Why Would God Make It 100% Clear To You?

[BluffTHIS!]

My question below is primarily for non-believers, because most religious believers, and especially Christians, have an answer we believe. But for the rest of you:

If the God of Christianity or another religion is true, why would he make his existence and the truth of his religion clear to you? In particular, why would he make it crystal clear to the point of certainty, rather than not just clear enough?

Many of you here, have said it would take personally witnessing a miracle, that you knew with certainty could not have been contrived, or merely be scientifically explainable but just not by today's state of science. (And David called ridiculous the assertions of those who said they would not even believe with all those conditions met.) So again, why would a god want to make it that perfectly clear to you, if some religion is true?

Notice that the answer that this is a moot question because there is no god is not an answer, as for the purposes of this discussion, at least one god and at least one religion are posited as true.

[chezlaw]

Nothing is 100%
Clear enough would do
anything would be a start.

chez

[MidGe]

Hiya BluffTHIS, It would need to do so, the remedy the notion I have gained about such an entity, by looking at the world. He would have to turn things upsaide down in a manifest way, for its benevolence to have any credibility with me.

I am even prepared to accept its onmipotence but I will humanely stand against it. I want no part of its games.

If I was a fundamentalist christian, I would have to wonder if my beliefs were not the work of the devil, who in a very pernicious way would have set himself up as god and redefined good and evil in its fashion. I don't care if the whole world tells me something is white and where it may be written, if I see it as white, it is white for me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif However this sort of peer pressure is a phenomena well documented by psychologists which may even explain the phenomena of religion.

[Bork]

He should at least give people a fair shot before punishing them because they don't believe. Some divine acts would be nice.

Somebody miraculously recieving some funds to pay for their truck does not count. Neither does Warner and the rams winning the superbowl. It has to be something that an unbiased intelligent person would judge to be an act of God.


Moreover, what kind of morally perfect being would punish people for their religious beliefs or lack thereof? It is intolerance and bigotry in the purest form.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]


If the God of Christianity or another religion is true, why would he make his existence and the truth of his religion clear to you? In particular, why would he make it crystal clear to the point of certainty, rather than not just clear enough?



[/ QUOTE ]

I think that the clear enough standard is certainly reasonable, but I can see how others might feel entitled to 100% certainty.

For one, most churches claim that God is performing miracles all the time. Why do only some get this benefit of 100% clarity.

Secondly, that is what I believe God promises us. My scripture recolection is a little hazy but doesnt He say that those who seek Him shall find him and know with certainty? Its just a matter of remembering that he did show himself clearly and not allowing outside influences to shed doubt on that.

[hmkpoker]

Well, to answer this one would have to ask what God's purpose is creating us, and as far as I can see, making his presence well-known seems to be useful.

1) God wants us to worship, love, and glorify him. Well, what better way to get people to worship, love and glorify you than to first prove you exist.

2) God wants us to live wonderful, happy, heavenly lives. Ah, so there's a place, for which no empirical evidence exists, that my "soul," an object also for which no empirical evidence exists, will go to after I die that's infinitely better than earthly pleasure, and all I have to do is forsake it and believe in Jesus to get there? Well, okay, can I please have some evidence that any of these things exist before I decide to stop living in a manner that has proven emotionally, intellectually and physically satisfying for years?

Put yourself in the atheist's shoes for a second. We don't follow God because we know he exists and choose to be rebellious, we do it because he doesn't seem to exist. To his credit, he has a book filled with inconsistencies, laws that no longer apply, and a striking similarity to other holy books. It claims that the authors were "inspired," an unfalsifiable claim also shared by other religions. The book reflects an incentive to control the masses. His creation shows no significant evidence of design, for reasons that have been addressed dozens of times already in this forum. The supposed miracles that have occured in his name are either vague testimonies, overblown coincidences, or feats easily duplicated or even surpassed by stage magic. God has no more credibility to us than Allah or Brahman. Each created an imperfect world, each sent a couple of people to write books in confirmation of their existence, and each has some half-assed miracles and vague prophecies to back them up.

Finally, the notion of believing without empirical evidence as a virtue is absurd, and not applicable anywhere except religion, and arguably Santa Claus. This virtue asks us to turn our backs on the forms of critical thinking that have been the cornerstone of all human progress.

So yeah, I don't believe, and I think I have pretty good reasons not to believe. And Christians don't really have much of an argument, in my opinion, and in the opinion of millions of atheists. A talking burning bush, however, would be the start of something; I can't imagine any other sort of thing that could get me to believe in God, and since my belief in God is allegedly important to God, shouldn't he do something about it, rather than leaving my skeptical mind with insuffient information that will end up damning me for eternity?

The real question is, why wouldn't he make it crystal clear?



(Incidentally, I won over $300 at 5-10 while I typed this post.)

[kurto]

Why wouldn't he? EVERY religion relies on faith.

What is the conception of God that presents this choice to people:
He lets people all over earth hear dozens of religions. Every single one of them says, "my religion is the right one. All the others are wrong and you will go to hell (or something similar) if you don't believe. Choose correctly."

So, say you're given 12 religions to choose from, and if you pick the right one, you are saved. Otherwise... burn.

The proof that one religion is the right one: NOTHING. You are supposed to believe the advocates of that religion who all say; "you must have faith."

So... assuming one of them is correct; then "God" allows all these conflicting religions, all with the same proof (ie... none) and says, "Gamble for your soul."

God would make it clear so that your free will has more meaning. "Hey, I exist. Now you can choose whether or not you want to follow my rules. Its your choice, you have free will."

[Phil153]

He shouldn't. Maybe he's testing us.

But it seems like a pretty petty mind game for the creator of 50 billion galaxies and life itself. Any God with any sophistication would create the universe and leave it in peace. If God did exist he never would have gotten involved with humans in the first place.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. He wouldn't do X or Y or Z miracle, reveal himself to non believers, or cure someone of childhood cancer or stop a tsunami, or stop a child from being raped, but he WILL answer your petty prayers and have a personal relationship with YOU. And he DID perform miracles in the past via Jesus and certain CATHOLIC dudes. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

Here is a related question for some of you non-believers: why would God want to make it clear to YOU specifically if he does exist?

[MidGe]

In fairness or justice, since he seems to make it clear to you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a related question for some of you non-believers: why would God want to make it clear to YOU specifically if he does exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he loves all his children?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a related question for some of you non-believers: why would God want to make it clear to YOU specifically if he does exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since my eternal destiny depends on it, it would only be fair to clearly let me know what is expected. Burying the correct information among a vast array of competing theologies doesn't come even close to fair.

The fact that he can't be bothered to give everyone one set of clear rules is yet another reason I doubt a salvation "game" exists - even if an omni-max creator god does.

[MathEconomist]

Since these beliefs assume that God rewards belief and punishes disbelief, in order to be fair he'd have to give reasonable evidence that he exists or be a complete worthless petty jerk unworthy of worship. Of course since no such being exists this is all a moot point. Belief requirements are simply a way for groups to coerce people to join them.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a related question for some of you non-believers: why would God want to make it clear to YOU specifically if he does exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because your dumb ass religion has a ton of dumb ass rules. Things i have to do, or say or think or feel or believe in order to worship "god" properly. I need a damn sight better reason to follow rules than a book a couple of thousand years old telling me to do [censored]. If i have free will then i ought to use that free will to make the "best" possible choices in my life, no? How the hell can i do that if i have conflicting accounts on what god is like, what he wants, how i should worship, how much i should pay out of my salary to his "leaders" here on earth, how i should raise my kids, blah blah blah.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is 100%
Clear enough would do
anything would be a start.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm...

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is 100%
Clear enough would do
anything would be a start.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.. anything would be a start! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[madnak]

I don't think God should make anything 100% clear. I think uncertainty is very valuable. I think it helps us learn, and is part of our humanity.

I will not believe in God 100% unless He makes it 100% clear that He exists. If He makes it 50% clear that He exists, then I will believe in Him with 50% certainty. That doesn't mean I think He "should" manifest Himself (assuming He exists). It just means I won't believe in Him if He doesn't. Simple.

Of course, if a God exists who expects 100% faith without giving even a modicum of evidence, and who is willing to send those who fail the "100% certainty" test into a realm of eternal torment... Well, I would consider such a God extremely "evil" (to use a Christian term). I wouldn't worship such a God even if I were 100% sure He exists. That may be stupid, fair enough. I'm human and I'm not perfect. I don't believe any benevolent God could create or support such a system, and I think any just God would do everything in His power to prevent anyone from going to hell - including but not limited to direct revelation.

But that is just what I feel is right. Hell seems like a horrible and vicious concept to me. I'm sure God knows better than me. But at the moment, I consider the likelihood of the Christian God to be extremely, extremely small. The idea that an omnibenevolent God could create such feelings of fear and horror and "wrongness" in me is just too much to swallow.

(A Christian sort of God who doesn't judge people based on what they believe seems to have a much higher, though still relatively insignificant, degree of likelihood. Such a God wouldn't need to reveal Himself, of course, as He wouldn't judge anyone based on whether they believe in Him. And why should He, anyhow? He's God, He doesn't need my validation.)

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
He shouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Notice that the answer that this is a moot question because there is no god is not an answer, as for the purposes of this discussion, at least one god and at least one religion are posited as true.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is moot because if God DOES exist, we can not and should not question His thinking and reasoning. It is not for us to question and/or answer God's motives.

