The Christian Hell [Archive] - Page 2 - Literature Network Forums

Redzeppelin

01-08-2009, 12:17 AM

I didnt say i didn't "like" the consequences.
You're getting pretty personal now and obviously not understanding what i'm telling you.

The "play" comment - was a comment I made going off of what YOU said, when you assumed how I work, because you know me so well and everything.

And I did follow them out to the end - and it ended with both Skasian and I respecting both each other's beliefs and views, even though we fought to the death at the beginning, and that's enough for me.

When someone lays out the charges you did, and I take the time to answer them and then you simply say "well, I don't believe any of this anyway" instead of dealing with my counterarguments, that strikes me as one of two things:

a) I have refuted my opponent's position and s/he has no counter-argument
b) my opponent really didn't intend to prove his/her position - he/she was merely baiting me to see what I'd say.

If I'm wrong, fine - but that's how I took your response. It has nothing to do with how well I know you - it has to do with how discussion/debate/argument works. It's called the "burden of rejoiner" (or something like that) which means that once your opponent answers you, you carry the burden of moving the argument forward. You decided you weren't going to do that.

You may have followed your argument with skasian, but not me. You need not do so, but walking away with a "well I don't believe this anyway" makes your initial arguments seem merely baiting.

Anyway, if you're done, fine - not a big deal. But I'm disappointed you didn't address any of my refutation of your position. I'm curious how you respond.

Zee.

01-08-2009, 12:19 AM

I don't think i can respond to that.

You sorta took me out with your response, considering i thought my big heartfelt post would knock some people off their feet.
Guess not, hey?

skasian

01-08-2009, 06:09 PM

Nope, in fact, I don't need proof of anything, which is why I'm not into solipsism at all.

It's always interesting to me that theists worry about science/proof/truth, and often try to cast aspersions at science regarding the level of "truth" or "proof" required, because science is just observation. A scientist will kick back and go, "wonder what happens if I run 1,000,000 amps through this mixture of DNA and toenail clippings", then he flicks the switch and watches what happens. (This is why Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein.)

Science isn't concerned with a search for truth, that kind of thing is best left to theologians and philosophers.

By constant repetition, we come to accept that many things science has observed are true - in the legal sense of the word.

And that's pretty much where I stand - show me something and then tell me about it.

You have stories about the successes of your god and your religion. That's fine, because you believe in it. On the other hand, I'll list just a few of the subjects where people defend non-material things, and use exactly the same language, arguments, assertions and aspertions that evangelical christianity does:

homeopathy
psychics
astrologers
dowsers
telepaths
telekinetics

(and I repeat, that is just a few of the types)

Now, your religion will exclude some of those as complete rubbish, or work of the devil. I'd be the first to point out that they cannot all be true, and science pretty much guarantees that they cannot. They all work on exactly the same principle - 100% anecdotal stories, with no evidence whatsoever.

When I'm faced with a choice between accepting magic as real or not, I take the simple option, "Show me".

49 years, 10 months and counting....

Is it so much to ask to believe in miracles that someone show me something, anything? ........beyond a book written several thousand years ago?

I don't think that's demanding proof.

On the basis of that claim, then my request for "show me" is going to be a piece of cake!

Nah, like I said, I keep both eyes wide open, and I proved yesterday that they're as good as they ever were, because I could read signs at a greater distance than my kids when we were checking yesterday.

Show me, and I'll believe it. You will only have to satisfy that niggly part of my brain which insists on checking a few minor details.

Why?

What's to fear?

Honestly, have a talk to your pastor and tell him about this bloke who wants to believe in your miracles, but wants to see it with his own eyes, make recordings of them, talk to a few people and find out whather these miracles are true. If he agrees, I will come and do just that!

Hell, if there's a church anywhere which can cure diseases through belief, then I'm a believer! I'm at an age where medical advantages like that would be worth a bit, too. A mate of mine who was (damn, I still wrote "is") three months younger than me croaked last week.

Fear? I'd love what you say to be true! Sheesh, you don't need to hard-sell health benefits at my age.

:D

Honestly - talk to your pastor. Get him to come online. Wherever you are in NZ, I can be there. (And I'm pretty well known, in business and media, and you can find links to it all if you check my profile - I'm not some crazy stalker - so your pastor can even check me out first, how fair is that?)

It ould depend on a couple of things. If it looked like Jesus would have - rather than the absurd icon every christian church I've ever seen use - and he asked a question along those lines, "Why won't you believe in me" or very close to it, then yes, I would believe immediately, offering to shake his hand and helping him up. No question at all.

If, however, I have a vision of a blond, or fair-ish Jesus, I will be off to the nut-farm immediately.

Wronger than the wrongest thing ever.

I guess, of all the things said to rationalists, this is the worst mistake you can make - to accuse one, whose only position is "show me", of being closed-minded (which is what you've done), while you yourself believe in magic and miracles.

Try going to a stage hypnotism show at some stage and you will see the identical thing done. At least then, it's funny.

Science is observation? Observation of what? Isnt it to confirm belief and satisfying all equations and theories? Obervation to check if their theory is right I assume. But that is no different to atheists believing in miracles. Miracles is observation. Because people cant believe in God because He is invisible, miracles happen because they are visible to the naked eye, therefore used to confirm belief and help people understand God is really watching. What is the difference? My point is even miracles can be observed atheists just dont simply believe in this, even though it is same as science minus the equations.
Science searches for agreement in relations to many other aspects, evolution theories searches for valid proofs to make the theory "true". Science does search for the truth in things, by understanding the world's matter and functions that are yet to be discovered. Accepting religion is also searching for the truth, ie God, because God is all truth.

Show you something? Couple of posts back you said that you yourself have seen miracles, havent you seen enough to believe or is it your sense of not wanting to believe making you blind from seeing the truth of God?

The Atheist

01-08-2009, 06:26 PM

Science is observation?

Yep, observation and replication - if we observe the result once means nothing. If every time an experiment is done, we get the same result, it becomes accepted.

Observation of what?

The results.

Isnt it to confirm belief and satisfying all equations and theories? Obervation to check if their theory is right I assume.

As is usually the case with assumptions, yours is wrong. Theories arise from observation, in the main. The days of having a theory, then try to make it work went out with alchemy.

But that is no different to atheists believing in miracles. Miracles is observation. Because people cant believe in God because He is invisible, miracles happen because they are visible to the naked eye, therefore used to confirm belief and help people understand God is really watching. What is the difference? My point is even miracles can be observed atheists just dont simply believe in this, even though it is same as science minus the equations.

Woefully wrong, sorry.

Observation is not a miracle, nor is it a miracle when something conforms to what we understand natural law to be, stuff like gravity not working in reverse, electricity making machines work, that kind of thing.

As I pointed out to you earlier, if miracles exist, they will demonstrably miraculous and not some shabby, set-up charlatan tricks as used in manufacturing miracles for the credulous.

Show you something? Couple of posts back you said that you yourself have seen miracles, havent you seen enough to believe or is it your sense of not wanting to believe making you blind from seeing the truth of God?

No, and this is a silly argument. Talk to your pastor and get me along to record and investigate the miraculous happenings.

If it's a god's truth, it's not likely to be fraud, so what harm is there to you and your church. If the miracles are real, that will be apparent, just as it will be if it's fraud.

Zee.

01-08-2009, 07:39 PM

Like a previous poster stated, there is a difference between faith and knowledge

Redzeppelin

01-09-2009, 12:23 AM

I don't think i can respond to that.

You sorta took me out with your response, considering i thought my big heartfelt post would knock some people off their feet.
Guess not, hey?

Ah, well - perhaps it's just me being bothersome. I appreciate your strong feelings and I'll let it go. No need for me to try and twist your arm to finish an argument. Bad form - sorry.

Zee.

01-09-2009, 05:16 AM

Don't be sorry, you did nothing wrong.

skasian

01-09-2009, 10:04 AM

Yep, observation and replication - if we observe the result once means nothing. If every time an experiment is done, we get the same result, it becomes accepted.

The results.

As is usually the case with assumptions, yours is wrong. Theories arise from observation, in the main. The days of having a theory, then try to make it work went out with alchemy.

Woefully wrong, sorry.

Observation is not a miracle, nor is it a miracle when something conforms to what we understand natural law to be, stuff like gravity not working in reverse, electricity making machines work, that kind of thing.

As I pointed out to you earlier, if miracles exist, they will demonstrably miraculous and not some shabby, set-up charlatan tricks as used in manufacturing miracles for the credulous.

No, and this is a silly argument. Talk to your pastor and get me along to record and investigate the miraculous happenings.

If it's a god's truth, it's not likely to be fraud, so what harm is there to you and your church. If the miracles are real, that will be apparent, just as it will be if it's fraud.

Science is not all observation and replication. There are correction,alteration and improvements as science is never 100% certain and ever developing. When a law or theory of science is broken by a new discovery, the previous recordings of observation and replication are lost into the trash bin, replaced by the corrected alterations. Science is such a broad field that cannot be confined as observation, as in modern day, it is more taken over by abstract thinking by manipulating the old and acceptance through debates and agreements through previous proofs and evidences. Bottom line, observations that agree with theories and ideas becomes proof and evidences, which are what science is backed up by.

As people needs observations, proofs in science, they also need these to believe in miracles to confirm that they arent mentally disturbed. People need proof and evidence that gives them sense of truth and relief from thinking they are tricked or fooled. As you put it, avoid believing in fakes and frauds. Whats so funny about proof and evidence is that miracles itself is a proof or evidence of God. If God appears in a vision, they think they are going mentally gaga. What should God do? With all these infinite excuses, what good is it for the incredulous?
I have to admit I do believe that it is very difficult for an atheist to believe in God after seeing a miracle as there are such things as you said: psychics telepaths hypnosis. With all these happening around, how would atheists believe that miracles are visual signs that God sent? I think this is why God is not using miracles to make the non believer believe in God. It just seems sadly futile.

"As I pointed out to you earlier, if miracles exist, they will demonstrably miraculous and not some shabby, set-up charlatan tricks as used in manufacturing miracles for the credulous."

So what do you have in mind? Demonstrably miraculous, to what extent exactly?

I've seen exactly what you've seen, up close and personal, several times.

Seen nothing to impress me so far. A stage-hypnotist show, nothing more.

How would a written statement by a random doctor or pastor improve your belief in miracles or God? It is same as hearing a "story" from someone else as you mentioned. I heavily doubt that even if a miracle happens to you, such as open wounds healing suddenly, it wont ever improve your belief in God as you have your explanations and excuses.

Redzeppelin

01-09-2009, 10:04 AM

Don't be sorry, you did nothing wrong.

Maybe - I'm prone to get caught up in the argument and have been gently been reminded by some of my friends that sometimes (perhaps most of the time) I can be obnoxious. I'm working on that.

Anyway -

BienvenuJDC

01-09-2009, 10:21 AM

skasian

01-09-2009, 10:33 AM

How can there be a discussion about such a narrow subject as Christian Hell, if nothing is established as being truth? If one wants to question the existence of God, then that needs to be its own thread. Much of the discussion here has been completely futile.

If we were to have a discussion about the biological characteristics of dragons, then those who do not believe that dragons ever existed should not impose their beliefs in the discussion.

BTW, would anyone like to discuss this topic? If so, it's not for discussion in this thread.

I completely agree that questioning of the existence of God should be in a new thread. The reason why discussion of Christian Hell drifted to whether Hell existed then whether God existed at all.

Dragons, I actually do think that they existed, but I think they were turned into snakes during the Fall of Man as God said serpents (or dragons I think) will craw through their bellies, it must mean they had legs and maybe even wings. I also think dragons existed because of the Chinese zodiac or horoscopes, where the 12th animal/zodiac is a dragon and Chinese characters actually bibical references which I found very scary. Each Chinese character contains this story from the bible, especially from Genesis. I seem to be drifting off subjects however yes, I do think that dragons existed.:)

Back to Christian Hell topic, as it is true nothing have been accorded fact in the afterlife, it all depends on individual faith and belief about afterlife that counts as much as facts.

Redzeppelin

01-09-2009, 10:57 AM

Theologian J.P. Moreland - in Lee Strobel's book The Case for Faith discusses hell and the many objections many Christians and nonbelievers pose.

According to Moreland, hell is punishment, but not punishing - there's a difference. The "hellfire" is metaphorical - it is not the Dantean nightmare that the medieval church would have us believe. It is purely separation from God - the most beautiful, loving Being in the universe. If love and kindness and compassion and beauty are so desireable in this world, why wouldn't it make sense that being separated from the very source of these things would be torture enough? Hell is absolute emptiness - it is the place where those who chose to follow their wills instead of submit to God's can be out of the presence of God. Heaven would be "hell" for anybody who chooses to not serve God - they would be miserable there. At least in hell, their desire to make their will supreme is honored by God; He gives us the choice of who we'll serve, and then honors that choice. If you don't wish to serve God, he'll still grant you eternal life - but not in His presence - but: since His presence fills the entire universe, hell becomes necessary as the "quarantine" location that those who reject God can live without His presence.

That, in a short form, is Moreland's argument.

BienvenuJDC

01-09-2009, 11:22 AM

Dragons, I actually do think that they existed, but I think they were turned into snakes during the Fall of Man as God said serpents (or dragons I think) will craw through their bellies, it must mean they had legs and maybe even wings. I also think dragons existed because of the Chinese zodiac or horoscopes, where the 12th animal/zodiac is a dragon and Chinese characters actually bibical references which I found very scary. Each Chinese character contains this story from the bible, especially from Genesis. I seem to be drifting off subjects however yes, I do think that dragons existed.:)

Shame on you Skasian...did I not say that this is a discussion for another thread?;)

skasian

01-09-2009, 11:51 AM

Shame on you Skasian...did I not say that this is a discussion for another thread?;)

Sorry, I couldnt resist! Well at least I finished it off with being back to the subject of Christian Hell..

blp

01-09-2009, 01:05 PM

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

And, sorry, but shouldn't it also say, in accordance with the beliefs of believers expressed in this thread and others, blessed are those who aren't any of these things and are actually pretty rotten as long as they repent and accept Jesus into their hearts before they die, for they shall go to heaven anyway.

This is the fundamental contradiction in Christian morality. Good works are supposed to be important and, in fact, according to the sermon on the mount, they will actually, somehow, be repaid in kind. However, we're also told that the only way to get to heaven is to accept Christ as your saviour and that it will work for anyone who does it - which seems to render good works rather irrelevant.

The Atheist

01-09-2009, 01:08 PM

There are correction,alteration and improvements as science is never 100% certain and ever developing.

That's excellent - this is one of the points I've been trying to get through: science is constantly updated and refined.

When a law or theory of science is broken by a new discovery, the previous recordings of observation and replication are lost into the trash bin, replaced by the corrected alterations.

This is not quite right. Science is hardly ever proven wrong to the extent that prior knowledge is thrown out. As above, science is refined rather than changed. Galileo, Pythagoras, Newton, Einstein, Rutherford, Curie, Pasteur.... I'm working through all of the dead scientists trying to find something which has been disproven, but I can't find anything. Refinement, yes, contravention, no.

Science is such a broad field that cannot be confined as observation, as in modern day, it is more taken over by abstract thinking by manipulating the old and acceptance through debates and agreements through previous proofs and evidences. Bottom line, observations that agree with theories and ideas becomes proof and evidences, which are what science is backed up by.

You have this all completely wrong. Maybe you should discuss this with a science teacher or scientist.

I have to admit I do believe that it is very difficult for an atheist to believe in God after seeing a miracle as there are such things as you said: psychics telepaths hypnosis.

How can you know what an atheist will believe? You don't even really know what one is!

Note that there are no psychics or telepaths and that hypnotism is a trick. You obviously missed that point rather badly.

With all these happening around, how would atheists believe that miracles are visual signs that God sent? I think this is why God is not using miracles to make the non believer believe in God. It just seems sadly futile.

"As I pointed out to you earlier, if miracles exist, they will demonstrably miraculous and not some shabby, set-up charlatan tricks as used in manufacturing miracles for the credulous."

So what do you have in mind? Demonstrably miraculous, to what extent exactly?

How would a written statement by a random doctor or pastor improve your belief in miracles or God? It is same as hearing a "story" from someone else as you mentioned. I heavily doubt that even if a miracle happens to you, such as open wounds healing suddenly, it wont ever improve your belief in God as you have your explanations and excuses.

This is looking like a cop-out to me.

If I see wounds self-healing, I wouldn't even need a doctor's certificate.

As I keep saying, show me.

Statements from doctors would help me believe that a miracle isn't a fraud.

This is why I will bet any amount of money you like your pastor will decline the opportunity of sceptical investigation.

How can there be a discussion about such a narrow subject as Christian Hell, if nothing is established as being truth?

Goes with the territory.

If you note the OP, it's about christian perception of hell, so it has nothing to do with the existence of it, but all threads with atheists and christians in end up the same way. It's an immutable internet law.

blp

01-09-2009, 01:31 PM

Where would we derive morals, if not from God?

Re my post above, you might just as well ask whether God, the Christian god at any rate, is much use at instilling morality anyway. But to go back to the sermon on the mount, nice as it is, it's fairly platitudinous as morality. The things it says will be rewarded are things we already know are good.

I would say the same about all the morality propounded in the Bible. All it really does is reinforce virtues with the promise that they will be rewarded. That doesn't constitute acting as a source of morality. As I say, we already know those things are good. It seems quite obvious that they are (though one might debate some of them - meekness say, following Nietzsche).

How do we know? This has been a source of debate in philosophy for over two thousand years. While I wouldn't wish or, realistically, hope to diminish the complexity of those debates, is it really so hard to recognise a good deed when you see one? Kid drops ice-cream scoop from cone, other kid with two scoops gives one to first, now crying, kid. Better yet, first kid is starving and second kid gives it its dinner.
Do we really need a God to tell us this is a good deed? No and we don't need to be Christians, or Buddhists or adherents of any other belief system, to feel the compassion that drives such an act. The only problems we have with morality are in the realms of the empirical - ethical conflicts and practicability. Other than that, one might debate whether there is anything innately moral in human nature or whether we adopt moral practices in response to the promise of rewards and punishments. Whatever. None of this seems to require the existence of a God and it's not clear how it would be helped by it, except to reassure us that the evil really will be punished, even if they seem to get away with it.

EDIT
Of course, I forgot, the other thing religion does to instill morality is tell us that things we might otherwise deem harmless are immoral - working on the Sabbath, say, or having sex with people of our own gender. Bit of a can of worms really.

blp

01-09-2009, 01:36 PM

This is not quite right. Science is hardly ever proven wrong to the extent that prior knowledge is thrown out. As above, science is refined rather than changed. Galileo, Pythagoras, Newton, Einstein, Rutherford, Curie, Pasteur.... I'm working through all of the dead scientists trying to find something which has been disproven, but I can't find anything. Refinement, yes, contravention, no.

I basically agree, but, just to be pedantically precise, weren't notions such as the humours, phlogiston and, in fact, the idea that the sun went 'round the earth formerly accepted by science? The humours were certainly accepted by doctors until about the nineteenth century.

dzebra

01-09-2009, 03:04 PM

And, sorry, but shouldn't it also say, in accordance with the beliefs of believers expressed in this thread and others, blessed are those who aren't any of these things and are actually pretty rotten as long as they repent and accept Jesus into their hearts before they die, for they shall go to heaven anyway.

