. All this, however, means nothing considering the existence of a god. There's no direct link from "not being perfect according to our standards" to "not existing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted June 29, 2003 Share Posted June 29, 2003 Originally posted by Jubatus Nothing is choice, so you have 2 possibilities: 1) God does not exist, because with no free will there is no choice, ergo no responsibility, hence no judgement, thus no Big Judge in the Sky. I'm speaking ultimately here, not relatively. 2) God does exist and as we are created in his image and have eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, he is only as capable of reason as we are, and thus can be mistaken about a great many things, despite of or even due to his age. not really, we have many choices, we can live the way we want. with the freewill given by God,we have this choice, only we make the choice to beleive in god, or to live our life not beleiving. he cant interfere. and btw gods age!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 29, 2003 Share Posted June 29, 2003 Originally posted by daring dueler not really, we have many choices, we can live the way we want. with the freewill given by God,we have this choice, only we make the choice to beleive in god, or to live our life not beleiving. he cant interfere. and btw gods age!? Free will vs causality, you on one side, I on the other, and we'll never convince either of our oppinion, so let it rest. And yes, God's age, what of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted June 29, 2003 Share Posted June 29, 2003 Originally posted by daring dueler not really, we have many choices, we can live the way we want. with the freewill given by God,we have this choice, only we make the choice to beleive in god, or to live our life not beleiving. he cant interfere. and btw gods age!? So if god is omnipotent and omniscent, that would mean that he knows everything: past, present and future, right? Then that means there could be no free will since god already knows the outcome. So if freewill exists, there is no god. If the universe had to exist first for a god to inhabit it, then the universe can be said to be infinately old. If the universe is infinately old, what does it need a god for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Jubitusssssssssss: Free will vs causality, you on one side, I on the other, and we'll never convince either of our oppinion, so let it rest. Redrum! Redrum! Again it turns out to be fate/free will debate Luc Solar: So what happened? Do you believe me now? Is it a willfull choice? Can you intentionally manipulate your mind into believing what you want? Perhaps it's possible in principle. But because of it the idea itself becomes useless. You can put yourself in some VR controlling you brain and it'll make you believe (doesn't matter how). Por ejemplo it can isolate you from the knowledge of anything that refutes god, so making you as innocent as Adam and Eve. I guess you see now how futile this action would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul Redrum! Redrum! Again it turns out to be fate/free will debate Well, as I wrote that we ought to let it rest, it shouldn't have become one, but you just had to poke around in it, didn't ya so now, well.... Originally posted by Homuncul Perhaps it's possible in principle. But because of it the idea itself becomes useless. You can put yourself in some VR controlling you brain and it'll make you believe (doesn't matter how). Por ejemplo it can isolate you from the knowledge of anything that refutes god, so making you as innocent as Adam and Eve. I guess you see now how futile this action would be. So it would be futile because he would be stripping himself of knowledge, yes? But submitting yourself to subjective reality isn't? *Sniff sniff* What's that smell?.....oh, contradiction! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 So it would be futile because he would be stripping himself of knowledge, yes? But submitting yourself to subjective reality isn't? *Sniff sniff* What's that smell?.....oh, contradiction! You, agnostics are just so talented at asking irrelevant questions. First the VR I discribe is by definition something of a limitation, and that's why it's a futile for any use rather than some in research on human psychology (there're then perhaps better methods for this). There're many ways for an observer to say he's in some fake reality, not refuting god with this. For example knowledge of experience of living in some other place is not necessarily excluded when he enters VR and so he can tell for sure that this reality is an illusion but that doesn't spoil his belief in god astablished by the program. And again my understanding that there's some unknowable truth doesn't spoil my conviction that in principle (and in time we'll certainly do that) we can discribe through better and better explanations this subjective reality, so that it'll become very accurate relatively to the ultimate truth. Why is always problem here? Why always involve uncertainty when it's no longer a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul You, agnostics are just so talented