That said, from a human perspective, it doesn't make sense that a loving God would make belief such an important issue and go so far as to eternally punish us for disbelief, while providing such scant evidence.

Belief shouldn't have to take a miracle witnessed by many, but perhaps just some personal revelation in a moment of solitude or prayer. Being raised Catholic, I spent most of my childhood praying to God every night without receiving any personal revelation.

Since there are those who say they HAVE received a personal revelation, perhaps if God does exist, he has pre-chosen them from birth to be blessed with eternal glory. This makes sense, since many believers on here have said that it isn't your earthly deeds that get you into heaven, but belief alone and acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal savior.

If you have received your personal revelation then you are blessed and I am not. However, if you have not received such revelation, then there is a big difference between us...

I am not willing to SAY I believe without really believing. Is that what it takes for God's acceptance?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a related question for some of you non-believers: why would God want to make it clear to YOU specifically if he does exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose you fathered a child and for some reason had to give up that child at birth. In the meantime, the child is brought up in the same neighborhood as you, right under your nose. You see your child growing up, you see his truimphs, his failures. One day you see your child alone sitting by a tree crying. How could you possibly keep yourself hidden? How could you not want to make yourself known and give comfort to your child?

[Edit]: I guess what I'm saying is; Why wouldn't God want a personal relationship with you, his child?

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
The real question is, why wouldn't he make it crystal clear?

[/ QUOTE ]

The journey is more significant than the destination.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
One day you see your child alone sitting by a tree crying. How could you possibly keep yourself hidden? How could you not want to make yourself known and give comfort to your child?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the same reason you have not shown yourself before this moment; she is not ready to accept that knowledge.

[andyfox]

8 syllables in the first line, but otherwise, Bravo.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a related question for some of you non-believers: why would God want to make it clear to YOU specifically if he does exist?

[/ QUOTE ]
Can't think of any reason why any god would want to.
Can't think of any reason why any god would then punish those who have no reason to believe and so don't believe.

chez

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One day you see your child alone sitting by a tree crying. How could you possibly keep yourself hidden? How could you not want to make yourself known and give comfort to your child?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the same reason you have not shown yourself before this moment; she is not ready to accept that knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok fine. But will you forsake her when the time comes? Will you damn her for all eternity because she did not know you were there?

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
why would God want to make it clear to YOU specifically if he does exist?


[/ QUOTE ]

The same reason you think he answers peoples prayers. Because he is good.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One day you see your child alone sitting by a tree crying. How could you possibly keep yourself hidden? How could you not want to make yourself known and give comfort to your child?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the same reason you have not shown yourself before this moment; she is not ready to accept that knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok fine. But will you forsake her when the time comes? Will you damn her for all eternity because she did not know you were there?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you do tell her, she will not be able to go back to her old life, except if she decides that you are lying. Is she aware that her real parent is one other than the one by which she was raised? Is she searching for you? Does she care that you are available when she is ready?

It would hurt you to know that she doesn't believe you.

[Prodigy54321]

"crystal clear" would be hard to come by ..although not necessarily "too much" for us to ask for, me thinks.

but the problem is that even "enough" is not considered to have been given to us (if say the Christian God is real)..

you may argue that there is enough evidence to come to the conclusion that God is real, but many of us would feel otherwise.

I would not have to be 100% sure, but just sure enough that I would be willing to give up part of my life and perhaps some self-respect. this may be 2% maybe, but even that is a hugh chance to give to a specific religion. I'd take a more general god and hope that the true god only punishes you if you believe in a false god /images/graemlins/smile.gif But some extraordinary event specifically geared towards Christianity, a miracle, if you will ...(and most supposed "miracles" don't apply)....may put it above 2% to be true (or whatever someone's personal threshhold is)

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
It would hurt you to know that she doesn't believe you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a point I often make. Yes, it would hurt me. But it doesn't even come close to making me want her to suffer in hell for eternity. No loving parent could possibly consider such a fate for his or her child, for something such as non-belief.

[Edit]: This alone, is logical enough proof that Christianity is flawed.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would hurt you to know that she doesn't believe you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a point I often make. Yes, it would hurt me. But it doesn't even come close to making me want her to suffer in hell for eternity. No loving parent could possibly consider such a fate for his or her child, for something such as non-belief.

[Edit]: This alone, is logical enough proof that Christianity is flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I posted an extremely dull proof of this ages ago. Lost the damnation people along the way, only RTJ saw it through but he of course is far too decent to believe in eternal suffering in hell as punishment for lack of belief.

chez

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I posted an extremely dull proof of this ages ago. </font>

I'd like to read it. Do you have a link? Or at least some time frame of when it was? Thanks.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real question is, why wouldn't he make it crystal clear?

[/ QUOTE ]

The journey is more significant than the destination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's not like the destination is eternal bliss/damnation.

[evolvedForm]

If God is really all-loving like a good father, then it would make sense that he make himself clear to us. Why would God leave only a vague book and expect the world to believe in it, and also give people rational minds with which they can doubt? If he was fair in any sense of the word, he would either present himself to us, or have created robot-like creatures who cannot do anything but worship him.

Bluffthis, I think I have an idea of where you're going with this. Tell me if I'm wrong, but are you implying that morality would have no meaning if God made it so easy to believe? That there is somehow more moral responsibility if we cannot be sure of God's existence, and therefore it is a greater testament to those with faith if there is no clear revelation of him?

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real question is, why wouldn't he make it crystal clear?

[/ QUOTE ]

The journey is more significant than the destination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's not like the destination is eternal bliss/damnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not convinced that the damnation is intentional on God's part. I'm more inclined to believe that learning to accept God will result in "eternal bliss", while being aware of God's existence and choosing not to believe in God would be deceiving yourself, giving way to feelings of guilt and remorse. That is, hell is somewhere that you put yourself, not somewhere God puts you.

Oh, and "teach a man to fish..." and all that.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> I posted an extremely dull proof of this ages ago. </font>

I'd like to read it. Do you have a link? Or at least some time frame of when it was? Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've had a go at the archives but no luck, I might waste another ten minutes when I've recovered. I guess about a year ago but I'm almost as lousy at dates as I am with archives.

Maybe RJT if your there you can remember or help, thanks.

chez

[chezlaw]

Too late to edit but scrap all that - its not old enough to be in the archives, doh!

It was a three-parter, long and with many diversions. This was more or less the end.

[ QUOTE ]
Continuing despite the enormous interest.

Assuming the following have been established: (past two threads if you want to discuss please)

1.
Any rational person whose moral sense tells them that god as described by some religon is morally repugnant must believe that at least one of the following is true:

they are being deceived by their moral feelings
god isn't good
that religous view is mistaken

although they may not know which of the three to believe'

2.
If a religous type god exists and is absolutely good then my moral sense is evidence of what is abolutely right or wrong.

it then follows that

If a religous type good god exists and my moral sense tells me some view of him is morally repugnant then

the moral evidence misleads me or the religous view is mistaken (or both)


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

Consider a religous view that claims it should be believed because of the evidence, and that requires a very high degree of belief.

No evidence of something that may have happened many years ago can possibly overcome the immediately received moral evidence to the extent that I can believe a morally repugnant religous view with the required degree of belief.

Define a MRE Religon as one that:
causes some people moral repugnance
demands a high degree of belief based on evidence.
believes in a good god

then

No rational person who is morally repulsed by an MPE religon can accept that religon.


That's the theory, lots of exciting applications: showing some religous beliefs are irrational, Pascal's wager and many more.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The three exciting threads are:
A problem with some religous views (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=scimathphil&amp;Number=346334 1&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Main=3463341&amp;Words=%2Breligous+-re%3A+chezlaw&amp;topic=&amp;Search=true#Post3463341)
A problem with some religous views - Part 2 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=scimathphil&amp;Number=347392 8&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Main=3473928&amp;Words=%2Breligous+-re%3A+chezlaw&amp;topic=&amp;Search=true#Post3473928)
A problem ... conclusion (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=scimathphil&amp;Number=349230 6&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Main=3492306&amp;Words=%2Breligous+-re%3A+chezlaw&amp;topic=&amp;Search=true#Post3492306)

chez

[Lestat]

N/M

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Notice that the answer that this is a moot question because there is no god is not an answer, as for the purposes of this discussion, at least one god and at least one religion are posited as true.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is moot because if God DOES exist, we can not and should not question His thinking and reasoning. It is not for us to question and/or answer God's motives.

That said, from a human perspective, it doesn't make sense that a loving God would make belief such an important issue and go so far as to eternally punish us for disbelief, while providing such scant evidence.

Belief shouldn't have to take a miracle witnessed by many, but perhaps just some personal revelation in a moment of solitude or prayer. Being raised Catholic, I spent most of my childhood praying to God every night without receiving any personal revelation.

Since there are those who say they HAVE received a personal revelation, perhaps if God does exist, he has pre-chosen them from birth to be blessed with eternal glory. This makes sense, since many believers on here have said that it isn't your earthly deeds that get you into heaven, but belief alone and acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal savior.

If you have received your personal revelation then you are blessed and I am not. However, if you have not received such revelation, then there is a big difference between us...

I am not willing to SAY I believe without really believing. Is that what it takes for God's acceptance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whew. Excellent post. In a way it's parallel to my struggle with christianity.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One day you see your child alone sitting by a tree crying. How could you possibly keep yourself hidden? How could you not want to make yourself known and give comfort to your child?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the same reason you have not shown yourself before this moment; she is not ready to accept that knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok fine. But will you forsake her when the time comes? Will you damn her for all eternity because she did not know you were there?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you do tell her, she will not be able to go back to her old life, except if she decides that you are lying. Is she aware that her real parent is one other than the one by which she was raised? Is she searching for you? Does she care that you are available when she is ready?

