Christians: Are you saying...

[Lestat]

That if an atheist who genuinely loves his fellow man and is ever ready to aide a stranger in times of need... If this man arrives at the Pearly Gates and meets Jesus... Are you saying that Jesus (the most perfect soul to ever walk the earth, and who preached, "turn the other cheek"), would turn him away and send him to the dungeons of hell for all eternity?

Are you saying that if such a man were to love Jesus as he would all his fellow brothers and sisters on earth and be willing to give Jesus shelter in his own home, if Jesus should ever need it.... Are you saying that God would would sentence a man who looked upon His only Son with charity and kindness, to eternal torture just because the man didn't know who He was?

This is why I can't take the Christian faith seriously and neither should anyone. It makes no sense! Why would Jesus and God have less kindness and love in their hearts than your average human being with even a modicum of decency?

How is it that you can know God would not FAVOR the person who would show charity and kindness to Jesus not knowing who He was, over the Christian who does so just because he thinks it's written somewhere that he's supposed to? Assuming the basic tenets of your faith are true, then common sense dictates that a "just" God should favor the atheist over such a Christian. I don't see how it could even be close.

[David Sklansky]

Why are you directing this question to Christians in general? Most Christians do not believe what you say. Some officially don't believe it. Others unofficially.

As for the others, they have made it quite claer that their stance comes from what they think the bible says. And it is not for them to use human "common sense" to reject it.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you directing this question to Christians in general? Most Christians do not believe what you say. Some officially don't believe it. Others unofficially.

As for the others, they have made it quite claer that their stance comes from what they think the bible says. And it is not for them to use human "common sense" to reject it.

[/ QUOTE ]

My apologies. I thought Christians believed the only way into heaven is through Jesus and if you don't believe Jesus was the Son of God, then no heaven for you.

In any case, my question is for those who do believe that and to show there is a difference between not understanding something, and something not making sense.

"TTOP", is a bible for poker. I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand every detail within the book. Yet I don't think I have to. As long as the underlying principles and surrounding concepts make sense to me, I can believe (have faith), that what I'm reading is correct. However, even if the author of such a book were to write something about poker that flat out didn't make sense to me, I'd have to disregard it until such time as I could make sense of it.

Again, I feel it's ok to believe things you don't understand such as advanced math, evolution, physics, and yes.. even the bible! But when that something you believe in flat out doesn't make sense, you must reject it until it does.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, my question is for those who do believe that and to show there is a difference between not understanding something, and something not making sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's a good point.

Rather than a poker book as an example, I think a better analogy would be a popularized book about theoretical physics designed for the lay person. The average person reading it is going to get some of the basic concepts but not truly understand physics, or have it make complete sense. Sure he could quote general relativity, but even though it's true, he does not understand it in a way a physicist does. However, I don't think it necessarily follows that:

[ QUOTE ]
But when that something you believe in flat out doesn't make sense, you must reject it until it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

[txag007]

Under the same scenario, how does the athiest respond when Jesus asks, "If you think you can get to heaven based on how you treat your fellow humans, for what did I suffer and die?"

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
Under the same scenario, how does the athiest respond when Jesus asks, "If you think you can get to heaven based on how you treat your fellow humans, for what did I suffer and die?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Id say, "you suffered and died no more than billions of people have on this planet, maybe not much more than I did when I died. I sympathize and now I guess empathize with your suffering but maybe you suffered in vain."

-JP

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Under the same scenario, how does the athiest respond when Jesus asks, "If you think you can get to heaven based on how you treat your fellow humans, for what did I suffer and die?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno man, if I were God torturing myself wouldn't be first on my list of priorities, and torturing others would be dead last. [censored]' lunatic.

[Matt R.]

txag007,
I think the atheist should respond, "You suffered and died so that your legacy would live and you would become one of the most influential people in the world for the next 2000+ years. Thus allowing your message of love to be spread as deeply as possible into as many diverse cultures as possible. Your message helps people realize the actions they need to take to obtain salvation. Had you not been crucified for your teachings, one could argue that your message would never have had the impact it has had in future generations."

The message of Jesus is what is important. Not the simple act of saying "Jesus you are my savior". This statement means absolutely nothing if you don't accept his teachings (if you don't, who are you even "accepting" as your savior?). Therefore I think it is reasonable that a self-described atheist can and will be saved (assuming there is an afterlife somewhat like heaven/hell) if he realizes the truth to Jesus' teachings through his own methods. Note this does not mean he has to learn from Jesus or his teachings directly. He can come to realize the truth to his message simply by thinking about how one should live his own life. In this way, people who have never even heard of Jesus or of his teachings can still be saved.

Basically, what I'm getting at, is that I think what is meant by "Jesus is your savior" is that those who follow his teachings will be saved. Thus he is our teacher. He can still be a teacher to an atheist. The act of saying "Jesus, you are my savior", while perhaps symbolic to an extent, CAN mean next to nothing if that same person treats everyone else horribly... the same way some Christians do yet still believe they are "saved" simply because they go to Church and recite the prayers.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
That if an atheist who genuinely loves his fellow man and is ever ready to aide a stranger in times of need... If this man arrives at the Pearly Gates and meets Jesus... Are you saying that Jesus (the most perfect soul to ever walk the earth, and who preached, "turn the other cheek"), would turn him away and send him to the dungeons of hell for all eternity?

Are you saying that if such a man were to love Jesus as he would all his fellow brothers and sisters on earth and be willing to give Jesus shelter in his own home, if Jesus should ever need it.... Are you saying that God would would sentence a man who looked upon His only Son with charity and kindness, to eternal torture just because the man didn't know who He was?

This is why I can't take the Christian faith seriously and neither should anyone. It makes no sense! Why would Jesus and God have less kindness and love in their hearts than your average human being with even a modicum of decency?

How is it that you can know God would not FAVOR the person who would show charity and kindness to Jesus not knowing who He was, over the Christian who does so just because he thinks it's written somewhere that he's supposed to? Assuming the basic tenets of your faith are true, then common sense dictates that a "just" God should favor the atheist over such a Christian. I don't see how it could even be close.

