Political Crossfire Forums

[John]

Quote: You can't tell me that at some point he didn't look at a woman in lust or cursed his parents under his breath when told to do something.

Why can't you be told that? Because you can't imagine not being a slave to those kind of actions?

According to the Bible.....we act the way we do because we have a fallen sin nature. That it's kind of like an instinct that we can't really control. We can supress it..but it will eventually show it's ugly head. It's been my experience in this life that this is true of myself and everyone I have ever known.

Jesus is said to be God incarnate, who choose to humble Himself as a man that doesn't have this sin nature. The reason Jesus didn't sin wasn't because He had super duper will power....it was because it wasn't in His nature to do so.

[StrangerWitCandy]

Put yourself in god's shoes for a moment.

When you create something, what do you do it for?

When I create something, its usually to express my creativity, to make my life easier somehow, to learn something new or to merely pass the time.

So then, what would be the incentive in creating the universe, and subsequently Earth and the human race?

Well, let's compare it with something familiar to the human experience. Pets.

What do we get pets for? Why do we love pets so much?

We nurture them, watch them grow, play with them, laugh at their cuteness, treasure their company, and generally just enjoy their lives by making them part of our own.

Now, if you were god, let's say the human race is essentially a bunch of pets you created.

What would you do with these 'pets' known as the human race? Would you nurture them, play with them, enjoy their company, laugh with them, etc. as you would any other pet? Would their creation be for nothing more than to enhance your experience and give you both happiness as it is with most humans who have pets?

I know that's how I would treat my creation.

But ask yourself what kind of god would create living, feeling, emotional beings for the sole purpose of having them constantly worship him and do his "will" in the absence of his presence (and he is absent, i'm not talking about interpreting everything as being god or part of god) which consists of illogical rules and unbelievable miraculous fairy tales? And to merely disbelieve in this god, regardless of how good a person you are, and despite the fact that he has not made his presence clear, would result in punishment of eternal pain?

What kind of a god is this? Is this not the definition of vanity? The only incentive I see for god creating humans, according to most religion, is so that we can essentially be his slaves or face eternal suffering? How could it be that most humans would even see this as cruel when apparently god is on a moral plane so high above us that we can never hope to reach it?

I just can't buy it.

[John]

Quote: Put yourself in god's shoes for a moment.

When you create something, what do you do it for?

When I create something, its usually to express my creativity, to make my life easier somehow, to learn something new or to merely pass the time.

Well, first off...you do not have the ability to create something. All you are able to do is rearrange what has already been created into something that you feel suits a different purpose.

So how does one put themselves in the shoes of a being that understands what it is like to exist outside of time and be able to create something...from what we would perceive to be nothing?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Good for you, Lord :) ... if more people realize that the only source for ethics, morality, and being good is not religion, then this world would be a far more tolerant and inclusive place for sure.

[John]

Quote: But ask yourself what kind of god would create living, feeling, emotional beings for the sole purpose of having them constantly worship him and do his "will" in the absence of his presence (and he is absent, i'm not talking about interpreting everything as being god or part of god) which consists of illogical rules and unbelievable miraculous fairy tales? And to merely disbelieve in this god, regardless of how good a person you are, and despite the fact that he has not made his presence clear, would result in punishment of eternal pain?

What kind of a god is this? Is this not the definition of vanity? The only incentive I see for god creating humans, according to most religion, is so that we can essentially be his slaves or face eternal suffering? How could it be that most humans would even see this as cruel when apparently god is on a moral plane so high above us that we can never hope to reach it?

I just can't buy it.

I don't buy it either.

Could it be that you are looking at it from the wrong angle and therefore coming to conclusions that are incorrect?

Why are you placing God’s purpose and point of view from your own?

[pullthepin]

John wrote:
I don't buy it either.

Could it be that you are looking at it from the wrong angle and therefore coming to conclusions that are incorrect?

Why are you placing God’s purpose and point of view from your own?
Perhaps the better question would be: Can you assume that any view of God's intentions, from a moral and fallible human being, is subject to the exact same inconsistencies?