It would hurt you to know that she doesn't believe you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his larger point was that there are people that sincerely ask for god's love and for salvation and never get it. He is one of those people. I am another. There are plenty more. There is no biblical rationality that can coherently explain why. Hell, the other day I was explaining to NotReady what happened with me and christianity and all he had to say is "You're wrong. Whatever your thoughts about god and christianity were, they were and are wrong." That's about as petty and self-serving as you can get, yet that's really all christians can say about experiences that obviously don't square with what is preached in the bible.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not convinced that the damnation is intentional on God's part. I'm more inclined to believe that learning to accept God will result in "eternal bliss", while being aware of God's existence and choosing not to believe in God would be deceiving yourself, giving way to feelings of guilt and remorse. That is, hell is somewhere that you put yourself, not somewhere God puts you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. There's a difference between "being aware of god's existance (really just a nonsensical statement) while choosing not to believe in him" and "being fully cognizant that Jesus was in fact the son of God, and he is the truth and light, while choosing not to believe in him." The former is nonsense and fluff. Awareness of god's existence can be pulled and stretched to mean just about anything to anyone with the proper agenda. The point we're debating is what we would need to be aware of his existence.

Now, the latter is what I take you to mean when you said the former. This is still empty language. There is no "I know that Jesus is the light and the way to salvation but screw him. I want to be a heathen" problem with christianity. I suppose you could be one of those people that thinks that if someone has beliefs that differ from yours they are automatically turning their backs on jesus and pissing on the bible, just by definition of not being a christian.

Sorry, I just can't make any sense of this post.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
If God is really all-loving like a good father, then it would make sense that he make himself clear to us. Why would God leave only a vague book and expect the world to believe in it, and also give people rational minds with which they can doubt? If he was fair in any sense of the word, he would either present himself to us, or have created robot-like creatures who cannot do anything but worship him.


[/ QUOTE ]

Notice evF, that you actually don't have a dichotomy there, but a unity. Because one to whom God has manifested himself to the point of 100% certainty, is then a robot as far as belief itself goes. That is, he has no rational choice to do otherwise. Of course, this belief in the existence of God itself wouldn't mean one then in this life is forced to follow worship and obey Him. Or would it?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is 100%
Clear enough would do
anything would be a start.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you recognize "anything"?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
"crystal clear" would be hard to come by ..although not necessarily "too much" for us to ask for, me thinks.

but the problem is that even "enough" is not considered to have been given to us (if say the Christian God is real)..

you may argue that there is enough evidence to come to the conclusion that God is real, but many of us would feel otherwise.

I would not have to be 100% sure, but just sure enough that I would be willing to give up part of my life and perhaps some self-respect. this may be 2% maybe, but even that is a hugh chance to give to a specific religion. I'd take a more general god and hope that the true god only punishes you if you believe in a false god /images/graemlins/smile.gif But some extraordinary event specifically geared towards Christianity, a miracle, if you will ...(and most supposed "miracles" don't apply)....may put it above 2% to be true (or whatever someone's personal threshhold is)

[/ QUOTE ]

You all should know from reading my posts in this forum, that I believe that both non-catholics and non-christians, when certain conditions are met (sincere unbelief and following the golden rule in general), can in fact be saved, unlike many protestants.

But what if it is not God who punishes you for unbelief, but rather, that you punished yourself?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
When you do tell her, she will not be able to go back to her old life, except if she decides that you are lying. Is she aware that her real parent is one other than the one by which she was raised? Is she searching for you? Does she care that you are available when she is ready?

It would hurt you to know that she doesn't believe you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lestat, the real key in this quoatation of his is "except if she believes you are lying". What reasons, both reasonable and also self-serving (or avoidance), might she have for believing that?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is 100%
Clear enough would do
anything would be a start.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you recognize "anything"?

[/ QUOTE ]
of course.

chez

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">But what if it is not God who punishes you for unbelief, but rather, that you punished yourself? </font>

For this to be true, there would need to be some permeating evil force which God is either powerless against or ambivalent to.

Actually, I know a professional philosopher who believes in God precisely because he is convinced evil exists. He reasons therefore God must exist.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"crystal clear" would be hard to come by ..although not necessarily "too much" for us to ask for, me thinks.

but the problem is that even "enough" is not considered to have been given to us (if say the Christian God is real)..

you may argue that there is enough evidence to come to the conclusion that God is real, but many of us would feel otherwise.

I would not have to be 100% sure, but just sure enough that I would be willing to give up part of my life and perhaps some self-respect. this may be 2% maybe, but even that is a hugh chance to give to a specific religion. I'd take a more general god and hope that the true god only punishes you if you believe in a false god /images/graemlins/smile.gif But some extraordinary event specifically geared towards Christianity, a miracle, if you will ...(and most supposed "miracles" don't apply)....may put it above 2% to be true (or whatever someone's personal threshhold is)

[/ QUOTE ]

You all should know from reading my posts in this forum, that I believe that both non-catholics and non-christians, when certain conditions are met (sincere unbelief and following the golden rule in general), can in fact be saved, unlike many protestants.

But what if it is not God who punishes you for unbelief, but rather, that you punished yourself?

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe that was a rhetorical question, but I'm not sure of the logic behind how that would work, and I would assume that the god you are talking about is indeed omnipotent and such, in which case this god would be responsible for the punishment.

[Ben Young]

[ QUOTE ]
My question below is primarily for non-believers, because most religious believers, and especially Christians, have an answer we believe. But for the rest of you:


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what "answer" you mean Christians have. Do you mean Christianity itself?

[ QUOTE ]

If the God of Christianity or another religion is true, why would he make his existence and the truth of his religion clear to you? In particular, why would he make it crystal clear to the point of certainty, rather than not just clear enough?


[/ QUOTE ]
Are you asserting that it is 'just clear enough'? because I disagree. Also, this question is made irrelevant by the qualifying statement for replying that you made, that the poster must theoretically acknowledge a deity.

But, anyway, I believe it is entirely possible that God exists, has a son named Jesus, or anything else. I just don't care. It is fleeting to me.

[ QUOTE ]

Many of you here, have said it would take personally witnessing a miracle, that you knew with certainty could not have been contrived, or merely be scientifically explainable but just not by today's state of science. (And David called ridiculous the assertions of those who said they would not even believe with all those conditions met.) So again, why would a god want to make it that perfectly clear to you, if some religion is true?


[/ QUOTE ]

to believe in God, it might take witnessing more than a miracle for me. Like, world peace in a day. Or a decade even. To worship God, despite 100% proof of existence, or it being 'clear enough' will never happen for me. If God exists, I have witnessed too many things that make him irresponsible to be served by me.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is 100%
Clear enough would do
anything would be a start.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you recognize "anything"?

[/ QUOTE ]
of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say of course, but do you really mean and believe that? Isn't it possible that you have preconeived notions about how a god if he exists, would choose to act, and thus if he acts in ways less obvious, or not as "loud", that you might miss them?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
if he acts in ways less obvious, or not as "loud", that you might miss them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish it was acting a lot less loudly in the misery and suffering department.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">But what if it is not God who punishes you for unbelief, but rather, that you punished yourself? </font>

For this to be true, there would need to be some permeating evil force which God is either powerless against or ambivalent to.

[/ QUOTE ]

You miss a 3rd option here, and which has been discussed before in relation to free will. Namely, that God allows an evil force a certain freedom of action in this world, which although may harm us in this life, is incapable with God's help if sought, of harming our eternal lives. Thus God is not ambivalent to that evil force, though His focus for us is eternity, rather than our earthly happiness.


[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I know a professional philosopher who believes in God precisely because he is convinced evil exists. He reasons therefore God must exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an old and valid reason to believe in the existence of God, though not sufficient by itself perhaps.

All of this is part of the "problem of evil" which is a different topic and has been discussed before.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is 100%
Clear enough would do
anything would be a start.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you recognize "anything"?

[/ QUOTE ]
of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say of course, but do you really mean and believe that? Isn't it possible that you have preconeived notions about how a god if he exists, would choose to act, and thus if he acts in ways less obvious, or not as "loud", that you might miss them?

[/ QUOTE ]
I do mean and believe it but of course I have preconceived notions on things who doesn't, however I try hard to listen to reason, to evalute evidence objectively and to try to understand the nature of the world - I'm sure if it matters to any god then he could knock hard enough.


chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus God is not ambivalent to that evil force, though His focus for us is eternity, rather than our earthly happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, back to the end justifies the means, old trick, used by so many tyrants.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure if it matters to any god then he could knock hard enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't it also be that if it mattered enough to you then you could listen harder, which might mean reducing the "noise" in your life occasionally and reflecting on things that occur?

And you answer begs the original question here, which is why would God knock "hard enough" to wake the dead, and not just "enough to be heard by those who listen"?

[Lestat]

Seriously...

Why is it so hard to accept that an atheist would believe in God if he felt there was sufficient reason to?

Why do you guys so want to think that people are atheists because of some inherent deep down hatred for any god?

The bottom line is that our logic simply differs when it comes to what we are willing to believe and not believe.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure if it matters to any god then he could knock hard enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't it also be that if it mattered enough to you then you could listen harder, which might mean reducing the "noise" in your life occasionally and reflecting on things that occur?