[/ QUOTE ]

a supreme being would not, could not, be made to be subservient to any event within this universe, including but not limited to any weaknesses you might have exhibited in this life either intentionally or unintentionally. if the final decision power of god is usurped simply because some human screwed up then such a god is not supreme.

i am a godist; and i want there to be a god that is benevolent and has the power to fix anything that was considered to be broken.

i like any good version of god that has complete control over all information; this would include the power to erase knowledge if needed.

i reject, as "evil", any version of god that would hand out an infinite amount of punishment for a finite act.

ray

[vhawk01]

Quick aside: Someone tried to explain to me how collapsing wave functions are an example of a way that God could interact with the natural world and still remain undetectable and unobservable to science. What the heck does this mean?

[NotReady]

In general what you say is hypothetically true. There is a passage in Scripture where Jesus says "You must be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect". There are many other passages that indicate if you keep the law perfectly God will consider you perfectly righteous and you will be in heaven. The problem is no human except Jesus has ever kept the law perfectly. And the Scripture says that if you break even one commandment God views you as guilty, as if you had broken them all. Because He is perfect and cannot condone even the smallest sin.

On that basis all mankind would be lost. That's the whole point of God becoming man, keeping the law perfectly and thus becoming a perfect sacrifice, and then offering Himself up to God on our behalf, as an atonement for our sin.

Your hypothet assumes that a non-Christian can have pure motives and do good deeds that God will accept. But the Bible says that our very best deeds are as filthy rags to God because "a little leaven leavens the whole lump", or "how can a bad tree bring forth good fruit". For an act to be acceptable to God it must be perfect and be done from perfectly pure motives. But no human is free of evil motives, even in the very best act that he does. Jesus said to the people "If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children..." which indicates that fallen man can do outwardly good things but still remains alienated from God and hostile to Him.

As I indicated in another thread the Bible tells us not to be concerned about how God will deal with someone else. Our concern is our own relationship with Him. He will be just to all His creatures. For you and for each individual the question is whether you will acknowledge that you are guilty of sin and are willing to repent (change your mind), accepting Jesus and His work done on your behalf on the cross. If you insist that you aren't guilty and/or that you are a good enough person to deserve heaven, God will judge you by that standard. The Scripture indicates that even if He uses your own standard you will still be found guilty. Salvation is by grace through faith. To make it by works is to reject grace and insist on your own merit. The Bible indicates no one will pass that test.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
i reject, as "evil", any version of god that would hand out an infinite amount of punishment for a finite act.

[/ QUOTE ]

If God is an infinite being would not any offense against him be an infinite act? Catholicsm teaches that Jesus is God because only God(an infinite being) could atone for the infinite act that sin is. The belief resolves the paradox of God being both infinitely just and infinitely merciful.

Stu

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If God is an infinite being would not any offense against him be an infinite act?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. That doesn't follow according to any kind of logic. I'm a finite being, therefore capable of only finite crimes. And even most Christians would agree that saying "I don't like God" isn't a crime of infinite evil. In fact, given that the effect of any crime against God is so transient given his infinitude, such a crime can only be considered infinitesimal.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i reject, as "evil", any version of god that would hand out an infinite amount of punishment for a finite act.

[/ QUOTE ]

If God is an infinite being would not any offense against him be an infinite act? Catholicsm teaches that Jesus is God because only God(an infinite being) could atone for the infinite act that sin is. The belief resolves the paradox of God being both infinitely just and infinitely merciful.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

an infinite god doesn't get offended.
getting offended is more or less a weakness.
an infinite god can fix anything.

ray

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
The belief resolves the paradox of God being both infinitely just and infinitely merciful.

[/ QUOTE ]

God, should he exist, is not infinitely merciful. I know this because I am not infinitely merciful, yet I would not condemn anyone to infinite punishment for any crime. Therefore, I am more merciful than God.

Seriously, wriggling out of that logic must involve some fairly serious cognitive dissonance. It's impressive that anyone manages it.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Quick aside: Someone tried to explain to me how collapsing wave functions are an example of a way that God could interact with the natural world and still remain undetectable and unobservable to science. What the heck does this mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the standard Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe is not deterministic. Particle properties such as position and momentum are only represented by probability functions up until the point where they are measured. Therefore, in theory, a divine hand could reach down and mess about with the world any way it wanted, as long as the end probability distribution was normal. Sort of like how online poker is rigged. If the world were deterministic, this would not be possible.

[Bigdaddydvo]

Lestat,

Catholics of course do not believe the premise of your initial post. Do a search of BluffTHIS's excellent posts on "baptism by desire" for a better explanation.

NR,

You said [ QUOTE ]
Your hypothet assumes that a non-Christian can have pure motives and do good deeds that God will accept. But the Bible says that our very best deeds are as [b filthy rags to God [/b] because "a little leaven leavens the whole lump", or "how can a bad tree bring forth good fruit". For an act to be acceptable to God it must be perfect and be done from perfectly pure motives. But no human is free of evil motives, even in the very best act that he does. Jesus said to the people "If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children..." which indicates that fallen man can do outwardly good things but still remains alienated from God and hostile to Him.


[/ QUOTE ]

This idea that good works are filthy rags in God's eyes is absurd and an abject misunderstanding of Isaiah 64:5. Jesus said that those who believed in Him would be able to do the works He did and even greater ones (John 14:12) Certainly, such works could not be filthy rags if done in Jesus and through faith in Him.

It further follows that if our good deeds are filthy rags in God's sight, then our acts of penance, fasting, and almsgiving will fall under the same condemnation. Keeping the Commandments must also logically be considered dirty rags. Why then would God give us Commandments if observing them was displeasing to him?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This idea that good works are filthy rags in God's eyes is absurd


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the idea is that the unbeliever's good works are filthy rags because done from the wrong motive. The NT has many verses dealing with that as well as good works done by Christians. Our good works don't save us but we do get rewards in heaven - yet all is by grace, both the salvation and reward for works.

[ QUOTE ]

Why then would God give us Commandments if observing them was displeasing to him?


[/ QUOTE ]

A few passages on the Law and grace:

Romans 5:20
The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

Romans 3:
20because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Acts 13:
39and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.