This is the fundamental contradiction in Christian morality. Good works are supposed to be important and, in fact, according to the sermon on the mount, they will actually, somehow, be repaid in kind. However, we're also told that the only way to get to heaven is to accept Christ as your saviour and that it will work for anyone who does it - which seems to render good works rather irrelevant.

Amen.

Christians who remove all the instructions about good works are removing most of what Jesus was about.

The Atheist

01-09-2009, 08:00 PM

I basically agree, but, just to be pedantically precise, weren't notions such as the humours, phlogiston and, in fact, the idea that the sun went 'round the earth formerly accepted by science? The humours were certainly accepted by doctors until about the nineteenth century.

Partly depends on your definition of science.

Looking at those three, humours and the sun orbit can't really be called science, as they were guesses based on flawed observation. Part of that is that we needed better instrumentation to tell the difference, but any proper observation would have rendered both ridiculous.

The phlogiston is just flawed science, because the conclusion can only be achieved if certain observations are ignored.

I covered in a thread some time why rigour is so important to science - if we don't ensure that flaws are found through blinding and testing, the science isn't rigorous enough to be considered proper science.

This is where replication is so important to science - with actual science, anyone attempting the experiment/observation will get the same result.

blp

01-09-2009, 09:30 PM

Partly depends on your definition of science.

Looking at those three, humours and the sun orbit can't really be called science, as they were guesses based on flawed observation. Part of that is that we needed better instrumentation to tell the difference, but any proper observation would have rendered both ridiculous.

The phlogiston is just flawed science, because the conclusion can only be achieved if certain observations are ignored.

I covered in a thread some time why rigour is so important to science - if we don't ensure that flaws are found through blinding and testing, the science isn't rigorous enough to be considered proper science.

This is where replication is so important to science - with actual science, anyone attempting the experiment/observation will get the same result.

You're right.

dzebra

01-09-2009, 10:23 PM

Looking at those three, humours and the sun orbit can't really be called science, as they were guesses based on flawed observation. Part of that is that we needed better instrumentation to tell the difference, but any proper observation would have rendered both ridiculous.

What's to say that some of the current methods of observation are not just as flawed? Humans make tools used to see things they don't understand. What if, due to the lack of understanding of the thing they want to see (or any reason), the tool used to see it can't see it properly? That observation would be considered correct for years until someone discovers the right way to observe. Then, scientists may be posting in an internet forum about something that is false, saying that it has been observed to be true, and they might think that anyone who opposes their views is wrong, when that is not the case.

Rush_of_Blood

01-10-2009, 05:46 AM

Re my post above, you might just as well ask whether God, the Christian god at any rate, is much use at instilling morality anyway. But to go back to the sermon on the mount, nice as it is, it's fairly platitudinous as morality. The things it says will be rewarded are things we already know are good.

I would say the same about all the morality propounded in the Bible. All it really does is reinforce virtues with the promise that they will be rewarded. That doesn't constitute acting as a source of morality. As I say, we already know those things are good. It seems quite obvious that they are (though one might debate some of them - meekness say, following Nietzsche).

How do we know? This has been a source of debate in philosophy for over two thousand years. While I wouldn't wish or, realistically, hope to diminish the complexity of those debates, is it really so hard to recognize a good deed when you see one? Kid drops ice-cream scoop from cone, other kid with two scoops gives one to first, now crying, kid. Better yet, first kid is starving and second kid gives it its dinner.
Do we really need a God to tell us this is a good deed? No and we don't need to be Christians, or Buddhists or adherents of any other belief system, to feel the compassion that drives such an act. The only problems we have with morality are in the realms of the empirical - ethical conflicts and practicability. Other than that, one might debate whether there is anything innately moral in human nature or whether we adopt moral practices in response to the promise of rewards and punishments. Whatever. None of this seems to require the existence of a God and it's not clear how it would be helped by it, except to reassure us that the evil really will be punished, even if they seem to get away with it.

EDIT
Of course, I forgot, the other thing religion does to instill morality is tell us that things we might otherwise deem harmless are immoral - working on the Sabbath, say, or having sex with people of our own gender. Bit of a can of worms really.

Before i answer your question, i have a two part question for you:

what is the benefit of religion?

what is the benefit of not having religion?

blp

01-10-2009, 10:17 AM

Before i answer your question, i have a two part question for you:

what is the benefit of religion?

what is the benefit of not having religion?

:lol: Cheeky. Why do I have to answer a two-part question from you before I can get an answer? I asked you first. Um, oh, except, reading back, I realise I didn't. I didn't ask a question, did I? Perhaps the first thing to sort out is what question you thought I was asking. I know there are a few sentences in the form of questions in my post, but they're rhetorical.

Anyway, wouldn't you, as a religious person, be better placed to suggest what the benefit of religion is? I don't see any benefit in it. The other question is almost meaningless to me, like asking what the benefit of not having Santa Claus is. Atheism isn't something I chose for its greater benefits. It's just what seems to me to be the truth, ergo, I have no choice in the matter.

The Atheist

01-10-2009, 11:21 AM

What's to say that some of the current methods of observation are not just as flawed?

Replication.

When different people, using different equipment, get the same result, time after time after time, I'm pretty confident nobody's about to disprove Einstein or Newton.

Humans make tools used to see things they don't understand.

Completely false.

How can I make a tool if I don't understand what I'm looking for? We make tools to measure things we already have an understanding of, but are unable to observe with the naked eye/ear/etc.

What if, due to the lack of understanding of the thing they want to see (or any reason), the tool used to see it can't see it properly?

Back to the old drawing board.

Plus, if a scientist knows a tool is flawed, he'll throw it away, not make up a new theory to fit the flawed observation. At least, that's what he'll do if he wishes to preserve his reputation.

That observation would be considered correct for years until someone discovers the right way to observe. Then, scientists may be posting in an internet forum about something that is false, saying that it has been observed to be true, and they might think that anyone who opposes their views is wrong, when that is not the case.

What you're describing might happen in Fantasyland, but not here.

Your approach is another common one, and I always love it, because the aspersions against science are the same as those against theism, yet theists have no problem that their own system has the very flaws which science doesn't.

blp

01-10-2009, 11:43 AM

Your approach is another common one, and I always love it, because the aspersions against science are the same as those against theism, yet theists have no problem that their own system has the very flaws which science doesn't.

That's because those aspersions against science are just an attempt by theists to throw atheistic arguments back at the atheists. They're not just saying 'You can't prove science is right'. They're saying 'You can't prove science is right either.'

dzebra

01-10-2009, 02:48 PM

How can I make a tool if I don't understand what I'm looking for? We make tools to measure things we already have an understanding of, but are unable to observe with the naked eye/ear/etc.

If you know everything about what you're looking for, why research it? I'm saying that a person knows a little bit about something, so he creates something that he thinks can observe properly so that he can learn more about it.

Bob the scientists thinks that a thing called tinyblocks exists. He makes a tool that measures the light refraction that he's pretty sure tinyblocks creates. He finds that his tool is good at catching that light refraction. All the scientists get a light refraction detector so they can study tinyblocks. They all run tests and they all get the same results. It is now declared to be scientifically true that tinyblocks refracts light.

Three years later, Tim the scientist makes a breakthrough discovery: tinyblocks only refracts light when viewed with specific tools. It turns out that all tinyblocks does is reflects light, and the tools that have been used to study tinyblocks were actually responsible for the refraction.

For the three years between Bob and Tim, scientists all over the world were telling people they were ridiculous if they thought tinyblocks didn't refract light.

Plus, if a scientist knows a tool is flawed, he'll throw it away, not make up a new theory to fit the flawed observation. At least, that's what he'll do if he wishes to preserve his reputation.

None of the scientists knew their tools were flawed. Of course they would fix their tools if they knew they were not good. That's common sense.

What you're describing might happen in Fantasyland, but not here.

I guess the scientific community is just too good to make mistakes in real life, eh? Perhaps you are forgetting the examples used just a few posts ago about things like the Earth revolving around the sun. They thought their observation methods were good.

The scientific community is frequently changing things they they thought were true. When science books have to be updated yearly to keep up with what is currently deemed "true" by the scientific community, what's the use in believing it, since it's likely to be false again within your lifetime. I don't know what percentage of it is because of more accurate observation methods, but I know some is.

I know people say that because of the frequent updating of theories, science is more accurate than it has ever been. How many of those theories are in their final iteration? As people learn more, current "truths" will change to untruths. Scientists prove theories wrong frequently enough that anyone from the future could come to our time and laugh at us for all the lies we believe.

Your approach is another common one, and I always love it, because the aspersions against science are the same as those against theism, yet theists have no problem that their own system has the very flaws which science doesn't.

My point is: Even if someone rejects spiritual things, that person has to put faith in something. Nothing is known beyond all doubt. The only "flaw" (the term may not even apply here) that religion has is that it cannot be proven beyond all doubt (except maybe to extremists). That is also the case with science.

blp

01-10-2009, 03:29 PM

I guess the scientific community is just too good to make mistakes in real life, eh? Perhaps you are forgetting the examples used just a few posts ago about things like the Earth revolving around the sun. They thought their observation methods were good.

I like your earlier tinyblocks example, but I think you're off the mark here. The problem here wasn't with observation methods, it was with scientific knowledge being muddled up with religious belief. Plenty of scientific and philosophical practitioners at the time still started with the idea of God and His works as a priori belief with which others had to fall in line. When Galileo showed that the earth revolved around the sun, it was deemed a heresy because it was supposed that God wouldn't have put the earth anywhere but the centre of the universe.

The scientific community is frequently changing things they they thought were true. When science books have to be updated yearly to keep up with what is currently deemed "true" by the scientific community, what's the use in believing it, since it's likely to be false again within your lifetime. I don't know what percentage of it is because of more accurate observation methods, but I know some is.

Whereas, fortunately, religious belief remains fixed and we can continue to believe it for all time. Except it doesn't, as TheAtheist has shown by referring to the changed view of Hell within Catholicism. Does this mean science and religion are equivalent? Nope. The whole point is that nothing at all is taken for granted by science, as your remark above shows. Religion takes something for which there is no testable evidence for granted - the existence of God. And as the example of Galileo shows, this assumption has been actively deleterious to the advance of human knowledge.

I know people say that because of the frequent updating of theories, science is more accurate than it has ever been. How many of those theories are in their final iteration? As people learn more, current "truths" will change to untruths. Scientists prove theories wrong frequently enough that anyone from the future could come to our time and laugh at us for all the lies we believe.

Who's to say, eh? But science, in the last hundred or so years, has been more empirically and rationally rigorous than it's ever been precisely thanks to the waning of religion's influence upon it. Darwin held back his theory of evolution because it conflicted with his own religious belief. It's hard to imagine anything like that happening now. It's also hard to imagine a new scientific discovery being held back because it conflicted with an existing scientific belief, held as a matter of strong conviction by a scientist - precisely because science is not dogmatic. Everything you say about the uncertainties pervading science only serves to prove this point - and, in that, the marked difference of science from religion.

My point is: Even if someone rejects spiritual things, that person has to put faith in something. Nothing is known beyond all doubt. The only "flaw" (the term may not even apply here) that religion has is that it cannot be proven beyond all doubt (except maybe to extremists). That is also the case with science.

Actually, the point you seem to have made in your prior remarks is precisely the opposite: it makes no sense to put your faith in anything precisely because of the difficulty of being sure of anything. That's why proof is so important to the scientific community. i.e. it takes nothing on faith.

I think what you mean to say is 'That is also the case with scientific knowledge.' To ask whether science itself can be proven is a nonsensical question. Science isn't a fact or a set of facts, it's a process of acquiring knowledge, one that, by definition, depends on the most rigorous possible testing.

Perhaps you would like to argue that science's faith is in this activity of testing. To do this, you might want to resort to some old philosophical arguments for the ideality of reality: everything is an illusion and so on. Then you can go read Kant and see him put that one to bed: yes, there may be a reality beyond the one we perceive; Kant even says that there must be; however, he also says that we have absolutely no point of access to it; our reality, for us, is reality; when a phenomenon such as as physical law is observed over and over again within that reality, we can say it's true.

Other than that, you seem, if I can say this without being insulting, to be arguing for the doubtfulness of a lot of today's scientific knowledge from a position of cheerful ignorance of science in general. Exactly how many real-world examples of your tinbyblocks syndrome can you point to?

bazarov

01-10-2009, 04:33 PM

The Atheist: Speaking in tongues will be a joke to a linguist or to you simply because you do not understand it. Its easy for people to simply say, everything in Christianity is false...and worse still, they go to great lengths to prove it (thinking that they are being enlightened), but its funny how scientists try to prove that the Creation is a myth. A famous musician said :"The earth is a masterpiece; Somebody had to paint this"...Unless you believe that you evolved from monkeys and chimps, which I absolutely do not believe. First, I am more intelligent than any Chimp.Second, say I evolved. Of all the 6000 or so years that man has spent on earth, is he not supposed to evolve to something else? It has pretty much been the same since.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Evolution takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years - 6000 years is insufficient time frame for a mammal species to show evolutionary signs.

I won't bother mentioning glaciers, fossils, antarctica, trees, coal or any of the other millions of reasons why the idea that the earth is 6013 years old is just beyond laughable.

There are plants older than that, for goodness sake!

You're taking Genesis too seriously. Of course it didn't happen like that.

If Adam and Eve were only humans, and had no daughters; then we are all result of incest and incest is a serious sin. God made Sun on the 3rd day - how do we know it was 3rd day when there was no Sun to determine start or end of day? How long did even that day last? We could go on with this, but I think it's enough.

It's all metaphor, like Greek, Roman or German mythology. Of course evolution made it's work. I am Christian, but please be reasonable.

By the way, OT deals with Jewish history, not history of Earth. And it deals with last 6000 years, it doesn't say that Earth is only 6000 years old.

skasian

01-10-2009, 07:56 PM

That's excellent - this is one of the points I've been trying to get through: science is constantly updated and refined.

This is not quite right. Science is hardly ever proven wrong to the extent that prior knowledge is thrown out. As above, science is refined rather than changed. Galileo, Pythagoras, Newton, Einstein, Rutherford, Curie, Pasteur.... I'm working through all of the dead scientists trying to find something which has been disproven, but I can't find anything. Refinement, yes, contravention, no.

You have this all completely wrong. Maybe you should discuss this with a science teacher or scientist.

How can you know what an atheist will believe? You don't even really know what one is!

Note that there are no psychics or telepaths and that hypnotism is a trick. You obviously missed that point rather badly.

This is looking like a cop-out to me.

If I see wounds self-healing, I wouldn't even need a doctor's certificate.

As I keep saying, show me.

Statements from doctors would help me believe that a miracle isn't a fraud.

Disproven theories? In top of my head, I can think of a theory that was disproven. Quite old, but shows what science started off from : In the 1700s two people, Ptolemy and Nicolas Copernicus argued their theories on the positions of the planet and sun in the solarsystem, and Galileo supported Ptomley and wronged Copernicus's theory.

Are you are scientist yourself? I talked to a group of scientist before, and I am sure they explained mordern science in this definition. How creativity and abstract thinking is what sets a great scientist from the rest.

The dictionary sure knows what its talking about when describing an atheist.
Thanks to that I know what I am talking about.

Telepathy and some psychics are rather true, even though they are very few in the world. In my country there are old traditions with psychic people that do supernatural,calling evil spirits. Few years ago, an actor was playing a role around this, and she got possessed and had to be treated in a church. Yes many psychic etc are fake today but there were and are some true ones in the world.

The Atheist

01-10-2009, 10:21 PM

Disproven theories? In top of my head, I can think of a theory that was disproven. Quite old, but shows what science started off from : In the 1700s two people, Ptolemy and Nicolas Copernicus argued their theories on the positions of the planet and sun in the solarsystem, and Galileo supported Ptomley and wronged Copernicus's theory.

I take it then that you didn't see what I said about accurate measurements. Shows my point if that's the best you have.

Are you are scientist yourself?

No.

I talked to a group of scientist before, and I am sure they explained mordern science in this definition. How creativity and abstract thinking is what sets a great scientist from the rest.

Sure it does. Creativity is knowing what to look for and interpret results and abstract thinking is designing experiments to observe.

The dictionary sure knows what its talking about when describing an atheist.
Thanks to that I know what I am talking about.

Well, I'm sure I won't be the last to tell you that dictionaries do not confer meanings.

Telepathy and some psychics are rather true, even though they are very few in the world.

Nope, sorry. Proven countless times to be fake.

In my country there are old traditions with psychic people that do supernatural,calling evil spirits. Few years ago, an actor was playing a role around this, and she got possessed and had to be treated in a church.

How convenient.

bazarov

01-11-2009, 07:40 AM

dzebra

01-11-2009, 10:35 AM

Telepathy and some psychics are rather true, even though they are very few in the world.

Nope, sorry. Proven countless times to be fake.

No. It has never been proven that there are absolutely no psychics or telepaths in the world.

blp

01-11-2009, 11:59 AM

No. It has never been proven that there are absolutely no psychics or telepaths in the world.

The Atheist didn't claim that. He/she said telepathy and the like had been proven countless times to be fake, i.e. individual instances had been shown to be false.

There's a department of Edinburgh University devoted solely to researching the possibilities of telepathy and related capabilities, however notional. Don't you think if they'd turned anything up, we'd have heard about it?

The Atheist

01-11-2009, 12:47 PM

No. It has never been proven that there are absolutely no psychics or telepaths in the world.

There's a department of Edinburgh University devoted solely to researching the possibilities of telepathy and related capabilities, however notional. Don't you think if they'd turned anything up, we'd have heard about it?

There are actually a whole heap of universities studying the field, if I may dignify it with that term. But you're quite right that if there were any truth to the myth, we'd have heard about it, long and loud.

Jozanny

01-11-2009, 01:33 PM

There are actually a whole heap of universities studying the field, if I may dignify it with that term. But you're quite right that if there were any truth to the myth, we'd have heard about it, long and loud.

I hate to jump in on this totally ignoring theology (where are those hungry lions of Roman Empire fame when you need them, eh?) but there are studies that show consciousness seems to have subtle effects on our material environment. When I rebelled against my former employer over services, I was left to my own devices, and worried about my power chair failing--and fail it did, to the tune of thousands of dollars for a motor I am hoping I won't be forced to spend, so this study makes sense to me, since the brain/mind dynamic is still not fully understood.

Thinking is still a process, Atheist, and something interesting may happen that we don't fully understand with all those billions of neurons flashing orders continuously, even in minute insect brains.

blp

01-11-2009, 03:15 PM

I can't believe this discussion is turning into a debate about telepathy. Never seen that in a religious thread before.

The Atheist

01-12-2009, 12:31 AM

I hate to jump in on this totally ignoring theology (where are those hungry lions of Roman Empire fame when you need them, eh?) but there are studies that show consciousness seems to have subtle effects on our material environment. When I rebelled against my former employer over services, I was left to my own devices, and worried about my power chair failing--and fail it did, to the tune of thousands of dollars for a motor I am hoping I won't be forced to spend, so this study makes sense to me, since the brain/mind dynamic is still not fully understood.

Nope.

This is just mistaken cause and effect. Check out the Parapsychological Association (http://www.parapsych.org/). They are quite sure that minds do have power, but they think it's only an extremely small amount. They're still wrong, but even proponents of telekinesis wouldn't accept your thoughts breaking an electric wheelchair.