And you answer begs the original question here, which is why would God knock "hard enough" to wake the dead, and not just "enough to be heard by those who listen"?

[/ QUOTE ]

It matters to me a great deal.
I reflect a lot on the things that occur and how they relate to God.
Haven't had any divine revelations yet.
So God, if you are reading this please give me enough of a "knock" to convince me.


There is a point where listening harder can only result in the hearing of what isn't there.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure if it matters to any god then he could knock hard enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't it also be that if it mattered enough to you then you could listen harder, which might mean reducing the "noise" in your life occasionally and reflecting on things that occur?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm fairly sure I'm more reflective than most and that I've pondered the nature of existence plenty (and still continue to do).
[ QUOTE ]
And you answer begs the original question here, which is why would God knock "hard enough" to wake the dead, and not just "enough to be heard by those who listen"?

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought I answered earlier, I cant think of any reason for any god doing any of these things.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
... reducing the "noise" in your life occasionally and reflecting on things that occur?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is seriously one of my favourite activity, and it definitely has led me to sincerely hope at the very least least, that I am right and that there is no god. I find the notion repugnant, in the same way that, I hope, you would find those religions, that condone stoning to death for adultery, repugnant.

I think that in their rush to believe, people do not take the time to stop, reduce the noise and observe and reflect. That's the real problem.

[Lestat]

I'm sure you must've answered this before and if you're sick of it, just ignore this. But I have yet to hear a sufficient answer to a question that creates a lot of problems for me.

If there is a God and He loves us... Why oh why would He allow evil to befall us by not providing anything more than ancient heresay as protection?

You MUST admit that all evidence for God is heresay, just as I admit that heresay IS evidence.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
Couldn't it also be that if it mattered enough to you then you could listen harder, which might mean reducing the "noise" in your life occasionally and reflecting on things that occur?


[/ QUOTE ]

Say you have a child that you are camping with and you tell him you hear bigfoot. You then ask him if he hears bigfoot, he says "uh, I dont think so." You then threaten to light him on fire if he doesnt start hearing bigfoot and offer him lots of pleasure if the little brat starts listening hard enough to hear bigfoot. You also point out to him that all of his friends hear bigfoot and that if he doesn't there is something wrong with him. You do this to him every sunday, just like your father did to you.

He will almost certainly start to hear bigfoot (whether bigfoot is there or not), or at least claim to.

[mj555]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thus God is not ambivalent to that evil force, though His focus for us is eternity, rather than our earthly happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, back to the end justifies the means, old trick, used by so many tyrants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, back to the comparing acceptable methods to those of terrible tyrants, old trick, used by so many ignorant, closed-minded idiots.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, back to the comparing acceptable methods to those of terrible tyrants

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a method be acceptable for one and not for the other. Is your god above morals? Fairness, justice, love don't apply to it?

[mj555]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, back to the comparing acceptable methods to those of terrible tyrants

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a method be acceptable for one and not for the other. Is your god above morals? Fairness, justice, love don't apply to it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I believe God is Fairness, justice, love, how would I answer that?

BTW, tyrants us illegitimate, immoral means to attain personal power, glory, etc. God, however, is simply asking us to turn away from the immorality of this world. How are the two related?

[madnak]

How do you know the motivations of tyrants? We may assume that God's actions do not have human motivations. That's fair. However, if God is love then God's actions define the effects of love (by definition). Therefore, when God orders people to take slaves, sentences people to eternal misery, or smites those who don't worship Him, these must be acts of love (again, by definition). There is no implication that all killing, torture, and slavery is "love." But some cases of killing, torture, and slavery are obviously love (by your own terms). How can you immediately assume that the killing, torture, and slavery of tyrants isn't carried out in the same spirit of love as the killing, torture, and slavery of God?

Incidentally, it is clear that the Christian God doesn't value the welfare of all beings, or at least that he values "something" above the welfare of all beings. Therefore the Christian God is definitely not "love" by my definition of the term. You can cast the term however you like and it doesn't make God compassionate.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, tyrants us illegitimate, immoral means to attain personal power, glory, etc. God, however, is simply asking us to turn away from the immorality of this world. How are the two related?

[/ QUOTE ]

Threatening the gnashing of teeth in hell for eternity seems pretty tyranical to me.

Btw- I am not speaking of God since I'm a non-believer. I am referring to those in the past who made up such stories about a god in order to scare the gullible masses and gain personal power.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
You miss a 3rd option here, and which has been discussed before in relation to free will. Namely, that God allows an evil force a certain freedom of action in this world, which although may harm us in this life, is incapable with God's help if sought, of harming our eternal lives. Thus God is not ambivalent to that evil force, though His focus for us is eternity, rather than our earthly happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two flaws here. The first has been mentioned, the idea that the end justifies the means. I'll elaborate. God is omnipotent. Therefore He can effortlessly prevent any and all suffering. If God has some reason to allow evil to roam free on earth, then this position may be consistent. However, if God highly values the happiness of his creations, then there must be some highly compelling reason for allowing the suffering on earth (as God is opposed to it in principle).

This sounds okay. Maybe we suffer in order to learn, for example. But again we run into the fact that God is omnipotent. No matter what He hopes to achieve by allowing us to suffer, He could achieve the same effect by a mere act of will. Does He want to teach us? He could wave a hand and we would already be taught. Does He want us to experience evil? He's God, He can just point and make us as experienced as He is. Therefore no matter his goal, there is no need to cause suffering in order to achieve it. He can have no rational reason for allowing us to suffer.

Ah, but God is super-rational. His reasons are beyond ours. Maybe there's just some kind of divine "beauty" to the world just the way it is, or some such thing.

Still, this scenario doesn't work.

It might have some merit if our suffering were restricted to earth. That is, if God did "allow an evil force a certain freedom of action in this world." However, eternal suffering is entirely incompatible with omnibenevolence. God can relieve our suffering in the afterlife, no matter what hold evil had on us in life. The fact that he does not is 100% inconsistent. By allowing hell to exist, God is allowing an evil force to have freedom through eternity, as the effects of that evil force are eternal.

This means God must value something more than benevolence. If benevolence were God's ultimate nature, nothing could stop it. So God must hold something higher than compassion. Perhaps a desire to punish the wicked ("justice" if you insist). More likely an impossibly large ego. But there has to be something.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
If I believe God is Fairness, justice, love, how would I answer that?


[/ QUOTE ]
You cannnot, by definition. I, however can prove that your belief is erroneous. Just look around and explain the indiscriminate suffering inflicted by natyral phenomenae like tsunamis, eartquake, volcanoes eruptions and you can go on. If your god is the cause or designer, then he bears a moral responsibility for this and is very far from benevolent or all-loving. By the way, the lst can contue, malformed birth unable to sustain themselves, miscarriage (god inducerd abortion), AIDS and other viruses, etc...

Either is a puny and non-omnipotent god or he is amlevalent and very far from your belief that he is loving etc...

That's my proof against your belief (which is irrational).



[ QUOTE ]

BTW, tyrants us illegitimate, immoral means to attain personal power, glory, etc. God, however, is simply asking us to turn away from the immorality of this world. How are the two related?

[/ QUOTE ]

And your god, use its, so called, might to terrify people with threat of eternal damnation and suffering to induce you to believe in it and love it in its own magalomanic ways. Tyrant techniques, IMO.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously...

Why is it so hard to accept that an atheist would believe in God if he felt there was sufficient reason to?

[/ QUOTE ]


For me, unlike some christians, it is not. But my point in this thread is that in order to see or hear something, you have to be looking and hearing, and not just for a flash or loud bang. That is, your mind and heart must be open. And just like panning for gold (fools gold to many of you), you are mostly just going to find smaller specks and pieces and not large nuggets. But they do add up. And this is exactly the same reason that 1 scientist might make a startling discovery, when others who had the same information in front of them do not, or are unable to adjust their preconeived notions to accomodate a deeper meaning.

And I don't mean by this, that an unbeliever is supposed to spend his life seeking necessarily, but just that he won't find anything that might be there evidence-wise, if he is predispositioned to reject whatever he might find, rather than to weight it with other things to see if there is something there or not.

Which brings me back to my original question, if your mind is closed and your heart is hardened, then why do you think God is going to force himself on you to the point of 100% certainty?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
So God must hold something higher than compassion. Perhaps a desire to punish the wicked ("justice" if you insist). More likely an impossibly large ego. But there has to be something.

[/ QUOTE ]


You make that conclusion because you are dismissing God allowing free will and the consequences of that free will, which are that we humans can act in evil manners to the detriment of our fellow men. Without free will, then we would be nothing other than robots forced to love God and act rightly. But is that what God would want from His creatures?

And this can also be seen with human children. Do you want your children, even while obeying and respecting you, to nonetheless be free to develop themselves and become a unique person, even if that means allowing them to stumble and fall occasionally? Or rather that through harshness and almost total lack of freedeom that they become clones of yourself like robots? Would you value the professed affection of the latter type, or recognize it as nothing other than forced duty?

Also, it is important to recognize that in most religious system of belief including christianity, the focus is on the afterlife and not on this one.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Couldn't it also be that if it mattered enough to you then you could listen harder, which might mean reducing the "noise" in your life occasionally and reflecting on things that occur?