Galatians 2:
16nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Romans 7:
7What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
8But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;
11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
12So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
13 Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Under the same scenario, how does the athiest respond when Jesus asks, "If you think you can get to heaven based on how you treat your fellow humans, for what did I suffer and die?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say that it's time I checked myself into the nearest mental hospital as it appears I'm hearing voices again.

[revots33]

Baptism of desire is not mentioned in the bible to my knowledge. And, as I understand the Catholic Church's position, it doesn't apply to athiests either, as in the OP's example. It is simply a way to try and resolve the contradiction between a (supposedly) loving and just god, and sending good people to infinite torment.

Imagine a judge in a criminal court, who sentenced every defendant he found guilty to the death penalty, including pickpockets, online poker players, and pot smokers. Is this the type of judge who would deserve anyone's respect?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Baptism of desire is not mentioned in the bible to my knowledge. And, as I understand the Catholic Church's position, it doesn't apply to athiests either, as in the OP's example. It is simply a way to try and resolve the contradiction between a (supposedly) loving and just god, and sending good people to infinite torment.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my take on it too. Just a disingenuous mean to appear reasonable.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Under the same scenario, how does the athiest respond when Jesus asks, "If you think you can get to heaven based on how you treat your fellow humans, for what did I suffer and die?"

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems strange to me. Am I to assume that if Jesus had not been tortured to death god couldn't have let his faithful believers into heaven? This idea that an all-powerful god has to let his son be tortured in order to open the pearly gates makes absolutely no sense to me.

[David Sklansky]

You and other Christians, especially Bluff and RJT, put up posts like this and Not Ready appears to have good refutations. And that ends it. Why don't any of you go a few more rounds with him?

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems strange to me. Am I to assume that if Jesus had not been tortured to death god couldn't have let his faithful believers into heaven? This idea that an all-powerful god has to let his son be tortured in order to open the pearly gates makes absolutely no sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always thought this as well. The entire Christian narrative makes no sense to me. When I hear "For God so loved us that he sent His only son..." I think:

(1) Why? Why couldn't nobody die? God had to send his own son to die so that he could forgive everyone? Why couldn't he, you know, just decide to forgive everyone? He is omnipotent, right? Also infinitely merciful?
(2) Jesus didn't die. He "died" and was reborn and now gets to be lord of creation. My fate as a sinner prior to Jesus' appearance was presumably either eternal death or eternal punishment. Since neither of these happened to Jesus, I don't see how he's supposed to have taken my punishment in lieu of me receiving it. I also don't see how this was a "sacrifice" on God's part. You can't "sacrifice" something if you get it back, undamaged, a few days later.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Under the same scenario, how does the athiest respond when Jesus asks, "If you think you can get to heaven based on how you treat your fellow humans, for what did I suffer and die?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I certainly don't think Jesus went through all that suffering just to catch people in a technicality at Heaven's Gate. And that's my point...

If you just stop and think for a second, it makes no sense that believing Jesus is the Son of God could be that important. Or to think that Jesus went through all that He did for each individual (as their personal Savior),only to turn them away, because a). they never heard of Jesus, b). were brought up Muslim or had parents of some other religion, or c). just didn't find the story logically believable.

And if it IS the case that it's not true (because it doesn't make sense), it is YOU who is in deep doo-doo when the time comes. You belong to a group who probably does genuinely believe what you say, but that also thinks it has privledged information and is excluding everyone else from heaven. How could a good-loving God be pleased with that?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">However, I don't think it necessarily follows that:

Quote:
But when that something you believe in flat out doesn't make sense, you must reject it until it does.

</font>

How so? Again, I can think of no better example than evolution. I certainly don't understand all the details of it, but the concept makes sense to me. Or at least it doesn't NOT make sense. You don't have to understand something to believe in it. But it has to make sense to you. Maybe I'm not articulating what I'm trying to say very well.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This seems strange to me. Am I to assume that if Jesus had not been tortured to death god couldn't have let his faithful believers into heaven? This idea that an all-powerful god has to let his son be tortured in order to open the pearly gates makes absolutely no sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always thought this as well. The entire Christian narrative makes no sense to me. When I hear "For God so loved us that he sent His only son..." I think:

(1) Why? Why couldn't nobody die? God had to send his own son to die so that he could forgive everyone? Why couldn't he, you know, just decide to forgive everyone? He is omnipotent, right? Also infinitely merciful?
(2) Jesus didn't die. He "died" and was reborn and now gets to be lord of creation. My fate as a sinner prior to Jesus' appearance was presumably either eternal death or eternal punishment. Since neither of these happened to Jesus, I don't see how he's supposed to have taken my punishment in lieu of me receiving it. I also don't see how this was a "sacrifice" on God's part. You can't "sacrifice" something if you get it back, undamaged, a few days later.

[/ QUOTE ]

the crucifixion (regardless of what we say it is) was gods apology to everyone for demonstrating what it would be like to exist in a universe where god was not.

ray

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quick aside: Someone tried to explain to me how collapsing wave functions are an example of a way that God could interact with the natural world and still remain undetectable and unobservable to science. What the heck does this mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the standard Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe is not deterministic. Particle properties such as position and momentum are only represented by probability functions up until the point where they are measured. Therefore, in theory, a divine hand could reach down and mess about with the world any way it wanted, as long as the end probability distribution was normal . Sort of like how online poker is rigged. If the world were deterministic, this would not be possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded part was the key part I was interested in. I understand we couldn't necessarily directly observe God working in the natural world, but if there was some EFFECT to what he was doing, it would be detectable as a difference from the expected, right?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
You belong to a group who probably does genuinely believe what you say, but that also thinks it has privledged information and is excluding everyone else from heaven. How could a good-loving God be pleased with that?

[/ QUOTE ]
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. Matthew 28:19-20

[txag007]

Darkness can't exist in the presence of light.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You belong to a group who probably does genuinely believe what you say, but that also thinks it has privledged information and is excluding everyone else from heaven. How could a good-loving God be pleased with that?

[/ QUOTE ]
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. Matthew 28:19-20

[/ QUOTE ]

But again txag, if it's SO important to believe Jesus is the Son of God (and not a prophet), why would God entrust mortal man to get the word out? Or perhaps you've forgotten how many times mortal man has let God down before?