at asking irrelevant questions. Au contraire, these questions are very relevant. And we ask these questions not so much for an answer to ourselves but for the offchance that you yourself might learn something in answering them. Originally posted by Homuncul And again my understanding that there's some unknowable truth doesn't spoil my conviction that in principle (and in time we'll certainly do that) we can discribe through better and better explanations this subjective reality, so that it'll become very accurate relatively to the ultimate truth. Why is always problem here? Why always involve uncertainty when it's no longer a problem? I'll tell you yet again what the problem is. You might be describing an illusion with the tools of the illusion. How can you ever propose that this could with any remote certainty describe the ultimate truth? I'll say again, this 'reality' might have nothing to do with reality; the same physical laws might not apply at all. It could be so vastly different that our imaginations come short in trying to picture it. The uncertainty will always be there (for those not settling with subjective explanations) and I'll say again, no scientific discovery nor any godlike revelation will ever change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Originally posted by SkinWalker So if god is omnipotent and omniscent, that would mean that he knows everything: past, present and future, right? Then that means there could be no free will since god already knows the outcome. So if freewill exists, there is no god. If the universe had to exist first for a god to inhabit it, then the universe can be said to be infinately old. If the universe is infinately old, what does it need a god for? yes, but we can change our own future, he may know what were gonna do, but he cant interfere with it. with our free will cant we change our future.its said god has a plan for us all, but if we dont eccpet the plan, how can we live it. and yes gods age, he doesnt age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 In the end we don't need to think about ultimate truth until it presents itself in form understandable to us (explanation again). In form of a problem actually. And problem is always a subjective thing. So ultimate truth is ultimately irrelevant unless it kicks back to us in some way Again your point is: what unknowable is highly relevant, and I say it's irrelevant until we can perceive it (and understand) at least in a form of a problem, and then- it;s not unknwable but something not yet explanable. And of course it's always a matter of understanding perception through explanation. What's the use to stick to something that is out of perception and trouble your mind with it. Again as I have said it many times, it's an unneeded complication. Understand, as soon as you start to think of something unknowable it presents itself as a problem to you. And your beloved fate is real only relative to your perception, but this perception is based on induction, and that's what I don't like as you know. Actually you can't think of anything unknowable in a form that you like it to see, like external reality. The word unknowable itself kicks back to you and is always subjective. Your knowledge of properties of such an abstraction (dictated by your inductive observation) is nothing more than subjective thought. It can not even be called a collection of unknowable invironments. Because we must always use the word relative to what we discribe it. Then your idea of overwhelming external fate is highly irrelevant. And free will is what real at present moment and uncertainty is discribed through probability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Originally posted by daring dueler yes, but we can change our own future, he may know what were gonna do, but he cant interfere with it. with our free will cant we change our future.its said god has a plan for us all, but if we dont eccpet the plan, how can we live it. and yes gods age, he doesnt age. Then define free will, please. With age I refer to the timespan of his existence, be it eternal or not. Originally posted by Homuncul In the end we don't need to think about ultimate truth until it presents itself in form understandable to us (explanation again). In form of a problem actually. And problem is always a subjective thing. So ultimate truth is ultimately irrelevant unless it kicks back to us in some way You can never know the ultimate thruth, how many times must I tell you this? Originally posted by Homuncul Again your point is: what unknowable is highly relevant, and I say it's irrelevant until we can perceive it (and understand) at least in a form of a problem, and then- it;s not unknwable but something not yet explanable. And of course it's always a matter of understanding perception through explanation. I say the unknowable might be relevant, which it is in its nature to be, a maybe. And you must understand that by unknowable I do not refer to what we havn't discovered yet, but the concept of uncertainty; that we can never truly and 100% know anything to be true. All we can achieve is subjective reality and truth. Perception is subjective truth, not