[/ QUOTE ]

Say you have a child that you are camping with and you tell him you hear bigfoot. You then ask him if he hears bigfoot, he says "uh, I dont think so." You then threaten to light him on fire if he doesnt start hearing bigfoot and offer him lots of pleasure if the little brat starts listening hard enough to hear bigfoot. You also point out to him that all of his friends hear bigfoot and that if he doesn't there is something wrong with him. You do this to him every sunday, just like your father did to you.

He will almost certainly start to hear bigfoot (whether bigfoot is there or not), or at least claim to.

[/ QUOTE ]


Rather I would say, listen for the sound of Bigfoot, and don't be caught daydreaming and miss the warning sounds.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously...

Why is it so hard to accept that an atheist would believe in God if he felt there was sufficient reason to?

[/ QUOTE ]


For me, unlike some christians, it is not. But my point in this thread is that in order to see or hear something, you have to be looking and hearing, and not just for a flash or loud bang. That is, your mind and heart must be open. And just like panning for gold (fools gold to many of you), you are mostly just going to find smaller specks and pieces and not large nuggets. But they do add up. And this is exactly the same reason that 1 scientist might make a startling discovery, when others who had the same information in front of them do not, or are unable to adjust their preconeived notions to accomodate a deeper meaning.

And I don't mean by this, that an unbeliever is supposed to spend his life seeking necessarily, but just that he won't find anything that might be there evidence-wise, if he is predispositioned to reject whatever he might find, rather than to weight it with other things to see if there is something there or not.

Which brings me back to my original question, if your mind is closed and your heart is hardened, then why do you think God is going to force himself on you to the point of 100% certainty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, blame us. We should be listening.
Forget that many of us grew up with "god". Sunday school, church, TV, Friends, relatives have a great deal to say about "god" in one form or another. Children are very open to believe whatever they are told. Most of us at some point either believed in god or expected that god existed and went on our merry way without caring much. Children are oupen books from day one, absorbing knowledge - true or not, fact based or not, because thats what kids do. I didn't have doubts about god's existance until i was around 12. But everything i have seen and understood since then has led me to believe that religion is a farce. If god wanted to talk to me he had a dozen very impressionable years, and all i heard was some stories that were about as believeable as a fat man sliding down my chimney. Why should i abandon logic and reason and sit with my ear against the door, hoping to understand what is going on. How long shouldi do this for, how much is enough?
perhapsif i fasted, or refused to drive my car on saturdays, or didn't eat pork, or cut the forskin off my penis off. Or cursed homosexuals as being unnatural, or cut a teenage girls [censored] off, or or or or or or a thousand other rules that religions demand we do to properly "obey god's will"- which is hilareous, since one thing most religions agree on is that we are not able to understand god's will.
Your gold analogy is wonderfull- for gold had little value for millenium except that others wanted it. To soft and heavy for tools, to rare for building- Inert, no usefull chemical reactions. But convince a few powerfull people that it is desireable and you find it spreads across the globe for no apparent reason. No logic behind it, but since millions of people want it, it must be valuable.

[BluffTHIS!]

All those things you mention and the attitude behind them, are the intellectual equivalent of cataracts. You view everything you see in the world and everything you read or hear of religion through that cloudy vision. And I am not just talking about religion here, nor saying that one should not question things commonly believed. Just that one should be open to either seeing new things, or viewing old ones in a different light. This goes for science and any other field of human knowledge or endeavour as well.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Many of you here, have said it would take personally witnessing a miracle, that you knew with certainty could not have been contrived, or merely be scientifically explainable but just not by today's state of science. (And David called ridiculous the assertions of those who said they would not even believe with all those conditions met.)

[/ QUOTE ]

To asumme that just because science can't explain something (even if you somehow knew that it was impossible for science to ever explain this) it must be God's doing is ridiculous. Well, it's not, really, as it's extremely usual. It's just stupid.

I seriously doubt David thinks that way... In fact if my memory isn't failing he said the exact opposite not too long ago in one of his posts.


On to your question:
God knows how we work. He knows what it takes for us (rational people, not believers /images/graemlins/wink.gif) to accept that He's true. So if He doesn't care to prove it, then screw Him /images/graemlins/smile.gif I'm not trusting something "just because".

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
All those things you mention and the attitude behind them, are the intellectual equivalent of cataracts. You view everything you see in the world and everything you read or hear of religion through that cloudy vision. And I am not just talking about religion here, nor saying that one should not question things commonly believed. Just that one should be open to either seeing new things, or viewing old ones in a different light. This goes for science and any other field of human knowledge or endeavour as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, but why can't you be open to new things and still be an atheist?

It seems you are saying that God will not come to you. We must seek Him out. Yet many of us did at one time seek God and came to the shocking realization that we live in a world where water doesn't turn to wine and we are simply descendents of an incredible evolutionary process.

Again, for me this was a shocking realization after having spent much of my life believing in and seeking God. Yet I don't have a closed heart and still maintain an open mind.

I'm sure you feel for me as someone who will miss the bus to glory. Whereas, I feel for you as someone who is waiting for a bus that isn't coming. No matter how strongly you believe it's on the way.

[BluffTHIS!]

I certainly think you can be open minded and be an atheist, and I believe too that I am the product of an evolutionary process, though one ultimately set in motion by God as the First Cause.

And you don't always have to seek God, because He will indeed come to you if you are open to his voice. But that voice is often a whisper and not a shout, and if you are not disposed to recognize it, then you won't.

And I hope that I am already on that bus and that I won't decide to get off (we catholics don't believe "once saved always saved"). But you haven't definitively missed that bus either, because it runs a regular route and will pass your way again. However if the bus driver stops and offers you a free ride, he isn't going to force you to get on.

[madnak]

The direct implication here is that God values the "free will" of His children more than their happiness. Fair enough, I suppose, but the implications are greater than this.

You ask whether I would allow my children to stumble and fall occasionally. That attempts to escape the arguments I made earlier. I would allow my children to stumble and fall because it helps them to learn. I am not omnipotent, so I can't just instantaneously bestow that learning. I know that people learn through experience, often painful experience, and so I allow my children to have those painful experiences. God, being omnipotent, has no need to resort to such methods.

That question is also deceptive. I would definitely allow my children to stumble and fall occasionally. However I would never, under any circumstances, allow my children to suffer indefinitely. There is a very large difference between "stumble and fall occasionally" and "stumble and fall eternally." The implication is that God values a finite amount of free will over an infinite amount of suffering. Mathematically, the value God places on suffering must be 0 (or less) in order for any finite value to be greater.

If free will were infinite (that is, if the relevance of free will extended into the afterlife and there were some way to escape or redeem yourself from hell), or if the suffering were finite (hell were not eternal), you might be able to maneuver yourself out of direct contradiction. However, under the assumption that finite free will in this life is worth more to God than infinite suffering in the world beyond, it is impossible for God to be omnibenevolent.

Also I have established that there is no reason for God to allow (much less create) hell. Free will doesn't correspond to eternal damnation. If someone screwed up royally in life, that is no indication God has to put him in hell. In fact, being omnipotent, God doesn't have to put anyone in hell. He can allow everyone into heaven. Or, He can allow everyone to have their own custom-tailored heaven. He's God. The idea that God must be reluctantly forced to infinitely torture His children is silly. God is never "forced" into anything. And a parent would challenge the universe before allowing a single child to suffer such a fate.

Calling that free will is like saying you should allow your children to wander through a toxic waste dump. "Otherwise I'd have to restrict their freedom, which I can't do, so I suppose I must resign myself to watching them wade through radioactive sludge." Honestly. In fact, if the consequence is hell, then allowing a child to wander around in the real world is infinitely more dangerous than allowing them to wander around in a toxic waste dump. What kind of parent not only allows that, but forcibly pushes their children into such a situation? I would consider it my job to protect my chlldren and make sure that when they did stumble and fall, they would do so in safe areas. I wouldn't even allow an infant outside unsupervised, and would make sure a child understood the dangers of any situation before putting him into that situation alone. He might throw temper tantrums, but that's okay. As the adult, I understand it is sometimes more important for him to be safe than for him to get his way.

One more thing. You keep saying that atheists haven't opened themselves to God, and that Christians have. But your criterion for determining whether someone has "opened themselves" is what they believe. In other word, you are begging the question here. Unless you can establish some method for determining whether a person has opened himself to God, without including his religious beliefs as a criterion, there is no way to logically evaluate your claim about "openness." You are also defining "openness" in such a way that the definition itself excludes atheists. This is a "true scotsman" sort of fallacy.

If you want to believe atheists are closed to God that's okay, but you have not presented any logical support for your belief. In fact your support has been highly illogical. Therefore it is not worth considering in the context of a logical discussion.

[Lestat]

Wow... This is pretty much exactly what I would've said if I were eloquent enough to have done so.

[kurto]

My Mom used this rationale for belief (which I found very weak):
She said, "The difference between believing and not believing is, if you don't believe and you're wrong, then you get hurt in the afterlife." This was why she thought I should reconsider.

Which pretty much drove home the 'fear based' worship. As if I should find myself going to church saying, "I don't really buy this but I'm going to worship, 'just in case.'"

I wonder how many people's faith is nothing more then their being chicken; ie, they don't have a lot of confidence in their church but stick with it 'just in case'?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I certainly think you can be open minded and be an atheist, and I believe too that I am the product of an evolutionary process, though one ultimately set in motion by God as the First Cause. </font>

All this time I thought you were a fundamentalist (i.e. one who believes the bible in the literal sense word for word)? I think I got this from one of David's posts or someone else's. Is this info on you wrong?