I say again... It makes no sense.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Darkness can't exist in the presence of light.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that cinches it. I am ready to accept the lord Jesus Christ as my saviour. Your insightful post has saved my soul.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Darkness can't exist in the presence of light.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that cinches it. I am ready to accept the lord Jesus Christ as my saviour. Your insightful post has saved my soul.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is darkness binary?

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This seems strange to me. Am I to assume that if Jesus had not been tortured to death god couldn't have let his faithful believers into heaven? This idea that an all-powerful god has to let his son be tortured in order to open the pearly gates makes absolutely no sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always thought this as well. The entire Christian narrative makes no sense to me. When I hear "For God so loved us that he sent His only son..." I think:

(1) Why? Why couldn't nobody die? God had to send his own son to die so that he could forgive everyone? Why couldn't he, you know, just decide to forgive everyone? He is omnipotent, right? Also infinitely merciful?
(2) Jesus didn't die. He "died" and was reborn and now gets to be lord of creation. My fate as a sinner prior to Jesus' appearance was presumably either eternal death or eternal punishment. Since neither of these happened to Jesus, I don't see how he's supposed to have taken my punishment in lieu of me receiving it. I also don't see how this was a "sacrifice" on God's part. You can't "sacrifice" something if you get it back, undamaged, a few days later.

[/ QUOTE ]

the crucifixion (regardless of what we say it is) was gods apology to everyone for demonstrating what it would be like to exist in a universe where god was not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this stuff seriously make sense to you? I've apologized to people before, but I've never done it by having my son nailed to a piece of wood.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Darkness can't exist in the presence of light.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Because it seems to me that the shadows are deepest in the brightest light.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Darkness can't exist in the presence of light.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Because it seems to me that the shadows are deepest in the brightest light.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This seems strange to me. Am I to assume that if Jesus had not been tortured to death god couldn't have let his faithful believers into heaven? This idea that an all-powerful god has to let his son be tortured in order to open the pearly gates makes absolutely no sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always thought this as well. The entire Christian narrative makes no sense to me. When I hear "For God so loved us that he sent His only son..." I think:

(1) Why? Why couldn't nobody die? God had to send his own son to die so that he could forgive everyone? Why couldn't he, you know, just decide to forgive everyone? He is omnipotent, right? Also infinitely merciful?
(2) Jesus didn't die. He "died" and was reborn and now gets to be lord of creation. My fate as a sinner prior to Jesus' appearance was presumably either eternal death or eternal punishment. Since neither of these happened to Jesus, I don't see how he's supposed to have taken my punishment in lieu of me receiving it. I also don't see how this was a "sacrifice" on God's part. You can't "sacrifice" something if you get it back, undamaged, a few days later.

[/ QUOTE ]

the crucifixion (regardless of what we say it is) was gods apology to everyone for demonstrating what it would be like to exist in a universe where god was not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this stuff seriously make sense to you? I've apologized to people before, but I've never done it by having my son nailed to a piece of wood.

[/ QUOTE ]

the explanation i like best in the context of a "god exists" view is that this universe is the answer to the question of wanting to know what it's like to live in a universe where god is not.

of course i dont pretend to be able to prove this.
it's just an interesting explanation imho.

in this context, any of us have a lot of reasons to indict god for answering the !@#$% question in the first place - this is right in line with the whole indictment of "why would a good god do this to us?" type of complaint. "surely he must be an evil bass turd".

now continuing in this context, consider the flip side of the coin. assume that the almighty said "no i refuse to answer the question - you will not like the answer" then we'd all sit around on a cloud and post on 2+2 about how god is a supreme bass turd for not sharing his superior knowledge with us; we'd have people who believe that the world already existed and we'd have those who didnt. we'd have different theories about what that world would be like (where god was not). we'd call each other names for not having the same view about the-place-where-god-is-not. maybe it would get so bad that there'd be a rebellion.

obviously this is total speculation on my part.

since we are here in the-place-where-god-is-not then if god does exist outside this place, then it stands to reason that we have the answer to our question - like it or not - it is what it is baby.

a wise being would understand the ramifications of answering such a question; they would fully grok the magnitude of cultural heat and anger that would occur as a result of answering the question. they might select a critical point in human history to insert a human through which they could talk to the disgruntled students; the majority of students would be seriously pissed at god (on psychological levels they cant even comprehend) for answering the question, that they'd immediately go postal on his ass and beat the holy [censored] out of him for no other reason than to relieve the pressure. (much the same way one would take vengence on a sibling that offended you first). i.e. it feels good to make somebody suffer that you feel has made you suffer.

no proof for this whatsoever, but it's one of the better grand unified godist theories i know.

making peace with this god involves 2 parts:

forgiving yourself for wanting knowledge of the-world-where-god-is-not

forgiving god for agreeing to let you have that knowledge.

the crucifixion was god apologizing to us.
(peace on earth; good will toward men.)

ray

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

the crucifixion was god apologizing to us.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is deeper into the abyss than anything the worst atheist can say - you make Dawkins look divine.

[BobOjedaFan]

[ QUOTE ]
That if an atheist who genuinely loves his fellow man and is ever ready to aide a stranger in times of need... If this man arrives at the Pearly Gates and meets Jesus... Are you saying that Jesus (the most perfect soul to ever walk the earth, and who preached, "turn the other cheek"), would turn him away and send him to the dungeons of hell for all eternity?

Are you saying that if such a man were to love Jesus as he would all his fellow brothers and sisters on earth and be willing to give Jesus shelter in his own home, if Jesus should ever need it.... Are you saying that God would would sentence a man who looked upon His only Son with charity and kindness, to eternal torture just because the man didn't know who He was?

This is why I can't take the Christian faith seriously and neither should anyone. It makes no sense! Why would Jesus and God have less kindness and love in their hearts than your average human being with even a modicum of decency?