Thinking is still a process, Atheist, and something interesting may happen that we don't fully understand with all those billions of neurons flashing orders continuously, even in minute insect brains.

I just can't see it. Millions of claims have been made and investigated - result: nada.

I can't believe this discussion is turning into a debate about telepathy. Never seen that in a religious thread before.

Makes a pleasant change!

Cat_Brenners

01-12-2009, 01:27 AM

I would like to add to this discussion simply because I believe that God is loving and he gives everyone the chance to accept him or not. It's not his fault if a person goes to hell for their sin of not accepting him. We are given a choice...freely. I do think that hell is a place that will be destroyed along with its followers after Christ comes back (for the people who have accepted him as Lord and Savoir.) The reason I don't believe in someone burning forever is because in Revelation it says that the devil and his followers will be devoured and consumed. What does consume mean? I also think no more sin will be left so when it's consumed it will be gone forever. My take on it.
Cat

Jozanny

01-12-2009, 03:20 AM

I never said I was in defense of telepathy, and the study I read did not claim to be either, but I can certainly see the process of thought being one day tied to the symmetry of anti-matter, because as far as I know, thought has no physical manifestation, and while we infer its activity through the cellular observation of the brain, thoughts themselves are not matter.

I heard a critique yesterday on the radio by a female author, which I think was fairly valid: Atheists are so busy showing up religions as nonsense that they forget about the wonder of life, and the joy of it just for itself--and I think you lose that here in these forums Atheist. In pushing back against prescriptive moral codes non-believers wind up as equally dogmatic.

In a bone to this topic: Christians co-opted hell from other pagan sources; it was not derived from messianic writings from the time that Jesus started his teaching. Theologians have a great deal of trouble with it, because punishment cannot be *eternal*.

You punish to correct behavior, not to simply change the conditions of existence. So when believers talk about choice, what they really mean is that the soul has two sets of conditions: One involving unification with the creator, and one involving separation and distinction of identity away from it, but the latter is not punishment, because it corrects nothing. Prisoners in a confined environment know that freedom is still a possibility, even if they are on death row, but if the soul cast out from heaven knows there is no possibility to correct the state of separation, then the state of separation is simply the condition the soul is in, and ceases to be in and of itself a corrective measure.

Cat_Brenners

01-12-2009, 04:31 AM

Some prisoners go too far and do get put to death. They have committed the crime that puts them to death. People who do not accept Christ did so at their own choosing and they are put to death. Sin is then gone through out eternity. Satan will be burned and consumed along with them. That is the punishment. Its called going too far as in our criminal system. And with God, the penalty of sin is death and that sin is NOT accepting him as Lord and Savior. We have choices just like someone who goes out and kill others.
Hugs, Cat

The Atheist

01-12-2009, 04:32 AM

I would like to add to this discussion simply because I believe that God is loving and he gives everyone the chance to accept him or not. It's not his fault if a person goes to hell for their sin of not accepting him.

Don't you think it's a bit odd? On one hand, Moses and Jesus both give commandments, but the only one which must not be broken is atheism?

You can lie, cheat, commit adultery, rape and even murder, and be forgiven, but failing to believe will bring an eternity of torture.

I do find it extremely odd that you'd accept that sort of god and call it loving.

If he created us, he created the sin, he created the ability for me not to see him, and he created the alternative chocies I can see clearly.

What kind of perverted, insane entity would act like that? Seriously, the bible tells us that Satan is the father of all lies, but it seems to me that the god is far, far worse.

We are given a choice...freely. I do think that hell is a place that will be destroyed along with its followers after Christ comes back (for the people who have accepted him as Lord and Savoir.) The reason I don't believe in someone burning forever is because in Revelation it says that the devil and his followers will be devoured and consumed. What does consume mean? I also think no more sin will be left so when it's consumed it will be gone forever. My take on it.
Cat

Ah, so we only get tortured for however many millennia it takes for Jesus to come back?

That's ok then.

I never said I was in defense of telepathy, and the study I read did not claim to be either, but I can certainly see the process of thought being one day tied to the symmetry of anti-matter, because as far as I know, thought has no physical manifestation, and while we infer its activity through the cellular observation of the brain, thoughts themselves are not matter.

Nor is energy.

I'm pretty comfortable with the notion that the brain is 100% material in the action of thought processes, emotion and delusion. MRI scanning consistently shows the same thoughts producing the same neuronic activity in different people. Give it another decade or two and we'll be able to give you a printout of what you're thinking.

I heard a critique yesterday on the radio by a female author, which I think was fairly valid: Atheists are so busy showing up religions as nonsense that they forget about the wonder of life, and the joy of it just for itself--and I think you lose that here in these forums Atheist. In pushing back against prescriptive moral codes non-believers wind up as equally dogmatic.

I can only disagree. I don't ever forget the wonder of life, the universe and everything. I go outside most nights just to admire the universe, and walk around with both eyes open all the time.

As to the dogma argument, I really don't care. It seems to be a theist defence and it's certainly defensive as an attitude to suggest it. Christianity has had 2000 years of dominance, so some of us putting some curry into the odd theists' pockets is hardly dogmatic. Have you ever seen an atheist billboard? An atheist evangelical tv program? Atheists singing xmas carols and collecting for their church? Atheists fishing for recruits door-to-door?

Charges of dogma against atheists avoid the blatant fact that christianity - in western countries - is combative, very visible and in most cases, completely repugnant. Honestly, if there were no fundies, I'd take my wife's title and be a copro-agnostic*. I'm more than happy for Anglicans, Protestants and Left-footers to have their Communions and services and go about their charitable works, but when christians start demanding teaching creationism and claiming that kids will go to hell because they don't believe in a stupid, illogical and ultimately idiotic story about a dead Jew and a ghost, then I will go and kick bottoms.

If that's seen as dogmatic, it really doesn't worry me, because the charge can only come from ignorance or bigotry.

In a bone to this topic: Christians co-opted hell from other pagan sources; it was not derived from messianic writings from the time that Jesus started his teaching. Theologians have a great deal of trouble with it, because punishment cannot be *eternal*.

Luckily, most christians agree with that.

Unluckily, the ones who don't are great experts at being squeaky wheels.

You punish to correct behavior, not to simply change the conditions of existence. So when believers talk about choice, what they really mean is that the soul has two sets of conditions: One involving unification with the creator, and one involving separation and distinction of identity away from it, but the latter is not punishment, because it corrects nothing. Prisoners in a confined environment know that freedom is still a possibility, even if they are on death row, but if the soul cast out from heaven knows there is no possibility to correct the state of separation, then the state of separation is simply the condition the soul is in, and ceases to be in and of itself a corrective measure.

Yes, that's the logical position, if I can any position logical when discussing gods, but as you can see above, it's refuted simply in the minds of wanna-believers, because the bible says so.

*Doesn't know, doesn't give a ..... crap?

:D

The Atheist

01-12-2009, 04:34 AM

We have choices just like someone who goes out and kill others.

Again, a god who equates murder with unbelief wouldn't be much of a god. And that's for murderers who don't repent, because those who do, escape divine retribution.

Cute story, really; I bet it keeps the kids believing. The bogeyman in the closet is mild by comparison, he can only eat you once, but a god who can torture for thousands of years, now that's scary.

Cat_Brenners

01-12-2009, 04:42 AM

("Ah, so we only get tortured for however many millennia it takes for Jesus to come back?

That's ok then.")

I did not mention anything about a millennia now did I? I believe when God comes back the disbelievers and satan will be destroyed. That's how and why I call Him a loving God. They had their whole life to accept or not.

("If he created us, he created the sin, he created the ability for me not to see him, and he created the alternative chocies I can see clearly.

What kind of perverted, insane entity would act like that? Seriously, the bible tells us that Satan is the father of all lies, but it seems to me that the god is far, far worse.")

God created us to live a wonderful life..one free of sin. Man chose to sin and Satan was the creator. He knows he is going to die by fire and he is trying to get as many people taken down with him as he can. He is mad and angry and wants others to suffer so he decieves us if we let him. God is not the creator of sin. Why would a creator want his people to rebel against him? He would not. He loves us and wants our love and obedience.
Hugs, Cat

Cat_Brenners

01-12-2009, 04:53 AM

Someone seems to not be listening. I don't believe that disbelievers burn forever. I believe God is kind in that respect. The murderer that repents and believes in God will not be one that burns. I only meant that we have choices and we make them. We have a life time to make them. So, we really should make them wisely. You can make fun if you like but let's keep this at an adult level ok?
Hugs, Cat

skasian

01-12-2009, 06:33 AM

Totally totally wrong!

Actually, Nicolaus Copernicus lived from 15th to 16th century, Galileo Galilei from 16th to 17th; and Galiliei proved Copernicus theory of heliocentrism.
They both disagreed with Ptolemy on geocentric system, which was in confrontation with RCC inqusition. If you want, I can find some links to prove my statements.

Did you get this straight from your head or can you admit that you did a little research to wrong me out?
You have to forgive me for my inaccurate information I learnt this from school about 3years ago and it seems my memory on that particular lesson is very flawed. Yes I can remember now, Galileo supported Copernicus's not Ptolemy. Thanks for refreshing my form 5 science lesson on astronomy.:)

skasian

01-12-2009, 06:40 AM

No. It has never been proven that there are absolutely no psychics or telepaths in the world.

How do we "prove" that the supernatural do exist? Accounts from eye witnesses seems to be random fake stories to people, documentaries dedicated to such subjects seem to entertain skeptics. Exactly what is needed to prove the supernatural?

bazarov

01-12-2009, 06:45 AM

Did you get this straight from your head or can you admit that you did a little research to wrong me out?
You have to forgive me for my inaccurate information I learnt this from school about 3years ago and it seems my memory on that particular lesson is very flawed. Yes I can remember now, Galileo supported Copernicus's not Ptolemy. Thanks for refreshing my form 5 science lesson on astronomy.:)

I have big head. :)
To realize that someone said something wrong, you have to be very familiar with what he said.

Jozanny

01-12-2009, 06:57 AM

People who do not accept Christ did so at their own choosing and they are put to death.

Statements like these do not even allow the possibility of reasoned discussion.

I am going to regret this, because literature is much loved in my life, but I quit, and leave the forum to such sentiments as these. Anyone who can write that and believe it simply leaves the realm of compassion, mercy, and doubt behind, and to me, beyond amazement. You condemn millions of people in your own mind because you feel so threatened by the possibility of this particular assertion not being so.

When or if this sub-forum is removed, then maybe I will return, but as a disabled woman who believes in the optimism of progressive thought, I can't handle that another human being so relishes the imposition of suffering over a doctrine.

You are on your own Alan. I simply cannot handle this anymore.

skasian

01-12-2009, 07:11 AM

I take it then that you didn't see what I said about accurate measurements. Shows my point if that's the best you have.

No.

Sure it does. Creativity is knowing what to look for and interpret results and abstract thinking is designing experiments to observe.

Well, I'm sure I won't be the last to tell you that dictionaries do not confer meanings.

Nope, sorry. Proven countless times to be fake.

How convenient.

As you told me "science is refined rather than changed", you are quite wrong regardless you mentioned accurate measurements in science. The back bone of science was formed by trial and error, and when a rough theory was made, that became the official theory of a particular branch of science until a new theory wronged it. My reference, astronomy, there had to be an idea to be the starting point of a theory. As Ptomely's idea was CORRECTED by Galileo, therefore a branch of science, astronomy was changed. It is true modern science is more about development however the backbone of science was more about corrections, alterations.

"Sure it does. Creativity is knowing what to look for and interpret results and abstract thinking is designing experiments to observe."

Creativity and abstract thinking in science is not all what you may think. It is more about using insight, thinking out the unthinkable. Seeing a blindspot the others have missed. Its discovering things right in front of you while the others are searching too far away. Observation is not a major thing in science, its more about twisting the brain in an uncanny way the next person wont be able to try. Mendel father of genetics didnt start observing pea plants until he commenced to consider an aspect or idea no one else thought of before. What is the point of observing if you do not understand what hypothesis is?

The definition of atheist? Let me explain my definition of it. Non religious person that does not believe in the existance of God or not a follower of God.
If my definition is inadequate, please feel free to add or alter.

I have thought about the method of proving an aspect that is hard to understand and believe. How do you prove such things and do you think such proof are adequate to give sense of belief to people?

skasian

01-12-2009, 07:12 AM

I have big head. :)
To realize that someone said something wrong, you have to be very familiar with what he said.

Beg your pardon, who is "he"?

bazarov

01-12-2009, 09:23 AM

Beg your pardon, who is "he"?

Sorry, ''her''.

skasian

01-12-2009, 09:39 AM

Sorry, ''her''.

Ah dont apologise. Did I seem like a "he"?

bazarov

01-12-2009, 09:44 AM

Ah dont apologise. Did I seem like a "he"?

No, no, no!!! I know you're pretty 18 year old girl, 1,80m height and less then 50kg :lol:
I was just taking generally.

skasian

01-12-2009, 10:16 AM

No, no, no!!! I know you're pretty 18 year old girl, 1,80m height and less then 50kg :lol:
I was just taking generally.

Ah~ Sorry for being misunderstanding!:blush:

Err,,actually Im pretty short, 1.67m in height, how did you think of 1.80?!?

bazarov

01-12-2009, 10:20 AM

Uffff, sorry! You're still tall for Korean; and a woman so be happy!

weltanschauung

01-12-2009, 01:19 PM

I am a devoted Christian, and I have been asked similar questions about hell by many atheists or people that are interested in becoming a Christian.
We believe that hell exists as a realm that is inexplicable in terms of eternal suffering, pain and agony and because there is no sense of time or space, there is no way out forever. Hell is governed by satan and devils and they inflict abhorrent terrors unimaginable.
Now many people have asked the question who goes to Hell and why do people go there when God does cherish each and every one of us, and how come good people in the world that dedicate their life for other people can also go to hell.
The answer is that they do not have belief and faith in God, Jesus.
No matter how many good deeds you do in life, if you do not confess Jesus as your God then you go to Hell. Harsh, but true.
In order to be saved from hell, theres only one way, and that is Jesus once again. Jesus is the bridge between our world and Heaven, and without Him, you may not enter Heaven.
I know that God hates to see that His children have to suffer in Hell forever, but the ones that do not know him and love Him must be punished eternally.
I have been thinking about the people in the world, the ones that it is not their fault that they do not know God. I wondered what will happen to them. I thought it was not fair for them to miss out the good news about Jesus and how He can be their salvation. But it is evident in the Bible that it is us, Christians' duty to spread the good news about Jesus to these people that never heard about Him. I am still not sure what will happen to those people who it isnt their fault that they do not know Him, but one thing I am sure is that we must spread the Word about God.
Then it is up to them to whether to have faith with him and begin to have the greatest relationship with Him which will change their lives forever. See the love of God. See the glory of God. See how we are priceless in the eyes of the Lord. From then on, they will begin to get closer to God, and get closer to the His Kingdom where they will serve and share the joy together with God.

"Harsh, but true." http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/78.gif
phillipe, tanto tempore vobiscum sum, et non congnovistis me?

"I know that God hates to see that His children have to suffer in Hell forever, but the ones that do not know him and love Him must be punished eternally."

its wonderful how christians think of god as a huge angry bearded guy that lives in the clouds...http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/78.gif
o luce qui mortalibus lates inacessa deus! in lumine tuo videbimus lumen!

l'enfer, c'est les autres...

Pendragon

01-12-2009, 03:35 PM

I would like to add to this discussion simply because I believe that God is loving and he gives everyone the chance to accept him or not. It's not his fault if a person goes to hell for their sin of not accepting him. We are given a choice...freely. I do think that hell is a place that will be destroyed along with its followers after Christ comes back (for the people who have accepted him as Lord and Savoir.) The reason I don't believe in someone burning forever is because in Revelation it says that the devil and his followers will be devoured and consumed. What does consume mean? I also think no more sin will be left so when it's consumed it will be gone forever. My take on it.
Cat
BINGO! Just what I stated before, and still ignored by people who wish to believe that hell is eternal. It is punishment for a time, then destruction for good, which is what consume means. Our God is a consuming fire!

The Atheist

01-12-2009, 07:05 PM

I did not mention anything about a millennia now did I?

Yes you did; you clearly mentioned "when god returns" and you do it again in a second.

Given that even Paul [?] said it would be "soon" and that's 2000 years back, I think it's silly to presume he'll be here within millennia, even now.

I believe when God comes back the disbelievers and satan will be destroyed. That's how and why I call Him a loving God. They had their whole life to accept or not.

Yes, that is indeed a loving god - one who loves his creation so much that they must bow down before him or he'll fry you.

I must try that with my kids.

God created us to live a wonderful life..one free of sin.

This is simply absurd. If god created us to not sin, why create sin?

Is your god that dumb that he can't see a contradiction there? It would be like me giving my kids a loaded pistol and say "don't touch the trigger".

Man chose to sin and Satan was the creator. He knows he is going to die by fire and he is trying to get as many people taken down with him as he can. He is mad and angry and wants others to suffer so he decieves us if we let him. God is not the creator of sin.

Nope, sorry. If the god created Satan, he surely created the ability for Satan to sin. You just cannot have this both ways - if the god created everything then, it certainly created the sin.

Why would a creator want his people to rebel against him? He would not. He loves us and wants our love and obedience.
Hugs, Cat

Love and obedience, eh? Yet people who disobey him but repent get to go to heaven.

As I keep saying, that's a strange sort of being and one which I wouldn't worship if it were real.

How do we "prove" that the supernatural do exist? Accounts from eye witnesses seems to be random fake stories to people, documentaries dedicated to such subjects seem to entertain skeptics. Exactly what is needed to prove the supernatural?

An example of it happening.

When millions of examples of claims exist, but not a single instance of actuality, I'm pretty ok with saying it's beyond reasonable doubt.

You are on your own Alan. I simply cannot handle this anymore.

Can you just not come to this section? Just stick to the literature part?

It'd be a shame to lose you because some people have distasteful beliefs.

But at least it shows what I've been trying to say - that telling someone they're going to fry because they failed to bow down to a god is pretty hateful and unpleasant.

(To say the least)

Go well, whatever you choose and remember that I've always got a virtual shoulder for ya. We don't see eye to eye on everything, which I think is probably a good thing - but when things do matter, I'd give you anything I could.

Au revoir, cherie!

My reference, astronomy, there had to be an idea to be the starting point of a theory. As Ptomely's idea was CORRECTED by Galileo, therefore a branch of science, astronomy was changed. It is true modern science is more about development however the backbone of science was more about corrections, alterations.

*sigh*

What you're saying actually proves my point, but you seem to have missed that. In fact, it's quite obvious that you haven't understood the subject of science in any meaningful way, so I'll just leave you with your misconceptions.

The definition of atheist? Let me explain my definition of it. Non religious person that does not believe in the existance of God or not a follower of God.
If my definition is inadequate, please feel free to add or alter.

That's fine, stick with it.

I have thought about the method of proving an aspect that is hard to understand and believe. How do you prove such things and do you think such proof are adequate to give sense of belief to people?

Proof is easy. When something works, has been peer-reviewed and can be replicated, then I'm happy with calling it proven.