[Lestat]

Just being the devil's advocate on two things, which I could use clarification on:


<font color="blue"> The idea that God must be reluctantly forced to infinitely torture His children is silly. God is never "forced" into anything. And a parent would challenge the universe before allowing a single child to suffer such a fate. </font>

Why is it not possible to come under God's wrath? Parents HAVE disowned their sons for displeasing them.

<font color="blue"> This sounds okay. Maybe we suffer in order to learn, for example. But again we run into the fact that God is omnipotent. No matter what He hopes to achieve by allowing us to suffer, He could achieve the same effect by a mere act of will. </font>

True. But that parable, "give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime", comes to mind. Even with my own kids, I get much more satisfaction seeing them come up with an answer on their own. Maybe it's because I derive pleasure from their accomplishment, or maybe it's because I'm REALLY convinced they have learned the lesson. Giving and/or getting answers is not as rewarding or meaningful as when knowledge becomes a part of you through self sacrifice and work.

Again, I pretty much agree with you. But I'm a little unlear on these two items.

[Piers]

Intrusive brain surgery along with some form of hypnotism might work. Although it’s debatable whether I would still be me afterwards.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
If the God of Christianity or another religion is true, why would he make his existence and the truth of his religion clear to you? In particular, why would he make it crystal clear to the point of certainty, rather than not just clear enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he'd have to be kind of a douchebag to not make it clear he exists, but then punish unbelievers with unending fire for all of eternity if we don't come to conclude he exists anyway. And I'm generally against worshipping douchebags, even omnipotent ones.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
All those things you mention and the attitude behind them, are the intellectual equivalent of cataracts. You view everything you see in the world and everything you read or hear of religion through that cloudy vision. And I am not just talking about religion here, nor saying that one should not question things commonly believed. Just that one should be open to either seeing new things, or viewing old ones in a different light. This goes for science and any other field of human knowledge or endeavour as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do we find the path to this gloriously clear vision unclouded by facts and logic.

chez

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the God of Christianity or another religion is true, why would he make his existence and the truth of his religion clear to you? In particular, why would he make it crystal clear to the point of certainty, rather than not just clear enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he'd have to be kind of a douchebag to not make it clear he exists, but then punish unbelievers with unending fire for all of eternity if we don't come to conclude he exists anyway. And I'm generally against worshipping douchebags, even omnipotent ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is unfortunate, because you make a valid point and then obliterate it with insulting and offensive wording.

I don't say this to be a goody-twoshoes, but because the rest of us non-troll atheists take the fallout for being insulting.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow... This is pretty much exactly what I would've said if I were eloquent enough to have done so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> The idea that God must be reluctantly forced to infinitely torture His children is silly. God is never "forced" into anything. And a parent would challenge the universe before allowing a single child to suffer such a fate. </font>

Why is it not possible to come under God's wrath? Parents HAVE disowned their sons for displeasing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't fit my definition of "omnibenevolent." Some fathers might go so far as to send their own sons to hell, but to me they are not very benevolent people at all. I think once that point is reached it's a bit absurd to suggest that the father still loves his son and is concerned with his welfare.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> This sounds okay. Maybe we suffer in order to learn, for example. But again we run into the fact that God is omnipotent. No matter what He hopes to achieve by allowing us to suffer, He could achieve the same effect by a mere act of will. </font>

True. But that parable, "give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime", comes to mind. Even with my own kids, I get much more satisfaction seeing them come up with an answer on their own. Maybe it's because I derive pleasure from their accomplishment, or maybe it's because I'm REALLY convinced they have learned the lesson. Giving and/or getting answers is not as rewarding or meaningful as when knowledge becomes a part of you through self sacrifice and work.

[/ QUOTE ]

This really depends on how you define omnipotence. If God can "create an object so heavy even he can't lift it," then he can definitely achieve this satisfaction without causing anyone to suffer.

The more limited the power of God, the more excuse he has to create suffering as a means to an end.

But I don't think you are actually talking about this. The most compelling argument for me personally is the idea that the suffering has intrinsic value. That is, it is not a means to an end. The experience of suffering is, for lack of a better term, "valuable." If you hike up a mountain, are you doing it for the feeling of satisfaction when you reach the top, or for the journey up? If it's the feeling of satisfaction, God could probably just create that in you. But if it's the journey itself, that is another thing entirely. Sometimes the fact that an experience is painful doesn't make it any less cherished.

I can't see this applying to, say horrible tortures and massacres, however. Maybe for some people the concentration camps were "fulfilling experiences," but that one is hard for me to swallow. At the same time, my perspective might be different if I were looking down from heaven in retrospect. Or even if I were in the camps themselves. It is much harder to judge God if there's no hell, because there could be a purpose to anything, no matter how awful it appears to be. But hell destroys that.

Maybe there is some greater purpose to hell that transcends suffering. However, if that were true, it would still imply that God is not omnibenevolent. Whatever that "higher purpose" is, God would value it more than compassion.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
All those things you mention and the attitude behind them, are the intellectual equivalent of cataracts. You view everything you see in the world and everything you read or hear of religion through that cloudy vision. And I am not just talking about religion here, nor saying that one should not question things commonly believed. Just that one should be open to either seeing new things, or viewing old ones in a different light. This goes for science and any other field of human knowledge or endeavour as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Well, correct. I had intellectual blind spots for many years because religion was everywhere, and unavoidable. The assumption that god exists is placed in our minds when we are very young. That is the cataract. It is illogical but persuasive, It was when I (and many other athiests) stood back and looked objectively- saw the disgusting things that were done in the name of religion, saw lie after lie after lie. Saw science shatter myths, and saw people hopelessly clinging to them regardless of what logic, or even common sense should have told them. Then you read history and see how many individual rules in religions come about as ways to manipulate and control people. The evidence piles up that religion is just a farce.
And the next step is not Atheism, its usually to break away- to blame the church (or whatever religion you were a member off) and either try other religions or try to find your own personal relationship with god.
At some point you realize that god is not involved with your life, he doesn't answer prayers or give people money to fix their trucks, and he doesn't help the starving billions in the world. He might still exist- there might be a prime creator/mover in the universe but that by no means leads logically that he is involved with our day to day lives. So i got to that point and said- eff it, i'm gonna wank my crank to some asian nips and play some poker, and from time to time i reevaluate my life, and think about what i want and how to get it, and am generally pretty open minded for the most part.But i am not going to sit around waiting for the doorbell to ring, because anyone who has taken psch 101 knows that it is very easy to think something is there if you want it to be badly enough.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">I think once that point is reached it's a bit absurd to suggest that the father still loves his son and is concerned with his welfare. </font>

I don't want to get into semantics here, but it is conceivable for a father to love his son, yet simply "wash his hands" of him. Perhaps his son has strayed and the father feels he's done all he can do and it's up to the son. Granted, from BluffThis' description whispers and soft taps on the shoulder doesn't imply that God is willing to do all he can do. But if God does in fact exist, who are we to question Him?


<font color="blue"> If God can "create an object so heavy even he can't lift it," then he can definitely achieve this satisfaction without causing anyone to suffer. </font>

Sorry, I'm having a hard time following this.. If God can create an object so heavy even He can't life it, then it seems to follow that He could've created man so imperfect that even He alone cannot save him without the man's help or at the very least, without the man wanting God's help or accepting Jesus and His sacrifice. Assuming God exists, this logic makes sense to me. Although maybe I need to look up the definition of benevolent.

[GottaMuckIt]

We are said to be made in God's image, so we should think like god. He would understand people's ability to doubt even the clearest of facts. God, if he wasn't the invention of the Neolithic Revolution, would show himself because he understand the human mind. If god was real, we would all think the same because we are made in God's image. Free will couldn't coexist with god.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
he doesn't answer prayers or give people money to fix their trucks,

[/ QUOTE ]

I have only been a casual observer of this thread... it has been genuinely funny how many times my truck has been brought up. You guys are crackin’ me up :-)

But anyway...
Do you guys not value your free will? Would you rather be puppets on a string? Slaves? I believe that God gave you all the tools you need to recognize His existence. He doesn’t have to shout, because He gave you ears to hear. &lt;- that was a metaphor, btw.
As for hell... Hell is not a “punishment” per say. It is an alternative to God. You choose it and it is merely a consequence. Instead of asking “why would God send me to hell?”, try asking “Why would God give me all the treasures in heaven when I wouldn’t even acknowledge His existence?”

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he doesn't answer prayers or give people money to fix their trucks,

[/ QUOTE ]
I have only been a casual observer of this thread... it has been genuinely funny how many times my truck has been brought up. You guys are crackin’ me up :-)
But anyway...
Do you guys not value your free will? Would you rather be puppets on a string? Slaves? I believe that God gave you all the tools you need to recognize His existence. He doesn’t have to shout, because He gave you ears to hear. &lt;- that was a metaphor, btw.
As for hell... Hell is not a “punishment” per say. It is an alternative to God. You choose it and it is merely a consequence. Instead of asking “why would God send me to hell?”, try asking “Why would God give me all the treasures in heaven when I wouldn’t even acknowledge His existence?”

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike-

I've started becoming interested in your posts, but please be careful. This post sounds a lot like godBoy. You should remember that this is a science, math, and philosophy forum. You make many claims above, but I can't find one which has any logical conjecure attached to it.

Not that you should care what I think, but this is what starts the flame throwing on here.