How is it that you can know God would not FAVOR the person who would show charity and kindness to Jesus not knowing who He was, over the Christian who does so just because he thinks it's written somewhere that he's supposed to? Assuming the basic tenets of your faith are true, then common sense dictates that a "just" God should favor the atheist over such a Christian. I don't see how it could even be close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fortunately as many have replied to you most Christians DO NOT believe this. Some people have even berated you for asking this question but I understand you fully. To some atheists who really care about all people this is one of the most frustrating facts of life.
I once had 'feelings' for a girl who thought like this. She basically told me she couldn't date me because I was spending eternity in Hell for my beliefs (best rejection ever), but still wanted to be friends. WTF, how can you be friends with someone who you like and STILL think theire going to Hell.
Whenever I meet someone who is a devout Christian I ask them if they believe in this nonsense. If they do, I immiedtaly cut them off. It's too painful for me to interact with people that think such horrible things about it. I genuinly despise and on some levels hate these people.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the crucifixion was god apologizing to us.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is deeper into the abyss than anything the worst atheist can say - you make Dawkins look divine.

[/ QUOTE ]

why?

wouldn't a genuinely responsible ethical scientific god take full responsibility for all of the ramifications of a lab experiment like this?

wouldn't a god that made a "tree of knowledge" available have some type of a scientific plan to cover the case where some of us chose to pick the fruit?

assuming you believe the account in genesis then this world is the result of those that wanted to know what this world was like.

wouldn't a smart god understand how much cosmic [censored] would contact the fan as a result of answering the question?

wouldn't that type of a god understand that there would eventually be a lot of angry people in this world and that something might have to be done to take some heat out of the system to avoid a meltdown?

i am a godist.
i want god to exist.
i want a god that has the power and ability to fix anything.

"peace on earth ... good will toward men"

ray

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

why?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because man is guilty, not God. You have it exactly backwards. It's worse than Dawkins because he doesn't believe in God whereas you totally reverse the true situation.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

why?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because man is guilty, not God. You have it exactly backwards. It's worse than Dawkins because he doesn't believe in God whereas you totally reverse the true situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

answer the rest of the questions man. if you refuse to answer them then your position is weak.

in a dualistic universe there is no way for concious beings to completely avoid negative experiences - it's not possible. [censored] happens. this universe is dualistic because it is a place where god is not. (i assume you believe that if an all powerful supreme being permeated this universe that it would prevent all negative experiences of any kind - i.e. heaven)

you do believe that you were removed from the garden when you picked the fruit right?
garden=god
you were removed from the garden to a place where god is not.

it's not your fault dude.
you're not alone man.
a lot of us picked the fruit with you as well.

if we're guilty then we're guilty of curiosity and nothing more.

i forgave myself for being curious.
(i'm much wiser now as a result of this lab experiment)
i forgave god for answering my question.

"peace on earth ... good will toward men"

ray

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

wouldn't a genuinely responsible ethical scientific god take full responsibility for all of the ramifications of a lab experiment like this?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not if He gave man responsibility which man then failed.

[ QUOTE ]

assuming you believe the account in genesis then this world is the result of those that wanted to know what this world was like.


[/ QUOTE ]

But they wanted to know in an illegitimate way.

[ QUOTE ]

wouldn't a smart god understand how much cosmic [censored] would contact the fan as a result of answering the question?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's why the crucifixtion was a part of God's plan from eternity - to graciously provide for the guilt of man.

[ QUOTE ]

wouldn't that type of a god understand that there would eventually be a lot of angry people in this world and that something might have to be done to take some heat out of the system to avoid a meltdown?


[/ QUOTE ]

See above answer.

[ QUOTE ]

i want a god that has the power and ability to fix anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

He can and does fix all things fixable.

[vhawk01]

How do you get around the fact that man never asked for any responsibility, and so the failure can't really be on him? I suppose its sort of like "I didn't ask to be born," except I am basically entirely capable of shirking all of the responsibilities that being born saddled me with, and I don't get punished for eternity.

Sure, with great priviledge (free will) comes great responsibility, but I am willing to give it up. Where do I get in line for that?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How do you get around the fact that man never asked for any responsibility


[/ QUOTE ]

God said His creation was good. That means that somehow it was better to create than not to create. For those who wish they had never been born I believe God will treat you with perfect justice. I have no insight past that. I don't exclude the possibility of annihilation but I'm definitely not orthodox to even suggest it as a possibility. In the end it all depends on the nature and character of God, which makes me very happy indeed. The Good will triumph.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[that's why the crucifixtion was a part of God's plan from eternity - to graciously provide for the guilt of man.

[/ QUOTE ]

...but, Eve did it, not me. Why am I being blamed? If God appeared to me and put me in a paradise, I'd damn well listen to what he said. It's paradise!

~MagicMan

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How do you get around the fact that man never asked for any responsibility


[/ QUOTE ]

God said His creation was good. That means that somehow it was better to create than not to create. For those who wish they had never been born I believe God will treat you with perfect justice. I have no insight past that. I don't exclude the possibility of annihilation but I'm definitely not orthodox to even suggest it as a possibility. In the end it all depends on the nature and character of God, which makes me very happy indeed. The Good will triumph.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a pretty good answer. I don't think any Christian has ever said that to me before, or accepted that as even a remote possibility, but I gotta say, I like it. I definitely am glad I was born RIGHT NOW, but if I find out that the price I paid was being forced into making a choice "Accept Jesus/burn in hell for eternity" against my will, I can imagine deciding otherwise. It would be nice to find that I would be granted annihilation in that case. So atheists AND theists might BOTH be right?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

but, Eve did it, not me. Why am I being blamed?


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually sin is passed to all mankind because of Adam's sin because he was appointed to represent us.

This is a lengthly topic. A very good book on the subject is John Murray's The Imputation of Adam's Sin.

There are many aspects to the question and God has not given us all the answers. My own belief is that though we are initially sinners because of Adam we are also guilty and ultimately are condemned more for rejecting Christ than for individual sins. The guilt is real but sin has no rational explanation. In part, that's why it's sin. If it had a cause, would it be sin? At this point I usually give up - my brain won't go any further. I just accept that I'm truly guilty and truly forgiven.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It would be nice to find that I would be granted annihilation in that case. So atheists AND theists might BOTH be right?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't state this as dogma. There is some, but very thin, support for it in the Bible. There are also some who believe that punishment is eternal but not literally being tortured in fire - various ideas are promoted, but none of them are very attractive - you won't be happy whatever the final state might be. I personally have a lot of difficulty with the idea of everlasting extreme agony but I can't be dogmatic either way.