[StrangerWitCandy]

John wrote: Quote: But ask yourself what kind of god would create living, feeling, emotional beings for the sole purpose of having them constantly worship him and do his "will" in the absence of his presence (and he is absent, i'm not talking about interpreting everything as being god or part of god) which consists of illogical rules and unbelievable miraculous fairy tales? And to merely disbelieve in this god, regardless of how good a person you are, and despite the fact that he has not made his presence clear, would result in punishment of eternal pain?

What kind of a god is this? Is this not the definition of vanity? The only incentive I see for god creating humans, according to most religion, is so that we can essentially be his slaves or face eternal suffering? How could it be that most humans would even see this as cruel when apparently god is on a moral plane so high above us that we can never hope to reach it?

I just can't buy it.

I don't buy it either.

Could it be that you are looking at it from the wrong angle and therefore coming to conclusions that are incorrect?

Why are you placing God’s purpose and point of view from your own?

To illustrate the obvious vanity in God's alleged intentions. Tell me, is it not vain to create a race of beings only to demand that they constantly worship you and punish them to an eternity of pain should they not? What does God get from that? What's his incentive? Is it for pleasure, experimentation, what?

[Enoch]

John wrote: Quote: But ask yourself what kind of god would create living, feeling, emotional beings for the sole purpose of having them constantly worship him and do his "will" in the absence of his presence (and he is absent, i'm not talking about interpreting everything as being god or part of god) which consists of illogical rules and unbelievable miraculous fairy tales? And to merely disbelieve in this god, regardless of how good a person you are, and despite the fact that he has not made his presence clear, would result in punishment of eternal pain?

What kind of a god is this? Is this not the definition of vanity? The only incentive I see for god creating humans, according to most religion, is so that we can essentially be his slaves or face eternal suffering? How could it be that most humans would even see this as cruel when apparently god is on a moral plane so high above us that we can never hope to reach it?

I just can't buy it.

I don't buy it either.

Could it be that you are looking at it from the wrong angle and therefore coming to conclusions that are incorrect?

Why are you placing God’s purpose and point of view from your own? It's just as likely that his angle is wrong as it is yours is wrong.

[nygreenguy]

Congratulations on your deconversion! I deconverted from being a Jehovahs Witness for 25 years about 6 months ago!

[Otacon]

John wrote: Quote: You can't tell me that at some point he didn't look at a woman in lust or cursed his parents under his breath when told to do something.

Why can't you be told that? Because you can't imagine not being a slave to those kind of actions?

According to the Bible.....we act the way we do because we have a fallen sin nature. That it's kind of like an instinct that we can't really control. We can supress it..but it will eventually show it's ugly head. It's been my experience in this life that this is true of myself and everyone I have ever known.

Jesus is said to be God incarnate, who choose to humble Himself as a man that doesn't have this sin nature. The reason Jesus didn't sin wasn't because He had super duper will power....it was because it wasn't in His nature to do so.

But he was a man, and it's man's nature to sin. It is not possible that Christ didn't sin once.

[John]

Otacon wrote: John wrote: Quote: You can't tell me that at some point he didn't look at a woman in lust or cursed his parents under his breath when told to do something.

Why can't you be told that? Because you can't imagine not being a slave to those kind of actions?

According to the Bible.....we act the way we do because we have a fallen sin nature. That it's kind of like an instinct that we can't really control. We can supress it..but it will eventually show it's ugly head. It's been my experience in this life that this is true of myself and everyone I have ever known.

Jesus is said to be God incarnate, who choose to humble Himself as a man that doesn't have this sin nature. The reason Jesus didn't sin wasn't because He had super duper will power....it was because it wasn't in His nature to do so.

But he was a man, and it's man's nature to sin. It is not possible that Christ didn't sin once.

He could have chosen to sin...but it wasn't in His nature. Adam was a man...and could have chosen not to sin also.

The difference is that YOU can not choose NOT to sin. It's in you nature. It's why you think that it wouldn't be possible for Christ to not have sinned.

[Lord Hargreaves]

John wrote: Quote: So you would agree that it is best to start with an open mind? That is what i have done (in theory though obviously not in practice given i was a catholic) and after thinking we can conclude we are no better from than where we started, because we are dealing with questions which we will never know the answer to.

As such it is logical that you start agnostic, and end agnostic.