Cat_Brenners

01-12-2009, 08:28 PM

My answered prayers have been proven over and over. That's proof for me!
Yes. I do mention when Christ comes back and He will some day. Hope everyone is ready and does not have to face the punishment of not accepting him.
God did not create sin. Satan did and God is loving because he lets us make those choices. He does not want puppets on a string and make them love him or obey. We have that choice and satan clearly made his choice. And satan wants followers to his fatal end in hell.
Repent means to mean it. Not just do something and say I can do it again later. You have to be sincere and try with Gods help. God helps us when we pray and call on him.
I think it's a shame that someone would leave this forum just because someone believes what they do. That's sad. Does it mean if they don't believe as you do that you are angry and running? Please stay! No reason to leave. We all have beliefs of some sort and I am not leaving because you believe different.

Hugs, Cat

Pendragon

01-12-2009, 09:13 PM

This looks like a good time for me to fold on this thread, myself. The subject keeps jumping around with telepathy and such being brought in, which I cannot see has one thing to do with The Christian Hell.

I will point out that every religion I know of speaks of punishment in one way or another, all the way back to the Old Gods and Goddesses of far gone time. Most believe in an underworld, where punishment is for misdeeds, and a heaven of some sort where right deeds are rewarded. Why people fuss so much about Christianity when even Pagans believe in such things beats me.

But I can see the way the cards are playing, and thus, I fold. I believe in hell, just not an eternal one. I also believe that many who feel they have already received white robes and a halo will be shocked on judgment day.

Living Christlike and having the right attitude towards others goes a long way in my book. I think many will make it that Christians would throw away, and many Christians are on somewhat shaky ground.

As a great man once said: "I would rather be right in my spirit and wrong in my doctrine, than right in my doctrine and wrong in my heart or spirit."

God bless you all

Pen

The Atheist

01-12-2009, 11:57 PM

My answered prayers have been proven over and over. That's proof for me!
Yes. I do mention when Christ comes back and He will some day. Hope everyone is ready and does not have to face the punishment of not accepting him.

You don't see how that might look just a little spiteful to non-believers, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and many other people?

Hope you're ready to boil! Shouldn't there be a LOL or something after it?

God did not create sin. Satan did and God is loving because he lets us make those choices.

Didn't the god create everything? Including Satan?

He does not want puppets on a string and make them love him or obey.

And I bet you see no irony in using the free choice argument while spouting that those who don't believe will burn in hell!

How is that a free choice? Believe or die? I can certainly accept the Catholic version of free choice being with their god or not, and not meaning oblivion rather than torture, but offering thousands of years of torture for not believing is not a choice, it's the Spanish Inquisition on PCP.

I think it's a shame that someone would leave this forum just because someone believes what they do. That's sad. Does it mean if they don't believe as you do that you are angry and running? Please stay! No reason to leave. We all have beliefs of some sort and I am not leaving because you believe different.

You've clearly missed what Jo said. She has no problem with you having different beliefs, and I bet you any amount of money you like she's never found a Pendragon post offensive.

What upsets Jo is someone repeatedly - and in the case of this thread, two someones repeatedly - telling her she's going to be tortured for an indeterminate period of time; solely for not believing in a god. Jo is a good person in any qualification of the word "good" and I agree with her that it makes no sense to tell her she's going to hell. The god which you believe creates everything clearly also created Jo's disability, yet you're telling her that she must love the god who did it to her, or be cast into a lake of fire.

Nice.

Living Christlike and having the right attitude towards others goes a long way in my book. I think many will make it that Christians would throw away, and many Christians are on somewhat shaky ground.

As a great man once said: "I would rather be right in my spirit and wrong in my doctrine, than right in my doctrine and wrong in my heart or spirit."

God bless you all

Pen

As usual, I can't fault that attitude too much.

Go well, mate.

Oh, I look forward to seeing some former clerics in Satan's lair.

;)

NikolaiI

01-13-2009, 12:01 AM

Repent means to mean it. Not just do something and say I can do it again later. You have to be sincere and try with Gods help. God helps us when we pray and call on him.

This is true, if we love, we obey, but if we don't obey then we are not loving correctly.

Cat_Brenners

01-13-2009, 02:49 AM

The Atheist

01-13-2009, 03:24 AM

I keep getting quoted but misinterpreted. I would never laugh about someone burning in hell. I would pray for them to accept God. I have not pointed my finger at anyone on here and said YOU will burn in hell. That's between you and God. Only you and Him know if you have accepted Him or not. I am not your judge.

Again, I get a horrible disconnect with reading what you say and reading what you say you meant.

This covers every post you've made in this thread:

....because in Revelation it says that the devil and his followers will be devoured and consumed. ...

...People who do not accept Christ did so at their own choosing and they are put to death. ...

I believe when God comes back the disbelievers and satan will be destroyed.

Someone seems to not be listening. I don't believe that disbelievers burn forever. I believe God is kind in that respect.

Hope everyone is ready and does not have to face the punishment of not accepting him.

Every single post you made you managed to include a note that atheists are going to hell.

Now, you may see that as beseeching us to come over before we get burned, but for someone who disbelieves, and therefore is the exact person being referred to, it can look more like schadenfreude than advice.

Especially when it's repeated and repeated.

God is the creater but once again he gave all of us a choice of sinning or not sinning....accepting or not accepting. I hope no one burns in hell...even though I believe it is a short time in order to consume all sin. I wish and pray for only the best for anyone. Why anyone wants to get angry or fuss and make fun of anyone here is beyond me. I will not be baited into being mean. That's not what this is for. Best to all.
Hugs, Cat

As above, I'll take you at your word and accept that you're not trying to be spiteful, but you must realise that in a written dialogue, it can look awfully much like it.

skasian

01-13-2009, 05:07 AM

"Harsh, but true." http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/78.gif
phillipe, tanto tempore vobiscum sum, et non congnovistis me?

"I know that God hates to see that His children have to suffer in Hell forever, but the ones that do not know him and love Him must be punished eternally."

its wonderful how christians think of god as a huge angry bearded guy that lives in the clouds...http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/78.gif
o luce qui mortalibus lates inacessa deus! in lumine tuo videbimus lumen!

l'enfer, c'est les autres...

Do you think God likes being angry? God likes being praised and happy just like any of us. As we like being content, we take this from God Himself.

I dont know why some people think God is a white bearded big guy. Have you read the Book of Revelations? There is a defintion of God in the heavenly clouds and its description is certainly no way close to being "huge angry bearded guy"

skasian

01-13-2009, 05:43 AM

An example of it happening.

When millions of examples of claims exist, but not a single instance of actuality, I'm pretty ok with saying it's beyond reasonable doubt.

*sigh*

What you're saying actually proves my point, but you seem to have missed that. In fact, it's quite obvious that you haven't understood the subject of science in any meaningful way, so I'll just leave you with your misconceptions.

That's fine, stick with it.

Proof is easy. When something works, has been peer-reviewed and can be replicated, then I'm happy with calling it proven.

How does a claim exists with instance of actuality? Simply, to the skeptic,any level of proof does not hinder their idea of belief. The reality is that no matter how true and real it may seem to them, if they do not WANT to believe in it, they just never will. Proof being effective is not easy; just think of evolution. There are simple proof of fossils that supports the idea of evolutions however even with these proof, people do not believe in evolution, or believe that we come from a long line of apes and fishes or microbacterias.

bazarov

01-13-2009, 07:03 AM

Proof being effective is not easy; just think of evolution. There are simple proof of fossils that supports the idea of evolutions however even with these proof, people do not believe in evolution, or believe that we come from a long line of apes and fishes or microbacterias.

But...that is evolution.

skasian

01-13-2009, 07:18 AM

skasian

01-13-2009, 07:19 AM

But...that is evolution.

Ah, trust me I know a lot of people that BELIEVE in evolution.

bazarov

01-13-2009, 07:23 AM

Ah, trust me I know a lot of people that BELIEVE in evolution.

Me also. The point is your previous statement is contradiction.

skasian

01-13-2009, 07:34 AM

Me also. The point is your previous statement is contradiction.

Actually it doesnt. Although there are many people that believe in Evolution, the rest, including atheists do not believe in evolution even though there are proofs and evidences that back up.
Mind you, alot does not mean all.

dzebra

01-13-2009, 08:28 AM

I dont know why some people think God is a white bearded big guy. Have you read the Book of Revelations? There is a defintion of God in the heavenly clouds and its description is certainly no way close to being "huge angry bearded guy"

Here's something from Revelation that talks about God being a big, angry looking, white, hairy guy.

"And standing in the middle of the lampstands was someone like the Son of Man. He was wearing a long robe with a gold sash across his chest. His head and his hair were white like wool, as white as snow. And his eyes were like flames of fire. His feet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, and his voice thundered like mighty ocean waves. He held seven stars in his right hand, and a sharp two-edged sword came from his mouth. And his face was like the sun in all its brilliance. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as if I were dead"

The Atheist

01-13-2009, 01:14 PM

How does a claim exists with instance of actuality? Simply, to the skeptic,any level of proof does not hinder their idea of belief. The reality is that no matter how true and real it may seem to them, if they do not WANT to believe in it, they just never will.

No, that's exactly what a sceptic isn't.

A sceptic asks questions and checks evidence to find answers. Belief has nothing to do with it.

Where on earth do you get these strange ideas?

Proof being effective is not easy; just think of evolution. There are simple proof of fossils that supports the idea of evolutions however even with these proof, people do not believe in evolution, or believe that we come from a long line of apes and fishes or microbacterias.

Quite right.

But the only people I ever meet who don't accept the theory of evolution as being correct are fundamental christians. I'm guessing you accept it, however, so that's a good start.

Although there are many people that believe in Evolution, the rest, including atheists do not believe in evolution even though there are proofs and evidences that back up.
Mind you, alot does not mean all.

Again, this is a horrendously bad error.

Since when don't atheists accepts the ToE? I know hundreds of atheists and not one of them seriously doubts it.

weltanschauung

01-13-2009, 02:07 PM

Do you think God likes being angry? God likes being praised and happy just like any of us. As we like being content, we take this from God Himself.

I dont know why some people think God is a white bearded big guy. Have you read the Book of Revelations? There is a defintion of God in the heavenly clouds and its description is certainly no way close to being "huge angry bearded guy"

i dont think god "likes" or "dislikes" anything. your god is a ridiculous frankenstein plagiarism of every other pagan symbol that existed before your christ "came", and by that i mean "before the structure of the church along the middle ages invented and organized this whole set of lies that live up to this day." and i dont know why every christian treats everyone else that isnt christian like poor ignorant mongoloids, who have never read the bible. yes, i read the book of revelations, which btw is an open pagan reference to the 22 cards of the tarot. the whole bible itself is a huge plagarism of the book of enoch, since christianity is founded over lies and deception and plagery.
that being said, i would also like to add that your (christians) conception of hell is childish and hilarious. hell obviously isnt a place, but a state of mind, and it's funny how christians use that to scare everyone, "do this, do that or youll go to hell forever har har." you've all been living in hell since birth and you seem to be having quite the good time. your god's punishments and anger dont scare me at all.

hugs and kisses :)

weltanschauung

01-13-2009, 02:23 PM

Back to the subject of The Christian Hell, let me give Thomas Hobbes's perspectives in Christian Hell,written in Leviathan which equals to my own views.

"The Torments of Hell are expressed sometimes by 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' as Mat 8.12..'where the worm dyeth not and the fire is not quenched'..sometimes by 'shame and contemp' Dan 12.2..'some to shame and everlasting contempt'..may be called an Everlasting Death prepared for the wicked which is the Second Death."

"The joyes of Life Eternall are in Scripture comprehended all under the name of Salvation, or being saved. To be saved, is to be secured either respectively against speciall Evills or absolutely against all Evill comprehending Want, Sicknesse and Death itself."

"Of what is Necessary for a Mans reception into the Kingdom of Heaven: All that is Necessary to Salvation is contained in two Vertues, Faith in Christ and Obedience to Laws"

I see that some people indeed are against and angered by the aspect that people who do know accept Jesus Christ as their God and Saviour will end up in Christian Hell, but that is because it is the only truth in Christianity, not because we as Christians say, think or want so, but because our God said so, and Hobbes can justify so.

There is actually a whole section dedicated to the subject of Christian hell, called The Kingdom of Darknesse, if you are interested in Christian Hell, then I recommend Leviathan.

"obbey, obbey, obbey, OBBEY, INSECT!"
it isnt really a shock that the catholic church ruled the world for 16 or so centuries, is it.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/facist_jockitch/sh/skajhfkhfkjdf.jpg
william blake> thomas hobbes :thumbs_up

just for humour purposes, here goes a great quote i got from wikipedia, but dont laugh, or youll go to hell:
"In 1532, Thomas Harding, who with his wife, had been accused of heresy, was brought before the Bishop of Lincoln, and condemned for denying the real presence in the Sacrament. He was then chained to a stake, erected for the purpose, at Chesham in the Dell, near Botely; and when they had set fire to the fagots, one of the spectators dashed out his brains with a billet. The priests told the people that whoever brought fagots to burn heretics would have an indulgence to commit sins for forty days."

and this also, never fails to bring a smile to my face:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig

go christianity!

The Atheist

01-13-2009, 03:18 PM

go christianity!

Two classic comedic pieces!

Cheers.

I look forward to having a beer together in hell.

weltanschauung

01-14-2009, 10:39 AM

Two classic comedic pieces!

Cheers.

I look forward to having a beer together in hell.

amen!

blp

01-14-2009, 05:10 PM

At last, some actual religious texts in the religious texts forum. And such inspiring ones! Thanks, welt!

skasian

01-14-2009, 08:07 PM

Here's something from Revelation that talks about God being a big, angry looking, white, hairy guy.

"And standing in the middle of the lampstands was someone like the Son of Man. He was wearing a long robe with a gold sash across his chest. His head and his hair were white like wool, as white as snow. And his eyes were like flames of fire. His feet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, and his voice thundered like mighty ocean waves. He held seven stars in his right hand, and a sharp two-edged sword came from his mouth. And his face was like the sun in all its brilliance. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as if I were dead"

Read closely. I said he was not "huge angry bearded guy" and the extract doesnt say God was huge in any comparison, it doesnt say He was bearded although he has white hair, and it doesnt say that He was angry although His PRESENCE is almighty and frightful. Get the difference?;)

skasian

01-14-2009, 08:08 PM

i dont think god "likes" or "dislikes" anything. your god is a ridiculous frankenstein plagiarism of every other pagan symbol that existed before your christ "came", and by that i mean "before the structure of the church along the middle ages invented and organized this whole set of lies that live up to this day." and i dont know why every christian treats everyone else that isnt christian like poor ignorant mongoloids, who have never read the bible. yes, i read the book of revelations, which btw is an open pagan reference to the 22 cards of the tarot. the whole bible itself is a huge plagarism of the book of enoch, since christianity is founded over lies and deception and plagery.
that being said, i would also like to add that your (christians) conception of hell is childish and hilarious. hell obviously isnt a place, but a state of mind, and it's funny how christians use that to scare everyone, "do this, do that or youll go to hell forever har har." you've all been living in hell since birth and you seem to be having quite the good time. your god's punishments and anger dont scare me at all.

hugs and kisses :)

It seems your assumption of God not "liking" and "disliking" is wrong. God loves His Children and does not like the wrongdoers that are against Him.

And please, do not disrespect other people's religion and God, I doubt you will like if someone swore about your mother or father. Think about what you are saying before you insult others and their belief.

If you dont believe in hell and Christian belief, I dont care. I dont mind what you believe in. But I do mind what you say about what you dont believe in. It is rude and childish yourself in every way.

Have a nice day with less insulting and with more respect:)

skasian

01-14-2009, 08:14 PM

No, that's exactly what a sceptic isn't.

A sceptic asks questions and checks evidence to find answers. Belief has nothing to do with it.

Where on earth do you get these strange ideas?

Quite right.

But the only people I ever meet who don't accept the theory of evolution as being correct are fundamental christians. I'm guessing you accept it, however, so that's a good start.

Again, this is a horrendously bad error.

Since when don't atheists accepts the ToE? I know hundreds of atheists and not one of them seriously doubts it.

Skeptical- disbelieving: denying or questioning the tenets of especially a religion; "a skeptical approach to the nature of miracles"
incredulity: doubt about the truth of something

My idea is right. Skeptic becomes believers when they search for evidence and accepts an aspect to be true.

It is true that I dont completely disagree with evolution. I accept that nature revolves around with adaptation, however I do not believe in speciation, the vital aspect that supports that we derive from apes and so on.

And no, it seems the hundreds atheists you know is an insufficient sample. People and non religious people and classmates that I know do not believe in evolution, or the idea that we derive from apes although they may believe in a small aspect like me. Even with these one person existing in the world, they make your assumptions very invalid.

NikolaiI

01-14-2009, 08:52 PM

...

Your quote from Blake... I wished to share a couple of other quotes by him. I find them to be quite good.

"The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a green thing that stands in the way. Some see nature all ridicule and deformity... and some scarce see nature at all. But to the eyes of the man of imagination, nature is imagination itself. "

"If a thing loves, it is infinite."

"If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite."

"He whose face gives no light, shall never become a star."

"I am in you and you in me, mutual in divine love."

"I have no name: I am but two days old. What shall I call thee? I happy am, Joy is my name. Sweet joy befall thee!"

"Where mercy, love, and pity dwell, there God is dwelling too."

blp

01-14-2009, 08:59 PM

It seems your assumption of God not "liking" and "disliking" is wrong. God loves His Children and does not like the wrongdoers that are against Him.

And please, do not disrespect other people's religion and God, I doubt you will like if someone swore about your mother or father. Think about what you are saying before you insult others and their belief.

If you dont believe in hell and Christian belief, I dont care. I dont mind what you believe in. But I do mind what you say about what you dont believe in. It is rude and childish yourself in every way.

Have a nice day with less insulting and with more respect:)

The Slavoj Zizek article I read the other day seems to be full of useful quotes:

I always have this uncanny association that this is dangerously close to how we treat our children: the idea that we should respect them, even when we know that what they believe is not true. We should not destroy their illusions. No, I think that others deserve better - not to be treated like children.

Riesa

01-14-2009, 09:36 PM

and this also, never fails to bring a smile to my face:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig

it brings a scared smile to my face, most of those people live very close to me.

The Atheist

01-14-2009, 10:12 PM

And please, do not disrespect other people's religion and God, I doubt you will like if someone swore about your mother or father.

I have to admit I see nothing but irony here.

Someone makes fun of your religion and it's disrespectful and hurtful, but telling someone repeatedly that they will burn forever isn't. Didn't Jesus say something about reaping what we sow?

Skeptical- disbelieving: denying or questioning the tenets of especially a religion; "a skeptical approach to the nature of miracles"
incredulity: doubt about the truth of something

My idea is right. Skeptic becomes believers when they search for evidence and accepts an aspect to be true.

Note the bolding I made.

Sceptics question.

And please do note that there are far better ways to construct an argument than living in a dictionary.

It is true that I dont completely disagree with evolution. I accept that nature revolves around with adaptation, however I do not believe in speciation, the vital aspect that supports that we derive from apes and so on.

Thanks for the clarification.

And no, it seems the hundreds atheists you know is an insufficient sample.

How many do you know?

Which atheist boards would you like to put the question at? James Randi? Dawkins? IIDB? Skeptical Community? Skeptics' Forum? Skepchick? Bad Astronomy?