But if you don't accept Christ I do believe dogmatically you will regret it immensely. This is not a small matter. "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". Just weigh the difference between ceasing to exist and existing in incredible bliss for eternity. God created us all for a purpose. To miss that purpose is a huge tragedy. Serious business.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How do you get around the fact that man never asked for any responsibility


[/ QUOTE ]

God said His creation was good. That means that somehow it was better to create than not to create. For those who wish they had never been born I believe God will treat you with perfect justice. I have no insight past that. I don't exclude the possibility of annihilation but I'm definitely not orthodox to even suggest it as a possibility. In the end it all depends on the nature and character of God, which makes me very happy indeed. The Good will triumph.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok fine.
god created this universe.
(one of the spherical bubbles in the foam)
then stepped into it.
created us and declared it to be good.
and there was much rejoicing.

then ... somebody said

"what would this place be like if god was not?"

god said "you wont like the answer"

we said "tell us anyway we are curious"

and then god left.

and now here we are arguing about the wisdom of both the question and the decision to answer it.

we are responsible for asking the question.
god is repsonsible for answering the question.

when we leave this world, we leave all of the consequences of it behind and return to the place where god is.

god forgives us for asking.
we forgive god for answering.

god forgives you for anything you do in this life as long as you forgive god for anything that happens to you while you're here.

it's part of the terms and conditions that you agreed to.
(there is no complaint department where god is)

"peace on earth ... good will toward men"

ray

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

and then god left.


[/ QUOTE ]

Matthew 18:
20"For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."

Revelation 3:

20'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me


John 16:7
"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.


Acts 17:27
that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

John 1:
9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

but, Eve did it, not me. Why am I being blamed?


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually sin is passed to all mankind because of Adam's sin because he was appointed to represent us.

This is a lengthly topic. A very good book on the subject is John Murray's The Imputation of Adam's Sin.

There are many aspects to the question and God has not given us all the answers. My own belief is that though we are initially sinners because of Adam we are also guilty and ultimately are condemned more for rejecting Christ than for individual sins. The guilt is real but sin has no rational explanation. In part, that's why it's sin. If it had a cause, would it be sin? At this point I usually give up - my brain won't go any further. I just accept that I'm truly guilty and truly forgiven.

[/ QUOTE ]

this theology is classic standard adamic theology and it's based on the premise that all humans begin existence at conception. it's a perfectly fine answer in that context.

however, in the context of pre-existing concious beings visiting this world to acquire the answer to a question, the adamic theology isn't useful.

the adamic theology asserts that you were screwed by your ancestors, but not to fear, there is a patch fix available to you for immediate download. the adamic theology was also necessary within the context of the current judaic theology that existed at the time of christ - i.e. there needed to be a seriously convincing argument to get a jew to embrace jesus as a messiah and forsake the old testament style salvation system. as it turns out, the gentiles were much better soil for the message.

the adamic theology never worked for me because ive always felt like i was visiting this place based on personal choice.

but if you feel like you began existence at conception then i can understand why you'd favor the adamic version.

i can tell you that i was raised in a very nice evangelical bible belt type of home; great parents. i was taught the standard new testament salvation system (some of which i've retained to this day). i learned repentence and forgiveness at a very young age and this has served me well into my adult life; i dont regret it.

but the facts are that some of the thoeology i was given was polluted by a definition of god who was either unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. this built up anger in my soul for over 2 decades.

real new testament salvation happens when a human really and truly makes peace with god; that process involves forgiveness on both sides of the fence. it's not just about god forgiving us - that's only half the solution. your salvation isn't complete until you forgive god for allowing us to exist in a place where seriously negative events can occur.

it's true that humans screw up in this life; but what's even more true (according to any biblical theology you want to use) is that the god of that bible made it possible for that to happen in the first place. and what you need to admit is that this thought and this though alone can cause an extreme amount of anger in the lives of those that are taught that this god is somehow not responsible for that.

that indictment falls directly upon god and not us. and if you try to move that blame anywhere else you're in denial. and furthermore, you piss people off by doing that. if all of us are expected to be responsible for our actions in this life then i see no reason to expect the same from any god we define.

god gave us a visit - got vulnerable and let us go postal on his ass; and we (the romans) did a mighty fine job letting him know how pissed we are/were. scripture claims that part of his purpose was to remove sin from the world - well in my book anger is serious - anger in fact leads to the worst kind of behavior - ask the people in prison who were unable to deal with their anger for being here - i've talked with them personally.

god forgives you.
do you forgive god?

"peace on earth ... good will toward men"

ray

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It would be nice to find that I would be granted annihilation in that case. So atheists AND theists might BOTH be right?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't state this as dogma. There is some, but very thin, support for it in the Bible. There are also some who believe that punishment is eternal but not literally being tortured in fire - various ideas are promoted, but none of them are very attractive - you won't be happy whatever the final state might be. I personally have a lot of difficulty with the idea of everlasting extreme agony but I can't be dogmatic either way.

But if you don't accept Christ I do believe dogmatically you will regret it immensely. This is not a small matter. "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". Just weigh the difference between ceasing to exist and existing in incredible bliss for eternity. God created us all for a purpose. To miss that purpose is a huge tragedy. Serious business.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't try to bribe me though. I either signed up for this or I didn't, and its too late now. God can try to MAKE me behave with a lolly, but he cant EXPECT me to behave due to some responsibility I never signed up for. I appreciate the offer, but he will have to do better to get his way out of this one. I will forgive him for trying to enslave me, if he gives me the blissful eternity even WITHOUT accepting Christ. I hope this is within his power, although I doubt it.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

wouldn't a genuinely responsible ethical scientific god take full responsibility for all of the ramifications of a lab experiment like this?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not if He gave man responsibility which man then failed.

[/ QUOTE ]

did we get to read the terms and conditions and gain a full understanding of the probability of failing the game before we agreed to participate?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

assuming you believe the account in genesis then this world is the result of those that wanted to know what this world was like.