On this: One who is to be pitied for his failure to believe in things for which there is no evidence i maintain that is precisely the Christian position. In rejecting Christ I will go to Hell, and any decent Christian who loves me would resent that, and so 'pity' me.

Of course. Who wants to believe a lie? If I'm wrong...it is in my best interest to turn from what I'm wrong about as soon as possible.

This is the paradox in Christian tolerance. To find Christ, one must be free to choose, therefore religious tolerance and freedom of ideas are necessary in a good society. Yet, how does the humane christian commit to "minding his own business" and keeping his religion private, when he believes his neighbours and friends will suffer for eternity if they do not find The Truth? Indeed Christians are told it is their duty to "spread the Good Word". Therefore, while it is ultimately your own choice, it seems to me a humane would spend his time constantly being a nuscience and a hassle to non-believers. The paradox then lies between allowing free choice on one hand, and forcing religion upon others on the other.

John wrote: I can't say that I agree that it is logical that you start agnostic, and end agnostic. That is to take the stance that in order to know something...you have to know everything about the subject. that isn't true. If someone states that there isn't any gold in China. In order to prove that there isn't; every nook and cranny would have to be searched. I have to know everything to take that stance. But that isn't true in order to prove that there IS gold in china. All that is needed is to see the yellow metal shining in the mouth of one Chinaman walking along the Great Wall.

Well in your example - "there is no gold in China" - you are dealing with a generalised and qualified statement. Presumably in saying such a thing: a) he means only that gold is very scarce, and that it is for practical purposes that there is no gold; and b) he has based this viewpoint on something, perhaps he is a miner and has never found any with much experience. Similarly, an agnostic statement "there is no God" is usually qualified by: a) he means god almost certainly does not exist, though we can never be certain; and b) that there is no substantial evidence we know of that says otherwise. Its that context in which you must understand what i am saying

To address your point directly - we start as agnostics, neither believing nor disbelieving in God. We then cannot see reason why God is more likely to exist than not, and as true belief requires certainty (as far as is possible for man) a noticable gap emerges. Therefore the path of agnosticism to belief is a leap of pure faith, based on no reason or logic at all, but emotion.

John wrote: Basically, what I'm saying is that overwhelming knowledge of something isn't needed to prove it exists.

It is precisely overwhelming knowledge that is needed to prove something. We can consider something "proven" when we all agree the arguments against it are weak, frail, and easily refutable. In no way can belief in God fulfill this criteria, and in fact, atheism becomes a lot closer (though falls short also)

John wrote: Given the amount of people who are convinced that they have experienced some sort of evidence that has caused them to alter the way they live their lives; is evidence in itself that SOMETHING is going on. To deny that is to deny a BUNCH of evidence. And really the only thing we can really be sure of is self (I and everything around you could possible be a figment of your imagination). What better evidence is there than a type that is experienced within your core being?

Miracles and "religious experiences" are not evidence, since they cannot be supported. They are based on hearsay evidence of what people have percieved, and in no court in the land would a judge allow the type of evidence which "proves" miracles to stand. Furthermore, i think creating completely convincing visions would be utter childs play to the monumental calculating power of the human brain

John wrote: Quote: I'm not sure sin really exists.

It also seems the purpose of the crucifixion seems to shift depending on the issue. Either it was to forgive sins, then it was a 'real event', or it was a demonstration to make us understand how terrible sin is. Both? In that case, if not a direct contradiction, the existence of one reason seems to greatly diminish the impact of the other

Why would it diminish the impact each other? What point is forgiveness if the one forgiven doesn't understand WHY they need to be forgiven in the first place?

Isn't the point of forgiving to bring the two parties back into relationship?

That is the point of forgiveness, and a truly great thing it is.

My argument however goes something like this: Jesus' sacrifice forgives humankind's 'Original Sin', that is the separation of God from man, but only so long as we believe in Him. Now of course, it was our original sin which led to man's fallen nature, and our capacity to committ personal (mortal and venial) sins in the first place. It is also through his devastating pain in being crucified Jesus demonstrates to us how terrible said personal sin is to Him. This presumably is to get us to stop sinning in our personal lives . Meanwhile,So then Christ dies to forgive sin, thereby eradicating sin, whilst similtaneously demonstrating to mankind that they should not sin after witnessing him die, something which we can no longer do anyway, and which no longer exists as a concept, precisely due to His actions. This is self evidently nonsense.