If you intend to argue this point with me, you will be proved sorely wrong. I can absolutely guarantee you that there are no people who are materialist atheists* who don't accept that the Theory of Evolution is largely right.

I doubt you know many atheists and I strongly doubt that you've discussed religion and ToE with many, so I see no point in you arguing this, because you clearly have no idea what you're saying.

* Material atheists are the largest group of atheists and this enables psychic atheists and the likes of David Icke's lizard people to be left out as their opinions are irrelevant.

People and non religious people and classmates that I know do not believe in evolution, or the idea that we derive from apes although they may believe in a small aspect like me. Even with these one person existing in the world, they make your assumptions very invalid.

What assumptions? I know for a fact that many christians don't accept ToE, but I have also shown you that the majority of christians do accept it, because the RCC officially accepts it as correct and they are the majority of christians.

As it happens, the numbers of believers are meaningless anyway - atheism is a minority sport internationally.

You're quite welcome to think the ToE is wrong, but in terms of believability, I'm going to stick with scientists who have actually studied the subject and presented hard evidence rather than a 2000 year old book or a pastor who couldn't set fire to a Bunsen burner.

billyjack

01-14-2009, 10:40 PM

It is true that I dont completely disagree with evolution. I accept that nature revolves around with adaptation, however I do not believe in speciation, the vital aspect that supports that we derive from apes and so on.

evolution isnt religion. you cant pick and choose which parts fit in with your beliefs

West

01-14-2009, 11:20 PM

Two classic comedic pieces!

Cheers.

I look forward to having a beer together in hell.

LOL, it could turn out real Hell for you though instead of cold beer. I have a question for you, you are aware of history and what went and goes on in the world, all the injustices committed against defenseless people. Far too many occassions, people got away with horrendous crimes they committed against others. Wouldn't it be sensible for criminals of these calibre to face justice and to account for their deeds? You do believe in Justice don't you? giving each person their dues? That is where Hell comes in :D

I disagree with some of the people in here who claim One's sins are forgiven by virtue of accepting Jesus as their saviour. I am not a christian but do understand that christianity teaches "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezekiel 18:20 This makes more sense than the claim of Jesus dying for some criminal's sins. Justice needs to prevail and God(the one who created jesus and the rest) being just, the saviour claim has no legs to stand on.

The Atheist

01-15-2009, 12:43 AM

LOL, it could turn out real Hell for you though instead of cold beer. I have a question for you, you are aware of history and what went and goes on in the world, all the injustices committed against defenseless people. Far too many occassions, people got away with horrendous crimes they committed against others. Wouldn't it be sensible for criminals of these calibre to face justice and to account for their deeds? You do believe in Justice don't you? giving each person their dues? That is where Hell comes in :D

Sure, it's where the desire came from which led to creation of the myth. For peasants and slaves under the thumb of the few, eternal evening up was a great sales pitch.

I don't believe that applies now, however, and a couple of posters in this thread are living proof of it. For some reason, the idea that they are the chosen of their god, while everyone else will burn, is attractive.

I just don't see why. If I were a theist, it would be a repulsive parody of god and I'd have to find a new church without that belief.

The world is a nasty place, and while it would be nice to think of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and many, many others forced to account for their sins, so monstrous were they, but it doesn't add up, in my book.

Justice needs to prevail and God(the one who created jesus and the rest) being just, the saviour claim has no legs to stand on.

Well, that is the majority view in christianity. Seems a lot friendlier, but then again, maybe a vengeful and unfriendly god is what they're looking for.

weltanschauung

01-15-2009, 02:29 AM

The Slavoj Zizek article I read the other day seems to be full of useful quotes:

slavoj zizek is most excellent!

weltanschauung

01-15-2009, 02:54 AM

I have to admit I see nothing but irony here.

Someone makes fun of your religion and it's disrespectful and hurtful, but telling someone repeatedly that they will burn forever isn't. Didn't Jesus say something about reaping what we sow?

see, they dont get it. they dont get it that their faith, their god, their christ is so offensive to the non-christians, THEY DONT GET IT. they take non-christians as children who have no yet learned their lesson. the see all the non-christians as semi-functioning mongoloids, leading their heretic lifestyle and spreading out evil nonsense like the black plague throughout the earth. i think freud would call that projection.

on a related note, skasian, everything that comes from you towards this topic is completely offensive to my free-non-brainwashed mind and to my soul, as so is everything that you represent. please, have that in mind. your speech offends every atom of my being and hurts my feelings and leaves me with a hopeless despair towards the future of mankind. you are the personification of the most important things that i disaprove in this world. have some mercy on my suffering, and respect my pain.

nikolaiI, i enjoyed your blake quotes, but i think they were a little out of topic, unlike these:
"listen to the fools reproach, it is a kingly tittle!"

"the apple tree never asks the beech how he shall grow, nor the lion, the horse, how he shall take his prey"

"when thou seest an eagle, thou seest a portion of genius. lift up thy head!"

"the roaring of lions, the howling of wolves, the raging of the stormy sea, and the destructive sword are portions of eternity too great for the eye of man."

"always be ready to speak your mind, and a base man will avoid you."

"the eagle never lost so much time, as when he submitted to learn from the crow."

-I-

dzebra

01-15-2009, 10:11 AM

evolution isnt religion. you cant pick and choose which parts fit in with your beliefs

I think that analogy is unfair. Religion is not meant for people to pick and choose what they think is right, then ignore the rest. I know it happens (as it happens with scientific theories), but I don't think that is how religion is meant to be used.

West

01-15-2009, 09:49 PM

Sure, it's where the desire came from which led to creation of the myth. For peasants and slaves under the thumb of the few, eternal evening up was a great sales pitch.

I don't believe that applies now, however, and a couple of posters in this thread are living proof of it. For some reason, the idea that they are the chosen of their god, while everyone else will burn, is attractive.

I just don't see why. If I were a theist, it would be a repulsive parody of god and I'd have to find a new church without that belief.

The world is a nasty place, and while it would be nice to think of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and many, many others forced to account for their sins, so monstrous were they, but it doesn't add up, in my book.

Well, that is the majority view in christianity. Seems a lot friendlier, but then again, maybe a vengeful and unfriendly god is what they're looking for.

Religion gives and gave strength to the under-privelleged(peasants, slaves and the likes). There is no dispute about that. People who were receptive first to the prophets were the poor, the sick and the undermined not because they were intellectually less bright than the elite, but because there was equality, brotherhood, freedom, justice and common decency in the messages brought to them by men who spoke their language and who offered an alternative to their miserable existence. What is also true about peasants, slaves and other underprivelleged groups is their lack of arrogance, a complexity and a trait that almost always prevents people from listening to others they deem inferior. I must admitt that some religious people are arrogant as well, but that has to do nothing with the religion they affliate with but more with their ignorance. In God's eyes, there are no exclusive clubs, no special connection to him by virtue of claiming an allegiance to certain groups. You are as good as your deeds are. If you are a criminal, you get punished for your sins, just like we, the people, set up courts and jails to punish criminals. Likewise, those who have done their share of good in good faith are rewarded for their good deeds. I know all these would make sense to you if you believed in God's existence, but I hope you see the logic behind rewards whether they are negative(hell), or positive(heaven) in nthe eyes of faithfuls. Also, I want to make clear that when I refer to God, I don't mean Jesus as I take him to be a prophet among past prophets and nothing more. He advocatd the same faith Moses advocated for and Mohamed did after Him. I am a muslim.

The Atheist

01-16-2009, 01:04 AM

Also, I want to make clear that when I refer to God, I don't mean Jesus as I take him to be a prophet among past prophets and nothing more. He advocatd the same faith Moses advocated for and Mohamed did after Him. I am a muslim.

Yep, very good post, thanks.

NikolaiI

01-17-2009, 01:19 AM

nikolaiI, i enjoyed your blake quotes, but i think they were a little out of topic, unlike these:
"listen to the fools reproach, it is a kingly tittle!"

"the apple tree never asks the beech how he shall grow, nor the lion, the horse, how he shall take his prey"

"when thou seest an eagle, thou seest a portion of genius. lift up thy head!"

"the roaring of lions, the howling of wolves, the raging of the stormy sea, and the destructive sword are portions of eternity too great for the eye of man."

"always be ready to speak your mind, and a base man will avoid you."

"the eagle never lost so much time, as when he submitted to learn from the crow."

Actually they are on topic. Consider this one:

"If the doors of perception were cleansed, all would appear as it is, infinite."

Now let us do some logic with this - just to construct a little bit of philosophy.

If we take this as a beginning, then we can say that all exists within the infinite.

What does this mean?

Consdier this statement. I came to this while I am going to sleep, and I wanted to share with you.

A drop of water in an ocean is of the same constitutional properties as the entire ocean. It is qualitatively the same, though the quantity is different.

The same is true of gold. A particle or molecule of gold is chemically the same as the whole bar of gold.

We are the same as this. We are qualitatively the same as God - whether this God is the universe, the source of everything, the infinite, or something else.

Let us take the example of the universe - we are qualitatively the same. How can it be, or what does it mean?

I am saying this because the analogy from gold and water, it is the case in those instances.

And also, don't forget, we are going from Blake saying that if the doors of perception were cleansed, all would appear as it is, infinite.

So all is infinite, or all is divine. But it is not actually simply divine in and of itself. Vegetable matter is not divine, if there is nothing except for vegetable matter. But rather, all is divine because it is part, or rather belongs, to the divine.

All is divine because it is part of the infinite. Vegetable matter, rocks, trees, air, light, us, - all of this is divine because it belongs to God.

Now - whoops - I said that word which wars have been started over and which you do not adhere to.

What is Godhead? Godhead is the supreme. It's the root of existence. It's the Divine Grace. The Divine Mother and the Divine Father. There is no reason to start wars over it, and anything done so is actually only done in trying to become God, instead of trying to serve God. Just look at all the "divine right" rulers.

But just because of human affairs, actualities do not change. The universe is not affected by our actions. Enlightenment does not cease to exist simply because someone who said they were a Buddhist, Hindu, Christian (insert any label) actually committed atrocious acts.

So if what Blake said was true; that all is infinite (or as I would say, all is in some part, part of the infinite, since the infinite is the source of all) - this remains true regardless of human affairs.

As for the Christian Hell - I would say that I read your post and I understand your feelings. I feel this way - or I would if I let my feelings go completely unchecked - when someone ascribes the adjective "delusional" to one of the members of Lit-net. Get this? I get you. I feel the same way about what I just said. But I am encouraging you to consider one point. We are all human! :)

And one other point, and this will be my last (I realize this post must when it's posted be VERY long because of one-sentence paragraphs...) - Christianity is not based on Hell. Christianity is based on Christ.

Christ taught love of God - God consciousness. This message may not have been new, but it is what he taught. Christ taught that "the Kingdom of God is within you" and this is the message that if someone is not preaching, they are not Christian. It is good news. But it is not incompatible with other religions. If you look at Buddhist scriptures, you will find in the Great Flower Ornament Sutra it says "in every atom of the universe, there exist oceans of world systems." Similarity?

Buddha-nature.

Hinduism also teaches that God is within. The drop of water and particle of gold comes from Hinduism.

But if you look, then you see that Buddha-nature, and divine nature, they are the same. Only Buddhists sometimes are impersonalists. They don't believe in the soul, while Hindus believe in the divine soul. It's the only difference. Both are vegetarian, and both don't eat garlic either. :) Messes with your subtle energies.

No one has all the answers. But every one of us has the greatest potential. To quote Harrison - each soul is potentially divine.

weltanschauung

01-17-2009, 02:32 AM

Actually they are on topic. Consider this one:

"If the doors of perception were cleansed, all would appear as it is, infinite."

Now let us do some logic with this - just to construct a little bit of philosophy.

If we take this as a beginning, then we can say that all exists within the infinite.

What does this mean?

Consdier this statement. I came to this while I am going to sleep, and I wanted to share with you.

A drop of water in an ocean is of the same constitutional properties as the entire ocean. It is qualitatively the same, though the quantity is different.

The same is true of gold. A particle or molecule of gold is chemically the same as the whole bar of gold.

We are the same as this. We are qualitatively the same as God - whether this God is the universe, the source of everything, the infinite, or something else.

Let us take the example of the universe - we are qualitatively the same. How can it be, or what does it mean?

I am saying this because the analogy from gold and water, it is the case in those instances.

And also, don't forget, we are going from Blake saying that if the doors of perception were cleansed, all would appear as it is, infinite.

So all is infinite, or all is divine. But it is not actually simply divine in and of itself. Vegetable matter is not divine, if there is nothing except for vegetable matter. But rather, all is divine because it is part, or rather belongs, to the divine.

All is divine because it is part of the infinite. Vegetable matter, rocks, trees, air, light, us, - all of this is divine because it belongs to God.

Now - whoops - I said that word which wars have been started over and which you do not adhere to.

What is Godhead? Godhead is the supreme. It's the root of existence. It's the Divine Grace. The Divine Mother and the Divine Father. There is no reason to start wars over it, and anything done so is actually only done in trying to become God, instead of trying to serve God. Just look at all the "divine right" rulers.

But just because of human affairs, actualities do not change. The universe is not affected by our actions. Enlightenment does not cease to exist simply because someone who said they were a Buddhist, Hindu, Christian (insert any label) actually committed atrocious acts.

So if what Blake said was true; that all is infinite (or as I would say, all is in some part, part of the infinite, since the infinite is the source of all) - this remains true regardless of human affairs.

As for the Christian Hell - I would say that I read your post and I understand your feelings. I feel this way - or I would if I let my feelings go completely unchecked - when someone ascribes the adjective "delusional" to one of the members of Lit-net. Get this? I get you. I feel the same way about what I just said. But I am encouraging you to consider one point. We are all human! :)

And one other point, and this will be my last (I realize this post must when it's posted be VERY long because of one-sentence paragraphs...) - Christianity is not based on Hell. Christianity is based on Christ.

Christ taught love of God - God consciousness. This message may not have been new, but it is what he taught. Christ taught that "the Kingdom of God is within you" and this is the message that if someone is not preaching, they are not Christian. It is good news. But it is not incompatible with other religions. If you look at Buddhist scriptures, you will find in the Great Flower Ornament Sutra it says "in every atom of the universe, there exist oceans of world systems." Similarity?

Buddha-nature.

Hinduism also teaches that God is within. The drop of water and particle of gold comes from Hinduism.

But if you look, then you see that Buddha-nature, and divine nature, they are the same. Only Buddhists sometimes are impersonalists. They don't believe in the soul, while Hindus believe in the divine soul. It's the only difference. Both are vegetarian, and both don't eat garlic either. :) Messes with your subtle energies.

No one has all the answers. But every one of us has the greatest potential. To quote Harrison - each soul is potentially divine.

http://www.essene.com/B'nai-Amen/treeL.gif

“God is an intelligible sphere, whose center is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere.” (pascal)
:)

skasian

01-17-2009, 08:28 AM

evolution isnt religion. you cant pick and choose which parts fit in with your beliefs

Who ever said that evolution is a religion?
Believing in an aspect evolution doesnt mean that it is a religion. Believing on your friend to do something important for you doesnt mean that your friend is a god.
What are you talking about?

skasian

01-17-2009, 08:46 AM

I have to admit I see nothing but irony here.

Someone makes fun of your religion and it's disrespectful and hurtful, but telling someone repeatedly that they will burn forever isn't. Didn't Jesus say something about reaping what we sow?

Note the bolding I made.

Sceptics question.

And please do note that there are far better ways to construct an argument than living in a dictionary.

Thanks for the clarification.

How many do you know?

Which atheist boards would you like to put the question at? James Randi? Dawkins? IIDB? Skeptical Community? Skeptics' Forum? Skepchick? Bad Astronomy?

If you intend to argue this point with me, you will be proved sorely wrong. I can absolutely guarantee you that there are no people who are materialist atheists* who don't accept that the Theory of Evolution is largely right.

I doubt you know many atheists and I strongly doubt that you've discussed religion and ToE with many, so I see no point in you arguing this, because you clearly have no idea what you're saying.

* Material atheists are the largest group of atheists and this enables psychic atheists and the likes of David Icke's lizard people to be left out as their opinions are irrelevant.

What assumptions? I know for a fact that many christians don't accept ToE, but I have also shown you that the majority of christians do accept it, because the RCC officially accepts it as correct and they are the majority of christians.

As it happens, the numbers of believers are meaningless anyway - atheism is a minority sport internationally.

You're quite welcome to think the ToE is wrong, but in terms of believability, I'm going to stick with scientists who have actually studied the subject and presented hard evidence rather than a 2000 year old book or a pastor who couldn't set fire to a Bunsen burner.

Insulting someone religion differs from speaking about an aspect about religion. If an aspect of an religion seems like an insult to someone, they should move on, as they do not believe in the religion. I say once again, if people arent ready for the idea of the Christian Hell, then they should avoid the thread altogether. I dont want to insult people, its just the reality about Christian hell.

"A sceptic asks questions and checks evidence to find answers. Belief has nothing to do with it."

I never said about questioning, it is in a skeptic's very nature to question, however when they find what they need to believe in something, they no longer become a skeptic. I used the dictionary to back up my thought about skeptics which you indicated it was wrong.

"Since when don't atheists accepts the ToE? "
Have you forgotten your assumption? Please, remember what you were thinking about. I was explaining that people and friends I know and talked to are atheists that dont necessarily accept evolution completely, therefore there are atheists in the world that do not accept the full ToE.

The Atheist

01-17-2009, 12:27 PM

Who ever said that evolution is a religion?
Believing in an aspect evolution doesnt mean that it is a religion.

I know this isn't a question to me, but I'll answer it - and I'm very glad you ask it, because it does show a complete lack of understanding of what was said.

What he means is that the ToE cannot be cherry-picked to take the bits we like and ignore the rest.

Which is what religions do.

I dont want to insult people, its just the reality about Christian hell.

It's the reality, in your view, and it's insulting.

Have you forgotten your assumption?

I don't make assumptions.

I was explaining that people and friends I know and talked to are atheists that dont necessarily accept evolution completely, therefore there are atheists in the world that do not accept the full ToE.

What do they believe instead?

What is your point?

dzebra

01-17-2009, 01:19 PM

I don't make assumptions.

lol :lol:

weltanschauung

01-17-2009, 01:20 PM

I never said about questioning, it is in a skeptic's very nature to question, however when they find what they need to believe in something, they no longer become a skeptic.

skasian, that is exactly the problem: you DONT question anything. you are like a broken record. and see, that which you repeat is only the song some sly producer stick into you, for you are just the record, not the song.

http://www.etc.cmu.edu/projects/ratmaze/images/marionette.jpg

Redzeppelin

01-17-2009, 10:31 PM

Two classic comedic pieces!

Cheers.

I look forward to having a beer together in hell.

amen!

Gentlemen, I have tragic news for you: since Hell is supposed to be at minimum unpleasant - the absolute void of emptiness - then the truth must be told: THERE IS NO BEER IN HELL. If there were, would it really be "hell"?

(There is, however, TV in hell).

weltanschauung

01-18-2009, 12:19 AM

goshdarnit, redzeppelin, YOURE RIGHT!
i guess we are d00m3d!
AND I BET THE PERMANENT TV SHOW ON AIR IN HELL IS DR.PHILL!!!

Redzeppelin

01-18-2009, 12:42 AM

goshdarnit, redzeppelin, YOURE RIGHT!
i guess we are d00m3d!
AND I BET THE PERMANENT TV SHOW ON AIR IN HELL IS DR.PHILL!!!