ultimate. Originally posted by Homuncul What's the use to stick to something that is out of perception and trouble your mind with it. Again as I have said it many times, it's an unneeded complication. It troubles my mind with its nature of being of unknowable relevance. But by that it also puts me at ease, for I see its inherent futility. Its 'unneeded complication' is a subjective standpoint. Originally posted by Homuncul Understand, as soon as you start to think of something unknowable it presents itself as a problem to you. And your beloved fate is real only relative to your perception, but this perception is based on induction, and that's what I don't like as you know. I do not think of something unknowable, I think of it itself as a concept. It poses me with no problems for it is inevitable. Fate is not beloved to me, it is inevitable. And whether you like it or not is relative only to your subjectiveness by preference. Originally posted by Homuncul Actually you can't think of anything unknowable in a form that you like it to see, like external reality. The word unknowable itself kicks back to you and is always subjective. Your knowledge of properties of such an abstraction (dictated by your inductive observation) is nothing more than subjective thought. It can not even be called a collection of unknowable invironments. Because we must always use the word relative to what we discribe it. Then your idea of overwhelming external fate is highly irrelevant. And free will is what real at present moment and uncertainty is discribed through probability. Like I've indicated, I do not think of unknowables, I simply accept the fact that everything is ultimately unknowable, and that is absolutely objective and irrefutable. Please define free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted July 1, 2003 Author Share Posted July 1, 2003 I just skimmed this thread through and...ummm...what the hell are you guys talking about?! I don't think anyone addressed the actual topic yet. >> Can you control what you believe in? Do you have a choice in the matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Originally posted by Luc Solar I just skimmed this thread through and...ummm...what the hell are you guys talking about?! I don't think anyone addressed the actual topic yet. >> Can you control what you believe in? Do you have a choice in the matter? I already answered you in my first post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Free will is a best explanation we have for causality. In fact our inability to measure ultimate causality because it's only measurable relative to something. Probability is the best explanation we have for uncertainty. Again we haven't yet found a way to measure it (probably won't) . In fact neither causality, neither uncertainty has any meaning to the understanding of present day reality, but their subjective partners do. And let me show you this, but before... everything that you have to say about my assumptions being subjective and therefore proving nothing to you are false. I told you before why I consider your inductive approach false and proved it without logic (because it's undisprovable with one). So what is fate? It's nothing, it's unknowable, but the way it kicks back to us I may assume that it's predetermination. So how does it work? I can't tell. it's unknowable, until it presents itself in some form, until it comes to existence. So can I rely on my intuition to tell that it IS, and it's unknowable?. Can I tell therefore that fate is real?. I can't tell. Why?. Because it doesn't kick back and there is no problem of finding it. Can I use induction to create a problem? So if you see 1000 times that rabit jumped you can generalise that in such situation he'll jump for 1001 time. No you can not create such problem. Can we use fate in any way? No, it's unknowable. Can we make predictions out of it? No it's unknowable. So our understanding of fate is impossible without destroying the myth of unknowability as being valid explanation. So what is free will? It's an explanation for causality. What is causality? A fundamental understanding of how external reality works. So how does it work? In any situation that we observe (situation kicking back to us) to have more than 1 outcome we can choose between the collection of outcomes individually. Can I rely on intuition to tell free will is? Apperantly no, but I can rely on theories discribing our reality with it. Why can I rely on them? Because they are proven with scientific methods that are real for the present day reality. Can I say that free will is ultimate? No. It's only real now and no where else. If I say that it's ultimate I must also say that it's unknowable, but it's not, because it was invented by us to solve the problem of uncertainty. Can I tell with free will assumes that rabbit will jump for the 1001 time? My answer would solely depend on explanation (not on observation) of what rabbit is. Observations are numbers, numbers without understandingtheir meaning mean nothing. If I know enough of rabbit characteristics can I tell that rabbit will jump? No . Why? Because one of characteristics of alive rabbit is probability of his