What is actually believed then is that the crucifixion and resurrection allows us to "bypass" our sins and reach heaven through our belief. Neither our personal sins, nor our original sin, has been forgiven.

[John]

pullthepin wrote: John wrote:
I don't buy it either.

Could it be that you are looking at it from the wrong angle and therefore coming to conclusions that are incorrect?

Why are you placing God’s purpose and point of view from your own?
Perhaps the better question would be: Can you assume that any view of God's intentions, from a moral and fallible human being, is subject to the exact same inconsistencies?

I accept what the Bible says God's intentions are and try not to add or subtract to that to the best of my ability. Anything above or below that isn't my place.

[John]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: John wrote: Quote: But ask yourself what kind of god would create living, feeling, emotional beings for the sole purpose of having them constantly worship him and do his "will" in the absence of his presence (and he is absent, i'm not talking about interpreting everything as being god or part of god) which consists of illogical rules and unbelievable miraculous fairy tales? And to merely disbelieve in this god, regardless of how good a person you are, and despite the fact that he has not made his presence clear, would result in punishment of eternal pain?

What kind of a god is this? Is this not the definition of vanity? The only incentive I see for god creating humans, according to most religion, is so that we can essentially be his slaves or face eternal suffering? How could it be that most humans would even see this as cruel when apparently god is on a moral plane so high above us that we can never hope to reach it?

I just can't buy it.

I don't buy it either.

Could it be that you are looking at it from the wrong angle and therefore coming to conclusions that are incorrect?

Why are you placing God’s purpose and point of view from your own?

To illustrate the obvious vanity in God's alleged intentions. Tell me, is it not vain to create a race of beings only to demand that they constantly worship you and punish them to an eternity of pain should they not? What does God get from that? What's his incentive? Is it for pleasure, experimentation, what?

Demand? Do you really think you would have a choice if GOD demanded that you worship Him?

It's in your best interest to worship God because He is the source and the reason for everything. To not do so would be stupid, which leads to being out of balance...which leads to chaos...which leads to death.

Don't blame God because He allows to to be stupid of your own free will.

[StrangerWitCandy]

John wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: John wrote: Quote: But ask yourself what kind of god would create living, feeling, emotional beings for the sole purpose of having them constantly worship him and do his "will" in the absence of his presence (and he is absent, i'm not talking about interpreting everything as being god or part of god) which consists of illogical rules and unbelievable miraculous fairy tales? And to merely disbelieve in this god, regardless of how good a person you are, and despite the fact that he has not made his presence clear, would result in punishment of eternal pain?

What kind of a god is this? Is this not the definition of vanity? The only incentive I see for god creating humans, according to most religion, is so that we can essentially be his slaves or face eternal suffering? How could it be that most humans would even see this as cruel when apparently god is on a moral plane so high above us that we can never hope to reach it?

I just can't buy it.

I don't buy it either.

Could it be that you are looking at it from the wrong angle and therefore coming to conclusions that are incorrect?

Why are you placing God’s purpose and point of view from your own?

To illustrate the obvious vanity in God's alleged intentions. Tell me, is it not vain to create a race of beings only to demand that they constantly worship you and punish them to an eternity of pain should they not? What does God get from that? What's his incentive? Is it for pleasure, experimentation, what?

Demand? Do you really think you would have a choice if GOD demanded that you worship Him?

It's in your best interest to worship God because He is the source and the reason for everything. To not do so would be stupid, which leads to being out of balance...which leads to chaos...which leads to death.

Don't blame God because He allows to to be stupid of your own free will.

When the alternative to worshipping him is an eternity in hell, then yes, he may as well demand to be worshipped.

[John]

Quote: This is the paradox in Christian tolerance. To find Christ, one must be free to choose, therefore religious tolerance and freedom of ideas are necessary in a good society. Yet, how does the humane christian commit to "minding his own business" and keeping his religion private, when he believes his neighbours and friends will suffer for eternity if they do not find The Truth? Indeed Christians are told it is their duty to "spread the Good Word". Therefore, while it is ultimately your own choice, it seems to me a humane would spend his time constantly being a nuscience and a hassle to non-believers. The paradox then lies between allowing free choice on one hand, and forcing religion upon others on the other.