[/ QUOTE ]

But they wanted to know in an illegitimate way.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you saying it is evil to be curious?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

wouldn't a smart god understand how much cosmic [censored] would contact the fan as a result of answering the question?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's why the crucifixtion was a part of God's plan from eternity - to graciously provide for the guilt of man.

[/ QUOTE ]

and the guilt of god for making it possible for us to be guilty in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

wouldn't that type of a god understand that there would eventually be a lot of angry people in this world and that something might have to be done to take some heat out of the system to avoid a meltdown?


[/ QUOTE ]

See above answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

same.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

i want a god that has the power and ability to fix anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

He can and does fix all things fixable.

[/ QUOTE ]

herein is the core difference between your definition and mine.

your definition is either unable or unwilling to fix certain things as evidenced by your use of the word 'fixable'
(i.e. biased - like a human)

my definition reserves the right to fix anything.
(i.e. unconditional - unlike a human)

ray

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't try to bribe me though. I either signed up for this or I didn't, and its too late now. God can try to MAKE me behave with a lolly, but he cant EXPECT me to behave due to some responsibility I never signed up for. I appreciate the offer, but he will have to do better to get his way out of this one. I will forgive him for trying to enslave me, if he gives me the blissful eternity even WITHOUT accepting Christ. I hope this is within his power, although I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe your soul signed up before you were born. this is a half-serious post, by the way.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't try to bribe me though. I either signed up for this or I didn't, and its too late now. God can try to MAKE me behave with a lolly, but he cant EXPECT me to behave due to some responsibility I never signed up for. I appreciate the offer, but he will have to do better to get his way out of this one. I will forgive him for trying to enslave me, if he gives me the blissful eternity even WITHOUT accepting Christ. I hope this is within his power, although I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe your soul signed up before you were born. this is a half-serious post, by the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

And forgot to tell me? Well, this may very well be the case, but then it doesn't do much for the soul/consciousness relationship. If thats true, my soul can rot in hell, my consciousness will take annihilation thanks very much.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't try to bribe me though. I either signed up for this or I didn't, and its too late now. God can try to MAKE me behave with a lolly, but he cant EXPECT me to behave due to some responsibility I never signed up for. I appreciate the offer, but he will have to do better to get his way out of this one. I will forgive him for trying to enslave me, if he gives me the blissful eternity even WITHOUT accepting Christ. I hope this is within his power, although I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe your soul signed up before you were born. this is a half-serious post, by the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

And forgot to tell me? Well, this may very well be the case, but then it doesn't do much for the soul/consciousness relationship. If thats true, my soul can rot in hell, my consciousness will take annihilation thanks very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe the terms and conditions of the experiment involve an intentional discontinuity of memory - why? i dont know. why does any experiment to acquire knowledge exist?

sufficiently advanced technology would allow you to target a fetus and incarnate while preventing all access to previous memory once you cross the knowledge barrier.

when you die here, you return across the knowledge barrier and add the acquired info to your already existing body of knowledge.

the concept is not a lot different than any mmporpg only at a grander level than we can readily comprehend.

ray

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't try to bribe me though. I either signed up for this or I didn't, and its too late now. God can try to MAKE me behave with a lolly, but he cant EXPECT me to behave due to some responsibility I never signed up for. I appreciate the offer, but he will have to do better to get his way out of this one. I will forgive him for trying to enslave me, if he gives me the blissful eternity even WITHOUT accepting Christ. I hope this is within his power, although I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe your soul signed up before you were born. this is a half-serious post, by the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

And forgot to tell me? Well, this may very well be the case, but then it doesn't do much for the soul/consciousness relationship. If thats true, my soul can rot in hell, my consciousness will take annihilation thanks very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe the terms and conditions of the experiment involve an intentional discontinuity of memory - why? i dont know. why does any experiment to acquire knowledge exist?

sufficiently advanced technology would allow you to target a fetus and incarnate while preventing all access to previous memory once you cross the knowledge barrier.

when you die here, you return across the knowledge barrier and add the acquired info to your already existing body of knowledge.

the concept is not a lot different than any mmporpg only at a grander level than we can readily comprehend.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, thats a fantastic hypothetical but unless you have any sort of support I'm not just going to work from the assumption its true in some kind of bizarro Pascal's Wager. It could also be the case that only people who reject Christ get to live with him, but at least the Bible says this is wrong. There is nothing, as far as I can tell, that makes any sort of claim like the one above.

EDIT: This is actually like some weird, soul-based Last Thursdayism, where my soul signed me up for something and then made me forget. The question is, why would my soul sign itself up for something that it doesn't want to be involved in? I mean, is my soul different now than it was then? Am I not my soul? Who's in charge of my free will around here? Stupid fickle soul.

[keith123]

well, maybe our entire existence is predicated on such an arrangement. are there any good theories on what we are before we are born? the vanilla sky theory is probably one of the weaker ones.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't try to bribe me though. I either signed up for this or I didn't, and its too late now. God can try to MAKE me behave with a lolly, but he cant EXPECT me to behave due to some responsibility I never signed up for. I appreciate the offer, but he will have to do better to get his way out of this one. I will forgive him for trying to enslave me, if he gives me the blissful eternity even WITHOUT accepting Christ. I hope this is within his power, although I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe your soul signed up before you were born. this is a half-serious post, by the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

And forgot to tell me? Well, this may very well be the case, but then it doesn't do much for the soul/consciousness relationship. If thats true, my soul can rot in hell, my consciousness will take annihilation thanks very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe the terms and conditions of the experiment involve an intentional discontinuity of memory - why? i dont know. why does any experiment to acquire knowledge exist?

sufficiently advanced technology would allow you to target a fetus and incarnate while preventing all access to previous memory once you cross the knowledge barrier.

when you die here, you return across the knowledge barrier and add the acquired info to your already existing body of knowledge.

the concept is not a lot different than any mmporpg only at a grander level than we can readily comprehend.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, thats a fantastic hypothetical but unless you have any sort of support I'm not just going to work from the assumption its true in some kind of bizarro Pascal's Wager. It could also be the case that only people who reject Christ get to live with him, but at least the Bible says this is wrong. There is nothing, as far as I can tell, that makes any sort of claim like the one above.