decisions, which we can only say to exist through explanation of a rabbit. So can we then tell a rabbit jump? No we can't. So is it a problem then? What's the use of free will if it does not discribe whether rabbit will jump and fate does say that it's predetermined? First things first, fate can not tell that rabbit will jump, it's unknowable and therefore gives no valid explanation of rabbits action. But free will gives an answer. I says that probability of such an event is a bit more then 50%. Is this a valid answer for us? In many ways yes. Por ejemplo in one way we can prepare ourselves for the action where rabbit doesn't jump and not panic about it, just knowing that rabbit may do countless different things because of free will. Okey, smart ass now tell me can we count every possible action rabbit can do? In principle yes. So if we know every possible outcome and put causality there, can we tell that fate then works? No we can never tell, fate is unknowable by definition and causality is subjectively relative and ultimately unknowable. So what can we do knowing all subjective outcomes and all relative cause and effect about rabbit's decision? Nothing perhaps? No, we can tell that with higher (depending on how accurately we measure causality) probability rabbit will decide this outcome and not others? But how can we tell for sure? We can't, it's uncertain. But you contradict yourself therefore? No, you do. So fate says that rabbit will... ? Fate says absolutely nothing! And free will says then? Yes, it says that it's likely he will choose this outcome and not others. So can we use free will? How it kicks back to us? We can use it in our understanding of a higher probability of one outcome and not other. But does it matter whether one outcome is more probable than the other? Yes, It helps us to make better judgement about our reality. But how can we rely on such judgements if they all are uncertain? We can only rely on them if we can make better explanations of reality out of them. Still what about uncertainty? And what's wrong with it, we have a valid explanation for uncertainty: probability. Then what is better explanation then and why probability explanation is better than unknowable causality? The better explanation is one that solves the problem it was ment to solve, leaves less things unexplained, succeeds criticism while it's other rivals do not. I see your point but why do you think fate discribes worse? It's self limiting. Why is that, again no valid argument for me? I thought so, it's limited because of it's explanatory part and not intuitive as you think. And what is that, oh mighty? it's based on neglection of itself as a valid explanation. Where is that? It says that it's unknowable and uses the complexity of the free will theory. You must be as stupid as I feared, fate is out of any complexity of free will, so what's your problem? fate is unknowable and can not be explained no way else but with free will, as I have already explained that uselessness of unknowability and everything we will ever be bothered is explainable and not knowable or unknowable, then fate concept by definition uses the complexity of free will. Furthermore we need to define freedom of will first to difine fate as unknowable, while free will is always by difinition free from that. This is therefore an unneeded complication to the free will concept. So okey, but what if you're wrong about it? I may be wrong in some points, but I'm not wrong in the basic understanding of this discussion, which is - problem solving model of scientific proof. I'm not convinced yet, for example we've got a higher dimention, how can we discribe it rather than with the word unknowable? That's where I got you, discribing means understanding, not neccesarily making knowable. We don't need to know every quanta that sun consists of to measure it. Approximately (but with very high accuracy) we can tell the mass of the star just looking at it's color spectrum, using our best understanding of it called Dopler's effect. With out this ujnderstanding all number of quanta in the star just meaningless data. So what matter is "understanding of unknowable" and not unknowable itself, and with that fate fails. So what makes me think of such intuitive things as fate and time flow while they are false? Your experience, I would advice you to read some books about it, my preference is to Karl Popper. A bit heavy, I know and you must be thinking I'm psycho cauze i talk with myself. But a deeper thought on these matters is really relevant..... ...Zzzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Well, that sure was a huge chunk of your usual stuff. I read through it and found nothing that hasn't already been adressed by me before in the 'Philosophy revival' thread, some things have been addressed several times. Only comment I have is: Fate does not exclude probability. Seems we have taken this dance of misunderstandings, misinterpretations and prejudice from my thread over here to Luc Solar's small inquiry on Christianity. That is really poor form and if we are to continue this dance of stubborn unyielding, we'd better take it back where it