You've been there!

I told you the horrors there were unimaginable.

I suggest immediate repentance and a changing of your evil ways.

(PS - if you get to the deepest Dantean pit - Dr. Phil is there with you LIVE - and you're the main guest!)

weltanschauung

01-18-2009, 12:54 AM

:bawling::bawling::bawling:

skasian

01-18-2009, 04:50 AM

I know this isn't a question to me, but I'll answer it - and I'm very glad you ask it, because it does show a complete lack of understanding of what was said.

What he means is that the ToE cannot be cherry-picked to take the bits we like and ignore the rest.

Which is what religions do.

It's the reality, in your view, and it's insulting.

I don't make assumptions.

What do they believe instead?

What is your point?

Religion is cherry picked? Would you mind to elaborate?

I dont understand why non Christians bother to discuss Christian Hell when it involves something that will make them disagree and somewhat angry. If an aspect of Christian Hell will seem insulting to them it is common sense that they should dismiss themselves from being part of the discussion.
Its called a instinctive behaviour, if encountered by something they dont like, they should avoid it, like touching a hot pan, instinctively, the finger jerks away from the hot pan.

Let me clarify. Atheists and non believers I know do not completely accept or believe in ToE. What they believe in, the answer varies from each individual, unfortunately I do not have the time to interrogate each and every one of them.
My point, is this. That what you thought is wrong,
"Since when don't atheists accepts the ToE? "
There are some atheists that do not accpet ToE.

skasian

01-18-2009, 04:58 AM

skasian, that is exactly the problem: you DONT question anything. you are like a broken record. and see, that which you repeat is only the song some sly producer stick into you, for you are just the record, not the song.

http://www.etc.cmu.edu/projects/ratmaze/images/marionette.jpg

How would you know whether if I dont question anything, sorry but you are very wrong. I question alot of things and most of these just cant be answered by humans. I question about why some periods of my life is so hard, I question God sometimes why I am not what He is expecting me to be, I question myself why somethings just seem so meaningless in life. I question myself what is worth the time and effort and what is not.
And yet you remark that I do not question? You have no authority to judge me in this way just because I am religious.

billyjack

01-18-2009, 05:19 AM

Religion is cherry picked? Would you mind to elaborate?

sure. eye for an eye or the golden rule. your choice

skasian

01-18-2009, 05:57 AM

sure. eye for an eye or the golden rule. your choice

Eye for an eye? Jesus was against the idea, you should read the whole extract. Thats not cherry picking.

Golden rule being around nature? See your fingers creases, it has the golden rule, A4 follows the golden rule, shells and ferns are constructed by golden rule and so are many other things in nature. Thats mathematical measurement in nature. Thats no cherry picking.

zado_k

01-18-2009, 06:12 AM

Eye for an eye? Jesus was against the idea, you should read the whole extract. Thats not cherry picking.

Golden rule being around nature? See your fingers creases, it has the golden rule, A4 follows the golden rule, shells and ferns are constructed by golden rule and so are many other things in nature. Thats mathematical measurement in nature. Thats no cherry picking.

The Golden Rule in this case is not the geometric proportion - the golden ratio - but the moral principle that is often stated positively as

Do to others as you would have them do to you
or negatively as

Do not do to otherw what is hateful to you
It seems to have arisen in various places and times independantly and maybe even turns out to be the equivalent of more "sophisticated" moral calculi (Kant's for example).

The principle of an eye for an eye (the Lex Talonis, iirc) was repudiated by Jesus, but that's hardly to the point, since it stood presumably for a thousand years before him, as dictated by god in the Jewish scripture.

Peace and loving kindness

Z

zado_k

01-18-2009, 06:17 AM

skasian

01-18-2009, 06:22 AM

The Golden Rule in this case is not the geometric proportion - the golden ratio - but the moral principle that is often stated positively as

or negatively as

It seems to have arisen in various places and times independantly and maybe even turns out to be the equivalent of more "sophisticated" moral calculi (Kant's for example).

The principle of an eye for an eye (the Lex Talonis, iirc) was repudiated by Jesus, but that's hardly to the point, since it stood presumably for a thousand years before him, as dictated by god in the Jewish scripture.

Peace and loving kindness

Z Thanks for clarifying the other definition of the golden ratio.
Jesus was sent to earth for many reasons and one of them was to correct the laws of moses, therefore the eye for an eye seems to be one of them.

zado_k

01-18-2009, 06:25 AM

Thanks for clarifying the other definition of the golden ratio.
Jesus was sent to earth for many reasons and one of them was to correct the laws of moses, therefore the eye for an eye seems to be one of them.

May I ask then why the law of Moses needed correction? If the Bible is correct it was given to Moses directly from god. What was wrong with it and why did god hand down a flawed moral code?

skasian

01-18-2009, 06:53 AM

May I ask then why the law of Moses needed correction? If the Bible is correct it was given to Moses directly from god. What was wrong with it and why did god hand down a flawed moral code?

I asked this question when I was very young and I remember the pastor saying that nothing was wrong in the law of Moses however the reason for the correction was for the love of God for us. The law of Moses, some what the modern Jews strictly follow is very hard, and requires alot of attention and effort. Because God wanted less of these strict rules for us to follow, He sent Jesus to correct rules for us, rules that requires less attention and effort.

Oh yes, may I correct my thinking about the eye for an eye? I believe it is not from the law of Moses, but an idea that was arose before the time of Jesus, which according to Jesus, is wrong.

bazarov

01-18-2009, 11:57 AM

Oh yes, may I correct my thinking about the eye for an eye? I believe it is not from the law of Moses, but an idea that was arose before the time of Jesus, which according to Jesus, is wrong.

Deuteronomy 19

21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
I think it's Moses!

Saladin

01-18-2009, 12:21 PM

Oh yes, may I correct my thinking about the eye for an eye? I believe it is not from the law of Moses, but an idea that was arose before the time of Jesus, which according to Jesus, is wrong.

Huh? It`s not from the law of Moses? Of course it`s from there. It`s a part of the halakha and it`s in the Torah (as bazarov quoted it)

Saladin

01-18-2009, 12:41 PM

May I ask then why the law of Moses needed correction? If the Bible is correct it was given to Moses directly from god. What was wrong with it and why did god hand down a flawed moral code?

The mosaic laws is "outdated" according to the NT (Matt 5:17). That means christians are free from following the laws and the punishments which are prescribed for some of those crimes (adultery, murder, rape and etc). The reason is because according christianity a person will "always" do good deeds as long he have the faith that Jesus Christ is his saviour. So a person with that faith will act good, ergo the punishments which are prescribed in the mosaic laws are not necessarily "flawed moral codes", but "updated" in a way by abrogation (which is something normal in religious scriptures , in the Quran it`s called the naskh-principle, the same is in hindu scriptures).

From a christian perspective you can say God is a "software developer". First God tried to enter in a pact with a nation (Israelites) and prescribed a whole lot of laws that they had to follow. When this didnt work (i want to clarify this is from christian perspective, for jews this is rubbish). God came with a new plan. The new plan is that he sends down his own "son" so humans can recieve salvation - with other words not a salvation meant for a specific nation, but universal. That`s why you can say that both christianity and islam have a universal doctrine for salvation.

According NT, Jesus Christ (John 3:16) freed humans from the law when he died for humanities sins. That is my understanding (as a non-christian) on why you can`t use the "tooth for tooth" argument on christians. Because that law is not prescribed for them anymore, so it will basically be irrelevant.

Saladin

01-18-2009, 12:49 PM

wrong post

The Atheist

01-18-2009, 02:06 PM

Religion is cherry picked? Would you mind to elaborate?

I gave a list of hundreds of contradictions earlier.

Or, a subject which is irrefutable, since it concerns the bible - are the apocrypha. Men decided which bits went into the bible, men decide which bits get read in churches.

I dont understand why non Christians bother to discuss Christian Hell when it involves something that will make them disagree and somewhat angry.

I've been discussing aspects of religion for 40 years - I see no reason to stop now.

Why do I do it?

It's entertaining, and very occasionally, enlightening.

It enables me to see where the issues I wish to take on are, how deeply they're entrenched and trying to find possible ways to counter them. Also, to make sure that sufficient record is kept of the non-arguments for creationism to ensure that it never, ever gets close to being taught in public schools.

Not a word of it, however, makes me angry. My writing can look like that because I'm a forceful kinda bloke - personally and in prose, but angry, I ain't. I can get angry at wilful ignorance, but that's about the only thing, so you have no more chance of angering me than converting me.

;)

If an aspect of Christian Hell will seem insulting to them it is common sense that they should dismiss themselves from being part of the discussion.

Don't you think that's a pretty arrogant attitude?

I know you just can't quite grasp that it is insulting, and to some degree, nor do I, but the plain facts are that some people find it insulting to be repeatedly told that they're going to hell.

Things are insulting because someone feels they are, not because the writer intends an insult.

Its called a instinctive behaviour, if encountered by something they dont like, they should avoid it, like touching a hot pan, instinctively, the finger jerks away from the hot pan.

So, you believe that the rule of "respect the belief of others" should only apply to non-christians? It's this simple - if someone else's beliefs make your assertion about hell insulting, then repeating it many times can only be disrespectful. Do we build fences around swimming pools? With that hot pan on your stove, do you put it right at the front, with the handle facing outwards? Even your own analogy shows the point - we think about other people as well as ourselves.

I always thought christianity taught that.

Mea culpa.

Let me clarify. Atheists and non believers I know do not completely accept or believe in ToE. What they believe in, the answer varies from each individual, unfortunately I do not have the time to interrogate each and every one of them.

That was my point exactly - you don't know, because you won't have asked the right questions. It's not a case of interrogation, but simply sorting the group of atheists into materialist/rationalists and other sections, which tells you about what they do believe, unlike atheism, which only tells you about what they don't.

I've explained many times that atheists comprise a wide range of people who self-assume the tag, which is how it's meant to be.

On the other hand, materialist atheists are a group of people who do share similar beliefs and I would challenge anyone, anytime, to find a material atheist who seriously challenges the ToE.

Anyone else's opinion is irrelevant to me.

skasian

01-19-2009, 09:28 AM

Deuteronomy 19

I think it's Moses!

Ah, thanks for the correction.

skasian

01-19-2009, 09:56 AM

I gave a list of hundreds of contradictions earlier.

Or, a subject which is irrefutable, since it concerns the bible - are the apocrypha. Men decided which bits went into the bible, men decide which bits get read in churches.

I've been discussing aspects of religion for 40 years - I see no reason to stop now.

Why do I do it?

It's entertaining, and very occasionally, enlightening.

It enables me to see where the issues I wish to take on are, how deeply they're entrenched and trying to find possible ways to counter them. Also, to make sure that sufficient record is kept of the non-arguments for creationism to ensure that it never, ever gets close to being taught in public schools.

Not a word of it, however, makes me angry. My writing can look like that because I'm a forceful kinda bloke - personally and in prose, but angry, I ain't. I can get angry at wilful ignorance, but that's about the only thing, so you have no more chance of angering me than converting me.

;)

Don't you think that's a pretty arrogant attitude?

I know you just can't quite grasp that it is insulting, and to some degree, nor do I, but the plain facts are that some people find it insulting to be repeatedly told that they're going to hell.

Things are insulting because someone feels they are, not because the writer intends an insult.

So, you believe that the rule of "respect the belief of others" should only apply to non-christians? It's this simple - if someone else's beliefs make your assertion about hell insulting, then repeating it many times can only be disrespectful. Do we build fences around swimming pools? With that hot pan on your stove, do you put it right at the front, with the handle facing outwards? Even your own analogy shows the point - we think about other people as well as ourselves.

I always thought christianity taught that.

Mea culpa.

That was my point exactly - you don't know, because you won't have asked the right questions. It's not a case of interrogation, but simply sorting the group of atheists into materialist/rationalists and other sections, which tells you about what they do believe, unlike atheism, which only tells you about what they don't.

I've explained many times that atheists comprise a wide range of people who self-assume the tag, which is how it's meant to be.

On the other hand, materialist atheists are a group of people who do share similar beliefs and I would challenge anyone, anytime, to find a material atheist who seriously challenges the ToE.

Anyone else's opinion is irrelevant to me.

No, I dont mind non religious people like you that doesnt shout of offensive language about Christianity and its belief in hell since you are open to discuss without lack of respect. It is that some atheists and non Christians that gets themselves in angst about hearing somethings that they dont want to hear when it was their responsibility to put themselves in that position.

I am sorry for all the people that have felt the pain of me speaking out the belief in some Christians, but what do people expect out of this thread named as "The Christian Hell"? Wouldnt the rules that follow about Christian hell be inevitably brought up? In real life, the word hell represents the most insulting and abhorrent atmosphere. The thread that is called "The Christian Hell" obviously is going to contain some abhorrent components and it should be clear for people to realise this before allowing themselves to be into the discussion. I really have to ask you, is it my fault to bring up the most horrific truth about Hell? If it I have emphasised it too much, then I apologise, but I just want people to know that it is not in my responsibility to induce people to feel insulted, they should be the ones to expect that some component are going to be somewhat insultive.

It seems the rule that who ends up in hell is causing great harm for everyone. I vow that I never speak out this rule again. Now this rule is out of the way, what else is there to discuss about Christian Hell? There is not much about it, just souls in inexplicable pain, fear and all those detrimental emotions and feelings. Let see, if Christian Hell exists or not? Let us experience that ourselves in the end of time.

A thing I want to thank you about is your ability to control yourself when perceiving contrasting perspectives and views about Christianity that you may not necessarily agree with. You dont dispute without manners and respect out of your anger like some people here and in the world. And finally please, dont get any idea that I am trying to convert you, I have no intention to do so.

Pendragon

01-19-2009, 12:31 PM

It's the reality, in your view, and it's insulting.

Just one quick question, my friend, for I do consider you a friend. Why be insulted by another's reality, as this is something you cannot believe and cannot see.

A quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"It makes no difference to me if my neighbor believes in no God or more Gods. It doesn't pick my pocket." This is paraphrased, as the exact quote is on my home computer and I am at work, but you get the idea. What someone deems worthy of belief and thinks you should know is no more insulting than for you to tell them you think they are being irrational. It should insult no one to hear someone out, and then agree or disagree and just move on.

That said, this thread should probably close, because this is getting us no further than when it first began. Some feel mankind is doomed to hell and others don't think so. That sums it up pretty good.

Do I think you are going to hell? I don't know you, and that would be judging, which the Bible expressly forbids. As I said before, I think Judgement Day will be filled with surprises for a lot of people, many of them who believe themselves to be solid Christians.

Sorry to post again after I folded, but I am certain you will forgive me.

God Bless

Pen

Pendragon

01-19-2009, 12:36 PM

And to another friend, Skasian. You have openly made your point and have warned people about the reality of hell. Having done so, you are free from their blood should they wind in in that awful place. Further argument is unnecessary.

I think you are very sincere, and that you are concerned and caring. But what people cannot believe, they cannot believe. Go in peace, my sister.

God bless

Pen

The Atheist

01-19-2009, 02:42 PM

It seems the rule that who ends up in hell is causing great harm for everyone. I vow that I never speak out this rule again. Now this rule is out of the way, what else is there to discuss about Christian Hell?

Other people have different ideas, and the point of the thread was to find a wide spread of opinion.

I think we have had that, but maybe it's been a bit overshadowed.

No matter - we're all in tune now.

:)

Just one quick question, my friend, for I do consider you a friend.

Just as well - I'd be insulted if you didn't!

Why be insulted by another's reality, as this is something you cannot believe and cannot see.

My sentiments entirely - it's the same to me as David Icke's supporters telling me I'm insane because I don't see the evidence of alien lizards. You may as well threaten me with the Cottingley Fairies.

I would bet that everyone in this thread knew before they entered it that some christians feel the way skasian does. The problem seems to be the repetition of it, which does come across as arrogant, "You're going to hell!" repeated endlessly gets under the skin.

In NZ, at least, we can laugh at it because Hell is an extremely successful pizza chain company which makes the best pizzas outside of specialist Italian restaurants. Many churches have felt insulted by both the name Hell and its highly amusing and Satanic advertising, and have made an immense number of official complaints to the regulatory bodies. The RCC has even asked its members to boycott the company.

To me, this is the identical situation in reverse and I ask myself why on earth those churches would care about it at all. According to their own theology, the people involved cannot be christian and cannot harm the church or its members, so why the fuss?

As I said before, I think Judgement Day will be filled with surprises for a lot of people, many of them who believe themselves to be solid Christians.

Yep, we agree here, because if such a thing as a god exists, I bet humans have got him completely wrong.

Sorry to post again after I folded, but I am certain you will forgive me.

I'll give it serious consideration.

;)

Pendragon

01-19-2009, 02:53 PM

In NZ, at least, we can laugh at it because Hell is an extremely successful pizza chain company which makes the best pizzas outside of specialist Italian restaurants. Many churches have felt insulted by both the name Hell and its highly amusing and Satanic advertising, and have made an immense number of official complaints to the regulatory bodies. The RCC has even asked its members to boycott the company.

To me, this is the identical situation in reverse and I ask myself why on earth those churches would care about it at all. According to their own theology, the people involved cannot be christian and cannot harm the church or its members, so why the fuss?

Mountains and molehills, or Jesus' motes and beams. Camels and the eye of a needle, etc. Much ado about nothing. My motto is: If things are as they are, deal with it. :)

When it comes to churches, I have, as a Minister, had a lot of doors closed for speaking my mind. But I am sure there are others who would be glad to hear someone like me speak. Que sera, sera.

weltanschauung

01-20-2009, 12:33 AM

How would you know whether if I dont question anything, sorry but you are very wrong. I question alot of things and most of these just cant be answered by humans. I question about why some periods of my life is so hard, I question God sometimes why I am not what He is expecting me to be, I question myself why somethings just seem so meaningless in life. I question myself what is worth the time and effort and what is not.
And yet you remark that I do not question? You have no authority to judge me in this way just because I am religious.

how do you know what "god" is expecting you to be? and why do you think he '"expects" anything at all?
what i dont understand is why do you see god as a person, but a huge one?
what i gather from what you say is that you see god as a gigantic superego, judging and pointing the finger down to his worthless children, an out of reach tyrant father, ordering around and expecting submission, or else punishment. i look at this kind of thought as infantile and under-elaborated, and that weltanschauung is the general rule in the world.
i dont believe in this god, because that is simply humankind's superego projection, and if there is something in this reality that is the demiurg, it is nature and the universe, and there isnt an outside force interfering and expecting anything, because the universe's laws are unavoidable and unchangeable. polarity and atraction and repulsion, that is "god". it is an eternal mechanism, but it doesnt think, cause we're the ones who do. a cloud and a rock and planet saturn dont think yet they're all alive, because the universe is alive, otherwise we wouldnt be here to question it.
therefore, god isnt "outside" of the world, watching and analising. god IS the world, we exist in "him", and he's not interfering and sending worthless parts of himself into an enternal ring of fire, because there is nothing outside of him.

billyjack

01-20-2009, 12:45 AM

weltanschauung

01-20-2009, 12:54 AM

billyjack

01-20-2009, 02:10 AM

agreed.

i watched this video once on youtube and i couldnt help laughing at it, because even though most christians arent this hysterically psychotic, i see all of the main characteristics of this lady in them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpva_iit-8

now this is also something that makes no sense at all to me...
why is it that nature is so evil under their eyes? nature is everything that is pure, arent we the filthy ones?

watched it: terrifying, vile, and cringefully funny. she's from the country i call home too...albeit the south

the beef with nature is some deep seeded self loathing that's beyond me...or self righteousness for that matter: too supreme to be part of the natural universe

The Atheist

01-20-2009, 02:51 AM

i've always been keen on allan watts name for it, "IT"

Bit Steven King.