[madnak]

I don't believe in free will, so that question isn't very relevant to me personally. If you can define free will and explain why not having it would result in "slavery" then I'd be happy to talk about it.

I believe I've covered the other questions in my previous responses, so I won't touch on them here. Perhaps you have different definition of "love" and a different definition of "compassion" than I do. If so, I don't think we will reach agreement.

My perspective is that regardless of whether God actively sentences a person to hell, once that person becomes bound for hell God must step in. If a father sees his son dangling from the edge of a cliff, and all he has to do to save his son is reach out his hand, I consider him cruel if he doesn't reach out his hand. Actually I consider him cruel whether or not it's his son, but particularly cruel if it is his son. To me, such a father has a responsibility, if it is in his power, to save his son from a horrible fate. God doesn't need to extend an arm. He doesn't even need to lift a finger. All He needs to do is will it. So according to Christianity God, by my standards, is cruel and not compassionate.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys not value your free will? Would you rather be puppets on a string? Slaves?

[/ QUOTE ]

If people were certain that there was a God, that would not imply they were puppets or slaves. One would still have the free will to worship him or not.

[ QUOTE ]
God gave you all the tools you need to recognize His existence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly this is not the case. Since there is no evidence other then people like the "Christian Warrior" from Trading Spouses espousing their beliefs. (if you don't know what I'm talking about, Go HERE (http://www.fox.com/tradingspouses/bios/perrin.htm) Click on Video... then wait for the talking head person from Fox to shut up... they will then show the "God Warrior" in all her glory.)

[ QUOTE ]
As for hell... Hell is not a “punishment” per say. It is an alternative to God. You choose it and it is merely a consequence. Instead of asking “why would God send me to hell?”, try asking “Why would God give me all the treasures in heaven when I wouldn’t even acknowledge His existence?”

[/ QUOTE ]
1) you have a different definition of punishment then most.
2) Your response ignores the fact that if people don't acknowledge the massive (Godly) ego of God, then he allows them to burn FOR eternity. He sure sounds all-loving!

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... reducing the "noise" in your life occasionally and reflecting on things that occur?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is seriously one of my favourite activity, and it definitely has led me to sincerely hope at the very least least, that I am right and that there is no god. I find the notion repugnant, in the same way that, I hope, you would find those religions, that condone stoning to death for adultery, repugnant.

I think that in their rush to believe, people do not take the time to stop, reduce the noise and observe and reflect. That's the real problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

F*cking fantastic post. I'd be willing to lay heavy odds that the more reflective and ruminating the person, the less likely he is to believe in a god. It's not a coincidence that the majority of those of us here in the SMP forum are atheists or agnostics.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
Without free will, then we would be nothing other than robots forced to love God and act rightly. But is that what God would want from His creatures?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. He also wanted my aunt to have 3 miscarriages in a row. Have you ever seen videos of dead children with 3rd degree burns from being burnt alive in a house fire? Why couldn't those 1 year olds just RUN out of the house??? Don't they know they have free will???

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I just can't make any sense of this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

My apologies; I don't know much about Christianity.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
To asumme that just because science can't explain something (even if you somehow knew that it was impossible for science to ever explain this) it must be God's doing is ridiculous. Well, it's not, really, as it's extremely usual. It's just stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

The world has functioned this way for some time. For scientific zealots, God is simply the manifestation of everything unknown.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you do tell her, she will not be able to go back to her old life, except if she decides that you are lying. Is she aware that her real parent is one other than the one by which she was raised? Is she searching for you? Does she care that you are available when she is ready?

It would hurt you to know that she doesn't believe you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lestat, the real key in this quoatation of his is "except if she believes you are lying". What reasons, both reasonable and also self-serving (or avoidance), might she have for believing that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Her old life makes more sense to her. She is also emotionally attached to her entire history.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
scientific zealots

[/ QUOTE ]

That made me laugh. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
Notice evF, that you actually don't have a dichotomy there, but a unity. Because one to whom God has manifested himself to the point of 100% certainty, is then a robot as far as belief itself goes.

[/ QUOTE ]

We would be robots as far as belief goes, but God would be infinitely more fair and "loving". Notice, we also would NOT be robots in the free will department. Essentially we would be just like angels, who as I understand it, have the ability to decide whether God is just or not, but who also have no doubt of God's existence. Therefore, He must love angels a lot more than us, or He would not submit us to such a terribly fateful and seemingly arbitrary decision: to believe or not to believe? Why would belief be the most important thing?


[ QUOTE ]
Of course, this belief in the existence of God itself wouldn't mean one then in this life is forced to follow worship and obey Him. Or would it?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I stated above, no, it would not force us to obey and we could still have free will, just like angels. It would be much more "fatherly" of Him.

Bluff, what about the question I asked in my last post? That might lead us to a more fruitful discussion (and no, it is not a trap).

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys not value your free will?

[/ QUOTE ]

You make the assumption that free will exists in a meaninful sense. Are you the same religion as your parents? Were you born into it? Does your girlfriend/wife have similarities to your mother? What's your diet like? Republican or Democrat? People's decisions are vastly influenced by their surroundings and their genes, group entality has been shown to effect very intelligent and very educated people as well as dull and uneducated ones- claiming you have "free will" without thinking about how everything that has ever happend to you personally as well as your genes effecting those decisions is just silly.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
Mike-

I've started becoming interested in your posts, but please be careful. This post sounds a lot like godBoy. You should remember that this is a science, math, and philosophy forum. You make many claims above, but I can't find one which has any logical conjecure attached to it.

Not that you should care what I think, but this is what starts the flame throwing on here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m fairly new here. And while I have read some of godboy’s posts, I am not sure exactly what you mean. Are you saying that, as a believer, I am not allowed to post my reasons for my beliefs... if those reasons are in the Bible? I know what the forum is, but I thought that since religion is often discussed here... that it was ok. Or is religion *bashing* the only thing allowed? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I really don’t know.

I was simply fallowing the OP’s posit that there is a God. It is a necessary part of the discussion, otherwise we are having a ‘different’ discussion. So if (for the sake of THIS discussion) there is a God, then isn’t it reasonable to think that you have free will to acknowledge Him... or not?

[siegfriedandroy]

How can you not care one way or the other whether Christianity is true?? Obviously, if it is, the matter affects everyone immensely and eternally.

The problem of evil is difficult. I do not believe, though, that any man is in any legitimate position to determine what God 'should' do or how He 'should' operate. To me, this is the equivalent of the atheist poster responding that he cannot respond to a hypothetical b/c this would render it meaningless.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
How can you not care one way or the other whether Christianity is true?? Obviously, if it is, the matter affects everyone immensely and eternally.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, I should care about the hundreds of thousands of other religions in the same way? Some of which appear a lot more artional and coherent, at first view. You better start looking into them all too. Who knows some may be even better and give you more valid personal experiences... lol

[ QUOTE ]

The problem of evil is difficult. I do not believe, though, that any man is in any legitimate position to determine what God 'should' do or how He 'should' operate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well aren't you saying he must be right altough everything you see denies it, if you look. Talk about conditionning!

[madnak]

Depends on what you mean by free will. With a rational definition of free will, I believe I can defeat your argument. If you can't come up with a rational definition of free will, then I will conclude that what you refer to as "free will" is magical thinking, and in that case it has no place in a logical discussion.

So I need to know what you mean by "free will" before I can proceed. In other words, the term "free will" is extremely ambiguous. It means different things to different people, and to some people it's an absurd idea in the first place. In order to enter that term into a rational discussion, you really will have to define it.

I don't think anyone here wants to go into an exhaustive enumeration of the possible definitions of free will with a refutation of each. Especially since you could still say "that's not what I mean by free will." And if you were using "magical thinking" that's exactly what you would say. So the onus is on you to clarify what you mean by free will. The discussion can't proceed until you do so.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
We would be robots as far as belief goes, but God would be infinitely more fair and "loving". Notice, we also would NOT be robots in the free will department. Essentially we would be just like angels, who as I understand it, have the ability to decide whether God is just or not, but who also have no doubt of God's existence. Therefore, He must love angels a lot more than us, or He would not submit us to such a terribly fateful and seemingly arbitrary decision: to believe or not to believe? Why would belief be the most important thing?

[/ QUOTE ]


The angels differ from us in that they on their creation, were endowed with perfect knowledge and made their choice instantly. And upon making that choice, were either confirmed in grace or in perdition, which means they then no longer posses the free will that could allow them to change that choice. We humans however, do not have perfect knowledge, and according to catholic teaching unlike fundamentalist teaching, can choose for God and then revoke that choice (fundamentalists believe "once saved always saved", unless of course you weren't truly saved in the first place . . .). And we are not confirmed in grace or perdition until death. Thus our free will constantly allows choice until then, although it is true that once haven definitively chosen against God, He doesn't necessarily always give a certain individual even more promptings via grace to come to Him.

Although you say it doesn't seem "fair" to you, God has created us as his children and wants us to voluntarily love Him as do our human fathers. Robots that are forced to love and worship would serve no point, because God does not need our love and worship, but wants to share Himself freely with those who freely choose to accept Him.


[ QUOTE ]
Why would God leave only a vague book and expect the world to believe in it, and also give people rational minds with which they can doubt? If he was fair in any sense of the word, he would either present himself to us, or have created robot-like creatures who cannot do anything but worship him.