belongs, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Writer Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 "your deeds matter not, but only your faith" I don't know of any place in the Bible that says that. In fact, in James it says "Faith without deeds is dead." (James 2:17) Your actions basically explain what you have faith in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 So here's my current problem with christianity: Can one Believe if one does not believe? Can you somehow generate "faith" in god even though you don't really believe in it? See, the thing with christianity is this: nobody can can live up to the expectations of God. No matter how good you are, you're still a sinner and should end up in hell. The reason why we aren't all going to hell is because Jesus died for our sins, and God forgives us IF we repent and "believe". It's quite simple: if you don't have "faith" you end up in hell period Your actions are not decisive. Faith is. Believing in God - you know the drill... Again: How could one control what they believe in? IMHO it's not something you can choose, it's not something you can do just because you want to. Example: How many of you believe that Finland will win the world championship in soccer, basketball and volleyball....76 years straight without losing a single point to anyone? Excercise 1: How many of you can honestly tell me that you believe what I said? No-one? Ok. Excercise 2: Now try really, really hard to believe. Put your mind into it..you *want* to believe...you *must* believe! So what happened? Do you believe me now? Is it a willfull choice? Can you intentionally manipulate your mind into believing what you want? To sum it up: the basics of christianity, the heaven/hell-thingy combined with "your deeds matter not, but only your faith" is flawed. I say: You deeds are what matters, not what goes on in your head, because that is something that no-one can control. If you see a beautiful woman something happens in your brain, like it or not. That doesn't make you a bad person. What does define you and your worth as a person are your actions, not your thoughts. Never thought that pulling the rug under christianity was this easy, but it honestly is. You can not trick yourself into "believing" without being a hypocrite. Note that I said nothing about God or Jesus as such. My comment is only about the "you must genuinely believe or you will be thrown to hell"-scenario. Is all of this so you can do what many have failed: pull the rug under christianity? Well... youve failed too. All you have done is simply, state the obvious. Basically, you said that we FORCE ourselves to believe. Thats not even possible, you can stand around all day telling yourself you believe, but you dont. You cant MAKE yourself believe. You just do. God knows who really truly believe, and who dont. I can type all of this in, i can know the bible by heart, and say every word in it backwards, in order. That wont help me at all, unless i believe it. Actions... ok, you know how people used to offer sacrifices, bulls, sheep, birds, to make up for there sins? When Christ died, he was the ultimate sacrifice, so believe in him, all your sins will be forgiven. You not supposed to go around sinning though. Your life is supposed to change. And its not over night.. its gradual. yes, but we can change our own future, he may know what were gonna do, but he cant interfere with it. with our free will cant we change our future.its said god has a plan for us all, but if we dont eccpet the plan, how can we live it. God CAN, cause he can do what he wants. Sure, he knows the future, and he has a plan, but he has 'back up' plans also. Say, im supposed to apply for one job (the better job) but i apply for a different one. God had something planned for me in the first job. He can either, open up a new door in the 2nd job, or prevent me from getting the 2nd job altogether, and have some sort of event happen in your life, that will make you apply for the first job. What do you think prayer does? Theres no point for prayer, if God doesnt do anything in our lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Is all of this so you can do what many have failed: pull the rug under christianity? Well... youve failed too. Of course he has failed for Christianity is designed in such a way that any argument against it can be refuted, because God is omnipotent and omniscient. You cannot disprove him because he doesn't allow you to - paradox anyone? It's exactly the same as if I imagined an invincible character, Bob, who cannot be destroyed. I simply say "Here's Bob, try and destroy him." My only description of his power is "limitless". An opponent steps forward and the battle goes like this (O is the opponent and I is myself): O: I shoot Bob with a bazooka! I: Ha! Bob sidesteps the missile! O: Ok, I drop a nuclear bomb on Bob! I: Ha! Bob knew what you were up to and teleported away! O: Grrr! I blow up the planet Bob's on! I: Pfft! Bob has already left the planet... O: I destroy the Universe! Nowhere to escape for Bob! I: That's what you think! Bob dodges, just because he can, and creates a new universe! O: I construct a device to predict Bob's moves and a missile that