What's wrong with Lucas' Force?

billyjack

01-20-2009, 10:31 AM

i hear "down under" there's a rather large proportion of people who claim jedi as their religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon

i can live with force, it, the, spaghetti monster, whatever. just so the implications of the word don't involve a heaven or a hell

blp

01-20-2009, 10:48 AM

agreed.

i watched this video once on youtube and i couldnt help laughing at it, because even though most christians arent this hysterically psychotic, i see all of the main characteristics of this lady in them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpva_iit-8

now this is also something that makes no sense at all to me...
why is it that nature is so evil under their eyes? nature is everything that is pure, arent we the filthy ones?

Those poor kids. They need to be taken away from that woman for their own protection. I actually couldn't watch it all, but it gives us a good, new way of understanding the subject of this thread, doesn't it? The Christian Hell. quod erat demonstrandum.

blp

01-20-2009, 10:55 AM

What's wrong with Lucas' Force?

Seriously? I know it might sound a bit humourless, but I do really dislike the earnestness with which that creed's put forward in the films, the notion that what seem to be the limits of natural law are really just the limits of our own preconceptions. It's very anti-Kantian. ;) And there are just too many people bumbling around with these kinds of ideas in real life for me to be able to see it as harmless in those movies.

weltanschauung

01-20-2009, 11:18 AM

weltanschauung

01-20-2009, 11:22 AM

Those poor kids. They need to be taken away from that woman for their own protection. I actually couldn't watch it all, but it gives us a good, new way of understanding the subject of this thread, doesn't it? The Christian Hell. quod erat demonstrandum.

quod erat demonstrandum indeed.

The Atheist

01-20-2009, 12:12 PM

Seriously?

The name, not the philosophy.

Pendragon

01-20-2009, 02:07 PM

This woman needs help herself. She cannot help others with that attitude. Christian is as Christian does and acts. I trust this isn't only way people view Christianity, through a warped lens given by a warped person.

God help us all if Christianity is degraded in this manner by those who profess it. May I never give the people on this site who know me as a Christian that type of horrible image.

God bless you all.

Pen

The Atheist

01-20-2009, 07:42 PM

This woman needs help herself. She cannot help others with that attitude. Christian is as Christian does and acts. I trust this isn't only way people view Christianity, through a warped lens given by a warped person.

Not worth bothering with - every side has its lunatics.

I know atheists at least as mad as she is.

Redzeppelin

01-22-2009, 12:18 AM

I know atheists at least as mad as she is.

Me too! We agree on something! Woooooweeeeee!

skasian

01-22-2009, 09:00 AM

skasian

01-22-2009, 09:31 AM

how do you know what "god" is expecting you to be? and why do you think he '"expects" anything at all?
what i dont understand is why do you see god as a person, but a huge one?
what i gather from what you say is that you see god as a gigantic superego, judging and pointing the finger down to his worthless children, an out of reach tyrant father, ordering around and expecting submission, or else punishment. i look at this kind of thought as infantile and under-elaborated, and that weltanschauung is the general rule in the world.
i dont believe in this god, because that is simply humankind's superego projection, and if there is something in this reality that is the demiurg, it is nature and the universe, and there isnt an outside force interfering and expecting anything, because the universe's laws are unavoidable and unchangeable. polarity and atraction and repulsion, that is "god". it is an eternal mechanism, but it doesnt think, cause we're the ones who do. a cloud and a rock and planet saturn dont think yet they're all alive, because the universe is alive, otherwise we wouldnt be here to question it.
therefore, god isnt "outside" of the world, watching and analising. god IS the world, we exist in "him", and he's not interfering and sending worthless parts of himself into an enternal ring of fire, because there is nothing outside of him.

Let me just clarify what I believe in, and response to your enquires.

I do not believe that God is a mortal person but a high being that is far from comprehension. Because we are created in the image of God, I believe our personalities and emotions came from God as well, such as expressing love, hope, happiness, anger etc. I believe the relationship between a human father and his offspring is similar to what we have with God, therefore a Father for us all.

I do not believe He points down his finger at "his worthless children", what ever He may not approve is our decisions that lack morality and virtue. He created us for the hope of us being His children, able to love him back and praise Him with all our might. He WANTS us to respect and follow His Words just like any other father in our world.

Now let me share my view of God being "outside" of our world. I believe when He first created the earth, He created three skies, the blue sky we see from earth, the infinite stretch of sky existing in the universe, and the final sky called heaven. I believe that God resides in the heaven, looking down on us in earth with His Holy Spirit moving around Earth. Now let me ask you a question, how is a cloud, rock, planet saturn in a universe "living"? How confident are you to believe that universe is living? How do you define "living"?Cloud is formed by water vapour, a lifeless gas, rock is a small lifeless component of the earth crust being separated from the ground and planet saturn is a lifeless gaseous sphere held by forces of the solar system's belt. How is the universe "alive" when such motion and interference have absolutely nothing to do with being "alive".

If following your logic, every religious person must worship everything in universe because it contains God. There is a reason why people dont worship rocks, clouds and planet saturn. Because God resides in Heavens, religious people look up to Him and worship Him upwards, in a realm where we cannot comprehend.

God created the universe, and once again, the universe is not Him, and nothing inside the universe can be God, unless His spirit resides in one, (ie God takes form of a burning bush when encountering Moses).
I believe that God is a true being that exists in the Heaven, and it is His Holy Spirit that revolves around us everyday in earth, watching our every move.

And may I ask what is weltanschauung?

skasian

01-22-2009, 09:43 AM

In NZ, at least, we can laugh at it because Hell is an extremely successful pizza chain company which makes the best pizzas outside of specialist Italian restaurants. Many churches have felt insulted by both the name Hell and its highly amusing and Satanic advertising, and have made an immense number of official complaints to the regulatory bodies. The RCC has even asked its members to boycott the company.

I have a question about Hell pizza chain company, because I heard this often as a rumour, but just asking you if you know anything about this.
Hell pizza belongs to a large chain group, including Burger King, Demon Drink, Starbucks, Mudfight Bikini festival that includes unappropriate nudity in women.
There have been on going rumour that these large chain companies dedicate a sum of their incomes to a cult that worships satan and devils. It seemed odious to realise that Hell pizza and Demon drink dedicates its image in these devilish theme, BK playing around "Whooper" which means hitting and slapping on people, Starbucks with its central logo, which represents goddess of all evil and Bikini festival containing very immoral behaviours.

I dont want to believe in these rumours, however I just want to ask if you know anything about this large chain group all directing to such abhorrence to be true.

Leksandar

01-22-2009, 10:07 AM

I love how atheism is slowly becoming a new religion, mostly being spread by insecure people that want to seem intellectual by underlining how religion cannot be proved through empiricism etc. It's not the point people. The point is that a shoemaker or an engineer doesn't need existential angst. That's religion's purpose in society. A doctor's job is to fix the gears, a teacher's job is to raise gears, and a priest's job is to convince the gear of the fact that there is a point in ticking the clock that is society. And now atheism is taking over that part in society, because we know enough now to be able to relax even when in the face of empiricism, but the truth? People, the truth is that we know nothing at all.

The conclusion? Richard Dawkins is a dork, and this «discussion» is absurd.

Thank you.

(Oh, and I do hope skasian was joking with that last post about pizza and hellish demon cults, because there's a grave difference between being a model citizen and just plain... stupid. Ick.)

(And just for the record, I'm an agnostic. Not because I'm too lazy to make up my mind, but because I'm sincere, though I do not expect that of you unless your ambitions are as high as mine.)

skasian

01-22-2009, 10:31 AM

(Oh, and I do hope skasian was joking with that last post about pizza and hellish demon cults, because there's a grave difference between being a model citizen and just plain... stupid. Ick.)

If it was to be true, which I hope is not, all model citizens are paying their hardearned money towards evil.

weltanschauung

01-22-2009, 10:45 AM

weltanschauung

01-22-2009, 10:52 AM

(Oh, and I do hope skasian was joking with that last post about pizza and hellish demon cults, because there's a grave difference between being a model citizen and just plain... stupid. Ick.)

she isnt

If it was to be true, which I hope is not, all model citizens are paying their hardearned money towards evil.

http://cmtvarok.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/doh.jpg

http://forum.alsacreations.com/upload/2043-fail-camera.jpg

billyjack

01-22-2009, 12:33 PM

The conclusion? Richard Dawkins is a dork, and this «discussion» is absurd.

the #2 intellectual in the world a dork? obviously. but he's also witty, sincere, and brilliant....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

of course this topic is absurd. but people believe it so we discuss it

The Atheist

01-22-2009, 02:33 PM

Because we are created in the image of God, I believe our personalities and emotions came from God as well, such as expressing love, hope, happiness, anger etc.

Again, we arrive at the position that the god created us, complete with our sin, which he abhors.

Doesn't add up.

I have a question about Hell pizza chain company, because I heard this often as a rumour, but just asking you if you know anything about this.
Hell pizza belongs to a large chain group, including Burger King, Demon Drink, Starbucks, Mudfight Bikini festival that includes unappropriate nudity in women.

False.

Hell Pizza is a privately owned NZ company and no relation at all to BK or Starbucks. BK and Starbucks aren't related either. I've never heard of the Bikini Festival, but Demon Energy [drink] is just another small, privately-owned NZ company which is no relation to any of the others.

This information is available through the NZ Government website here (http://www.companies.govt.nz/cms).

The Mudfight Bikini Festival sounds great - where is it? (and when)

There have been on going rumour that these large chain companies dedicate a sum of their incomes to a cult that worships satan and devils.

The rumour is false. Starbucks and BK are publicly-listed companies whose books are subject to close audit by several regulatory bodies and there is no payment to demonic cults.

Hell has a chain going, but Demon Energy are a very small company.

It seemed odious to realise that Hell pizza and Demon drink dedicates its image in these devilish theme, BK playing around "Whooper" which means hitting and slapping on people, Starbucks with its central logo, which represents goddess of all evil and Bikini festival containing very immoral behaviours.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Good grief, where did you get all this?

Hell Pizza and Demon Drink are simply trading on your own fears. Why do you think they came up with those names? Because the owners know that controversy creates talk, which creates business. First rule of business is to get your brand name known, and it's sad but true that any company which chooses a demonic or hell theme will attract publicity because people from various churches will kick up a fuss - and in your case, pass on unfounded rumours.

Just think - every time you pass on that rumour, you are actually helping those companies, which is both funny and ironic.

The BK, is a "WHOPPER", which is just big, rather than a whooper, so that one's gone, and as for Starbucks' logo being a goddess, it comes from Greek mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks#Logo), so it's no relation to anything you'd need to worry about. Would you have a problem if their logo was Zeus or Hercules?

I dont want to believe in these rumours, however I just want to ask if you know anything about this large chain group all directing to such abhorrence to be true.

There you go - all lies, every bit of it, you can drink coffee and eat burgers to your heart's content. I can understand you not going to Hell Pizza, though. Even the Catholic church asked its members to avoid the place. Their pizzas are ok. Demon Energy is just typical guarana/caffeine rubbish and shouldn't be fit for human consumption. They'll go broke anyway - as has every Kiwi company which has tried to break into the "energy" drink market.

I love how atheism is slowly becoming a new religion, mostly being spread by insecure people that want to seem intellectual by underlining how religion cannot be proved through empiricism etc.

This is just wrong.

Please do explain how insecurity has anything to do with atheism?

The conclusion? Richard Dawkins is a dork, and this «discussion» is absurd.

Well, it certainly seems to have got that way today.

(And just for the record, I'm an agnostic. Not because I'm too lazy to make up my mind, but because I'm sincere, though I do not expect that of you unless your ambitions are as high as mine.)

Thanks. Marvellous to have such a paragon of sincerity and honesty in the discussion.

Given your ability to insult people based only upon your own mistaken views, I really have my doubts about your sincerity, but if you say it, it must be true.

Leksandar

01-22-2009, 03:32 PM

Try again.

The Atheist

01-22-2009, 05:53 PM

Try again.

Nah, I'm pretty comfortable with the response.

skasian

01-23-2009, 06:56 AM

Again, we arrive at the position that the god created us, complete with our sin, which he abhors.

Doesn't add up.

False.

Hell Pizza is a privately owned NZ company and no relation at all to BK or Starbucks. BK and Starbucks aren't related either. I've never heard of the Bikini Festival, but Demon Energy [drink] is just another small, privately-owned NZ company which is no relation to any of the others.

This information is available through the NZ Government website here (http://www.companies.govt.nz/cms).

The Mudfight Bikini Festival sounds great - where is it? (and when)

The rumour is false. Starbucks and BK are publicly-listed companies whose books are subject to close audit by several regulatory bodies and there is no payment to demonic cults.

Hell has a chain going, but Demon Energy are a very small company.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Good grief, where did you get all this?

Hell Pizza and Demon Drink are simply trading on your own fears. Why do you think they came up with those names? Because the owners know that controversy creates talk, which creates business. First rule of business is to get your brand name known, and it's sad but true that any company which chooses a demonic or hell theme will attract publicity because people from various churches will kick up a fuss - and in your case, pass on unfounded rumours.

Just think - every time you pass on that rumour, you are actually helping those companies, which is both funny and ironic.

The BK, is a "WHOPPER", which is just big, rather than a whooper, so that one's gone, and as for Starbucks' logo being a goddess, it comes from Greek mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks#Logo), so it's no relation to anything you'd need to worry about. Would you have a problem if their logo was Zeus or Hercules?

There you go - all lies, every bit of it, you can drink coffee and eat burgers to your heart's content. I can understand you not going to Hell Pizza, though. Even the Catholic church asked its members to avoid the place. Their pizzas are ok. Demon Energy is just typical guarana/caffeine rubbish and shouldn't be fit for human consumption. They'll go broke anyway - as has every Kiwi company which has tried to break into the "energy" drink market.

Actually I never passed on such rumour as I believed it was untrue, I was just asking you if you know anything about it. Thanks for confirming that all is false, and I heard these rumours but a bunch of school people couple of years back.
Oh yeah, I dont have much a thing against Hell pizza, I think they use these devilish themes to increase their profits and fame. I prefer Dominoes, Hell pizzas are way too spicy:)

Oh yes, God is absolute good and truth, and we are not, so we are capable of sin.

Pendragon

01-24-2009, 10:40 AM

Dawkins is far from a "dork", someone needs a lesson in humility before calling others names. This discussion became obsolete once people made their points on belief or disbelief in hell...

Rush_of_Blood

01-25-2009, 03:40 AM

i have looked at all the posts, and i don't see what you are trying to answer now. it seems like it's now turned into a general philosophical debate. what main question are we answering now?

skasian

01-25-2009, 05:54 AM

I say there isnt much to discuss about the Christian Hell to a further extent, which may make up the reason why people are drifting along some irrelevant philosophical debates.

skasian

01-25-2009, 06:42 AM

skasian, i apreciate your effort to explain your point of views, you are extremely patient and kind in your words. but i disagree with every single word you say :)
i also think your view is filled with contradictions you clearly dont suspect, but...

"He created us for the hope of us being His children"
thats it? thats why we exist? thats the reason for all of this? that is way too naive and underelaborated for me..

"Now let me ask you a question, how is a cloud, rock, planet saturn in a universe "living"? How confident are you to believe that universe is living? How do you define "living"?"
the universe is alive and expanding, in motion, that isnt just an empirical assumption, everything is alive, the atoms are pulsing, in that rock, in my finger, in planet saturn, that is a scientific fact... the seed of life lies latent everywhere in the universe, given the right conditions for life to blossom, it does, because life is latent in our universe, because the universe itself is alive.
http://bugs.bio.usyd.edu.au/Mycology/images/Topics/Plant_Interactions/Lichens/yellowLichen.jpg

i dont think you realise, but you have an anthropomorphicized vision of god, you give him human characteristics. you give him thoughts, and feelings and behaviours

"If following your logic, every religious person must worship everything in universe because it contains God. There is a reason why people dont worship rocks, clouds and planet saturn. Because God resides in Heavens, religious people look up to Him and worship Him upwards, in a realm where we cannot comprehend."
"How is the universe "alive" when such motion and interference have absolutely nothing to do with being "alive"."

movement and motion are EXACTLY everything that define life. im not talking about arms and legs here, skasian, get out of your box.
you know.. maybe if people "worshiped" nature instead of jhwh frankenstein, the world would not have turned into a huge pile of s%#t and trash. there is nothing holier than nature.
yeah, god resides in heaven, sitting somewhere drinking ambrosia and thinking "hmm, im gonna start some s**t today http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/39.gif"

"God created the universe, and once again, the universe is not Him, and nothing inside the universe can be God, unless His spirit resides in one, (ie God takes form of a burning bush when encountering Moses)."

"aham eva param brahman", skasian.

what is weltanschauung?
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/facist_jockitch/sh/catcube.jpg

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/facist_jockitch/n8tur/abaddonsmall.jpg

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/facist_jockitch/sh/landon-charles-paul-daedalus-and-ic.jpg

"Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you.."
spread your wings, ikarus.

""He created us for the hope of us being His children"
thats it? thats why we exist? thats the reason for all of this? that is way too naive and underelaborated for me.."

I apologise for my vague approach of expressing my view. Let me put in this context; A man created another human for the hope of them to be his children. Now let us think the reason for all this, why man decides that he wants to become a father. He desires company, create and get to know a human being that has half of his characteristics, physical, pyschological, intellectual etc. He desires to leave a footprint of himself, he desires his footprints to feel the same appreciation of life as he does. He desires to give life to human beings that is part of his flesh and blood. He desires to love and be loved by them, he desires to be proud and be prouded of. He desires beings that he can call his own.

And so did God from the beginning.

So yes, I do give God the same characteristics and personality/emotions that we humans do. I believe we received some of his characteristics including the ability to feel emotions from the start of Creation. However, I believe that we received very little of these characteristics from him ie. we have limitations of loving a fixed number of people, whereas God can love with no limitations.

Ok the scientific definition of "life" is MRS C GREN. M- movement, R- respiratory (exhanging of gases) , S-Sensory, C-Circulation (of blood and materials throughout the body), G- Growth, R-Reproduction, E-Excretory, N-Nutrition. This is from a memory of my intermediate school in science class, and any school student will be able to recognise what in this world is living and what is not. The moon, fire, rock, cloud, planet saturn or the universe is NOT living. The universe may CONTAIN life, as it contains organisms in earth and maybe some odd UFO, but let me make it clear, itself is not living.
You tell any scientist that an atom is living, they will laugh at your face. A.T.O.M comes from Atomic Theory of Matter, and matter is always divided into two, living and nonliving. Atom are the smallest particles we can get that can make up either a living or nonliving matter. The scientific word "living" and anything that possesses life, must have MRS C GREN, and thats that.

The rock with some mosses? Rock itself doesnt cover the MRS C GREN therefore non living. The mosses does cover the MRS C GREN therefore living. The rock provides mosses its habitat and partially responsible for its niche, nothing more. The two things are not the same.