[/ QUOTE ]


Part of my point in this thread, is that manifesting Himself to the point of removing ALL doubt, which obviates any need for faith, would in fact greatly lessen our free will. He wishes faith in the sense of trust, as a child trusts its father without always understanding his father's purposes since children don't have the capacity to understand as an adult does, or as we creatures could not compared to an omnipotent creator. And another point of this thread, is that I in fact believe there is more evidence than non-believers credit, and that the Bible is more credible than non-believers think, if those persons had an open heart and mind to be ready to see such evidence.

And remember that we catholics, unlike the fundamentalists, believe that even if someone sincerely does not see that evidence, even through their own unintentional fault, that that person can still be saved through following the demands of the natural law written in every human soul, which is basically following the golden rule. So by our catholic beliefs, even though God wishes us to live a life of greater spiritual abundance in Him on earth, His Mercy still can provide a way home. That in itself should say something to non-believers regarding catholic christianity.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All those things you mention and the attitude behind them, are the intellectual equivalent of cataracts. You view everything you see in the world and everything you read or hear of religion through that cloudy vision. And I am not just talking about religion here, nor saying that one should not question things commonly believed. Just that one should be open to either seeing new things, or viewing old ones in a different light. This goes for science and any other field of human knowledge or endeavour as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do we find the path to this gloriously clear vision unclouded by facts and logic.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


By just keeping an open heart and mind in case you should see something that might be evidence and worthy of further investigation. And unlike some christians might claim, this is not a vision totally without doubt, but just substantially so, with trust in God for the rest. The difference is between yourself saying you don't believe in God and never will no matter what, and saying that you don't now believe in God, but are open to either new evidence, or a newer way of looking at what we believe is evidence but you do not, such as the Bible.

And as I have said elsewhere in this thread, this is exactly the same a scientist who while maintaining a theory on a certain subject, must nonetheless be open to viewing his beliefs on that differently should new scientific evidence come to light, instead of just sticking to that view for life. The great scientists of history had that open mind and constantly strived once making a discovery, to probe even deeper, while their more mediocre fellows upon making a discovery became wedded to that view for life and became the new dogmatic status quo with no hope of making further discovery. And this goes back far in the history of science as shown by the great disoveries in medical science by the physician Galen. After he died physicians studied his writings intently, but for a millenium never advanced past what he disovered. There are many other similar parallels in science up to this time.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All those things you mention and the attitude behind them, are the intellectual equivalent of cataracts. You view everything you see in the world and everything you read or hear of religion through that cloudy vision. And I am not just talking about religion here, nor saying that one should not question things commonly believed. Just that one should be open to either seeing new things, or viewing old ones in a different light. This goes for science and any other field of human knowledge or endeavour as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do we find the path to this gloriously clear vision unclouded by facts and logic.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


By just keeping an open heart and mind in case you should see something that might be evidence and worthy of further investigation. And unlike some christians might claim, this is not a vision totally without doubt, but just substantially so, with trust in God for the rest. The difference is between yourself saying you don't believe in God and never will no matter what, and saying that you don't now believe in God, but are open to either new evidence, or a newer way of looking at what we believe is evidence but you do not, such as the Bible.

And as I have said elsewhere in this thread, this is exactly the same a scientist who while maintaining a theory on a certain subject, must nonetheless be open to viewing his beliefs on that differently should new scientific evidence come to light, instead of just sticking to that view for life. The great scientists of history had that open mind and constantly strived once making a discovery, to probe even deeper, while their more mediocre fellows upon making a discovery became wedded to that view for life and became the new dogmatic status quo with no hope of making further discovery. And this goes back far in the history of science as shown by the great disoveries in medical science by the physician Galen. After he died physicians studied his writings intently, but for a millenium never advanced past what he disovered. There are many other similar parallels in science up to this time.

[/ QUOTE ]
The bible is evidence of religon which I'm sure we all agree exists. The interesting question for the open-minded rational types is whether religon is evidence of god and there simply isn't anything that makes religous beliefs corrospond to the facts. Totally unlike science.

chez

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
And remember that we catholics, unlike the fundamentalists, believe that even if someone sincerely does not see that evidence, even through their own unintentional fault, that that person can still be saved through following the demands of the natural law written in every human soul, which is basically following the golden rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you happen to know the scripture which backs this up?

[Roy Munson]

Maybe douchebag is a little harsh. How about a needy, passive aggressive pain in the ass.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
And another point of this thread, is that I in fact believe there is more evidence than non-believers credit, and that the Bible is more credible than non-believers think, if those persons had an open heart and mind to be ready to see such evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have an open mind and have come to a rational conclusion that the Christian God does not exist. This is just one conclusion I, having a free rational mind, can come to. I could also come to believe in many different religions that may all seem more reasonable to me. Just because Christianity seems most reasonable to YOU, means that for you it is easy to believe that it is the one and only reasonable one. To me it is an alltogether silly belief.

My point is that a fair God would not judge people for not choosing the 'right one.' You say there is evidence for Christianity, and I'm sure that for you there is. But there is none for me. In fact, there is almost nothing I'm more sure of than the fact that Christianity is not the truth.

And you say that it takes an open heart and mind to see the evidence of Christianity. I tell you, if there is a God, He would see that my heart is very open to the truth, whatever it may be. The very fact that I had once closed my mind to everything BUT Christianity, and have since opened it to other possibilities, proves to me that Christianity is blinding rather than eye-opening. Thus a good God could not condemn me, could He?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And remember that we catholics, unlike the fundamentalists, believe that even if someone sincerely does not see that evidence, even through their own unintentional fault, that that person can still be saved through following the demands of the natural law written in every human soul, which is basically following the golden rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you happen to know the scripture which backs this up?

[/ QUOTE ]


For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
--Rom 2:13-16 (RSV-CE)

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
And you say that it takes an open heart and mind to see the evidence of Christianity. I tell you, if there is a God, He would see that my heart is very open to the truth, whatever it may be. The very fact that I had once closed my mind to everything BUT Christianity, and have since opened it to other possibilities, proves to me that Christianity is blinding rather than eye-opening. Thus a good God could not condemn me, could He?

[/ QUOTE ]


Some forms of christianity may be blinding, but the true form is not, but rather liberating as the truth is. But you are asserting an incorrect premise in drawing your conclusion. Namely that a God who could condemn you is not good. But that condemnation or unearned salvation which you will receive, will be due soley to your own actions and state at the end of your life. What you believe now is not necessarily what you will believe at the moment of your death. And as I said above, even sincere non-believers may be saved if they follow the moral demands of the natural law.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
What you believe now is not necessarily what you will believe at the moment of your death.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that a mass-murdering rapist who made his entire living through armed robbery and narcotic sales can find God five minutes before his death and be granted eternal bliss? Yet, a well-meaning atheist who's never had a selfish thought in his life will experience eternal damnation?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you believe now is not necessarily what you will believe at the moment of your death.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that a mass-murdering rapist who made his entire living through armed robbery and narcotic sales can find God five minutes before his death and be granted eternal bliss? Yet, a well-meaning atheist who's never had a selfish thought in his life will experience eternal damnation?

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't speak for him, but yes, the mass-murdering rapist who finds God (and asks for forgiveness) 5 minutes before his death may be granted eternal bliss. Bluff has also suggested that atheists may also be saved if they follow moral laws. I don't agree with that, but I'm sure he can elaborate on it.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
Bluff has also suggested that atheists may also be saved if they follow moral laws. I don't agree with that, but I'm sure he can elaborate on it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I may be misinformed, but don't moral laws (as outlined by the bible) require that you actually believe in God? I always thought belief was a pre-requisite for admission into heaven.

[madnak]

In the who is your hero (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=exchange&amp;Number=4175321&amp;S earchpage=2&amp;Main=4175308&amp;Words=BCPVP&amp;topic=&amp;Search =true#Post4175321) thread, you said Morihei Ueshiba is your greatest hero. Morihei Ueshiba wasn't Christian. So did he go to hell?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I may be misinformed, but don't moral laws (as outlined by the bible) require that you actually believe in God?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're asking the wrong guy. I don't necessarily agree that atheists can get into heaven. That's BluffTHIS's argument.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
In the who is your hero (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=exchange&amp;Number=4175321&amp;S earchpage=2&amp;Main=4175308&amp;Words=BCPVP&amp;topic=&amp;Search =true#Post4175321) thread, you said Morihei Ueshiba is your greatest hero. Morihei Ueshiba wasn't Christian. So did he go to hell?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know.

Btw, I didn't say he was my "greatest hero". I just acknowledge him as a hero. I also wanted to pick someone who wasn't and probably wouldn't be mentioned.

[madnak]

Ah well. Guess I'll just have to go back to using Gandhi.

The idea that only Christians go to heaven has never seemed very logical to me, though.

[KaneKungFu123]

what is the sound of one hand clapping?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
what is the sound of one hand clapping?

[/ QUOTE ]

About as real as a god. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And remember that we catholics, unlike the fundamentalists, believe that even if someone sincerely does not see that evidence, even through their own unintentional fault, that that person can still be saved through following the demands of the natural law written in every human soul, which is basically following the golden rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you happen to know the scripture which backs this up?

[/ QUOTE ]


For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
--Rom 2:13-16 (RSV-CE)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.
I am certainly in no position to declare that you are wrong. But I am confused, because I looked up those verses and read a little further. It seems to me that Romans 3:9-20 and further would dispute your claims that you will be let off the hook if you never hear the law. Furthermore, I know it says in there somewhere (no time to find it right now) that no one has excuses, God will present Himself to all. Again, I’m not really debating you, I’m just confused about your interpretation and need more study.