can never miss! I: Yawn...Bob knew what you were up to and foils the constructions! O: Argh! You're just being silly! I: Yes, I know. And that is exactly what Christianity would be, silly, if it wasn't so sadly damaging in its stagnancy. Belief is all you can have for God. As I've said before in another thread, the lack of ability to disprove God is not in any way proof of his existence, because not only are you being asked to disprove something that hasn't even been observed, much less proven, you're also being set up against a system that by design can refute any argument against it...just like my example of Invincible Bob. It even helps when you just skip the question against God that you don't care to answer, right lukeskywalker1? I still would like an answer to this question I asked you earlier: How can you condone a god, who condemns people to eternal torment for transgressing against its rules? But to the essence of this thread: Can you force yourself to believe enough in Christianity without proof? Well, a human's power to delude itself is great, but I have yet to enounter a true Christian; met many hypocrites though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 It even helps when you just skip the question against God that you don't care to answer, right lukeskywalker1? I still would like an answer to this question I asked you earlier: How can you condone a god, who condemns people to eternal torment for transgressing against its rules? Yeah, your right, i did skip it. Personnaly, i never thought about it till you asked. Well, i think of Hell as a punishment. Heaven, the reward. He doesnt want to put people in hell. And he gives us a choice, its all fair. He doesnt force anything on us. And its all in a loving manner. He can tell non believers in millions of different ways how to avoid Hell. This is one of them, me telling you all this. (you think im doing this for no reason? Im trying to get anyone who doesnt want to go to hell out of it.) Any ways, after all th chances warnings, and everything else people get, i guess id have to say yeah, i do condone it. Are you married... or have kids? If not then act like you are. Your child disobeys, what will you do. Youll probably (depending on what they do) warn them the first time. The second time a light punishment, and if it continues, a more severe punishment. Its like that with God. The first time, maybe something small will happen, one of your favorite things breaks... you have a bad day, whatever. The next time, a little more severe, maybe, car crash (thats a little too severe, but im skipping ahead) but your not hurt. The next time, maybe something worse... eventualy, youll die oneday, it happens to everyone. You go up there, God says, depart from me, i never knew you. You can say what you want, but it doesnt matter, you never accepted him. Do you let strangers into your house? Why would God let someone into his kingdom, who never accepted him, who turned there back on him. One of the toughest questions is, if God is real, why does he let bad things happen to good people? The bible is like a plan. To build something, you need a plan, to bake a cake, you need a recipie, in other words, plan. The bible is the plan for your life. It teaches you how to live (and theres no mistaking it, its the best moral code ever, is it not?) So you dont follow the plan (bible) something goes wrong. You can be a good person, but if you get off the plan a little bit, it can all go wrong, same for christian, and non christian. because God is omnipotent and omniscient I wasnt talking about God, im talking about the whole system. Many people tell me, there a many contradictions in the bible. I saw name em, they cant, and whatever they come up with is just them not reading it right, or it was a vision, or something and it gets proven wrong. Its amazing how its set up, you try and twist it, and the next verse will prove you wrong. If you try it, i just look up the verse read the whole chapter... and there it is, a few sentences later, it just totally proved that you twisted its meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 To sum it up: the basics of christianity, the heaven/hell-thingy combined with "your deeds matter not, but only your faith" is flawed. Something i just thought of... if your deeds dont matter, then, whats the point of Jesus dying to save us from our sins? Whats the point of forgivness. You see my point? Ok, was searching, found some stuff A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the “big bang”, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’ The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason. On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied. This young man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is? makes sence doesnt it. this was taken by a page written by Ken Ham http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp he brings up some good points. Ive even quoted some of the bible verses he has before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Siraious Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 Jubatus wrote: How can you condone a god, who condemns people to eternal torment