EDIT: This is actually like some weird, soul-based Last Thursdayism, where my soul signed me up for something and then made me forget. The question is, why would my soul sign itself up for something that it doesn't want to be involved in? I mean, is my soul different now than it was then? Am I not my soul? Who's in charge of my free will around here? Stupid fickle soul.

[/ QUOTE ]

this thought experiment isn't much different than any physicist describing a grand unified theory and then measuring that theory against the best experimental evidence available.

my theory begins with the idea of this universe being somewhat like a sphere where the surface of the sphere is a knowledge barrier such that nothing inside the sphere can move information across the surface barrier of the sphere. things inside the sphere obey the observable laws of physics. things might be different on the outside of the knowledge barrier.

this means that the science inside the sphere has limits insofar as what it can prove to be true.

if the science inside the sphere attempts to reference the entire sphere then i'm willing to say that's an instance of godel G type of statement and all of his proofs apply accordingly - in other words, science can potentially obtain proof and measurement for things inside the sphere but cannot ever obtain proof for things outside the sphere or properties or rules of the sphere as a whole. but this does not mean that those of us inside the sphere cannot believe something true about what might be outside the sphere.

my view is that we come from a place outside this sphere and thence we shall return after death. i think dawkins referred to the possibility of that ouside place as "the foam"

there are only 4 basic views about consciousness:

1) begins at birth and ends at death (standard atheism)
2) infinite past that ends at death (eternal past)
3) begins at birth and never ends (eternal future)
4) infinite past and infinite future (eternal existence)

i was taught a biblical version of #3 growing up
(although the subject was never really talked about much)
but i like 4 better because it seems to offer better
explanations about what might be outside the sphere
#1 and #2 are just too depressing.

ray

[madnak]

I think 1 and 4 are far and away the most realistic. 3 is implausible and 2 is just disturbing (but perhaps the coolest of them all).

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
I think 1 and 4 are far and away the most realistic. 3 is implausible and 2 is just disturbing (but perhaps the coolest of them all).

[/ QUOTE ]

1 and 4 could both be true.

that would mean that not all fetuses are automatically inhabited and thus there is nothing to travel back to the place where god is.

the godism question in the other thread might be a lab test to know who is inhabited and who is not. the pure atheists will answer no thus indicating that they might not be inhabited and that will be further evidenced by the fact that they are not disturbed at being erased at death - kind of like how a bot or machine would not care.

the people that are inhabited would care very much about not being erased.

and if the two types talked with each other they might not be able to relate very well.

ray

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
that would mean that not all fetuses are automatically inhabited and thus there is nothing to travel back to the place where god is.

the godism question in the other thread might be a lab test to know who is inhabited and who is not. the pure atheists will answer no thus indicating that they might not be inhabited and that will be further evidenced by the fact that they are not disturbed at being erased at death - kind of like how a bot or machine would not care.

the people that are inhabited would care very much about not being erased.

and if the two types talked with each other they might not be able to relate very well.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

That belief is very common on here, expressed in various ways. You're right about the not-relating. People who believe they are 'chosen' or 'special' or 'inhabited' are hard to relate to, actually I don't even know how I could. It's like relating to a different species.

luckyme

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
That if an atheist who genuinely loves his fellow man and is ever ready to aide a stranger in times of need... If this man arrives at the Pearly Gates and meets Jesus... Are you saying that Jesus (the most perfect soul to ever walk the earth, and who preached, "turn the other cheek"), would turn him away and send him to the dungeons of hell for all eternity?

Are you saying that if such a man were to love Jesus as he would all his fellow brothers and sisters on earth and be willing to give Jesus shelter in his own home, if Jesus should ever need it.... Are you saying that God would would sentence a man who looked upon His only Son with charity and kindness, to eternal torture just because the man didn't know who He was?

This is why I can't take the Christian faith seriously and neither should anyone. It makes no sense! Why would Jesus and God have less kindness and love in their hearts than your average human being with even a modicum of decency?

How is it that you can know God would not FAVOR the person who would show charity and kindness to Jesus not knowing who He was, over the Christian who does so just because he thinks it's written somewhere that he's supposed to? Assuming the basic tenets of your faith are true, then common sense dictates that a "just" God should favor the atheist over such a Christian. I don't see how it could even be close.

[/ QUOTE ]

the real new testament god taught by jesus has the following terms and conditions:

************
Gates of Heaven Terms &amp; Conditions

1) I will not indict you for any thought word or deed done in your earthly life.

2) None in heaven will indict you for any thought word or deed done in your earthly life.

You will be granted access to Heaven if you willingly agree to:

1) Drop all indictments against me.

2) Drop all indictments against others.

If you have difficulty dropping your indictments then I will supply memory erasing services free of charge.

Signed,
GOD
**********

there is no complaint department in heaven.

ray

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that would mean that not all fetuses are automatically inhabited and thus there is nothing to travel back to the place where god is.

the godism question in the other thread might be a lab test to know who is inhabited and who is not. the pure atheists will answer no thus indicating that they might not be inhabited and that will be further evidenced by the fact that they are not disturbed at being erased at death - kind of like how a bot or machine would not care.

the people that are inhabited would care very much about not being erased.

and if the two types talked with each other they might not be able to relate very well.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

That belief is very common on here, expressed in various ways. You're right about the not-relating. People who believe they are 'chosen' or 'special' or 'inhabited' are hard to relate to, actually I don't even know how I could. It's like relating to a different species.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

luck,

just reduce the essence of this issue down to nothing more than what you want.

if you have a choice, would you choose to continue your existence after this life? yes or no?

it's perfectly fine to answer based on the types of experiences available to you. if you tell me that the only thing that awaits is an eternal barbeque then i'd rather be erased as well.

i want to continue existing beyond the human life; but i'm perfectly willing to say that i want that based on the idea that i'll have access to good experiences.

ray.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
...this thought experiment isn't much different than any physicist describing a grand unified theory and then measuring that theory against the best experimental evidence available.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and in your thought experiment there is absolutely zero,zilcho, no evidence available.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...this thought experiment isn't much different than any physicist describing a grand unified theory and then measuring that theory against the best experimental evidence available.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and in your thought experiment there is absolutely zero,zilcho, no evidence available.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed. nevertheless, i enjoy theorizing.

ray.