The Christian Hell

[skasian]

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]

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.

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]

Religion is cherry picked? Would you mind to elaborate?

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

[skasian]

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]

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]

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

[skasian]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

wrong post

[The Atheist]

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]

Deuteronomy 19

I think it's Moses!

Ah, thanks for the correction.