for transgressing against its rules? Then lukeskywalker1 replied: Yeah, your right, i did skip it. Personnaly, i never thought about it till you asked. Well, i think of Hell as a punishment. Heaven, the reward. He doesnt want to put people in hell. And he gives us a choice, its all fair. He doesnt force anything on us. And its all in a loving manner. He can tell non believers in millions of different ways how to avoid Hell. This is one of them, me telling you all this. (you think im doing this for no reason? Im trying to get anyone who doesnt want to go to hell out of it.) Any ways, after all th chances warnings, and everything else people get, i guess id have to say yeah, i do condone it. My input: Good Question Jubatus, I give an answer to it but I'm not expecting you to accept it or anything. Basically if you strip away all the religions BS they all basically agree that there are a set of rules God/Gods have set us to live by. Those are dont kill others, dont steal, dont hankie panky with others partners and respect others. Thats the basic philosophy underlying just about all religions. *Getting to my point* Now in our modern civilisation we have laws or rules that are similar. Why do we have them so we can live together civilly. Those who disregard these basic laws "dont kill others, dont steal, dont hankie panky with others partners and respect others" do not care about other people or other lifeforms. In my books these people are plain evil. That is what God or the Gods' rules are there for too. Now according to the Bible or any other holybook of any religion when you have died your deeds you did while alive will be examined and you will be able to explain yourself and repent if you feel and believe you should. Regardless in whether you believe in the almighty or not you will be judged on your actions or lack of them towards others and other lifeforms. So my understanding is that believer or not in the end you are judged on your actions or lack of them and are given a chance to explain yourself and repent if you believe you should. Therefore I would accept the almighty's final decision as everyone has been given a chance to explain themselves. Also I would want people causing chaos in the afterlife(I dont know if it exist or not) just because they want to and enjoy to do so. That is why I believe they are casted to Hell so they can enjoy themselves. A question for you. If you were offered complete Paradise and Peace with no death, illness, sickness, chaos, war, famine, etc... would you want to have evil people destroying it so you had to suffer eternatity of "Hell" Now lukeskywalker1 can you explain your reply because I do not understand what your try to say. I get the impression that your trying to say that you have to believe in him to get to heaven which from my understanding is not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrackan Solo Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 Now lukeskywalker1 can you explain your reply because I do not understand what your try to say. I get the impression that your trying to say that you have to believe in him to get to heaven which from my understanding is not true. Your right, you have to beleive that Jesus is the son of the only God to be a "christian". You do have to beleive in God to get to heaven and believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Yeah, your right, i did skip it. Personnaly, i never thought about it till you asked. Well, i think of Hell as a punishment. Heaven, the reward. He doesnt want to.............. Why would God let someone into his kingdom, who never accepted him, who turned there back on him. The essence of my question is not whether God, as a parentlike figure, should punish people for thier transgressions; the essence of my question is this: Do you really agree that anyone, nomatter what their crime(s), should suffer eternal torment? Emphasis on eternal. And yes, you can argue people condemn themselves, but God created us and he allows for Hell....He never asked us, only commanded. Furthermore, we're back at choices, which I do not believe in. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 I wasnt talking about God, im talking about the whole system. Many people tell me, there a many contradictions in the bible. I saw name em, they cant, and whatever they come up with is just them not reading it right, or it was a vision, or something and it gets proven wrong. It's irrelevant what you were talking about. I'm saying that you can't pull the rug under Christianity because any argument against it can be refuted with "God works in mysterious ways!" Originally posted by Lord Siraious A question for you. If you were offered complete Paradise and Peace with no death, illness, sickness, chaos, war, famine, etc... would you want to have evil people destroying it so you had to suffer eternatity of "Hell" What you describe as Paradise and Peace sounds to me like a stagnant eternity that can lead to either balanced enlightenment or total insanity....If I reached either state I wouldn't care if evil people destroyed it for Hell would no longer matter to me, nor Heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.