Look man, this is a debate forum...so I will debate the issues. That doesn't mean that I get in peoples faces and hassle them about Christianity. If the occasion presents itself I will share what I believe, believing that God will guide those moments. I don’t push anything on anyone. It’s between God and them…I just do what I feel like I need to and move on.

You said earlier that the Christian should pity the person who rejects the Gospel. I thought about that...and I disagree. I do not pity someone who rejects the truth after it has been presented them. If you end up in Hell….I will NOT pity you….you will be there because it’s exactly where you need to be. I will not lose a second of sleep over someone who rejects such an awesome gift. It's on you...and I do not feel sorry for you. To do so would mean that I don't trust God and His will.

[John]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: John wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: John wrote: Quote: But ask yourself what kind of god would create living, feeling, emotional beings for the sole purpose of having them constantly worship him and do his "will" in the absence of his presence (and he is absent, i'm not talking about interpreting everything as being god or part of god) which consists of illogical rules and unbelievable miraculous fairy tales? And to merely disbelieve in this god, regardless of how good a person you are, and despite the fact that he has not made his presence clear, would result in punishment of eternal pain?

What kind of a god is this? Is this not the definition of vanity? The only incentive I see for god creating humans, according to most religion, is so that we can essentially be his slaves or face eternal suffering? How could it be that most humans would even see this as cruel when apparently god is on a moral plane so high above us that we can never hope to reach it?

I just can't buy it.

I don't buy it either.

Could it be that you are looking at it from the wrong angle and therefore coming to conclusions that are incorrect?

Why are you placing God’s purpose and point of view from your own?

To illustrate the obvious vanity in God's alleged intentions. Tell me, is it not vain to create a race of beings only to demand that they constantly worship you and punish them to an eternity of pain should they not? What does God get from that? What's his incentive? Is it for pleasure, experimentation, what?

Demand? Do you really think you would have a choice if GOD demanded that you worship Him?

It's in your best interest to worship God because He is the source and the reason for everything. To not do so would be stupid, which leads to being out of balance...which leads to chaos...which leads to death.

Don't blame God because He allows to to be stupid of your own free will.

When the alternative to worshipping him is an eternity in hell, then yes, he may as well demand to be worshipped.

Hell is the absence of God. You get to live your Atheist dream. You’ve got it all backwards.

[mojo]

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
mojo wrote: What I found is that some of the most gratifying things within our existence are completely without reason. Is there reason whilst a child have the urge to jump and play. Is their reason for the complexity and depth of human emotions.

I am not going to harshly criticize reason alone. But reason alone will drive you into insanity. Through a whole bunch of thinking and (later on) a whole bunch of praying I found that Atheism fails to explain many things. The most important of which is Unconditional Love.

I think a distinction can be made between explaination of something - using primarily science - and an explanation of what makes things appealing (human emotions and unconditional love).

For instance, here at university in Aberystwyth I live directly by the sea. It is highly enjoyable to sit out on the beach at night, look up at the stars, and watch the remarkable ray of light it shines across the water. It is extremely beautiful and inspiring, and when i am there there is no where else i'd rather be. That is not to say of course, that the sun and the sea cannot be explained by "cold" science. The sun is a burning ball of gas. The water is made up of the compound of 2 hydrogen particles to 1 oxygen particle. This does nothing to negate its pleasure to my senses. Likewise with human emoticons or love.

We are the only beings with this ability. That in and of itself makes our existence somehow more special in the grand scheme of things. It allows us to go beyond just surviving. We are one of the few animals in the world that can see colors, posseses opposable thumbs, and can have pleasurable sex. We are also the only animal in the world that can identify being. Perhaps that is why we are the only animals with a sophisticated language system. For instance Rover the Dog can not say to himself "I am Rover". Rover the Dog knows he exists but cannot distinguish the difference in being between a rock and person. In this way our thoughts and more to the point choice become uniquely tied to our universe.

I will concede this is certainly not my strongest argument but it does give you something to ponder over.