May I ask what "aham eva param brahman" is?

We should worship nature? For what purpose? It contains life, and provides habitat and necessarily materials, but then what? God created nature, and he also created us. In this logic, worshipping nature is like worshipping the next person you see walking past you.

Sorry, but I still dont understand weltanschauung with a couple of random images and verses from the bible. Could you please elaborate?

Nightshade

01-25-2009, 07:33 AM

Weltanschang is world view quite literally. It means the way you view the world, glass half full glass half empty kind of. Humm on a completly no religious topic 2 differnt weltanschangs for choosing to go to university.
1) A degree is nesscery to get on in life.
2) Learning is an amazing thing and I study purly for the sake of it.

You get me?
:D

skasian

01-25-2009, 08:39 AM

Rozzy

01-27-2009, 01:23 PM

Any one ready for a new perspective on Hell? Maybe you already have discussed this, I never went back and read this whole thread.

The Bible is a chronology of past events in time which speaks long about God and all that entails. Today we are taught doctrines especially from the New Testament on both the first advent of Christ and the second.
Concerning the Bible we either believe its teachings or we do not, what if someone has fiddled with the Bible and its teachings and there by we are being taught the doctrines of men rather than the doctrines of God?

Pre christian and early christians up until the fifth century never believed in eternity spent in hell for anyone. Yes that is true, so where do these eternity in hell teachings come from? The answer is quite uncomplicated and short, JEROME that is where.

How can that be when your Bibles all use the word eternal? I can tell you how actually. Several things happened, 1. Jereome switched the Septuagint text out and inserted the Babylonian text 2. Jerome changed the text and 3. he added 2 Peter and Jude which teach a whole new doctrine.

The Septuagint Bible is the Bible used from the third century B.C. up until the fifth century A.D. This text was a Greek translation of the ancient Hebrew scriptures, it came into being because Greek is the language being spoken at the time. The Septuagint Bible is the first Bible, it was translated by Hebrew scholars from Hebrew into Greek.
A major change was taking place, around the fifth century Latin was replacing Greek as the common language. Jerome was asked to translate the scriptures into a standard Latin tranlsation, he was given sole authority over the project and that is where the problems begin.

Rozzy

01-27-2009, 02:00 PM

First lets look at the word eternal

The Greek (Septuagint) uses the word 'aionios', today if you look it up in a modern lexicon it will be determined to mean eternal, forever, etc.
However if you look it up and its use in the early christian era and the writings from that time it is not used in that sense. Theoligins have been saying it now for so long to mean eternal that its modern use has now morphed.
Aionios as originally used meant a set time or period which varied depending on the circumstances it was being used. It could mean a set time like three years or a lifetime or an aeon etc.
The Latin equivalent of aionios is 'seculorum' but the word Jerome used was 'aeternum' which is the word english derives the word eternal.
A perfect example is Ephesians ch.3:11 where Jerome did use 'seculorum' but when it came to the words of Jesus he used the word 'aeternum'.
So now Jerome's new translation used the term 'aeternum iusti' which means eternal punishment. That is why our Bibles now say the nonchristian dead will be resurrected to face eternal punishment.
The Septuagint used the word aionios in many places to describe things and events that had already happened and ended so it is not representative of eternal.

Rozzy

01-27-2009, 02:38 PM

Something Jerome did was vigorously promote 2 Peter and Jude to be added to the canon. The importance of this can be shown by comparing the doctrines taught in these books as compared to the Old Testament books. The most quoted being Isaiah so let us start there.

(Isa 65:17) For there shall be a new heaven and a new earth: and they shall not at all remember the former, neither shall they at all come into their mind.
(Isa 65:18) But they shall find in her joy and exultation; for, behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and my people a joy.
(Isa 65:19) And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and will be glad in my people: and there shall no more be heard in her the voice of weeping, or the voice of crying.
(Isa 65:20) Neither shall there be there any more a child that dies untimely, or an old man who shall not complete his time: for the youth shall be a hundred years old, and the sinner who dies at a hundred years shall also be accursed:
Brentons-Septuagint

Notice the transformation of a new heaven and new earth, children being born and sinners dieing at a hundred years old.

Now we will look at 2 Peter on the same subject.

(2Pe 3:7) But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
(2Pe 3:10) But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
(2Pe 3:11) Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
(2Pe 3:12) Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
(2Pe 3:13) Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Look at the difference here, the ungodly are going to be burned up instead of living to be a hundred, the heavens and the earth will pass away in a firey destruction.

It is interesting how 2 Peter opposes Isaiah on this very subject.

The Septuagint says the unrighteous dead will be resurrected to 'aionios kolasis' which means temporary punishment not eternal punishment.

The christian founders believed in temporary punishment, the early christians believed in temporary punishment, from the time forward from Jerome the new christians were taught eternal punishment and because it was now scripture and being taught whole heartedly over time it became the standard doctrine being taught.

Rozzy

01-27-2009, 03:00 PM

Here is another interesting fact.

The Bible also teaches that after their punishment Sodom and Gommorrah will be restored to their original state.

(Eze 16:53) And I will turn their captivity, even the captivity of Sodom and her daughters; and I will turn the captivity of Samaria and her daughters; and I will turn thy captivity in the midst of them:
(Eze 16:54) that thou mayest bear thy punishment, and be dishonoured for all that thou hast done in provoking me to anger.
(Eze 16:55) And thy sister Sodom and her daughters shall be restored as they were at the beginning, and thou and thy daughters shall be restored as ye were at the beginning.

Now let us look at Jude ch.1:7
(Jud 1:7) As Sodom and Gomorrha and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
English translation of the Vulgate

(Jud 1:7) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
KJV

Do you see the difference?
Ezekiel has Sodom and Gommorrah redeemed and Jude has Sodom and Gommorrah set as an example of suffering eternal punishment in fire.

You can do a whole study on christianity before Jerome and after, what I have posted is just the surface, but the number one thing that stands out is how he did it, he switched the Septuagint for another text, then made changes to that text and added 2 Peter and Jude.

Pendragon

01-28-2009, 11:53 AM

2 Timothy 3:7
EVER LEARNING, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Rozzy

01-28-2009, 03:02 PM

And some are indoctrinated beyond reason so that they can not see the truth though it is in plain veiw right in front of them.

blp

01-28-2009, 03:36 PM

Thanks for this detailed explanation, Rozzy. Very interesting.

Pendragon

01-28-2009, 04:01 PM

And some are indoctrinated beyond reason so that they can not see the truth though it is in plain veiw right in front of them.
Hey, don't get me wrong, if you go back on the posts you will find my own arguments against eternal hell.

Rozzy

01-28-2009, 04:57 PM

The best thing to do is research the info I put forward and see if it checks out. What I posted is only the tip of the iceberg once you know what you are looking for you can go into information overload, chuckle.

Ask youself this question, would a God who created all, the God that created man in his own image send in the high nineties percent to an everlasting hell where they would suffer forever and ever for eternity? litterally sending billions of people to there eternal suffering in fire and just keep doing it generation after generation, age after age? I personally do not think so. Would he send people for correction for a time, a correction that maybe very hard to bare that lasts the length of time He determines, yes I think He would.
Now I have some travel plans I need to attend to, adios!

Rozzy

Rush_of_Blood

02-04-2009, 12:02 AM

kiki1982

02-04-2009, 08:32 AM

I don't have time to read absolutely everythig, but I read about the first half of this dicussion...

I am also a Christian, but I seem to have more liberal views.

The whole discussion about Jesus' existence.
If Jesus did not exist, why do certain Roman writers actually mention him then?The key here is not if he existed, that is a preconceived fact which the Romans, in their urge to be administrative, probably even noted down. The key is what the gospels made him.
In the early days he was a rebel, a sekt leader (like there are ones now), but incidentally the belief in Christ and his doctrines grew to a proportion that made it a religion. Jesus is not perfect, he was a man, but history and certain canonic books (cleverly selected, no doubt) have made him perfect.

Anyway: the Hell.

I seem to have noticed that the Catholic Church got rid of that idea a few years ago, but I may be wrong.
It seems indeed strange to conceive that a God who is love would 'punish' people by eternal suffering (however that may be). Jesus indeed never mentioned it and I don't think it exists in Jewish religion either. (if someone would be so kind as to enlighten me on that).

Heaven, Hell and Purgatory were very popular as categories of people:
Really bad people went to Hell: muderers, people who committed blasphemy, thieves etc. etc. However, if you got absolution for your sins before death then you would go to heaven anyway. (??)
The Purgatory was for temporal suffering, if I'm right, and for unbaptised children (children who died just after birth. That's why they all baptised them straight away: then they would go to Heaven because they had got rid of the birth sin (???), because a baby was considered to have resulted out of the sin of lust (???)), and people who committed suicide. People who still had to pay for their sins, but didn't have to burn in Hell for eternity would go to the Purgatory until they were allowed in Heaven, I think. I don't think they went to Hell because that was eternal condemnation, although maybe during a certain period the Purgatory may not have existed (anymore).
Heaven was for the truly good, or the ones with no sins.

For me that structure speaks of worldly creation in order for people to understand the consequences of their behaviour here on earth, to reward good and repel bad behaviour. Like that rich man who asks Jesus what he needs to do to be happy because he has done already a lot of good. And Jesus tells him to get rid of his riches. Which normal person would do that unless he would get a reward for it? In order for a bunch of uneducated people (because that is what medieval peope were) to do good, there needs to be a clear aim: Heaven. A place where it is much better than here: where there is no hunger, no disease, no suffering, no pain, no nothing apart from love and eternal life.

There are probably theologists who could provide a lot more info on Hell, how it came about, who wrote about it the first time etc, which must be very interesting. But I am afraid I do not believe that God Himself does not punish or reward and that the Christian afterlife is the same as all afterlife: a place where the souls of people live on, good or bad, together.

The Atheist

02-04-2009, 11:29 AM

The whole discussion about Jesus' existence.
If Jesus did not exist, why do certain Roman writers actually mention him then?

Which Roman writers were they? I'm not aware of any non-biblical texts which mention Jesus.

But I am afraid I do not believe that God Himself does not punish or reward and that the Christian afterlife is the same as all afterlife: a place where the souls of people live on, good or bad, together.

You must be an Anglican with those liberal views!

kiki1982

02-04-2009, 11:54 AM

Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius among others.
Certainly Pliny and Tacitus are respectable sources, seems to me. There is no doubt that they refer to the 'crucified person in Israel who had a lot of followers', who was executed by Pilate. But they also describe Jesus' followers as peculiar people. Like we would do of a sekt leader. The Christians only became a major religion, in my opinion, because they were realistic about their beliefs and not too extreme like the JW's, Scientologists, or others of that kind.

I would say, in a political perspective, that Che Guevara is a good example of reality to myth. Che is now a synonym for any freedom fighter and alternative spirit with T-shirts and everything, but he himself was part of a guerilla-movementand was killed very young. It just grows into myth, no matter what the contents of his life... Yet there are other guerilla fighters, like Pol Pot (?) who do not get that status...

As to miracles f.e.: any normal person realises that a miracle is not possible, or that there is a very minor chance of it happening. It is not denouncing God (as I might do for more pious people), but it is just being realistic. Why is it that all those miracles used to happen and that they don't anymore? Because the perception of people is a lot more scientific and a lot wider than it used to be and they couldn't put an ailment down to a certain disease. Now they can, so the actual going away of a disease is also not anymore solely up to God, so God doesn't perform miracles through his servants anymore, but it is now the servant who makes them happen (the doctor). The Jehova's Witnesses have found a good argument to 'explain' that kind of mistery: 'they don't happen anymore, because God doesn't do them anymore' :lol:. I am sorry, but that just speaks naivety... Both in belief and perception of the world. Sadly, it is people like that who shout the loudest and who make people believe that Christians are peculiar and unrealistic in their world view.

I am a Catholic actually. Surprising, isn't it? And I am not against contraception, not against abortion, not against condoms, not in favour of virginity before marriage etc. etc. Strange isn't it...

kiki1982

02-04-2009, 12:55 PM

This is what Pope John Paul II said about Hell:

The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy

In essence, the view of John Paul really provides more realistic people with an acceptable answer to the Hell-question, whether those people are atheists or less-simplistic Christians who also believe but do not choose to be unscientific about things.

Pope Benedict XVI, though, said:

Hell really exists and is eternal

I think, even as a Catholic, that John Paul's view was more accessible and more universal than Benedict's view, but John Paul was a lot more modern and was the first pope to seek other religions of the Christian faith (the Orthodox and Protestant) and even the Jews and Muslims to unite in their vision of God.

This is interesting, though:
In the Catechism, which is still used apparently (in Belgium it went largely out of use in the 60s, I think), it says about Hell:

We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."610 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.611 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

Yet in one of the first it says (very simplisticly):

Hell is a state to which the wicked are condemned, and in which they are deprived of the sight of God for all eternity, and are in dreadful torments. (Question 1379)

But we will still have to see how Benedict gets on... However, shuld anyone care what he says no matter what? We all believe in our own way, so we should all be unique in our thinking, and no pope can tell us what to think...

I can imagine that it is not great to live in eternal damnation, but that eternal damnation does not occur because one has stolen something... It occurs when one is greedy, lustful, envious, etc. (the seven cardinal sins) and does not repent. But I think that that state of mind provokes suffering anyway, and doesn't need God to punish it, because even on the earth during your life, that state of mind of selfishness, striving for material possessions, in short, striving for an empty box (because what does all that bring you?), makes one unhappy.
So in essence, if looked at properly, there is or shouldn't be an element of punishent involved. It is so in popular culture because it is easier to understand that way...Whether damnation depends on God Himself, I very much doubt it.

The Atheist

02-04-2009, 02:16 PM

Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius among others.

My apologies - I meant contemporary sources, of which there are none. Plenty of later ones.

I am a Catholic actually. Surprising, isn't it? And I am not against contraception, not against abortion, not against condoms, not in favour of virginity before marriage etc. etc. Strange isn't it...

You're a bad Catholic!

Pope Benedict XVI, though, said:

Yes, Herr RatZZinger seems determined to bring back the Inquisition and fear of hell. Nice bloke.

But we will still have to see how Benedict gets on... However, shuld anyone care what he says no matter what? We all believe in our own way, so we should all be unique in our thinking, and no pope can tell us what to think...

Are you sure you're Catholic? I trust you don't apply your beliefs to ex cathedra statements?

But I think that that state of mind provokes suffering anyway, and doesn't need God to punish it, because even on the earth during your life, that state of mind of selfishness, striving for material possessions, in short, striving for an empty box (because what does all that bring you?), makes one unhappy.

Lovely theory, but people can be either amoral or immoral, which is where the premise falls apart. There is no universal sin.

kiki1982

02-04-2009, 05:08 PM

Of course they are later. The sources they drew on to make those accounts are no longer available to us, but they were to them. It is probable to historians that Pliny interrogated Christians on who they worshipped and that was passed on to Tacitus. It is not totally impossible for Pliny to have spoken to one who knew Jesus.
Josephus wrote

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

Although it is not agreed upon if this was his true style, in the 10th century there was an independent translation fom a Christian Arab who quotes Josephus as well:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (he) was known to be virtuous and many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not desert his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders

The two passages certainly have the same contents, only the tone is different, which could be a corruption of the copyist, which was done fairly much. The fact that an independent translation of the same work was made, suggests and makes it very probable that Josephus, of whom is recorded that he was a Jew and not a Christian, indeed wrote about Jesus and that very shortly after the crucifixion.
There seems to be a link with the gospel of Luke as well as Josephus and Luke tell the same story about Emmaus. They must both have consulted the same source for their story, because both were not there. However, Josephus can have had access to earlier sources. As the gospel of Luke was written around about 85-90AD and Josephus Testemonium in the 90s of the first century, the source must have been available before that time. As Josephus was born around 37 (around the same time that Jesus was crucified 'during Tiberius' reign' which ended in 37AD) he can certainly have met people seeing as he lived in Jerusalem, was a priest there and came only in the world very very shortly after Jesus was crucified. He was already writing in 70AD. There is a big chance that he had first hand accounts of the man Jesus and not the myth Jesus, which is also to be seen in how he wrote about the man.

I don't see why I should be a bad Catholic? At least I don't terrorise people with my own (sometimes) problematic ideas, that's very Christian to me... Not the principles you follow make you Catholic, Protestant, Calvinist or whatever, but it is what you believe in that makes you something. I believe in Heaven, in Jesus as the son of God, and technically, I should believe in the immaculate conception, although my scientific mind cannot conceive how a baby gets to be without sperm... But the notion of the immaculate conception only came to be (I believe) because of the 'existence' of the initial sin (baby made out of lust). For Jesus that wasn't possible because he was taught to be perfect. How do you solve that? 'He came out of a virgin', which implies no sex, no initial sin. In the eldest gospels Mary is the wife of Joseph and not his pregnant fiancé. But the words of the angel who comes to tell Mary that a son will be born, got interpreted as a ground for the immaculate conception...

In their urge to actually structurise the belief system of the Catholic Church (or that is what it has now become) they started to get problems in the consistency of them. With the introduction of the Purgatory and the initial sin, they got conflicted with perfect Jesus... The dogma of the immaculate conception only was first mentioned in the 11th century... For the first Christians Jesus was a man who got born like the rest of us and who taught good beliefs, no more than that. And so ironically, would also have ended up in Purgatory, if he had died. But then again he was still Jewish, so that wouldn't have applied to him, I guess...

I believe in the Holy Trinity and that is what makes me Catholic.

It depends what ex cathdra means... I do not approve of what the pope or bishops or whoever says because 'they have authority'. Hitlier had authority because he was elected president, but was he right? That was only a metaphoric assertion, though, not a sneer towards Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Authority is only earnt on a basis where it is respectable. Thus the authority of the pope should only go so far that his assertions are realistic. A condom is not immoral, the pill is not immoral, sex is not immoral. Of course if it pans out into a spiral of one-night-stands and 50 sex partners in a month, then it becomes quite exagerated, no matter whether you don't coneive any children because you use condoms or the pill. But then there is mostly an issue with the person who does have such a lot of sex with a lot of different men/women reagarding a self-image.
Let us hope that in three popes time there is one who is part of the modern world, but the problem is that the largest part of that Catholic world will still be conservative...

Of course, there is amoral or immoral, but still it is not good for a person's happy state of mind to go to the extreme for things like possession, anger, indulgence (seven cardinal sins, if I have to use that expression...). There the philosophy of the Catholics draws on stoic ideas about suffering and eradicating suffering.
Charity gives you a good feeling. Greed gives you possession. (that doesn't mean you have to give away what you don't have, though)
Humility gives you a feeling of peace and hapiness with people who like you, whereas pride repels people and when your pide is (inevitably) hurt it makes you feel bad.
I won't go on.
But what it was made in the 19th century or the things my grandmother believed was the simplistic version:
sloth was considered literal: being lazy. Whereas sloth was meant as apathy and a failure of doing God's work, spiritual apathy, so to say. (you might agree or not, about the main issue, but it shows how some early things got corrupted)
and like that, the real doctrine got popularised, but also narrowed down to something unrealistic and sometimes inconsistent.

I supose there is something like universal suffering which the Catholic church adopted from the stoics. Not universal sin, as that is going against a moral and if that moral is not there, there is no sin.