Quote: mojo wrote: Quote: For instance, those who are religiously inclined offer the following conundrum: Everything that exists has been brought about by something previously existing, so necessarily something must have existed before the universe for there to have been a 'first cause'. Lacking any explanation, as science undoubtedly does, so must we allegedly deduce a divine or ,necessary' being. This is of course fallacious if all we are attempting to achieve is a rationalization of the irrational. It must be the height of contradiction to conclude the idea the universe has no starting cause - 'it just happened' - as being so unbelievable that one must instead turn to the idea of an all-seeing, omnipotent, omniscient being, existing outside time. If God needs no creator, then why does the universe? Both ideas being incredible are thus equally credible, and as such, reason cannot point us toward a Deity.

If for instance you were to assume that the universe always was. Then is it equally likely for existence to simply not exist.

I dont see how that follows?

Im trying to say that if you believe the universe always was and believe that notion to be incredible. Wouldn't you wish to explain this phenomenon through incredible means. God is without a doubt incredible.

If you accept the fact that the universe always was then doesn't that disregard the scientific law that energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed. That is without a doubt the most basic scientific priniciple in the universe. Therefore it is very likely that rocks would be created and disappearing all the time.

Quote: mojo wrote: God does not need a creator because he is the source.

Then who created God? We are both subject to the paradox of the "levatating turtle", yet I end the chain one step before you (that the universe, for all intents and purposes created itself, whereas God has always existed). In asking the agnostic who says the universe came from nothing, and for no reason, you are asking "what does your turtle stand on when it supports the world?". Its a fair point. What I am saying is that your answer, that my turtle is standing upon yours, does absolutely nothing to resolve the paradox.

God is not something that needs anything. He just is. Its no coincidence that God wanted to be called "I am" in Exodus when talking to the Jewish people. Unlike ourselves he knows himself perfectly.

Thinking about the complexities of the universe will inevitably make you go insane. It is impossible to answer why you exist without a source. Our reason alone cannot bridge that gap because we dont know. While God does know.

Quote: mojo wrote: But the worldly universe needs a cause for the simple reason that certain laws always exist. For example gravity. How can a law always exist. It is a construct and therefore bound by a creator. If what you propose is true then the universe would be creating laws and matter all the time. Because certainly if the universe in a random and disordered chaos decides to create more matter than why dont we have more matter. I certainly have not seen rocks popping up into existence. I know for absolute fact that Gravity has not decided to switch directions.

Indeed, it is a great question to ask why our laws are precisely what they are. I cannot give you a definitive response. All I can say is that we do not know. There are a few points: why did God make gravity just so? If it was merely for his pleasure, then we have an equally random set of events it seems to me. If it was to fulfill a purpose, then the purpose must be outside of God, and thus the point of God leaves us

I agree I challenge science to hypothesize an answer for why we exist. It can't be answered. If a verifiable theory ever does come into place please inform me.

God made gravity for us. Invariably all things God does for mankind are born out of purely unreasonable love. That unreasonable love is what makes his existence so comprehensible and real. Perhaps that is why there have always been more mystics than atheists. Because human nature inclines us to believe in a little more than just cold hard reason.

Quote: mojo wrote: Poetry wishes uses metaphor to show deeper truths. The main point in the old testament was that God honors covenant even when we are not keeping up our end of the deal.

Thats precisely like saying "God has a plan for you even if you dont know it" which is similar in tone to "you may not believe in God, but He believes in you" which i have already said i have problems with. God cannot keep a covenant if He does not exist, and i cannot fail to keep my end of the deal when no deal has been made. All this theorising needs faith to make sense - so one must already be a christian for its theology to become coherent. You see the problem here

I agree faith must be present in order for all this to make sense. I jsut dont think the leap of believing in God is all that big of a stretch. It's relatively easy for the scientist to see the huge working mechanism's involved in nature and how they work together in perfect harmony.

It is just as easy for me and many many others to see how God, the infinite, original sin, love, creation, science, reason, unreason, choice, Jesus Christ, tradition, the Church, the collective, and the individual all work together in perfect balancing order. In fact I would stand to believe that the huge machine of God and existence works together in better harmony than the natural world and science could ever hope to explain.

Quote: mojo wrote: The book of Job says that humans cannot see the whole of the picture so therefore they should not judge God's decisions.

That is something that repels me. We must live as we understand. As we would not condemn a dog that does not wear clothing, eat at fast food restaurants and use public toilets, so neither do i think a loving God would condemn a human for being "human" and living to his own reason.

It was our rejection of his reason that has caused our problems. When we disobeyed him through our choice we disobeyed the law because God is the law. He does not condemn us for being human. He does not condemn us at all. We condemn ourselves through our choice.

Quote: mojo wrote: Our sin makes a corrupted relationship between humans and God. God does everything in his power to stop its spread just shy of taking away our free will. What you need to understand is that the big battle that is taking place is over the human soul not the human body. That is the thing that is really worth saving. Because the human soul is eternal.

What sin? What soul? What battle? 'Original Sin' is a monstrous idea (i have somehow offended God merely by my being concieved) and the soul a silly one.

Original Sin is the most provable thing in all of Christianity. We were born into a sinful world therfore we are naturally more likely to sin. Sin has been shown to foment more sin. If you were born into a family that lies cheats and steals. Then isn't it more likely that you will lie even more and cheat even more in your life. A true understanding of Jesus as Christ helps you free yourself form the chains of sin.

Quote: mojo wrote: For being an entirely reasonable man I know you would respect the profoundness of your choice. As Gilbert on this forum has stated before. God wishes to save each of us not all of us. It is your choice and my choice that dictates our eteranl future.

Im not sure what this means, perhaps a distinction without a difference? I will check out Gilbert's posts.

I basically state that choice dictates our existence. Our choices and ability to know are inherently connected to our universe. Is the color blue because it is blue or because you perceive it to be blue through a small leap of faith. Our knowledge, no matter how limited, derives purpose.

Quote: mojo wrote: Quote: What of Christ? He was a profoundly moral and just man, and we can learn much from his teachings. But he appears to have glaring faults: he believed in Hell for those who dont follow Him: "whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come". Eternal hell-fire for evil men is morally questionable, but eternal hell-fire for people who fail to believe, even if they are decent and just people? No man may claim to be humane and hold this view, and Christ held it most sincerely.

Our salvation is more than just our beliefs. Jesus called mankind into action. Jesus told us that every poor person we neglected, we were neglecting him. For every person we hurt, we hurt him.

These are excellent lessons if we replace "Christ" with "humanity". I offend myself and all of society when i neglect just one member.

Are not Christ and humanity tied together. Christ changed all of humanity. He is arguably the most influential character in all of history.

Quote: mojo wrote:
Quote: These criticisms of course necessarily presume Christianity can be taken seriously. In many ways even this is missing the point. What kind of religion begins by the debauching of a virgin by a ghost, and ends with an incoherent self-sacrifice (Jesus, who is God, died to appease the sins of humanity, to God - i.e. - Himself). There are my conclusions in a nutshell.

In rising again he proved to the world jsut how weak we are. Through his life he showed us how to live our lives. Through his death he showed us why our world is so messed up. Through his resurrection we were brought forth new life. It was through his resurrection that he taught us how wrong we were about everything because he was God.

I am aware of the benefits mankind is meant to recieve with Christ's resurrection. This does nothing to address my arguments however. Catholics believe Jesus is God and not just part, so in essence Jesus dies to appease himself.

Last I checked Jesus Christ did not kill himself. Mankind killed Jesus. It makes his sacrafice all the more powerful because God knew it was going to happen. He knew he was going to face a terrible and agonizing death. Jesus Christ was a perfect person and mankind still killed him.


Quote: Likewise:

God exists outside time, so why condemn humanity through adam and eve when he must have been aware he would later offer us chance of redemption by sending his Son to die for those sins and forgive them? Is God changing his mind, and is that a godly trait?

God wishes us to understand as he does the joys of his joy. He creates us out of love. He knew we would sin. He conversely knew that many of us would do great deeds in his honor.

God didn't change his mind. Try reading Isiah 53. God told us Jesus would come before hand.

Quote: Even if this were not true, why not forgive us anyway? why is Christ's sacrifice necessary?

why are you and i accountable for the sins of others living thousands of years ago in the garden of eden? sins i personally commit at least makes sense, 'original sin' does not.

Because while God does have an enormously large fuse it is attached to a very large bomb. Eventually the souls of the righteous must be collected before all fall into the traps of sin.

Im not accountable to original sin so much as I'm accountable to my sin. But the first sin bore all the other sin which makes us accountable to fix that.

Quote: why did he even condemn adan and eve at all? He must have known they would ignore him, for He himself created them?

why was eating from the "tree of knowledge" a bad thing? is knowledge not good? and why would adam and eve be accountable for betraying God before they eat from the tree, that is to say, before they knew both right and wrong, and from this developing a free will? How could they know what they were doing - what the consequences of there actions would be - when they lived in earthly bliss?

Adam and Eve is a metaphor. Thr tree of knowledge allowed them to know all the bad thigns that their were in the world. They chose to know how to sin. They sinned in the process of learning how to sin.


Quote: mojo wrote: Quote: A final point - You know what really irritates me most? Those who say "you may not believe in God, but He believes in you". Such breathtaking arrogance and unquestioned superiority is precisely why I flip the bird to all those who waste their sunday mornings praising non-existent supranational beings, reciting childish fairy stories, following anachronistic and irrational superstitious creeds and conventions, and pretending barbaric and scientifically ridiculous texts are special and unchallengeable

I can see why you would be irritated in such a statement (even though in my view it doesn't take away from its truth). I apologize for any Christian that tried to assert superiority over you. Christianity teaches tremendous respect and humility to people they argue with.

I have kept in touch with many of my Christian friends. They are incredibly nice people and live, in their interactions and respect for others, as all decent people would like. Thats not the issue. Instead it is not the behaviour of followers but the creed they follow which is irritating and superioritive. How is the atheist/agnostic viewed by Christianty? One who is to be pitied for his failure to believe in things for which there is no evidence

Christianity views an athiest or agnostic as a sheep who has lost there way. Not to say all Christians never lose their way. All people lose their way at some time. If anything he pities his disregard of what God thinks is blatantly obvious.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell."
C. S. Lewis

[StrangerWitCandy]

John wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: John wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: John wrote: Quote: But ask yourself what kind of god would create living, feeling, emotional beings for the sole purpose of having them constantly worship him and do his "will" in the absence of his presence (and he is absent, i'm not talking about interpreting everything as being god or part of god) which consists of illogical rules and unbelievable miraculous fairy tales? And to merely disbelieve in this god, regardless of how good a person you are, and despite the fact that he has not made his presence clear, would result in punishment of eternal pain?

What kind of a god is this? Is this not the definition of vanity? The only incentive I see for god creating humans, according to most religion, is so that we can essentially be his slaves or face eternal suffering? How could it be that most humans would even see this as cruel when apparently god is on a moral plane so high above us that we can never hope to reach it?

I just can't buy it.

I don't buy it either.

Could it be that you are looking at it from the wrong angle and therefore coming to conclusions that are incorrect?

Why are you placing God’s purpose and point of view from your own?

To illustrate the obvious vanity in God's alleged intentions. Tell me, is it not vain to create a race of beings only to demand that they constantly worship you and punish them to an eternity of pain should they not? What does God get from that? What's his incentive? Is it for pleasure, experimentation, what?

Demand? Do you really think you would have a choice if GOD demanded that you worship Him?

It's in your best interest to worship God because He is the source and the reason for everything. To not do so would be stupid, which leads to being out of balance...which leads to chaos...which leads to death.

Don't blame God because He allows to to be stupid of your own free will.

When the alternative to worshipping him is an eternity in hell, then yes, he may as well demand to be worshipped.

Hell is the absence of God. You get to live your Atheist dream. You’ve got it all backwards.

I seem to remember something about a firey lake you get cast into if you don't worship god and do his will. Am I to believe god has nothing to do with the creation of hell or the determination of who goes there? Right...

My athiest dream? At least recognize that I'm agnostic, okay? Big difference there. And I believe it is you that has things backwards.

[John]

Quote: My athiest dream? At least recognize that I'm agnostic, okay? Big difference there. And I believe it is you that has things backwards.

Not making a choice...IS a choice.

OK maybe I do have it backwards. Didn't mean to upset ya. :flwr: