Hero Professor In Hell Right Now

[David Sklansky]

Just thought that I would remind everyone that Professor Librescu, the Romanian, Holocaust survivor who blockaded the door at Virginia Tech, while his students jumped to safety, is burning in hell right now and will continue to endure unimaginable torture for eternity.

Never mind that (presumably) he

1. Gave his life to save twenty or so young students

2. Worshipped essentially the same God that Christians do.

3. Tried to do what he thought that God wanted him to do

4. Probably thought Jesus was a great man

So what. He was also skeptical of a story involving that God. Not because he thought it was a bad story but rather because he had, in his mind anyway, logical reasons to think it wasn't true. In fact he probably thought that God would be at least a little displeased if he believed, what to the professor, was an obviously fraudelant story.

Big mistake. He didn't realize that God didn't care about his heroism or that his disbelief of the story was partially based on an effort to please him. So now he's frying.

[Duke]

I'm tempted to say that only the choir is listening, David. The fact of the matter is that there's a small chance that you might change someone's mind, though, and that's a good thing.

As an aside, I'm thinking that you make an effort to assign generous probabilities to various religious beliefs being true. That makes you come across as a borderline "moderate," and could actually get more people to listen to what you have to say (by this I mean people who don't already agree).

The sad part is that I'm reminded of Dumb and Dumber. So you're saying I have a chance?

Yes, I realize that this post is mainly meant to point out how morally ridiculous a certain set of beliefs are, and not to create a probability argument assessing how likely those beliefs are to be true. I'm curious, though, whether you think that you ever changed anyone's mind.

I know that I haven't, though I think I have some who pray for my soul daily. Perhaps I'll get a free pass through mass petition.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Just thought that I would remind everyone that Professor Librescu, the Romanian, Holocaust survivor who blockaded the door at Virginia Tech, while his students jumped to safety, is burning in hell right now and will continue to endure unimaginable torture for eternity.

Never mind that (presumably) he

1. Gave his life to save twenty or so young students

2. Worshipped essentially the same God that Christians do.

3. Tried to do what he thought that God wanted him to do

4. Probably thought Jesus was a great man

So what. He was also skeptical of a story involving that God. Not because he thought it was a bad story but rather because he had, in his mind anyway, logical reasons to think it wasn't true. In fact he probably thought that God would be at least a little displeased if he believed, what to the professor, was an obviously fraudelant story.

Big mistake. He didn't realize that God didn't care about his heroism or that his disbelief of the story was partially based on an effort to please him. So now he's frying.

[/ QUOTE ]

But which circle of hell is this good professor frying in? Check out these 9 circles of hell purposed by Dante for some choices: 9 Circles of Hell (http://www.wsu.edu/~alake/the_circles_of_hell.htm)

Perhaps the Good Professor can be categorized as a Virtuous Pagan and be assigned to the first circle and thus spend eternity with unbaptized babies. Or perhaps he could be assigned for whatever reasons that please God or the Catholic Church, whichever comes first, to a new 10th circle of Hell:

New Circle of Hell (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28898)

Perhaps this is all done by vote of the saints, the saved, and the Angels. But then, the inhabitants of Heaven are not organized into a democratic style of government so this is beside the point I would assume.

-Zeno

[chucky]

God focuses much less on individual placement in Heaven and Hell than his believers do. If the professor acted purely out of a concern for place in the after life then Any God would see the hollowness of even the greatest act. Catholics might tell you that purgatory will open the path to heaven for the Prof. Additionally, I would point out that rational judgement does not bound the God of the New or Old testament.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, I would point out that rational judgement does not bound the God of the New or Old testament.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would point out that interpretations of the New or Old Testament are not bound by misinterpretations of the New or Old Testament.

PairTheBoard

[KUJustin]

At the risk of offending some, let's invent a separate but nearly identical professor.

This professor committed a rape a week before the attack. He made the exact same heroic effort with regard only for the well-being of his students, except for whatever reason this time he survives. He is then put in jail shortly thereafter. I don't think very many people would be outraged at his jailing despite his heroism or Holocaust-survivor status.

In fact, I think the above professor is a useful illustration of what the "conservative" Christians are trying to explain in these discussions which is that when a rule is broken there's a consequence, a penalty to be paid and how "good" of a person you are doesn't change that fact.

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
Just thought that I would remind everyone that Professor Librescu, the Romanian, Holocaust survivor who blockaded the door at Virginia Tech, while his students jumped to safety, is burning in hell right now and will continue to endure unimaginable torture for eternity.

Never mind that (presumably) he

1. Gave his life to save twenty or so young students

2. Worshipped essentially the same God that Christians do.

3. Tried to do what he thought that God wanted him to do

4. Probably thought Jesus was a great man

So what. He was also skeptical of a story involving that God. Not because he thought it was a bad story but rather because he had, in his mind anyway, logical reasons to think it wasn't true. In fact he probably thought that God would be at least a little displeased if he believed, what to the professor, was an obviously fraudelant story.

Big mistake. He didn't realize that God didn't care about his heroism or that his disbelief of the story was partially based on an effort to please him. So now he's frying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source? I'm not even sure why you would write that even if it is true, i dont see it adding to your points in your post.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of offending some, let's invent a separate but nearly identical professor.

This professor committed a rape a week before the attack. He made the exact same heroic effort with regard only for the well-being of his students, except for whatever reason this time he survives. He is then put in jail shortly thereafter. I don't think very many people would be outraged at his jailing despite his heroism or Holocaust-survivor status.

In fact, I think the above professor is a useful illustration of what the "conservative" Christians are trying to explain in these discussions which is that when a rule is broken there's a consequence, a penalty to be paid and how "good" of a person you are doesn't change that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So wait, you freely ADMIT that in your moral philosophy, good deeds are completely irrelevant? Your argument about consequences when rules are broken might make sense if there were any rules except "Worship God". But in fact, as long as someone accepts Jesus as savior, then they are automatically a good person and all previous broken rules are ignored, while if they don't, they are automatically a bad person and no amount of good deeds are sufficient to prove otherwise. It's a one-rule moral universe.

As long as we're making up dubious analogies about real-world justice, imagine if Cho Seung-Hui had, instead of shooting himself after the massacre, gone to State House and kissed the feet of Virginia governor Tim Kaine, while professing his total love for and obediance to him. If Kaine then pardoned him and pronounced him now the equal of all other citizens, do you think that would be regarded as just? Yet the analogous situation with God is touted by Christians as an example of God's infinite justice.

How you can simultaneously believe that:

- God is infinitely just
- Bad deeds from believers require no punishment, while good deeds from unbelievers receive no reward

and:

- God is infinitely merciful
- God will torture people for all eternity for the "crime" of not devoting themselves to a religion for which the evidence is extremely flimsy at best

I mean, do you SERIOUSLY believe all those statements? The cognitive dissonance must be simply amazing.

It also makes me wonder where you draw the line. Are non-Christian 5 year olds destined for hell? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? At what point is someone who dies cognizant enough of theology that they will suffer eternal torture for their belief system? This is one of those points at which Christians fall back on the "Well, you see, God Has A Plan" type answers.

[HP]

[ QUOTE ]

Source? I'm not even sure why you would write that even if it is true, i dont see it adding to your points in your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

takes some bite out of the accusation "rejecting Jesus"

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Source? I'm not even sure why you would write that even if it is true, i dont see it adding to your points in your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

takes some bite out of the accusation "rejecting Jesus"

[/ QUOTE ]

i do see the "rejecting jesus" angle, but to me thinking he is a great man vs. believing in him is not even close.

furthermore, is thinking jesus was a great man closer to not "rejecting jesus"? i would say no. to me it seems Worse to think jesus was a great man and not accept him (because you accepting the validity of certain events)as opposed to not thinking he was a great man and "rejecting him"

i do see what your saying though.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
doesnt the old test say when u die thts it, no afterlife nor resurrection?

[/ QUOTE ]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of offending some, let's invent a separate but nearly identical professor.

This professor committed a rape a week before the attack. He made the exact same heroic effort with regard only for the well-being of his students, except for whatever reason this time he survives. He is then put in jail shortly thereafter. I don't think very many people would be outraged at his jailing despite his heroism or Holocaust-survivor status.

In fact, I think the above professor is a useful illustration of what the "conservative" Christians are trying to explain in these discussions which is that when a rule is broken there's a consequence, a penalty to be paid and how "good" of a person you are doesn't change that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its only offensive because these same sorts of people tend to invent lots of silly rules and then try to enforce them by punishment.

I suppose god might be offended by them as well but he can look after himself.

chez

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of offending some, let's invent a separate but nearly identical professor.

This professor committed a rape a week before the attack. He made the exact same heroic effort with regard only for the well-being of his students, except for whatever reason this time he survives. He is then put in jail shortly thereafter. I don't think very many people would be outraged at his jailing despite his heroism or Holocaust-survivor status.

In fact, I think the above professor is a useful illustration of what the "conservative" Christians are trying to explain in these discussions which is that when a rule is broken there's a consequence, a penalty to be paid and how "good" of a person you are doesn't change that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post beautifully demonstrates why religion is the root of much, if not most, evil. (Actually, irrational-ism is more fundamentally the root of most evil, and religion is merely the most common manifestation.)

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
This post beautifully demonstrates why religion is the root of much, if not most, evil. (Actually, irrational-ism is more fundamentally the root of most evil, and religion is merely the most common manifestation.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed!

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of offending some, let's invent a separate but nearly identical professor.

This professor committed a rape a week before the attack. He made the exact same heroic effort with regard only for the well-being of his students, except for whatever reason this time he survives. He is then put in jail shortly thereafter. I don't think very many people would be outraged at his jailing despite his heroism or Holocaust-survivor status.

In fact, I think the above professor is a useful illustration of what the "conservative" Christians are trying to explain in these discussions which is that when a rule is broken there's a consequence, a penalty to be paid and how "good" of a person you are doesn't change that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are equating a rapist with someone who doesn't share in your particular brand of religion. Quite frankly, your beliefs are sickening. The fact that you are so brainwashed by your "faith" that you do not see how evil your beliefs are is remarkable to me.

Do you honestly believe that a Jewish man who sacrifices his life to save 20 others, is less likely to get into heaven than a rapist who calls himself a Christian? Never mind, I already know your answer.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">In fact, I think the above professor is a useful illustration of what the "conservative" Christians are trying to explain in these discussions which is that when a rule is broken there's a consequence, a penalty to be paid and how "good" of a person you are doesn't change that fact.
</font>

The problem is that Christians are guessing, or at best, using human interpretation and morality to speak for God and come up with these iron clad "rules". In the process, they alienate all others. An even bigger problem (for them), is that if there really IS a God, they themselves, could easily be wrong about the "rules" and suffer a worse fate than that which they wish upon others (or if you don't like the term "wish", then that fate which they "anticipate" for others).

This is clear to everyone except those blinded by their own faith.

[Anzat]

[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of offending some, let's invent a separate but nearly identical professor.

This professor's great-great-great grandfather committed a rape a week before the attack. He made the exact same heroic effort with regard only for the well-being of his students, except for whatever reason this time he survives. He is then put in jail shortly thereafter. I don't think very many people would be outraged at his jailing despite his heroism or Holocaust-survivor status.

In fact, I think the above professor is a useful illustration of what the "conservative" Christians are trying to explain in these discussions which is that when a rule is broken there's a consequence, a penalty to be paid and how "good" of a person you are doesn't change that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this what you meant?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that every Christian seems to have their own scenario for who gets into heaven and who doesn't, is a pretty good reason to doubt the bible as the ultimate authority on anything.

It seems fairly obvious to me that people are making it all up as they go along. Exactly what they make up, is a function of how unjust they can stomach their god being.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of offending some, let's invent a separate but nearly identical professor.

This professor committed a rape a week before the attack. He made the exact same heroic effort with regard only for the well-being of his students, except for whatever reason this time he survives. He is then put in jail shortly thereafter. I don't think very many people would be outraged at his jailing despite his heroism or Holocaust-survivor status.

In fact, I think the above professor is a useful illustration of what the "conservative" Christians are trying to explain in these discussions which is that when a rule is broken there's a consequence, a penalty to be paid and how "good" of a person you are doesn't change that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than get outraged by this analogy like some others have, I will simply point out that the flaw in your anology is that the rapist realizes he committed a crime. This professor honestly believes he is following the "rules".

For some reason, you, Not Ready, and others, evidently seem not to grasp that many people truly don't believe that Jesus was anything but a man. In spite of the fact that science and probabality argue for that conclusion. You guys talk like disbelievers are knowingly breaking the rules when they "reject" Jesus. As if psychology is involved (which for some, admittedly it is) rather than simple thought.

[Bigdaddydvo]

David,

Assuming your four stipulations are generally correct and this professor led a good life (following the golden rule, etc) I rate his chances of eternal salvation to be quite high. (Hence us Catholics being, in your words, "less nuts")

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
God focuses much less on individual placement in Heaven and Hell than his believers do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I imagine. After all, what would God care where each of billions of people happen to end up.

OTOH, it's a pretty big deal for the individuals involved. Hell, how can you think about anything else? Eternal torment versus limitless happiness? I tell you what, I'd be way holier than anyone you've ever met if I believed any of this!

[dknightx]

the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You made a specific post. People are responding to what YOU said. Christianity needn't play any role, YOU are the one who said he is burning in hell, and gave an analogy to explain it.

You don't like what people replied, but you cannot refute their points, so instead you would rather simply attack their ignorance of Christianity? This seems pretty childish.

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You made a specific post. People are responding to what YOU said. Christianity needn't play any role, YOU are the one who said he is burning in hell, and gave an analogy to explain it.

You don't like what people replied, but you cannot refute their points, so instead you would rather simply attack their ignorance of Christianity? This seems pretty childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

the posts before the analogy, and the posts about the analogy that speak on aetheist interpretation of Christianity are ignorant. I don't feel like refuting their points because i could care less if you understand christianity or not (i just find it hilarious, is that an attack?). If you really desired to, you would do it on your own merit.

btw, i'm guessing by "you" you meant "christians"

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You made a specific post. People are responding to what YOU said. Christianity needn't play any role, YOU are the one who said he is burning in hell, and gave an analogy to explain it.

You don't like what people replied, but you cannot refute their points, so instead you would rather simply attack their ignorance of Christianity? This seems pretty childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

the posts before the analogy, and the posts about the analogy that speak on aetheist interpretation of Christianity are ignorant. I don't feel like refuting their points because i could care less if you understand christianity or not (i just find it hilarious, is that an attack?). If you really desired to, you would do it on your own merit.

btw, i'm guessing by "you" you meant "christians"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, by 'you' I meant you, dknightx. Where is the misunderstanding? A bunch of people jumped to the conclusion that this guy was going to be burning in Hell because he wasn't a Christian. Then YOU made a post with an analogy explaining that, while it was obv true he WAS going to be burning in Hell, it was ok, because he still deserved it.

And now you are complaining we don't understand Christianity? What parts? The only pertinent part is that he is burning in Hell, which you, yourself, agreed with.

EDIT: Oh, sorry dknightx, I just reread this, and KUJustin is the one who made the analogy post, not you. Apologize for the misunderstanding. Do you agree with his analogy, though?

[dknightx]

vhawk, since i'm bored, let me just respond to the first response to the analogy, to show you what I mean.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of offending some, let's invent a separate but nearly identical professor.

This professor committed a rape a week before the attack. He made the exact same heroic effort with regard only for the well-being of his students, except for whatever reason this time he survives. He is then put in jail shortly thereafter. I don't think very many people would be outraged at his jailing despite his heroism or Holocaust-survivor status.

In fact, I think the above professor is a useful illustration of what the "conservative" Christians are trying to explain in these discussions which is that when a rule is broken there's a consequence, a penalty to be paid and how "good" of a person you are doesn't change that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So wait, you freely ADMIT that in your moral philosophy, good deeds are completely irrelevant?

[/ QUOTE ]

where did he say that? faith without works is dead

[ QUOTE ]
Your argument about consequences when rules are broken might make sense if there were any rules except "Worship God".

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong

[ QUOTE ]
But in fact, as long as someone accepts Jesus as savior, then they are automatically a good person and all previous broken rules are ignored, while if they don't, they are automatically a bad person and no amount of good deeds are sufficient to prove otherwise. It's a one-rule moral universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong

[ QUOTE ]

As long as we're making up dubious analogies about real-world justice, imagine if Cho Seung-Hui had, instead of shooting himself after the massacre, gone to State House and kissed the feet of Virginia governor Tim Kaine, while professing his total love for and obediance to him. If Kaine then pardoned him and pronounced him now the equal of all other citizens, do you think that would be regarded as just? Yet the analogous situation with God is touted by Christians as an example of God's infinite justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong again!

[ QUOTE ]

How you can simultaneously believe that:

- God is infinitely just
- Bad deeds from believers require no punishment, while good deeds from unbelievers receive no reward

and:

- God is infinitely merciful
- God will torture people for all eternity for the "crime" of not devoting themselves to a religion for which the evidence is extremely flimsy at best


[/ QUOTE ]

wrong again

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, do you SERIOUSLY believe all those statements? The cognitive dissonance must be simply amazing.

It also makes me wonder where you draw the line. Are non-Christian 5 year olds destined for hell? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? At what point is someone who dies cognizant enough of theology that they will suffer eternal torture for their belief system? This is one of those points at which Christians fall back on the "Well, you see, God Has A Plan" type answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

you really like this "eternal torture" stuff. i'm curious what you are basing it on.

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You made a specific post. People are responding to what YOU said. Christianity needn't play any role, YOU are the one who said he is burning in hell, and gave an analogy to explain it.

You don't like what people replied, but you cannot refute their points, so instead you would rather simply attack their ignorance of Christianity? This seems pretty childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

the posts before the analogy, and the posts about the analogy that speak on aetheist interpretation of Christianity are ignorant. I don't feel like refuting their points because i could care less if you understand christianity or not (i just find it hilarious, is that an attack?). If you really desired to, you would do it on your own merit.

btw, i'm guessing by "you" you meant "christians"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, by 'you' I meant you, dknightx. Where is the misunderstanding? A bunch of people jumped to the conclusion that this guy was going to be burning in Hell because he wasn't a Christian. Then YOU made a post with an analogy explaining that, while it was obv true he WAS going to be burning in Hell, it was ok, because he still deserved it.

And now you are complaining we don't understand Christianity? What parts? The only pertinent part is that he is burning in Hell, which you, yourself, agreed with.

[/ QUOTE ]

i didnt make that analogy ... please calm down.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You made a specific post. People are responding to what YOU said. Christianity needn't play any role, YOU are the one who said he is burning in hell, and gave an analogy to explain it.

You don't like what people replied, but you cannot refute their points, so instead you would rather simply attack their ignorance of Christianity? This seems pretty childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

the posts before the analogy, and the posts about the analogy that speak on aetheist interpretation of Christianity are ignorant. I don't feel like refuting their points because i could care less if you understand christianity or not (i just find it hilarious, is that an attack?). If you really desired to, you would do it on your own merit.

btw, i'm guessing by "you" you meant "christians"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, by 'you' I meant you, dknightx. Where is the misunderstanding? A bunch of people jumped to the conclusion that this guy was going to be burning in Hell because he wasn't a Christian. Then YOU made a post with an analogy explaining that, while it was obv true he WAS going to be burning in Hell, it was ok, because he still deserved it.

And now you are complaining we don't understand Christianity? What parts? The only pertinent part is that he is burning in Hell, which you, yourself, agreed with.

[/ QUOTE ]

i didnt make that analogy ... please calm down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, sorry, I edited my post when I realized that.

However, a Christian, not an atheist, did.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk, since i'm bored, let me just respond to the first response to the analogy, to show you what I mean.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of offending some, let's invent a separate but nearly identical professor.

This professor committed a rape a week before the attack. He made the exact same heroic effort with regard only for the well-being of his students, except for whatever reason this time he survives. He is then put in jail shortly thereafter. I don't think very many people would be outraged at his jailing despite his heroism or Holocaust-survivor status.

In fact, I think the above professor is a useful illustration of what the "conservative" Christians are trying to explain in these discussions which is that when a rule is broken there's a consequence, a penalty to be paid and how "good" of a person you are doesn't change that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So wait, you freely ADMIT that in your moral philosophy, good deeds are completely irrelevant?

[/ QUOTE ]

where did he say that? faith without works is dead

[ QUOTE ]
Your argument about consequences when rules are broken might make sense if there were any rules except "Worship God".

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong

[ QUOTE ]
But in fact, as long as someone accepts Jesus as savior, then they are automatically a good person and all previous broken rules are ignored, while if they don't, they are automatically a bad person and no amount of good deeds are sufficient to prove otherwise. It's a one-rule moral universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong

[ QUOTE ]

As long as we're making up dubious analogies about real-world justice, imagine if Cho Seung-Hui had, instead of shooting himself after the massacre, gone to State House and kissed the feet of Virginia governor Tim Kaine, while professing his total love for and obediance to him. If Kaine then pardoned him and pronounced him now the equal of all other citizens, do you think that would be regarded as just? Yet the analogous situation with God is touted by Christians as an example of God's infinite justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong again!

[ QUOTE ]

How you can simultaneously believe that:

- God is infinitely just
- Bad deeds from believers require no punishment, while good deeds from unbelievers receive no reward

and:

- God is infinitely merciful
- God will torture people for all eternity for the "crime" of not devoting themselves to a religion for which the evidence is extremely flimsy at best


[/ QUOTE ]

wrong again

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, do you SERIOUSLY believe all those statements? The cognitive dissonance must be simply amazing.

It also makes me wonder where you draw the line. Are non-Christian 5 year olds destined for hell? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? At what point is someone who dies cognizant enough of theology that they will suffer eternal torture for their belief system? This is one of those points at which Christians fall back on the "Well, you see, God Has A Plan" type answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

you really like this "eternal torture" stuff. i'm curious what you are basing it on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think simply stating 'wrong' is a valid argument?

But really this is a side issue. It is going to ALWAYS be a simple rebuttal, for you, to claim that the other side simply does not understand Christianity. The reason for this? There are going to be Christians on both sides of every single controversial issue. For instance, where do I get the 'eternal torture' stuff? From Christians. Where do I get the idea that one can do whatever they want and, as long as they accept Christ as their savior they will be saved? From Christians. You can claim these Christians don't understand Christianity, but then again, why should we take your word for it?

It is more hilarious to me how badly Christians misunderstand Christianity, and apparently you are no exception? Or are you the one who has it all correct, and it is the vast majority of other Christians who are wrong?

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You made a specific post. People are responding to what YOU said. Christianity needn't play any role, YOU are the one who said he is burning in hell, and gave an analogy to explain it.

You don't like what people replied, but you cannot refute their points, so instead you would rather simply attack their ignorance of Christianity? This seems pretty childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

the posts before the analogy, and the posts about the analogy that speak on aetheist interpretation of Christianity are ignorant. I don't feel like refuting their points because i could care less if you understand christianity or not (i just find it hilarious, is that an attack?). If you really desired to, you would do it on your own merit.

btw, i'm guessing by "you" you meant "christians"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, by 'you' I meant you, dknightx. Where is the misunderstanding? A bunch of people jumped to the conclusion that this guy was going to be burning in Hell because he wasn't a Christian. Then YOU made a post with an analogy explaining that, while it was obv true he WAS going to be burning in Hell, it was ok, because he still deserved it.

And now you are complaining we don't understand Christianity? What parts? The only pertinent part is that he is burning in Hell, which you, yourself, agreed with.

EDIT: Oh, sorry dknightx, I just reread this, and KUJustin is the one who made the analogy post, not you. Apologize for the misunderstanding. Do you agree with his analogy, though?

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with part of his analogy which he says bad deeds should be punished (and no, i do not consider "misbelief" the bad deed, i am speaking about sin), however, I do not believe that good deeds are completely ignored.

also, as i've stated many times before, God will judge each person justly, meaning, being a "christian" doesn't necessarily get you into heaven (parable of the sheeps/goats) and being a "non-christian" doesn't necessarily get you ETERNAL BURNING AND DAMNATION IN THE FIERY PITS OF HELL!! WHAHAHAH!!!.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You made a specific post. People are responding to what YOU said. Christianity needn't play any role, YOU are the one who said he is burning in hell, and gave an analogy to explain it.

You don't like what people replied, but you cannot refute their points, so instead you would rather simply attack their ignorance of Christianity? This seems pretty childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

the posts before the analogy, and the posts about the analogy that speak on aetheist interpretation of Christianity are ignorant. I don't feel like refuting their points because i could care less if you understand christianity or not (i just find it hilarious, is that an attack?). If you really desired to, you would do it on your own merit.

btw, i'm guessing by "you" you meant "christians"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, by 'you' I meant you, dknightx. Where is the misunderstanding? A bunch of people jumped to the conclusion that this guy was going to be burning in Hell because he wasn't a Christian. Then YOU made a post with an analogy explaining that, while it was obv true he WAS going to be burning in Hell, it was ok, because he still deserved it.

And now you are complaining we don't understand Christianity? What parts? The only pertinent part is that he is burning in Hell, which you, yourself, agreed with.

EDIT: Oh, sorry dknightx, I just reread this, and KUJustin is the one who made the analogy post, not you. Apologize for the misunderstanding. Do you agree with his analogy, though?

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with part of his analogy which he says bad deeds should be punished (and no, i do not consider "misbelief" the bad deed, i am speaking about sin), however, I do not believe that good deeds are completely ignored.

also, as i've stated many times before, God will judge each person justly, meaning, being a "christian" doesn't necessarily get you into heaven (parable of the sheeps/goats) and being a "non-christian" doesn't necessarily get you ETERNAL BURNING AND DAMNATION IN THE FIERY PITS OF HELL!! WHAHAHAH!!!.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine that you believe that. However, a simple internet search will show many, many Christians who tell me I must repent and accept Jesus or I WILL burn in hell for eternity. Why are they wrong, specifically? And what makes us so stupid for responding to THEIR version of Christianity, rather than yours?

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
vhawk, since i'm bored, let me just respond to the first response to the analogy, to show you what I mean.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of offending some, let's invent a separate but nearly identical professor.

This professor committed a rape a week before the attack. He made the exact same heroic effort with regard only for the well-being of his students, except for whatever reason this time he survives. He is then put in jail shortly thereafter. I don't think very many people would be outraged at his jailing despite his heroism or Holocaust-survivor status.

In fact, I think the above professor is a useful illustration of what the "conservative" Christians are trying to explain in these discussions which is that when a rule is broken there's a consequence, a penalty to be paid and how "good" of a person you are doesn't change that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So wait, you freely ADMIT that in your moral philosophy, good deeds are completely irrelevant?

[/ QUOTE ]

where did he say that? faith without works is dead

[ QUOTE ]
Your argument about consequences when rules are broken might make sense if there were any rules except "Worship God".

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong

[ QUOTE ]
But in fact, as long as someone accepts Jesus as savior, then they are automatically a good person and all previous broken rules are ignored, while if they don't, they are automatically a bad person and no amount of good deeds are sufficient to prove otherwise. It's a one-rule moral universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong

[ QUOTE ]

As long as we're making up dubious analogies about real-world justice, imagine if Cho Seung-Hui had, instead of shooting himself after the massacre, gone to State House and kissed the feet of Virginia governor Tim Kaine, while professing his total love for and obediance to him. If Kaine then pardoned him and pronounced him now the equal of all other citizens, do you think that would be regarded as just? Yet the analogous situation with God is touted by Christians as an example of God's infinite justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong again!

[ QUOTE ]

How you can simultaneously believe that:

- God is infinitely just
- Bad deeds from believers require no punishment, while good deeds from unbelievers receive no reward

and:

- God is infinitely merciful
- God will torture people for all eternity for the "crime" of not devoting themselves to a religion for which the evidence is extremely flimsy at best


[/ QUOTE ]

wrong again

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, do you SERIOUSLY believe all those statements? The cognitive dissonance must be simply amazing.

It also makes me wonder where you draw the line. Are non-Christian 5 year olds destined for hell? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? At what point is someone who dies cognizant enough of theology that they will suffer eternal torture for their belief system? This is one of those points at which Christians fall back on the "Well, you see, God Has A Plan" type answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

you really like this "eternal torture" stuff. i'm curious what you are basing it on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think simply stating 'wrong' is a valid argument?

But really this is a side issue. It is going to ALWAYS be a simple rebuttal, for you, to claim that the other side simply does not understand Christianity. The reason for this? There are going to be Christians on both sides of every single controversial issue. For instance, where do I get the 'eternal torture' stuff? From Christians. Where do I get the idea that one can do whatever they want and, as long as they accept Christ as their savior they will be saved? From Christians. You can claim these Christians don't understand Christianity, but then again, why should we take your word for it?

It is more hilarious to me how badly Christians misunderstand Christianity, and apparently you are no exception? Or are you the one who has it all correct, and it is the vast majority of other Christians who are wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

no "wrong" is definitely not a valid argument. I was just pointing out the places that I found to be ignorant interpretations of christianity.

when you say "why should we take your word for it?" you shouldn't. I've said many times to do your own research.

"It is more hilarious to me how badly Christians misunderstand Christianity, and apparently you are no exception? Or are you the one who has it all correct, and it is the vast majority of other Christians who are wrong?"

Actually most "mature" christians (those who have been studying for many years, are pastors, etc) would agree that the majority of "Christians" do not understand christianity. this is both hilarious and sad.

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You made a specific post. People are responding to what YOU said. Christianity needn't play any role, YOU are the one who said he is burning in hell, and gave an analogy to explain it.

You don't like what people replied, but you cannot refute their points, so instead you would rather simply attack their ignorance of Christianity? This seems pretty childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

the posts before the analogy, and the posts about the analogy that speak on aetheist interpretation of Christianity are ignorant. I don't feel like refuting their points because i could care less if you understand christianity or not (i just find it hilarious, is that an attack?). If you really desired to, you would do it on your own merit.

btw, i'm guessing by "you" you meant "christians"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, by 'you' I meant you, dknightx. Where is the misunderstanding? A bunch of people jumped to the conclusion that this guy was going to be burning in Hell because he wasn't a Christian. Then YOU made a post with an analogy explaining that, while it was obv true he WAS going to be burning in Hell, it was ok, because he still deserved it.

And now you are complaining we don't understand Christianity? What parts? The only pertinent part is that he is burning in Hell, which you, yourself, agreed with.

EDIT: Oh, sorry dknightx, I just reread this, and KUJustin is the one who made the analogy post, not you. Apologize for the misunderstanding. Do you agree with his analogy, though?

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with part of his analogy which he says bad deeds should be punished (and no, i do not consider "misbelief" the bad deed, i am speaking about sin), however, I do not believe that good deeds are completely ignored.

also, as i've stated many times before, God will judge each person justly, meaning, being a "christian" doesn't necessarily get you into heaven (parable of the sheeps/goats) and being a "non-christian" doesn't necessarily get you ETERNAL BURNING AND DAMNATION IN THE FIERY PITS OF HELL!! WHAHAHAH!!!.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine that you believe that. However, a simple internet search will show many, many Christians who tell me I must repent and accept Jesus or I WILL burn in hell for eternity. Why are they wrong, specifically? And what makes us so stupid for responding to THEIR version of Christianity, rather than yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

well, first, the majority opinion doesn't necessarily make it correct. but i can understand your point. It doesn't make you stupid, I said it was ignorant. The point is, if you are going to argue against THEIR interpretation of christianity, i'll be there right along side you! There are ignorant people on both sides of the coins, and that doesn't exclude either of us.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[/ QUOTE ]

The "ignorance" is understandable, since all of the "Christians" on this board can't keep their stories straight. I keep reading definitive statements from Christians on what "Christians" believe, but these differ from believer to believer and usually contradict each other.

For instance:
Do you believe that Christians should speak in tongues in church in order to be closer to God? Godboy does.
Do you believe that Gandhi is roasting in hell? KUJustin does.
Do you believe that God is punishing the USA for condoning homosexuality? The Reverend Phelps does.
Do you believe that Americans are the "chosen people"? txag does.


Etc...etc...

So how can you blame us for being incredulous when people come on here telling us that *they* have the definitive answers as to what Christians believe in?

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[/ QUOTE ]

The "ignorance" is understandable, since all of the "Christians" on this board can't keep their stories straight. I keep reading definitive statements from Christians on what "Christians" believe, but these differ from believer to believer and usually contradict each other.

For instance:
Do you believe that Christians should speak in tongues in church in order to be closer to God? Godboy does.
Do you believe that Gandhi is roasting in hell? KUJustin does.
Do you believe that God is punishing the USA for condoning homosexuality? The Reverend Phelps does.
Do you believe that Americans are the "chosen people"? txag does.


Etc...etc...

So how can you blame us for being incredulous when people come on here telling us that *they* have the definitive answers as to what Christians believe in?

[/ QUOTE ]

oh i definitely think its understandable! i just think its very humorous, thats all. my point is that one should try not to base their beliefs/understandings on what other people tell them.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, if you are going to argue against THEIR interpretation of christianity, i'll be there right along side you!

[/ QUOTE ]

You still don't get it. *You* believe that *your* interpretation is correct, and that the *other* Christians are wrong. However, how can you possibly believe this with any degree of certainty? What makes you so special that you believe that you can see into the "mind of god"?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
my point is that one should try not to base their beliefs/understandings on what other people tell them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly why I'm an atheist. Following organized religion is "basing your beliefs on what other people tell you (to believe)".

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is, if you are going to argue against THEIR interpretation of christianity, i'll be there right along side you!

[/ QUOTE ]

You still don't get it. *You* believe that *your* interpretation is correct, and that the *other* Christians are wrong. However, how can you possibly believe this with any degree of certainty? What makes you so special that you believe that you can see into the "mind of god"?

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain to me how you can ever know that your interpretation of ANYTHING is correct? once you've answered that, apply that same logic to christianity, and you'll have your answer.

When i say something is ignorant, that is just my opinion. whether or not you want to base your understanding of christianity on what people say, or take my subtle hints as motivation to find out for yourself (which could take years of study), is a decision i leave entirely up to you. I honestly could care less what you decide because its pretty clear your decision has already been made ... and i support your right to make that decision!

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my point is that one should try not to base their beliefs/understandings on what other people tell them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly why I'm an atheist. Following organized religion is "basing your beliefs on what other people tell you (to believe)".

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think you'll find many mature christians who feel that organized religion (today) doesn't have many, many problems.

[Kimbell175113]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is, if you are going to argue against THEIR interpretation of christianity, i'll be there right along side you!

[/ QUOTE ]

You still don't get it. *You* believe that *your* interpretation is correct, and that the *other* Christians are wrong. However, how can you possibly believe this with any degree of certainty? What makes you so special that you believe that you can see into the "mind of god"?

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain to me how you can ever know that your interpretation of ANYTHING is correct? once you've answered that, apply that same logic to christianity, and you'll have your answer.

When i say something is ignorant, that is just my opinion. whether or not you want to base your understanding of christianity on what people say, or take my subtle hints as motivation to find out for yourself (which could take years of study), is a decision i leave entirely up to you. I honestly could care less what you decide because its pretty clear your decision has already been made ... and i support your right to make that decision!

[/ QUOTE ]

I can test my interpretation of something by comparing it, and any predictions it leads to, with some objective facts that everyone can agree on. When you use "ignorant" it seems as though you think that there are such facts about heaven and hell. If so, what are they?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I can test my interpretation of something by comparing it, and any predictions it leads to, with some objective facts that everyone can agree on. When you use "ignorant" it seems as though you think that there are such facts about heaven and hell. If so, what are they?

[/ QUOTE ]

This was exactly the point I was trying to make. dknightx can't claim that his beliefs are any more valid than the beliefs of another Christian who believes that Gandhi is burning in hell, or who handles snakes and speaks in tongues as part of regular church service. There is an equal amount of evidence supporting each one of these Christian beliefs.

For one Christian to claim that he knows the "real" truth and that all these other Christians are mistaken is delusional.

[dknightx]

we have nothing further to discuss because unless you will assume that the premise is true (that Christian God is real), then there is no purpose in discussing "truth". You believe that christianity is a big lie, and I believe that God inspires His truth to those who are true believers. To a christian, there is nothing delusional about this. To an atheist, the whole notion of God is delusional.

i've said what i wanted to say in this thread, and don't really have much more to add.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't think you'll find many mature christians who feel that organized religion (today) doesn't have many, many problems.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mature Christians do not worship a book.
Mature Christians do not attempt to twist words and meaning to make a book seem inerrant.
Mature Christians do not put any more importance on words written 2000 years ago than they do on words written today.
Mature Christians find the concept of Hell laughable.
Mature Christians pray (meditate) with no delusion that they will receive an "answer".
Mature Christians look inward for spiritual truth.
Mature Christians catagorically reject fundamentalist Christianity.

Is this the maturity you refer to?

[gumpzilla]

I'm puzzled why all the non-Christians are getting so agitated about Justin's comparison, or about heaven and hell in general. If you don't believe in heaven or hell, why exactly do you care if various people think you're going to one or the other, particularly in the context of a faith where the criterion for going to heaven has nothing to do with your character? Why is this misconception particularly jarring, as opposed to a host of others that I'm sure people have?

The only reason I can see to get upset about this thing is how it might extend to what I'll call "policy" decisions. But then it seems easier to get mad at specific decisions of real significance, rather than ranting about this [censored].

[KUJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as we're making up dubious analogies about real-world justice, imagine if Cho Seung-Hui had, instead of shooting himself after the massacre, gone to State House and kissed the feet of Virginia governor Tim Kaine, while professing his total love for and obediance to him. If Kaine then pardoned him and pronounced him now the equal of all other citizens, do you think that would be regarded as just? Yet the analogous situation with God is touted by Christians as an example of God's infinite justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the Governer going to pardon Cho by taking the death penalty for him? You can argue about whether or not that would be just but that would be the more appropriate analogy.

I haven't sorted through all the responses (wasn't expecting to hit as much of a nerve as I did), but I feel like the issue of why faith in God is a necessity for heaven has been addressed here so many times that it's not worth repeating. It's like people can't even hear the arguments for it.

The point is not that God only rewards ppl for worshiping him and ignores other good things they do. The point is that there are rules within which God works and these rules include that sin may not go unpunished. We've all broken the rules and the penalty is death (the eternal kind). God has sent his son to pay the penalty for those who believe and accept the sacrifice.

Claiming that this stance is ignorant or irrational comes from not being able to see things from any perspective other than your own. I'll gladly agree that from a worldly perspective where there is no God, the idea of the professor being in hell and a killer being in heaven is outrageous. But from someone with different views none of the above is outrageous.

So you can mock ppl for believing, but you can't really mock them for having this stance given that they're believers. In fact, a stance other than this for a believer would likely be the one that defies logic.

I know that none of you agree with my beliefs, and I don't expect you to, but I at least hope that I can finally get across WHY my beliefs are what they are once it's given that I believe in the Christian God (and my reasons for believing in said God are not at all related to who does and does not get into heaven).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm puzzled why all the non-Christians are getting so agitated about Justin's comparison, or about heaven and hell in general. If you don't believe in heaven or hell, why exactly do you care if various people think you're going to one or the other, particularly in the context of a faith where the criterion for going to heaven has nothing to do with your character? Why is this misconception particularly jarring, as opposed to a host of others that I'm sure people have?

The only reason I can see to get upset about this thing is how it might extend to what I'll call "policy" decisions. But then it seems easier to get mad at specific decisions of real significance, rather than ranting about this [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]
That's precisely the problem though, they do carry forward their views to policy. I don't understand why you think it better to tackle each symptom rather than the root cause.

chez

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
whether or not you want to base your understanding of christianity on what people say, or take my subtle hints as motivation to find out for yourself (which could take years of study), is a decision i leave entirely up to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beware arrogance, brother! As Kierkegaard said, "To understand...is easy enough---but to believe...is difficult. Do not allow yourself to be deceived by the futile wisdom that wants to delude you into thinking that it is easy to have faith, difficult to understand." (Christian Discourses, Copenhagen, 1848)

If you imagine a theosophy that defies explaining in a paragraph, you are dangerously close to diverging from Christian Truth!

Indeed---you have already diverged.

[Exsubmariner]

Dear David,
A persecution complex is a really easy thing to get over. It's like a bag of bricks. All you have to do is put it down.

X

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm puzzled why all the non-Christians are getting so agitated about Justin's comparison, or about heaven and hell in general. If you don't believe in heaven or hell, why exactly do you care if various people think you're going to one or the other, particularly in the context of a faith where the criterion for going to heaven has nothing to do with your character? Why is this misconception particularly jarring, as opposed to a host of others that I'm sure people have?

The only reason I can see to get upset about this thing is how it might extend to what I'll call "policy" decisions. But then it seems easier to get mad at specific decisions of real significance, rather than ranting about this [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]
That's precisely the problem though, they do carry forward their views to policy. I don't understand why you think it better to tackle each symptom rather than the root cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of responses:

- You might actually have a chance at accomplishing something with the symptoms.

- The real problem is the feed through. Their actual beliefs about hell and the like are pretty irrelevant. So, even then, why target the belief in hell rather than the idea that my religious convictions should inform policy decisions? Surely there are plenty of religious legislators who appreciate the distinction between what they believe and what should be law, so I don't think it's impossible.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't think you'll find many mature christians who feel that organized religion (today) doesn't have many, many problems.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mature Christians do not worship a book.
Mature Christians do not attempt to twist words and meaning to make a book seem inerrant.
Mature Christians do not put any more importance on words written 2000 years ago than they do on words written today.
Mature Christians find the concept of Hell laughable.
Mature Christians pray (meditate) with no delusion that they will receive an "answer".
Mature Christians look inward for spiritual truth.
Mature Christians catagorically reject fundamentalist Christianity.

Is this the maturity you refer to?

[/ QUOTE ]

If most Christians felt this way, I wouldn't consider them to be so dangerous. Instead, the hateful and intolerant fundementalist movement only seems to be getting stronger with each passing year.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Claiming that this stance is ignorant or irrational comes from not being able to see things from any perspective other than your own. I'll gladly agree that from a worldly perspective where there is no God, the idea of the professor being in hell and a killer being in heaven is outrageous. But from someone with different views none of the above is outrageous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can assure you that most atheists are able to view things from other perspectives. What we see when we look at things from your perspective is intolerance and ignorance, and this is why we react so harshly.

And I don't care how much you try to justify it, a "loving God" is not going to allow a good person to burn in hell while his murderer goes to heaven. I don't care if this is what your "faith" tells you, common sense and basic decency tells you that it is wrong. Claiming otherwise *is* delusional.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely there are plenty of religious legislators who appreciate the distinction between what they believe and what should be law, so I don't think it's impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the ones who don't appreciate the distinction who are dangerous. And you can't overlook the fact that the legislators represent the people of their constituency, and (theoretically) reflect the values of their constituency. For this reason, I highly doubt that many legislators from the bible belt are capable of distinguishing the difference between man's law and god's law.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
You believe that christianity is a big lie, and I believe that God inspires His truth to those who are true believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please read KUJustin's replies in this thread. From what I've seen, you both differ in your interpretation of christianity. Only one of you can be "right". Which one of you has been "inspired by god" and is the true believer?

[ConstantineX]

I guess I don't see the point. Christianity has been discredited so thoroughly empirically, theologically, philosophically, whatever it's not really a debate. Rejection of evolution, shifting ideologies - you're only going to keep discussing with illogical apologetics. Why continue?

I believe in order for people to abandon religion, the world must become wealthy. People's religious convictions become alot more versatile when they realize they can realize more than God's greatest gifts in heaven.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm puzzled why all the non-Christians are getting so agitated about Justin's comparison, or about heaven and hell in general. If you don't believe in heaven or hell, why exactly do you care if various people think you're going to one or the other, particularly in the context of a faith where the criterion for going to heaven has nothing to do with your character? Why is this misconception particularly jarring, as opposed to a host of others that I'm sure people have?

The only reason I can see to get upset about this thing is how it might extend to what I'll call "policy" decisions. But then it seems easier to get mad at specific decisions of real significance, rather than ranting about this [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]
That's precisely the problem though, they do carry forward their views to policy. I don't understand why you think it better to tackle each symptom rather than the root cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of responses:

- You might actually have a chance at accomplishing something with the symptoms.

- The real problem is the feed through. Their actual beliefs about hell and the like are pretty irrelevant. So, even then, why target the belief in hell rather than the idea that my religious convictions should inform policy decisions? Surely there are plenty of religious legislators who appreciate the distinction between what they believe and what should be law, so I don't think it's impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think religon is the root cause of any problems so we're not in disagreement. The problem is not to do with the belief in heaven/hell but the nasty idea that this professor could end up in hell because he broke some senseless 'rule'. That's not the type of idea that correlates with religous belief but the type of idea that correlates with nastyness.

chez

[surftheiop]

Mature Christians do not worship a book.
Mature Christians do not attempt to twist words and meaning to make a book seem inerrant.
Mature Christians do not put any more importance on words written 2000 years ago than they do on words written today.
Mature Christians find the concept of Hell laughable.
Mature Christians pray (meditate) with no delusion that they will receive an "answer".
Mature Christians look inward for spiritual truth.
Mature Christians catagorically reject fundamentalist Christianity.

Is this the maturity you refer to?


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

Mature Christians are Buddhist?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Mature Christians do not worship a book.
Mature Christians do not attempt to twist words and meaning to make a book seem inerrant.
Mature Christians do not put any more importance on words written 2000 years ago than they do on words written today.
Mature Christians find the concept of Hell laughable.
Mature Christians pray (meditate) with no delusion that they will receive an "answer".
Mature Christians look inward for spiritual truth.
Mature Christians catagorically reject fundamentalist Christianity.

Is this the maturity you refer to?


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

Mature Christians are Buddhist?

[/ QUOTE ]

This was my first thought after reading that post, too. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[MadScientist]

Are there any Christians here that believe the professor will be punished for eternity? Seems like D Sklansky is just trying to pick a fight. I would be surprised if any would be so evil as to claim such a good person (based on what we know) should go to hell.

[RJT]

I just did a quick search about Professor Librescu. I hope I can explain what I think abut his death to express adequately what I am feeling.

He was a hero. This man will be remember for some time to come for the way he died. Because of his unselfish act of courage, his life becomes all the more meaningful. His life already seems to have been one of (relative) greatness. His sacrifice seems like a culmination of what he was all about.

From the brief bio of him that I read, this man was a good man. I think because he was the man he was (the man he had become at this point in his life) he was able to muster the courage and had the wisdom to save the lives of a number of young students. This is the part that I hope makes sense: He almost deserves such a death - to die a hero. Despite their grief, how proud his family must be of him.

Regarding the OP’s questioning post cleverly disguised as sarcasm, I offer the following scripture passage as a possible answer to his curiosity:

From John Chapter 15 verse 13, Jesus, Himself, is talking -

“There is no greater love than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

Combine Jesus’ words here and His two main commandments - to love God and love your neighbor - and I think we can pretty easily deduce where and with whom the Professor is hanging out right now.

[txag007]

1. I never used the word "chosen people" to describe Americans, so you are wrong there.

2. Instead of focussing on our differences, focus on something all christians (on this board or otherwise) believe, and that is that Jesus lives!

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

For some reason, you, Not Ready, and others, evidently seem not to grasp that many people truly don't believe that Jesus was anything but a man


[/ QUOTE ]

I do grasp that. I grasp that many truly don't believe He even existed. I will agree that failure to grasp is the problem here.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I just did a quick search about Professor Librescu. I hope I can explain what I think abut his death to express adequately what I am feeling.

He was a hero. This man will be remember for some time to come for the way he died. Because of his unselfish act of courage, his life becomes all the more meaningful. His life already seems to have been one of (relative) greatness. His sacrifice seems like a culmination of what he was all about.

From the brief bio of him that I read, this man was a good man. I think because he was the man he was (the man he had become at this point in his life) he was able to muster the courage and had the wisdom to save the lives of a number of young students. This is the part that I hope makes sense: He almost deserves such a death - to die a hero. Despite their grief, how proud his family must be of him.

Regarding the OP’s questioning post cleverly disguised as sarcasm, I offer the following scripture passage as a possible answer to his curiosity:

From John Chapter 15 verse 13, Jesus, Himself, is talking -

“There is no greater love than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

Combine Jesus’ words here and His two main commandments - to love God and love your neighbor - and I think we can pretty easily deduce where and with whom the Professor is hanging out right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whew, so it was Jesus who was lying, when he said there is no way to Heaven save through him! Good to know.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just did a quick search about Professor Librescu. I hope I can explain what I think abut his death to express adequately what I am feeling.

He was a hero. This man will be remember for some time to come for the way he died. Because of his unselfish act of courage, his life becomes all the more meaningful. His life already seems to have been one of (relative) greatness. His sacrifice seems like a culmination of what he was all about.

From the brief bio of him that I read, this man was a good man. I think because he was the man he was (the man he had become at this point in his life) he was able to muster the courage and had the wisdom to save the lives of a number of young students. This is the part that I hope makes sense: He almost deserves such a death - to die a hero. Despite their grief, how proud his family must be of him.

Regarding the OP’s questioning post cleverly disguised as sarcasm, I offer the following scripture passage as a possible answer to his curiosity:

From John Chapter 15 verse 13, Jesus, Himself, is talking -

“There is no greater love than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

Combine Jesus’ words here and His two main commandments - to love God and love your neighbor - and I think we can pretty easily deduce where and with whom the Professor is hanging out right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whew, so it was Jesus who was lying, when he said there is no way to Heaven save through him! Good to know.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, its just an interpretation of 'though' that doesn't mean 'believe in'. Which seems fair enough as the meanings aren't particularly similar.

Hopefully RJT wont be offended if I observe that his view isn't a result of his religon but a result of him being nice.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just did a quick search about Professor Librescu. I hope I can explain what I think abut his death to express adequately what I am feeling.

He was a hero. This man will be remember for some time to come for the way he died. Because of his unselfish act of courage, his life becomes all the more meaningful. His life already seems to have been one of (relative) greatness. His sacrifice seems like a culmination of what he was all about.

From the brief bio of him that I read, this man was a good man. I think because he was the man he was (the man he had become at this point in his life) he was able to muster the courage and had the wisdom to save the lives of a number of young students. This is the part that I hope makes sense: He almost deserves such a death - to die a hero. Despite their grief, how proud his family must be of him.

Regarding the OP’s questioning post cleverly disguised as sarcasm, I offer the following scripture passage as a possible answer to his curiosity:

From John Chapter 15 verse 13, Jesus, Himself, is talking -

“There is no greater love than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

Combine Jesus’ words here and His two main commandments - to love God and love your neighbor - and I think we can pretty easily deduce where and with whom the Professor is hanging out right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whew, so it was Jesus who was lying, when he said there is no way to Heaven save through him! Good to know.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, its just an interpretation of 'though' that doesn't mean 'believe in'. Which seems fair enough as the meanings aren't particularly similar.

Hopefully RJT wont be offended if I observe that his view isn't a result of his religon but a result of him being nice.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that is the concession I was trying to force RJT into, and I was confident I would be able to, based on past experience with RJT. He seems to be a decent, rational guy and, as you say, nice.

I think we can all agree that if Christians world-wide accepted, admitted or realized that you can go to Heaven without believing in God or following certain strictures, this forum would get a lot less traffic.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just did a quick search about Professor Librescu. I hope I can explain what I think abut his death to express adequately what I am feeling.

He was a hero. This man will be remember for some time to come for the way he died. Because of his unselfish act of courage, his life becomes all the more meaningful. His life already seems to have been one of (relative) greatness. His sacrifice seems like a culmination of what he was all about.

From the brief bio of him that I read, this man was a good man. I think because he was the man he was (the man he had become at this point in his life) he was able to muster the courage and had the wisdom to save the lives of a number of young students. This is the part that I hope makes sense: He almost deserves such a death - to die a hero. Despite their grief, how proud his family must be of him.

Regarding the OP’s questioning post cleverly disguised as sarcasm, I offer the following scripture passage as a possible answer to his curiosity:

From John Chapter 15 verse 13, Jesus, Himself, is talking -

“There is no greater love than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

Combine Jesus’ words here and His two main commandments - to love God and love your neighbor - and I think we can pretty easily deduce where and with whom the Professor is hanging out right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whew, so it was Jesus who was lying, when he said there is no way to Heaven save through him! Good to know.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, its just an interpretation of 'though' that doesn't mean 'believe in'. Which seems fair enough as the meanings aren't particularly similar.

Hopefully RJT wont be offended if I observe that his view isn't a result of his religon but a result of him being nice.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that is the concession I was trying to force RJT into, and I was confident I would be able to, based on past experience with RJT. He seems to be a decent, rational guy and, as you say, nice.

I think we can all agree that if Christians world-wide accepted, admitted or realized that you can go to Heaven without believing in God or following certain strictures, this forum would get a lot less traffic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes but sadly a god you don't have to believe in is no use to these people.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just did a quick search about Professor Librescu. I hope I can explain what I think abut his death to express adequately what I am feeling.

He was a hero. This man will be remember for some time to come for the way he died. Because of his unselfish act of courage, his life becomes all the more meaningful. His life already seems to have been one of (relative) greatness. His sacrifice seems like a culmination of what he was all about.

From the brief bio of him that I read, this man was a good man. I think because he was the man he was (the man he had become at this point in his life) he was able to muster the courage and had the wisdom to save the lives of a number of young students. This is the part that I hope makes sense: He almost deserves such a death - to die a hero. Despite their grief, how proud his family must be of him.

Regarding the OP’s questioning post cleverly disguised as sarcasm, I offer the following scripture passage as a possible answer to his curiosity:

From John Chapter 15 verse 13, Jesus, Himself, is talking -

“There is no greater love than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

Combine Jesus’ words here and His two main commandments - to love God and love your neighbor - and I think we can pretty easily deduce where and with whom the Professor is hanging out right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whew, so it was Jesus who was lying, when he said there is no way to Heaven save through him! Good to know.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, its just an interpretation of 'though' that doesn't mean 'believe in'. Which seems fair enough as the meanings aren't particularly similar.

Hopefully RJT wont be offended if I observe that his view isn't a result of his religon but a result of him being nice.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that is the concession I was trying to force RJT into, and I was confident I would be able to, based on past experience with RJT. He seems to be a decent, rational guy and, as you say, nice.

I think we can all agree that if Christians world-wide accepted, admitted or realized that you can go to Heaven without believing in God or following certain strictures, this forum would get a lot less traffic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes but sadly a god you don't have to believe in is no use to these people.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it be something if we had thread after thread about which parts of Jesusian philosophy we thought were valid, and which points he turned out to be wrong on? Similar to what we do with Kant and Locke and Rousseau, we could critically evaluate the works for the good they do contain, rather than be forced to accept them whole-cloth with the rest of the mularkey. Kant and Locke don't have much going for them in the way of controlling people, either, I suppose.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any Christians here that believe the professor will be punished for eternity? Seems like D Sklansky is just trying to pick a fight. I would be surprised if any would be so evil as to claim such a good person (based on what we know) should go to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

KUJustin claimed just that...in this very thread! Reading his posts is a great insight into the mind of a typical fundie.

A few of the other theists on this board have also claimed that non-Christians who live good lives will burn in hell unless they accept Jesus before they die. I realize that it is hard to believe that people would be so closed-minded as to think this way in this day and age...but here we are.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
1. I never used the word "chosen people" to describe Americans, so you are wrong there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to recall you mentioning that Paul *had* to go westward to spread his word due to being prevented from travelling east. You then made the point that the United States is to the west. You even used a few of those exclamation points you enjoy using when you think you're making a remarkable point about your saviour. Apparently the fact that Paul travelled towards the United States is meaningful in some way. Or was I reading too much into your exclamation points?

But you're right, you never used the words "chosen people". That was just a little artistic license I used to describe the beliefs that you were trying to convey to us earlier.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Instead of focussing on our differences, focus on something all christians (on this board or otherwise) believe, and that is that Jesus lives!

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread is about that poor Jewish holocaust survivor who was stupid enough to try to protect ungrateful Christians from a deranged madman. Apparently, the reward he'll get for his sacrifice is eternal unbearable torment in hell.

I'm sure the knowledge that "Jesus lives" is comfort to him as he endures his punishment for following the wrong religion.

[ChrisV]

MadScientist: KUJustin has already supported the idea in this thread and there was a previous thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/newreply.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=scimathphil&amp;Number=100870 60&amp;page=0&amp;what=showflat&amp;fpart=1&amp;vc=1&amp;q=1) where other Christians supported it.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm puzzled why all the non-Christians are getting so agitated about Justin's comparison, or about heaven and hell in general. If you don't believe in heaven or hell, why exactly do you care if various people think you're going to one or the other, particularly in the context of a faith where the criterion for going to heaven has nothing to do with your character? Why is this misconception particularly jarring, as opposed to a host of others that I'm sure people have?

The only reason I can see to get upset about this thing is how it might extend to what I'll call "policy" decisions. But then it seems easier to get mad at specific decisions of real significance, rather than ranting about this [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like saying you might as well not argue with NAMBLA that having sex with little boys is not OK, after all, they're entitled to their views, right? Well yes, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't argue against viewpoints I find reprehensible. It angers me to read casual defences of torturing people for eternity for their beliefs, as though that were anything other than the most vile belief system imaginable. KUJustin seems like a decent guy in other ways, but the belief set he holds disgusts me so much that if I were to know him in real life, I'd probably avoid associating with him, just as I would with a member of NAMBLA. And no, I don't think it's hyperbolic to compare the two. Anyone who has thought deeply about the idea of hell and still believes that non-Christians will go there and worships God is a moral vacuum in my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
Is the Governer going to pardon Cho by taking the death penalty for him? You can argue about whether or not that would be just but that would be the more appropriate analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can argue about whether that would be just? Seriously? I guess that makes sense to someone who believes the looney tunes narrative about Jesus somehow paying for our sins.

[ QUOTE ]
We've all broken the rules and the penalty is death (the eternal kind). God has sent his son to pay the penalty for those who believe and accept the sacrifice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that Jesus didn't receive death (the eternal kind).

[ QUOTE ]
Claiming that this stance is ignorant or irrational comes from not being able to see things from any perspective other than your own.

[/ QUOTE ]

From another perspective, presumably, the idea of the governor responding to the VT massacre by, say, pardoning Cho and shooting his own son, would make perfect sense.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll gladly agree that from a worldly perspective where there is no God, the idea of the professor being in hell and a killer being in heaven is outrageous. But from someone with different views none of the above is outrageous.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two sentences can be replaced by simply "nothing is outrageous as long as God says it isn't outrageous".

[ QUOTE ]
So you can mock ppl for believing, but you can't really mock them for having this stance given that they're believers. In fact, a stance other than this for a believer would likely be the one that defies logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

dknightx: What was that again about us atheists being so comically ignorant of Christianity? Maybe you can take the argument up with KUJustin.

[ QUOTE ]
I know that none of you agree with my beliefs, and I don't expect you to, but I at least hope that I can finally get across WHY my beliefs are what they are once it's given that I believe in the Christian God (and my reasons for believing in said God are not at all related to who does and does not get into heaven).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but here's a question. Is there ANYTHING God could decree that you would balk at? For instance, the Bible stays fairly silent on the question of slavery. Suppose lost writings of one of the disciples were uncovered and authenticated beyond doubt. If the writings recorded Jesus as enthusiastically saying that slavery was not only allowed, but that it was mandatory to enslave anyone who did not follow him, what would your reaction be? I know this hypothetical is a bit of a stretch. What I'm getting at is, doesn't it bother you that God's rules on heaven and hell are so completely outrageous? Or is everything OK as long as God says it's OK?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]

Combine Jesus’ words here and His two main commandments - to love God and love your neighbor - and I think we can pretty easily deduce where and with whom the Professor is hanging out right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify... are you saying you don't have to believe in Jesus' divinity and resurrection to go to heaven? Because I think that's a bold statement, and most church leaders would likely disagree with you.

Either you have to have faith to be saved, or you don't. I don't see this as a grey area in Christian doctrine. Yet it seems as if everyone is making up whatever rule suits their preference.

[jogger08152]

It's weird, in a way, that the injustice of such an idea seems so anathema to you.

Of course it would be a gross injustice if this guy somehow bought an express ticket to Hell... but of course, the outcome you actually believe in, viz. that he is currently lying (briefly) in state and will shortly begin rotting in the ground, is also absurdly unjust.

In fact, to illustrate this, couldn't one of the Christians into whose mouths you are putting (rather ungracious) words, simply rewrite your post thus:


Hi All,

Just thought that I would remind everyone that Professor Librescu, the Romanian, Holocaust survivor who blockaded the door at Virginia Tech, while his students jumped to safety, is now decaying uselessly and will soon be forgotten for eternity.

Never mind that (presumably) he

1. Gave his life to save twenty or so young students

2. Believed in essentially the same God that Christians do.

3. Tried to do what he thought this God wanted him to do, even though his actions were highly likely to lead to his own death, a consequence he quite likely foresaw

Big mistake. He didn't realize that God probably didn't exist, and if He did, that He almost certainly didn't care about this professor's individual act of heroism. So now the professor has been erased, largely by his own poor decision making.

I have decided to name this type of ultimate -EV decision, where one throws one's life away in hope of ingratiating oneself to an unlikely God, "Sklansky's Unnatural Selection."

I'll allow others to elaborate.

-David

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It's weird, in a way, that the injustice of such an idea seems so anathema to you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely outstanding post. You have pegged what Van Til called the "borrowed capital" of atheism, you have nailed the central idea that moved C.S. Lewis toward theism.

Can I borrow this?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
It's weird, in a way, that the injustice of such an idea seems so anathema to you.

Of course it would be a gross injustice if this guy somehow bought an express ticket to Hell... but of course, the outcome you actually believe in, viz. that he is currently lying (briefly) in state and will shortly begin rotting in the ground, is also absurdly unjust.

In fact, to illustrate this, couldn't one of the Christians into whose mouths you are putting (rather ungracious) words, simply rewrite your post thus:


Hi All,

Just thought that I would remind everyone that Professor Librescu, the Romanian, Holocaust survivor who blockaded the door at Virginia Tech, while his students jumped to safety, is now decaying uselessly and will soon be forgotten for eternity.

Never mind that (presumably) he

1. Gave his life to save twenty or so young students

2. Believed in essentially the same God that Christians do.

3. Tried to do what he thought this God wanted him to do, even though his actions were highly likely to lead to his own death, a consequence he quite likely foresaw

Big mistake. He didn't realize that God probably didn't exist, and if He did, that He almost certainly didn't care about this professor's individual act of heroism. So now the professor has been erased, largely by his own poor decision making.

I have decided to name this type of ultimate -EV decision, where one throws one's life away in hope of ingratiating oneself to an unlikely God, "Sklansky's Unnatural Selection."

I'll allow others to elaborate.

-David

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about your begging the question! This only makes sense if we are chastising him for dying for the sole purpose of trying to please a God and earn eternal happiness. Luckily, none of us do think that, so this is absurdly off-point.

Also, your original conclusion seems to be a bit off. You admit it would be unjust for this guy to go to hell...so why does that make it also unjust for him to simply die and rot in the ground? Rotting in the ground &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; burning in hell, right? And thats basically an infinite number of &lt;'s.

But that, of course, misses the entire point. We aren't the ones claiming the universe is just. We aren't the ones proposing some absolutely benevolent, loving, just God. It may certainly be a grave injustice that this man simply dies...but thats the way it is. We don't pretend thats fantastic or amazing or supremely loving.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's weird, in a way, that the injustice of such an idea seems so anathema to you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely outstanding post. You have pegged what Van Til called the "borrowed capital" of atheism, you have nailed the central idea that moved C.S. Lewis toward theism.

Can I borrow this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheism doesn't posit the absolute justice of the universe. If this is really what did it for C.S. Lewis, it doesn't speak much for him.

[ChrisV]

Yes, of course it's unjust that both good and bad people end up dead. So what?

The difference is, we aren't trying to pass this injustice off as the work of a supposedly Infinitely Just deity that we worship. In short, we're not trying to claim that the injustice is a good idea.

NotReady, how can an appreciation of the innate injustice of the universe move you towards theism? Isn't that simply wishful thinking?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady, how can an appreciation of the innate injustice of the universe move you towards theism? Isn't that simply wishful thinking?


[/ QUOTE ]

He recognized that the concept of injustice is itself absurd if God doesn't exist. The universe can't be unjust on any atheistic basis. As I've said many times, that doesn't prove God exists. But if He doesn't, please stop using the word injustice. Actually, you can stop using reason.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's weird, in a way, that the injustice of such an idea seems so anathema to you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely outstanding post. You have pegged what Van Til called the "borrowed capital" of atheism, you have nailed the central idea that moved C.S. Lewis toward theism.

Can I borrow this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Use the point with someone else. It was not a coincidence that I chose to make this point about a Jew rather than an atheist. Someone who was legitimately trying to please the same God you are trying to please. Your points about the futility of a world without God seem reasonable to me. But when you try to argue that fellow theists who honestly believe somewhat different stories about essentialy the same God deserve horrible punishment, you sound like a lunatic who for some reason would be personally harmed if a different interpretation was true.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady, how can an appreciation of the innate injustice of the universe move you towards theism? Isn't that simply wishful thinking?


[/ QUOTE ]

He recognized that the concept of injustice is itself absurd if God doesn't exist. The universe can't be unjust on any atheistic basis. As I've said many times, that doesn't prove God exists. But if He doesn't, please stop using the word injustice. Actually, you can stop using reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif You really don't get the point that there needn't be an absolute standard for words to have meaning.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
He recognized that the concept of injustice is itself absurd if God doesn't exist. The universe can't be unjust on any atheistic basis. As I've said many times, that doesn't prove God exists. But if He doesn't, please stop using the word injustice. Actually, you can stop using reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no. Justice is humanly conceived, and has no meaning apart from the human context. Ditto for reason. Defining either idea as a purported constituent of non-human Divinity is begging the question on a monumental scale.

Honestly, I wish your posts weren't so absurd that quoting them seems refutation enough. But it is as it is, I suppose.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Use the point with someone else. etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

I realized jogger's post didn't directly speak to your post but it does speak to most of the other posts in this thread.

As for what I believe about the professor's fate, I've stated my position many times which you continue to ignore or twist, like here

[ QUOTE ]

But when you try to argue that fellow theists who honestly believe somewhat different stories about essentialy the same God deserve horrible punishment, you sound like a lunatic who for some reason would be personally harmed if a different interpretation was true.


[/ QUOTE ]

for instance.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I realized jogger's post didn't directly speak to your post but it does speak to most of the other posts in this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

P.S. - how come only you, me and jogger get this?

[ QUOTE ]

Your points about the futility of a world without God seem reasonable to me


[/ QUOTE ]

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. - how come only you, me and jogger get this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, what? According to your bizarrely grandiose notions of "meaning," life IS meaningless w/o God. By definition. There's nothing to get or not to get.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't think you'll find many mature christians who feel that organized religion (today) doesn't have many, many problems.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mature Christians do not worship a book.
Mature Christians do not attempt to twist words and meaning to make a book seem inerrant.
Mature Christians do not put any more importance on words written 2000 years ago than they do on words written today.
Mature Christians find the concept of Hell laughable.
Mature Christians pray (meditate) with no delusion that they will receive an "answer".
Mature Christians look inward for spiritual truth.
Mature Christians catagorically reject fundamentalist Christianity.

Is this the maturity you refer to?

[/ QUOTE ]

If most Christians felt this way, I wouldn't consider them to be so dangerous. Instead, the hateful and intolerant fundementalist movement only seems to be getting stronger with each passing year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to completely derail this thread, but do you (and anyone else who wants to chime in) believe that Christianity and religion inevitably lead to this fundamentalism? I think that is the most important question at hand.

In your eyes does it go Ignorance-&gt;Fundamentalism or Religion-&gt;Fundamentalism?

[ChrisV]

NotReady, I just don't understand the logic of absolutism. Justice is a slippery idea, certainly; so are many concepts in moral philosophy and indeed in any field that concerns people. This doesn't make it worthless. How, for instance, would you define happiness? Are you now going to suggest that happiness is a meaningless concept?

While justice cannot be defined exactly, there are a couple of fundamental concepts which should be included in anyone's definition of justice. The first is that the person responsible for a crime should be the one to receive the punishment. The second is that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. However, in mainstream interpretations of Christianity, God doesn't seem to agree with either of these precepts. So from my point of view, you're just redefining justice as "whatever God does", and in the process making it meaningless. Trading in a vague, possibly relativistic conception of justice for an absolutism that runs totally counter to my innate sense of justice doesn't seem like that sweet a trade to me.

The strange thing is that there's no way you yourself actually follow this idea of justice in your day to day life. Try this, for instance: a little girl becomes angry at her parents and runs away from home. When she returns a day or two later, as punishment her parents sell her into slavery in Africa. Do you think this is unjust, or do you not have an opinion until God makes a ruling? Given that the Bible is silent on the issue of slavery and very vocal on the issue of honouring one's parents, there should be no way you can currently determine whether this is just or not, is that correct? It's the same as when a theist drags up the old chestnut about atheists not being able to determine right from wrong. Invariably, when you look at how that person lives their life, they hold ideas about right and wrong that the Scriptures are either silent on or opposed to.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
NotReady, I just don't understand the logic of absolutism. Justice is a slippery idea, certainly; so are many concepts in moral philosophy and indeed in any field that concerns people. This doesn't make it worthless. How, for instance, would you define happiness? Are you now going to suggest that happiness is a meaningless concept?

While justice cannot be defined exactly, there are a couple of fundamental concepts which should be included in anyone's definition of justice. The first is that the person responsible for a crime should be the one to receive the punishment. The second is that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. However, in mainstream interpretations of Christianity, God doesn't seem to agree with either of these precepts. So from my point of view, you're just redefining justice as "whatever God does", and in the process making it meaningless. Trading in a vague, possibly relativistic conception of justice for an absolutism that runs totally counter to my innate sense of justice doesn't seem like that sweet a trade to me.

The strange thing is that there's no way you yourself actually follow this idea of justice in your day to day life. Try this, for instance: a little girl becomes angry at her parents and runs away from home. When she returns a day or two later, as punishment her parents sell her into slavery in Africa. Do you think this is unjust, or do you not have an opinion until God makes a ruling? Given that the Bible is silent on the issue of slavery and very vocal on the issue of honouring one's parents, there should be no way you can currently determine whether this is just or not, is that correct? It's the same as when a theist drags up the old chestnut about atheists not being able to determine right from wrong. Invariably, when you look at how that person lives their life, they hold ideas about right and wrong that the Scriptures are either silent on or opposed to.



[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Chris, great post.

You say that you don’t believe in absolutism. Notready’s God, is an example of moral relativism. His God’s values are relative to his beliefs. There is no such thing as absolute moral values, but if there were, they would exist independently of Notready’s God.

[jogger08152]

By all means.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I seem to recall you mentioning that Paul *had* to go westward to spread his word due to being prevented from travelling east. You then made the point that the United States is to the west. You even used a few of those exclamation points you enjoy using when you think you're making a remarkable point about your saviour. Apparently the fact that Paul travelled towards the United States is meaningful in some way. Or was I reading too much into your exclamation points?


[/ QUOTE ]
Paul took the Gospel to Europe. Europe brought it to America. Is that alone enough to understand why I believe that the founding of the United States was ordained by God? No, but you have to want to understand it first.

[RJT]

Chez and vhawk,

Fortunately for me my Religion is able to stand on its own and I don’t have to be its apologist (I most likely would fail miserably). This is a clear case of the often quoted term by Peter666 “baptism of desire”.

And btw chez, I must disagree with you, me “being nice” is indeed an effect of my Christianity.

RJT

[RJT]

Long quote from the Catholic Encylcopedia:

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (IV, De Bapt., xxii) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.

[rpr]

I think it's logical to believe that one will never reach Heaven without being LIKE Jesus. Simply believing Jesus is God keeps you in a perpetual hell.

As the old Jewish saying goes, if I knew God I would be God.

Thus knowledge is the path to enlightenment not faith.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. - how come only you, me and jogger get this?

Quote:

Your points about the futility of a world without God seem reasonable to me

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone please explain to me why the world is futile without god? I'm seriously not getting it.

As for the "grave injustice" of the professor rotting in the ground just like Hitler... so what? Evil is often not punished and good is often not rewarded in life. Why should it be in death? Seems like human wish-fulfillment more than an argument for god.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]


This is like saying you might as well not argue with NAMBLA that having sex with little boys is not OK, after all, they're entitled to their views, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are straining here. For one thing, a major difference is that presumably they are actually having sex with little boys, out there in the real world. Thus, their opinions and actions have actual relevance to the situation, in that they can act on their advocacy. Somebody thinking you're going to Hell can't actually affect whether or not you're going there, even if it does exist, which it almost certainly doesn't. So I don't view the two as being equivalent in the slightest. A much better comparison would be a belief that all casters of magic should be drawn and quartered.

I really dislike how pissy people get about religion. I'm all for trying to keep it out of government, and I think that's a fight worth fighting. But at the level of arguments like this (except possibly within a family) it just seems dumb to me. People tripping over themselves to display their perceived intellectual and moral superiority usually seems distasteful.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Trading in a vague, possibly relativistic conception of justice for an absolutism that runs totally counter to my innate sense of justice doesn't seem like that sweet a trade to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

If justice is determined only by your "innate" sense of justice then justice is no more significant than your preference for chocolate over vanilla. Maybe that's the case. Which would mean Hitler can prefer vanilla and slaughtering Jews and not be unjust.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
P.S. - how come only you, me and jogger get this?

Quote:

Your points about the futility of a world without God seem reasonable to me

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone please explain to me why the world is futile without god? I'm seriously not getting it.



[/ QUOTE ]
perhaps this wil help;

2+2 book: here we should raise with Aces
nearly everyone: Wise words indeed
Notready: Unless god exists it makes no difference
nearly everyone: of course it does
Notready: oh no it doesn't
Everyone else: oh yes it does
Peter666: his behind you
nearly everyone: oh yes it does
Notready: oh no it doesn't
...


Eventually it dawns on the world that Notready means that ultimately it makes no difference which of course we all agreed with anyway, wasn't what we were talking about, and has no consequences.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
And btw chez, I must disagree with you, me “being nice” is indeed an effect of my Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/frown.gif can tell us what nastyness you would perpetrate if you woke up tomorrow not believing in god?

or do you mean your natural nastyness has been corrupted by exposure to christianity and now you can't stop yourself being nice even though you really want to be nasty?

chez

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it would be a gross injustice if this guy somehow bought an express ticket to Hell... but of course, the outcome you actually believe in, viz. that he is currently lying (briefly) in state and will shortly begin rotting in the ground, is also absurdly unjust.



[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. There was an injustice perpetrated by the killer. Otherwise, since there is no supernatural moral agent involved, that a person simply ceases to exist upon death is, from an atheistic point of view, neither just nor unjust. Only the theist needs to explain the immoral actions of his god.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

perhaps this wil help;

2+2 book: here we should raise with Aces
nearly everyone: Wise words indeed


[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky: It's unjust for a good man to suffer torture in Hell for eternity.
chezlaw: Don't worry, David, there's no difference between that and playing poker.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

perhaps this wil help;

2+2 book: here we should raise with Aces
nearly everyone: Wise words indeed


[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky: It's unjust for a good man to suffer torture in Hell for eternity.
chezlaw: Don't worry, David, there's no difference between that and playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

That completely misses, or more likely ignores, the point. Its also not what I said as of course the monstous idea that your god would behave in such a way is very different from playing poker.

Is just means that even if there's no god then everything we do on a day to day basis isn't futile. Ultimately futile yes, futile no.

Same with meaning, justice etc etc

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

the monstous idea


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it monstrous?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the monstous idea


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it monstrous?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think it isn't monstrous?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the monstous idea


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it monstrous?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a value judgement. I judge the idea of a god who would condemn this man to eternal tourment as monstrous.

You're welcome to judge it as nice warm and cuddly if you wish.

These are statements about us.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Its a value judgement. I judge the idea of a god who would condemn this man to eternal tourment as monstrous.


[/ QUOTE ]

What if someone else thinks it isn't?

[bryan4967]

i don't feel that way.

[thejoe1989]

Atheists are granted such a wide spectrum of views and opinions just by the very nature of atheism. It's sort of an "every man choose for himself" situation.

What gives us the ability to not take the same view on Christianity. First, there are many different branches of Christianity... being a Catholic is different from being a Lutheren etc. Believing in Jesus does not mean that your beliefs in everything else are the same.

Now, if you want to delve into a certain branch of Christianity then you can start talking about certain GROUPS' views of who goes to heaven and whatever the heck bothers you. But, as for me, i find it completely pointless to hear all of this referred to as "christian" from a catholic standpoint.

Just as atheists all have their own views, so do christians. A persons views do not shape the religion they belong to.

[ApeAttack]

Since when do people need to be part of an organized religion to be nice?

That myth has gone on far too long.

If there were a bunch of atheists going around killing everyone and only Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc... were being nice, then you might have a point.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its a value judgement. I judge the idea of a god who would condemn this man to eternal tourment as monstrous.


[/ QUOTE ]

What if someone else thinks it isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it would be strong evidence that person is morally depraved. What's your point?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the monstous idea


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it monstrous?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you resolve this...

1. It is unjust for this hero professor to burn in hell for eternity.
2. We would not even know that this was unjust if god didn't exist.
3. God is the one who condemns him to hell, and god is always just.

Something doesn't add up.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Since when do people need to be part of an organized religion to be nice?

That myth has gone on far too long.

If there were a bunch of atheists going around killing everyone and only Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc... were being nice, then you might have a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone who wants to be nice today, please explain to ApeAttack why his logic has nothing to do with what I said?

[ConstantineX]

Easy, say we don't have the wisdom to determine 1 and are unqualified to determine 2 and 3. NotReady has danced this dance many times. Throw in a dash of C.S. Lewis quotes and Einstein misrepresentations, and you have the perfect BS stew.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Its a value judgement. I judge the idea of a god who would condemn this man to eternal tourment as monstrous.

What if someone else thinks it isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just fine, isn't it? Some do, some don't, the balance's just precarious enough to leave room for doubt...

That's just one way to look at it though.

[ QUOTE ]
Something doesn't add up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Why should it? Go forth and keep adding... 1 x 1 does not = 2.

(Standard 'tuna babble today prolly. shrug.)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Trading in a vague, possibly relativistic conception of justice for an absolutism that runs totally counter to my innate sense of justice doesn't seem like that sweet a trade to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

If justice is determined only by your "innate" sense of justice then justice is no more significant than your preference for chocolate over vanilla. Maybe that's the case. Which would mean Hitler can prefer vanilla and slaughtering Jews and not be unjust.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of. So what?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So what?


[/ QUOTE ]

At this point there's really nothing left to discuss.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Something doesn't add up.


[/ QUOTE ]

1 and 3 are contradictory.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, it would be strong evidence that person is morally depraved. What's your point?


[/ QUOTE ]

If morality is determined the same way as one's preference for ice cream it's nonsensical to call someone morally depraved. The statement communicates nothing more significant than "I like chocolate and hate vanilla".

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So what?


[/ QUOTE ]

At this point there's really nothing left to discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? The idea that Hitler considered his actions just is earth-shattering for you?

What it really boils down to is that, in my paradigm, Hitler is allowed to think his actions are just, and we are allowed to disagree. That neither of us is 'absolutely' correct makes no difference.

In your paradigm, Hitler's actions might actually BE absolutely just.

In practice, there is no difference in how the world will be, regardless of which paradigm we accept. For some reason, you take more solace in yours, but more importantly, you posit yours for no good reason. You may be right, Hitler's actions may actually be just, but I don't think they are.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, it would be strong evidence that person is morally depraved. What's your point?


[/ QUOTE ]

If morality is determined the same way as one's preference for ice cream it's nonsensical to call someone morally depraved. The statement communicates nothing more significant than "I like chocolate and hate vanilla".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is definitely wrong. Conveys nothing more? You just feel like asserting that? Just because two things are based on individual and innate preferences does not mean they are equivalent.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Really? The idea that Hitler considered his actions just is earth-shattering for you?


[/ QUOTE ]

I read your post as saying that Hitler was not unjust, and so what?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Really? The idea that Hitler considered his actions just is earth-shattering for you?


[/ QUOTE ]

I read your post as saying that Hitler was not unjust, and so what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler didn't think his actions were unjust. So what? I edited my response right as you were responding, though, to add more to it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

In your paradigm, Hitler's actions might actually BE absolutely just.


[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[ QUOTE ]

In practice, there is no difference in how the world will be, regardless of which paradigm we accept.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is way, way wrong. I think what we believe matters and has a huge impact on history. Had there been fewer moral relativists in Germany perhaps Hitler would never have come to power.

[ QUOTE ]

Hitler's actions may actually be just, but I don't think they are.


[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you have no basis for thinking that beyond your own tastes.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In your paradigm, Hitler's actions might actually BE absolutely just.


[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[ QUOTE ]

In practice, there is no difference in how the world will be, regardless of which paradigm we accept.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is way, way wrong. I think what we believe matters and has a huge impact on history. Had there been fewer moral relativists in Germany perhaps Hitler would never have come to power.

[ QUOTE ]

Hitler's actions may actually be just, but I don't think they are.


[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you have no basis for thinking that beyond your own tastes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you can't make any arguments for YOUR absolute morality, only absolute morality as a concept. Clearly, YOUR absolute morality is just an arbitrary guess (and based on your own personal proclivities, I would argue, which makes it ironic). So, if absolute morality exists, it is JUST AS LIKELY that Hitler was behaving perfectly as incorrectly. You don't really think the Christian version of absolute morality is privileged, do you?

As for the practicality point, moral relativists probably had little to do with it. He had the power. Most humans, the world over, have nearly identical moral systems. Therefore, we tend to find the same things wrong. I don't need to be able to say that the guy stealing my stereo is behaving absolutely immorally in order to stop him, I simply need to live in a society that agrees with my own morality (hint: all of them). There are obviously outliers, individuals whose sense of justice and morality are different than normal. We call them sociopaths, psycopaths, [censored], and so on. But again, it wasn't necessary to call him absolutely wrong in order to stop him...simply realizing we didn't like what he was doing was enough.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Had there been fewer moral relativists in Germany perhaps Hitler would never have come to power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the bastards!

http://rationalrevolution.net/images/nazi-priests.jpg

http://alamoministries.com/content/english/Antichrist/nazigallery/2freidrichcoch.jpg

http://alamoministries.com/content/english/Antichrist/nazigallery/15hitlercatholicnuncio.jpg

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since when do people need to be part of an organized religion to be nice?



[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone who wants to be nice today, please explain to ApeAttack why his logic has nothing to do with what I said?

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez said it better than I did.

[ill rich]

the professor isn't in hell.

Jesus saved all sinners, even ones who don't beleive in him.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since when do people need to be part of an organized religion to be nice?



[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone who wants to be nice today, please explain to ApeAttack why his logic has nothing to do with what I said?

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez said it better than I did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez believes (uniquely I think), if I understand him correctly from past posts, that one’s moral compass is innate. That one knows what is right and wrong by feeling if it is right or wrong.

I believe that one’s moral compass is learned. My beliefs are a combination of my religion, my upbringing from my parents, things I picked up along the way from siblings, teachers, friends, etc. Experience is a big part of my moral compass. Non of what I have picked up along the way and chosen to retain conflicts with my basic moral compass - Christianity. That is my metric and that was my point.

At any rate - I did not say that one cannot be nice and not be Christian or that atheists cannot be nice. I simply stated where I get mine from. Your post is a non sequitur to my post.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
the professor isn't in hell.

Jesus saved all sinners, even ones who don't beleive in him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even me!?!? Then whats all this fighting about? Who needs religion?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since when do people need to be part of an organized religion to be nice?



[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone who wants to be nice today, please explain to ApeAttack why his logic has nothing to do with what I said?

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez said it better than I did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez believes (uniquely I think), if I understand him correctly from past posts, that one’s moral compass is innate. That one knows what is right and wrong by feeling if it is right or wrong.

I believe that one’s moral compass is learned. My beliefs are a combination of my religion, my upbringing from my parents, things I picked up along the way from siblings, teachers, friends, etc. Experience is a big part of my moral compass. Non of what I have picked up along the way and chosen to retain conflicts with my basic moral compass - Christianity. That is my metric and that was my point.

At any rate - I did not say that one cannot be nice and not be Christian or that atheists cannot be nice. I simply stated where I get mine from. Your post is a non sequitur to my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not uniquely, not in the least. I agree with him, and I think there are several posters here who do as well. Daniel Dennett has talked about this in at least two of his books. Its not a new concept. Basically, every society on Earth, that has ever been tested, finds the same specific things moral and immoral. Its amazing really, and pretty much eliminates any possibility that morality is learned.

[hmkpoker]

He should have thought about that when he killed Jesus.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since when do people need to be part of an organized religion to be nice?



[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone who wants to be nice today, please explain to ApeAttack why his logic has nothing to do with what I said?

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez said it better than I did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez believes (uniquely I think), if I understand him correctly from past posts, that one’s moral compass is innate. That one knows what is right and wrong by feeling if it is right or wrong.

I believe that one’s moral compass is learned. My beliefs are a combination of my religion, my upbringing from my parents, things I picked up along the way from siblings, teachers, friends, etc. Experience is a big part of my moral compass. Non of what I have picked up along the way and chosen to retain conflicts with my basic moral compass - Christianity. That is my metric and that was my point.

At any rate - I did not say that one cannot be nice and not be Christian or that atheists cannot be nice. I simply stated where I get mine from. Your post is a non sequitur to my post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I didn't say what ApeAttack said.

but I don't think its inate in a way that contradicts you. I claim that someone could have been exposed to much the same christian teaching as you and be as nasty as you are nice. If you accept that claim then it follows that its not christianity that is wholly responsible.

I'd draw an analogy with height. Our actual height is strongly determined by nuture but people with equal nutures will reach different height because of their nature.

The key factor in niceness/nastyness is empathy and it seems likely that our empathic levels are subject to genetic variation.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its a value judgement. I judge the idea of a god who would condemn this man to eternal tourment as monstrous.


[/ QUOTE ]

What if someone else thinks it isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's their value judgement.

Some people think marginaly less monstrous things like genecide are nice cuddly things to do as well. Its handy to know who these people are so that they can be opposed by those of us who judge them monstrous.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its a value judgement. I judge the idea of a god who would condemn this man to eternal tourment as monstrous.


[/ QUOTE ]

What if someone else thinks it isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's their value judgement.

Some people think marginaly less monstrous things like genecide are nice cuddly things to do as well. Its handy to know who these people are so that they can be opposed by those of us who judge them monstrous.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but ultimately? Actually, I think I'm just going to add that to the end of any argumentative post I make from now on. Its similar to the 5-year old who just keeps asking why, I suppose. Its really pretty impossible to defend against, as a tactic.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its a value judgement. I judge the idea of a god who would condemn this man to eternal tourment as monstrous.


[/ QUOTE ]

What if someone else thinks it isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's their value judgement.

Some people think marginaly less monstrous things like genecide are nice cuddly things to do as well. Its handy to know who these people are so that they can be opposed by those of us who judge them monstrous.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but ultimately? Actually, I think I'm just going to add that to the end of any argumentative post I make from now on. Its similar to the 5-year old who just keeps asking why, I suppose. Its really pretty impossible to defend against, as a tactic.

[/ QUOTE ]
We just point out that its irrelevent now and doesn't improve with age.

It has no force at all is only an issue because of the persistant missing off of the word 'ultmate'.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its a value judgement. I judge the idea of a god who would condemn this man to eternal tourment as monstrous.


[/ QUOTE ]

What if someone else thinks it isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's their value judgement.

Some people think marginaly less monstrous things like genecide are nice cuddly things to do as well. Its handy to know who these people are so that they can be opposed by those of us who judge them monstrous.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but ultimately? Actually, I think I'm just going to add that to the end of any argumentative post I make from now on. Its similar to the 5-year old who just keeps asking why, I suppose. Its really pretty impossible to defend against, as a tactic.

[/ QUOTE ]
We just point out that its irrelevent now and doesn't improve with age.

It has no force at all is only an issue because of the persistant missing off of the word 'ultmate'.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but ULTIMATELY?!? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its a value judgement. I judge the idea of a god who would condemn this man to eternal tourment as monstrous.


[/ QUOTE ]

What if someone else thinks it isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's their value judgement.

Some people think marginaly less monstrous things like genecide are nice cuddly things to do as well. Its handy to know who these people are so that they can be opposed by those of us who judge them monstrous.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but ultimately? Actually, I think I'm just going to add that to the end of any argumentative post I make from now on. Its similar to the 5-year old who just keeps asking why, I suppose. Its really pretty impossible to defend against, as a tactic.

[/ QUOTE ]
We just point out that its irrelevent now and doesn't improve with age.

It has no force at all is only an issue because of the persistant missing off of the word 'ultmate'.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but ULTIMATELY?!? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
ultimately ultimatelyness is ultimately and utterly bereft of everything.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its a value judgement. I judge the idea of a god who would condemn this man to eternal tourment as monstrous.


[/ QUOTE ]

What if someone else thinks it isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's their value judgement.

Some people think marginaly less monstrous things like genecide are nice cuddly things to do as well. Its handy to know who these people are so that they can be opposed by those of us who judge them monstrous.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but ultimately? Actually, I think I'm just going to add that to the end of any argumentative post I make from now on. Its similar to the 5-year old who just keeps asking why, I suppose. Its really pretty impossible to defend against, as a tactic.

[/ QUOTE ]
We just point out that its irrelevent now and doesn't improve with age.

It has no force at all is only an issue because of the persistant missing off of the word 'ultmate'.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but ULTIMATELY?!? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
ultimately ultimatelyness is ultimately and utterly bereft of everything.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Ultimatelyness or ultimateliness? I vote the latter, but perhaps its because I'm American?

[ChrisV]

NotReady,

Couple of simple questions that I think will get to the heart of this.

- Do you agree that a fundamental principle of justice is that the person who perpetrated a crime should be the one to receive a punishment?

- Is it your position that justice is whatever God says it is, even if 100% of the people on Earth were to disagree?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
the professor isn't in hell.

Jesus saved all sinners, even ones who don't beleive in him.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say this and I'm sure you whole-heartedly belive it, but many of your fellow Christians completely disagree with you. People like KUJustin believe that if the shooter is a Christian, he is more likely to be in heaven than the Jewish professor who sacrificed his life to save others. It's sickening, but that's what they believe.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

- Do you agree that a fundamental principle of justice is that the person who perpetrated a crime should be the one to receive a punishment?


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess your real question is "How can it be moral to cause an innocent person to suffer for a guilty one?" The doctrine of the substitutionary atonement can get very complicated and there are several different approaches. But the basics of the atonement are that God is just to have wrath directed against sinners and it is also just for Him to allow Someone who is qualified to voluntarily pay the penalty due.

[ QUOTE ]

- Is it your position that justice is whatever God says it is, even if 100% of the people on Earth were to disagree?


[/ QUOTE ]

I can answer that yes but of course you have phrased it to make it seem that justice could be arbitrary, i.e., God could say it's ok to steal or it's not ok to steal. But the Biblical position is that God says what is right or wrong based on His nature and since He is by nature perfectly good and righteous, He can't say it's ok to steal any more than He can make a square circle. And, in a sense, at least at some point in time, 100% of the people of the earth ( minus one) HAVE disagreed with God. "Let God be found true though every man a liar". "There is none righteous, no, not one". "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". "Death passed to all because all sinned".

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

- Do you agree that a fundamental principle of justice is that the person who perpetrated a crime should be the one to receive a punishment?


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess your real question is "How can it be moral to cause an innocent person to suffer for a guilty one?" The doctrine of the substitutionary atonement can get very complicated and there are several different approaches. But the basics of the atonement are that God is just to have wrath directed against sinners and it is also just for Him to allow Someone who is qualified to voluntarily pay the penalty due.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to run, but very very quickly, I wasn't referring merely to Jesus but to the stories in the Old Testament of God visiting wrath on whole cities or unto the 17th generation etc.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
God visiting wrath on whole cities or unto the 17th generation etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let alone, original sin, where I am paying for, supposedly, the dumbness of Adam and Eve! I would never have made that mistake if I was in paradise or the garden of Eden! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
God says what is right or wrong based on His nature and since He is by nature perfectly good and righteous

[/ QUOTE ]

so you basically say righteousness is based on god's nature and then you feel the need to add that he is by nature righteous.

how does it make any sense at all to call god "righteous" anyway? does the word mean anything if you're going to use it this way? don't you have to choose good over evil to be righteous? as long as you define "god" and "evil" in such a way that god is incapable of evil, i fail to see how god can possibly face a moral dilemma.

[Sephus]

do you worship god for his goodness? if so, are you worshipping him for not being logically impossible?

if god is the source of everything good, and things can only be admirable in the context of how they relate to god's nature, how can you admire god's nature itself? to what are you comparing it?

god's nature is superior to mine because... it's more like god's nature?

[PLOlover]

well whether hell is eternal torment or just the junkpile for the resurrection, let's look at the appropriate section. It seems pretty clear to me that whether one is thrown into the scrapheap is dependent upon ones actions in life. Ones actions. Not motives or thoughts or daydreams or whatever. So it seems pretty clear to me that if the aforesaid professor led a good life then he would not be thrown into the lake of fire.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:12-15;&amp;version=9;
Revelation 20:12-15 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible] [KJV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
well whether hell is eternal torment or just the junkpile for the resurrection, let's look at the appropriate section. It seems pretty clear to me that whether one is thrown into the scrapheap is dependent upon ones actions in life. Ones actions. Not motives or thoughts or daydreams or whatever. So it seems pretty clear to me that if the aforesaid professor led a good life then he would not be thrown into the lake of fire.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:12-15;&amp;version=9;
Revelation 20:12-15 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible] [KJV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you will find a wide range of beliefs on this topic, of course. Many Christians probably do find works sufficient. I'm not entirely convinced you can support that position Biblically, but I am pretty disinclined to argue it, since it is certainly the position I would prefer all Christians take. We'll let that be my disclosure of lack of intellectual rigor on this subject.

However, it seems that its been a substantial portion of Christians, since the very beginning, that insist and demand that faith is an absolutely necessary component to salvation. Have these Christians been wrong this entire time? It is certainly possible to find some Bible passages that imply works are important, but that does not mean they are sufficient. If this question were so easily dismissed, I hardly think it would be such a big part of apologetics.

[PLOlover]

about the revelations passage, some may say that the passage in the NT about no one can come to father but through me(jesus) has some effect upon my argument. I can only say that I have not code plead out that "but through me" passage so I'm not exactly sure what that means. However, the revelations passage is pretty straightforward.

So we have a pretty straightforward passage vs. an ambiguous one, so it seems to me a no brainer at this point.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
However, it seems that its been a substantial portion of Christians, since the very beginning, that insist and demand that faith is an absolutely necessary component to salvation. Have these Christians been wrong this entire time? It is certainly possible to find some Bible passages that imply works are important, but that does not mean they are sufficient. If this question were so easily dismissed, I hardly think it would be such a big part of apologetics.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but we are talking strictly about the lake of fire and judgment day here. And it plainly says that the decision to throw you in rests upon your works. I'm pretty confident I can support this minimalist positon simply because it's so clear cut.

On the other hand, maybe I would need to research further the question of whether nonchristians or nonjews have their lives written in the book of judgement, since it clearly says that those who are not in the book are thrown in.

Ok, I'm pretty sure that if your name is in the book you will be judged upon your works, but more than this I guess I can't say without more research.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, maybe I would need to research further the question of whether nonchristians or nonjews have their lives written in the book of judgement, since it clearly says that those who are not in the book are thrown in.

Ok, I'm pretty sure that if your name is in the book you will be judged upon your works, but more than this I guess I can't say without more research.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, I am pretty sure that jews are indeed in the book. now if you change the professor to a hindu or something then I think the question really gets hard to answer.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, it seems that its been a substantial portion of Christians, since the very beginning, that insist and demand that faith is an absolutely necessary component to salvation. Have these Christians been wrong this entire time? It is certainly possible to find some Bible passages that imply works are important, but that does not mean they are sufficient. If this question were so easily dismissed, I hardly think it would be such a big part of apologetics.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but we are talking strictly about the lake of fire and judgment day here. And it plainly says that the decision to throw you in rests upon your works. I'm pretty confident I can support this minimalist positon simply because it's so clear cut.

On the other hand, maybe I would need to research further the question of whether nonchristians or nonjews have their lives written in the book of judgement, since it clearly says that those who are not in the book are thrown in.

Ok, I'm pretty sure that if your name is in the book you will be judged upon your works, but more than this I guess I can't say without more research.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the lake of fire the only other option? Is it a dichotomy, lake of fire versus Heaven? I only ask because I know many Christians believe in a seperate place that is simply the absence of God, or perhaps believe that Hell is entirely this absence, and there is no lake of fire at all.

Your second point about whether or not unbelievers are in the book of life/judgment or not is a good one.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I know many Christians believe in a seperate place that is simply the absence of God, or perhaps believe that Hell is entirely this absence, and there is no lake of fire at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

well then they must be misinformed xtains then since i think all xtans hold book of revelations to be one of the divinely inspired books

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know many Christians believe in a seperate place that is simply the absence of God, or perhaps believe that Hell is entirely this absence, and there is no lake of fire at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

well then they must be misinformed xtains then since i think all xtans hold book of revelations to be one of the divinely inspired books

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll see if txag would like to comment. I'm almost certain he is one of these 'absence from God' types. Not sure about NotReady.

Also, didn't some Cardinal recently say that Hell isn't to be thought of as an actual real place? I seem to recall a thread about that.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, didn't some Cardinal recently say that Hell isn't to be thought of as an actual real place? I seem to recall a thread about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

true a lot of religious doctrine does not come from the bible, such as xmas, easter, etc.

[ill rich]

[ QUOTE ]

You say this and I'm sure you whole-heartedly belive it, but many of your fellow Christians completely disagree with you. People like KUJustin believe that if the shooter is a Christian, he is more likely to be in heaven than the Jewish professor who sacrificed his life to save others. It's sickening, but that's what they believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

well... all i have to say to that is they are misguided.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You say this and I'm sure you whole-heartedly belive it, but many of your fellow Christians completely disagree with you. People like KUJustin believe that if the shooter is a Christian, he is more likely to be in heaven than the Jewish professor who sacrificed his life to save others. It's sickening, but that's what they believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

well... all i have to say to that is they are misguided.

[/ QUOTE ]

So everyone is going to Heaven? Awesome. I truly mean that, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm obviously skeptical, but it sounds great.

[PLOlover]

i have to imagine going by revelation book of, that murder gets you thrown in lake of fire.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
i have to imagine going by revelation book of, that murder gets you thrown in lake of fire.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what was the point of Jesus? Just to get us out of original sin, and not the rest of them? There is no place for absolution?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Since when do people need to be part of an organized religion to be nice?

That myth has gone on far too long.

If there were a bunch of atheists going around killing everyone and only Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc... were being nice, then you might have a point.

[/ QUOTE ]
You might want to look into the history of the 20th century at some point.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
So what was the point of Jesus? Just to get us out of original sin, and not the rest of them? There is no place for absolution?

[/ QUOTE ] well i'm no biblical scholar I'm really only prepared to talk about the specific point of will the prof go to hell/lake of fire .

But it looks like on judgement day you're gonna be judged solely on your actions, your works, assuming you have standing to be there in the first place as evidenced by your name being in a book. If youre not in a book then you don't even get judged you just get thrown right in. That's the way I read it anyway.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God says what is right or wrong based on His nature and since He is by nature perfectly good and righteous

[/ QUOTE ]

so you basically say righteousness is based on god's nature and then you feel the need to add that he is by nature righteous.

how does it make any sense at all to call god "righteous" anyway? does the word mean anything if you're going to use it this way? don't you have to choose good over evil to be righteous? as long as you define "god" and "evil" in such a way that god is incapable of evil, i fail to see how god can possibly face a moral dilemma.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. This is more or less where I was headed with the second question. It helps that God apparently DOES endorse policies which are self-evidently unjust by any reasonable definition of justice.

[revots33]

Can we all agree that it would be an injustice for this Professor to be in hell right now? If so, the only option, assuming god is just, is that he's in heaven.

Which, it would seem to me, places works above faith in Jesus or baptism or anything else.

The are only 2 other other options. One is that god is not in fact perfectly just (I'm assuming most Christians would not accept this possibility). The other is that god's perfect justice is beyond our human comprehension. This seems like a cop-out to me. If we are willing to accept this, then there is no reason to believe that Hitler's slaughter of millions isn't also just in god's eyes.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I have to run, but very very quickly, I wasn't referring merely to Jesus but to the stories in the Old Testament of God visiting wrath on whole cities or unto the 17th generation etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, a very quick answer. Take the verses that bother you and check them out on Tektonics, they have a lot of material in that area.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

how does it make any sense at all to call god "righteous" anyway?


[/ QUOTE ]

Righteousness has to be defined. God is the definition. If He wasn't, He wouldn't be God.

[David Sklansky]

A+

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

to what are you comparing it?


[/ QUOTE ]

No,no,no,no,no - everything else is compared to God. You got it backwards. Or is it upside down? Maybe inside out.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The other is that god's perfect justice is beyond our human comprehension. This seems like a cop-out to me


[/ QUOTE ]

Isaiah 55:
6 Seek the LORD while He may be found;
Call upon Him while He is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake his way
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
And let him return to the LORD,
And He will have compassion on him,
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.
8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.

[ QUOTE ]

If we are willing to accept this, then there is no reason to believe that Hitler's slaughter of millions isn't also just in god's eyes.


[/ QUOTE ]

No problem, just ignore everything in the Bible and make up your own rules. But then, on any atheistic basis everyone is both just and unjust. Hitler thinks he's just, who am I to say otherwise? Ask chez, he knows.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
No problem, just ignore everything in the Bible and make up your own rules.

[/ QUOTE ]
Excellent advice.

It's really pretty simple, NotReady. Either the professor is in heaven -- which then makes Fundamentalist Christianity irrelavant -- or, he is in hell -- which makes your god a real dick, and unworthy of worship by any rational human being.

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we all agree that it would be an injustice for this Professor to be in hell right now? If so, the only option, assuming god is just, is that he's in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe we've talked about this before, but we are basically saying that the professors act of heroism and unselfishness is enough to redeem any other evil/sinful acts in his life? Or are we assuming that the professor lived a pretty good life, and this act was just icing on the cake?

[ QUOTE ]

Which, it would seem to me, places works above faith in Jesus or baptism or anything else.


[/ QUOTE ]

faith without works is dead, but is works without faith dead? probably not. God is just and he has engrained his justice in us (we were made in his image), so it seems to make sense that God will look are your life holistically, and not base it entirely on a single decision/mis-decision you made. The main problem is, we don't know EVERYTHING about the professors life, so as humans we just aren't qualified to judge (judge not, lest ye be judged).

[ QUOTE ]

The are only 2 other other options. One is that god is not in fact perfectly just (I'm assuming most Christians would not accept this possibility). The other is that god's perfect justice is beyond our human comprehension. This seems like a cop-out to me. If we are willing to accept this, then there is no reason to believe that Hitler's slaughter of millions isn't also just in god's eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

even if its beyond our human comprehension, there is plenty of reason to believe that Hitler's slaughter was unjust (use the bible). And without absolute morality, who is to say your own personal idea of morality towards hitler is "correct"? (or do we even care what correct is?)

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

how does it make any sense at all to call god "righteous" anyway?


[/ QUOTE ]

Righteousness has to be defined. God is the definition. If He wasn't, He wouldn't be God.

[/ QUOTE ]

righteousness has to be defined in a way that makes sense. it's useless to say "god is righteous" if, by "righteous," you mean something other than what people think of when they hear or read the word.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

to what are you comparing it?


[/ QUOTE ]

No,no,no,no,no - everything else is compared to God. You got it backwards. Or is it upside down? Maybe inside out.

[/ QUOTE ]

you only answered the rhetorical question.

so there's no way to evaluate god. if goodness is "absolute" but depends entirely on god, there is no standard by which to judge god's character or actions. if you can't judge god, how can you admire him? worship him?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
But then, on any atheistic basis everyone is both just and unjust.

[/ QUOTE ]

because if god doesn't exist, words can not have meaning.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
And without absolute morality, who is to say your own personal idea of morality towards hitler is "correct"?

[/ QUOTE ]

nobody, obviously. if there is no correctness, no one can require it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

so there's no way to evaluate god. if goodness is "absolute" but depends entirely on god, there is no standard by which to judge god's character or actions. if you can't judge god, how can you admire him? worship him?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're getting warm. See, the thing is, God is the Judge. Accept that and the rest follows.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

because if god doesn't exist, words can not have meaning.


[/ QUOTE ]

Getting very warm now. I would say you're past halfway.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

so there's no way to evaluate god. if goodness is "absolute" but depends entirely on god, there is no standard by which to judge god's character or actions. if you can't judge god, how can you admire him? worship him?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're getting warm. See, the thing is, God is the Judge. Accept that and the rest follows.

[/ QUOTE ]

God is the judge.
Therefore, I admire and love God.

Nope, doesn't follow. Care to fill in the rest of the premises? I don't admire or love Antonin Scalia either(though I may get kicked out of school for saying that).

[ill rich]

[ QUOTE ]
So everyone is going to Heaven? Awesome. I truly mean that, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm obviously skeptical, but it sounds great.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is great, God is good. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

so there's no way to evaluate god. if goodness is "absolute" but depends entirely on god, there is no standard by which to judge god's character or actions. if you can't judge god, how can you admire him? worship him?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're getting warm. See, the thing is, God is the Judge. Accept that and the rest follows.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't understand. it would help me if you just answered the question straightforwardly.

[bigpooch]

Interesting name!

First of all, if you don't believe in heaven or hell,
Librescu is simply dead and some might say he made a -EV
decision, so clearly you don't believe ANYONE is in hell.

Secondly, some atheists/agnostics may deem his action noble
or heroic, and if there IS a just God, surely, this man is
NOT in hell.

Thirdly, some "Christians" might think because Librescu was
"simply a Jew", he doesn't get a ticket to heaven since he
didn't have the "right beliefs", although some "Christians"
might think otherwise (good for them!).

Well, who are we to judge whether Librescu is worthy of
heaven (or hell)? A murderer may be worthy of heaven
(e.g., Moses), but a person who drives out demons and
performs miracles may not be (see Matthew 7:21-23).

If the four points of the OP are essentially true (not many
would be in a position to make a "proper judgment" anyway!)
and even if the second and fourth points were omitted, I
honestly don't believe that this professor is in Hades or
"hell". YHWH God is absolutely just and theists don't
deserve hell for having "incorrect beliefs". An important
point is to note that Librescu DID believe in God, the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.

Also, some followers of Judaism and some followers of Islam
believe that even if a person is in "hell", his/her stay is
not permanent (it's not "Purgatory", but it's not "heaven"
either!). I personally don't believe in the above idea
because of the passage of "the rich man and Lazarus" in
Luke 16:19-31 (especially, verse 26), and this is one of
many reasons why "hell" is a place to be avoided!

[ I'll use "Yeshua" rather than "Jesus" in what follows
because I don't want to give credence to "false Messiahs".]

Even consider Yeshua's apostles: all of them were in the
dark (and some might say "dull") about some of the important
declarations Yeshua made until days after the resurrection.
And despite what Peter and some of these disciples had seen
and been taught, somehow, some of them went back to their
old ways: fishing for fish rather than "fishing for men"
(John 21:1-3). This is the same Peter that wrote "The Lord
is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand
slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to
perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)
[ Clearly, the disciples of Yeshua had erroneous beliefs for
awhile. ]


HISTORY LESSON
----------------

During the time of Yeshua, religious Jews thought they were
God's chosen or elite and that Gentiles (non-Jews) weren't
"worthy of heaven" unless they adopted Judaism. How ironic
is it now that in the West, many denominations of
"Christianity" are in a similar unenviable position? Many
"Christians" believe that UNLESS a person believes that
"Jesus is LORD" (however that is interpreted) and that God
raised Jesus from the dead, that person is not "saved". To
believe that (the "UNLESS" part in the last sentence) is to
deny how broad the "cross of Christ" is and how merciful God
can be. I am not saying there is universalism, but how can
anyone exclude certain groups of "believers" (theists that
believe in the God of Abraham) based merely on belief or
theology? I am not talking about "cults" such as Mormonism,
but are the "saved" only going to be the "Orthodox"? Are
"Catholics", "Protestants", "Jews", and "Muslims" excluded?
And what about somebody like Ghandi who stated (according
to Wikipedia) when asked if he were a Hindu:

"Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and
a Jew."

[ Reminds me of 1 Cor 9:19-23 ]


Of course, Romans 10:9-10 (which many of the "faithful"
know) states:

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and
believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you
believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that
you confess and are saved.

Some key points of Romans 10: belief in the God of Israel
is a "minimal requirement" and a reference to Joel 2:32:

32 And everyone who calls
on the name of the LORD will be saved;
for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
there will be deliverance,
as the LORD has said,
among the survivors
whom the LORD calls.



How the dead are "judged" in John's vision
----------------------------------------

Revelation 20:11-15

The Dead Are Judged

11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated
on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was
no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small,
standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another
book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were
judged according to what they had done as recorded in the
books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and
death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and
each person was judged according to what he had done.
14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.
The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name
was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown
into the lake of fire.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So everyone is going to Heaven? Awesome. I truly mean that, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm obviously skeptical, but it sounds great.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is great, God is good. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. I'll keep being the swell guy I am, then, and continue not going to church, not praying, and not believing in God or Jesus or any of the gang. I will be pleasantly surprised if I end up in Heaven (although to be honest, I can't really imagine what Heaven could possibly be like, and still be Heaven, but oh well).

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

because if god doesn't exist, words can not have meaning.


[/ QUOTE ]

Getting very warm now. I would say you're past halfway.

[/ QUOTE ]

at the end is it something like "if i use a lot of non sequiturs, then i am correct?"

or is it "my views are correct. and by correct, i mean whatever it is that my views are."

[vhawk01]

If the words 'deserve' and 'justice' and 'Heaven' and 'Hell' actually have meanings, then we should be able to determine who should go to Hell and who not, at least in theory. We don't need anything close to perfect knowledge, except possibly in EXTREMELY borderline cases. If those words mean anything, we don't need God to make the decision for us. We know what justice means, we know what things are good, and what things are evil (the Bible tells us!) and so we ought to be able to determine these things. It should be a simple answer, the vast majority of the time. In fact, the answer should always be yes! (IMHO)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

because if god doesn't exist, words can not have meaning.


[/ QUOTE ]

Getting very warm now. I would say you're past halfway.

[/ QUOTE ]

at the end is it something like "if i use a lot of non sequiturs, then i am correct?"

or is it "my views are correct. and by correct, i mean whatever it is that my views are."

[/ QUOTE ]

You're on fire now!

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

it would help me if you just answered the question straightforwardly.


[/ QUOTE ]

You answered it yourself:

[ QUOTE ]

there is no standard by which to judge god's character or actions


[/ QUOTE ]

God is the standard by which everything else is judged.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

at the end is it something like "if i use a lot of non sequiturs, then i am correct?"

or is it "my views are correct. and by correct, i mean whatever it is that my views are.


[/ QUOTE ]

Musta turned on the fan.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
God is the standard by which everything else is judged.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which God? Allah? Jehovah? Jesus' Father?

Oh wait, they're all the same. Interesting.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

it would help me if you just answered the question straightforwardly.


[/ QUOTE ]

You answered it yourself:

[ QUOTE ]

there is no standard by which to judge god's character or actions


[/ QUOTE ]

God is the standard by which everything else is judged.

[/ QUOTE ]

so god is not admirable.

[bigpooch]

Even IF we are be able to determine who goes to "hell" or
"heaven", we're not given the authority to make that
judgment. YHWH God has given that authority to Yeshua, the
Messiah.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

so god is not admirable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now you went and turned on the AC.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

so god is not admirable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now you went and turned on the AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

explain how you can admire something without judging it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

explain how you can admire something without judging it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Explain how you judge the absolute.

The central problem is the standard we use. If we use God's standard of absolute perfection, God meets that standard. And yes, that is circular. Anything else would mean God is impossible.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
f we use God's standard of absolute perfection, God meets that standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

can u post a biblical verse which says god is perfect?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

explain how you can admire something without judging it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Explain how you judge the absolute.

The central problem is the standard we use. If we use God's standard of absolute perfection, God meets that standard. And yes, that is circular. Anything else would mean God is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you judge god against himself and pretend it's meaningful.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

can u post a biblical verse which says god is perfect?


[/ QUOTE ]

Matthew 5:
48"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

so you judge god against himself and pretend it's meaningful.


[/ QUOTE ]


so you judge God by your finite, relative, sinful standard and pretend it's meaningful.

I think you are now officially at the North Pole ensconced in a walk in freezer.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

so you judge god against himself and pretend it's meaningful.


[/ QUOTE ]


so you judge God by your finite, relative, sinful standard and pretend it's meaningful.

I think you are now officially at the North Pole ensconced in a walk in freezer.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i don't. and even if i did judge god using a standard based entirely on my own personal sinful feelings, at least it would be something.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Matthew 5:
48"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, although that could be taken another way.

But I was thinking of Genesis 3:9 and when I searched for it some other stuff came up like god going to see about sodom and gmorrah and stuff. But also other stuff came up where god knows everything in a man's heart, etc.

Interesting.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Even IF we are be able to determine who goes to "hell" or
"heaven", we're not given the authority to make that
judgment. YHWH God has given that authority to Yeshua, the
Messiah.

[/ QUOTE ]

All well and good, but no need for Christians to get all squeamish about it. Be a nice person, go to Heaven, don't matter if you are a Christian or not. Who needs religion?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

so you judge god against himself and pretend it's meaningful.


[/ QUOTE ]


so you judge God by your finite, relative, sinful standard and pretend it's meaningful.

I think you are now officially at the North Pole ensconced in a walk in freezer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually like the whole warmer/cooler thing, and the associated imagery.

Nevertheless, you are either:
1) Blindly repeating crap you've heard without listening to the arguments being made, or
2) Grossly, grossly, grossly, grossly disingenuous

God bless you.

[David Sklansky]

Could you please stop debating the easy adversaries (by your standards) and comment instead on the tougher posts that you disagree with. Such as this from bigpooch:

Interesting name!

First of all, if you don't believe in heaven or hell,
Librescu is simply dead and some might say he made a -EV
decision, so clearly you don't believe ANYONE is in hell.

Secondly, some atheists/agnostics may deem his action noble
or heroic, and if there IS a just God, surely, this man is
NOT in hell.

Thirdly, some "Christians" might think because Librescu was
"simply a Jew", he doesn't get a ticket to heaven since he
didn't have the "right beliefs", although some "Christians"
might think otherwise (good for them!).

Well, who are we to judge whether Librescu is worthy of
heaven (or hell)? A murderer may be worthy of heaven
(e.g., Moses), but a person who drives out demons and
performs miracles may not be (see Matthew 7:21-23).

If the four points of the OP are essentially true (not many
would be in a position to make a "proper judgment" anyway!)
and even if the second and fourth points were omitted, I
honestly don't believe that this professor is in Hades or
"hell". YHWH God is absolutely just and theists don't
deserve hell for having "incorrect beliefs". An important
point is to note that Librescu DID believe in God, the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.

Also, some followers of Judaism and some followers of Islam
believe that even if a person is in "hell", his/her stay is
not permanent (it's not "Purgatory", but it's not "heaven"
either!). I personally don't believe in the above idea
because of the passage of "the rich man and Lazarus" in
Luke 16:19-31 (especially, verse 26), and this is one of
many reasons why "hell" is a place to be avoided!

[ I'll use "Yeshua" rather than "Jesus" in what follows
because I don't want to give credence to "false Messiahs".]

Even consider Yeshua's apostles: all of them were in the
dark (and some might say "dull") about some of the important
declarations Yeshua made until days after the resurrection.
And despite what Peter and some of these disciples had seen
and been taught, somehow, some of them went back to their
old ways: fishing for fish rather than "fishing for men"
(John 21:1-3). This is the same Peter that wrote "The Lord
is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand
slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to
perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)
[ Clearly, the disciples of Yeshua had erroneous beliefs for
awhile. ]


HISTORY LESSON
----------------

During the time of Yeshua, religious Jews thought they were
God's chosen or elite and that Gentiles (non-Jews) weren't
"worthy of heaven" unless they adopted Judaism. How ironic
is it now that in the West, many denominations of
"Christianity" are in a similar unenviable position? Many
"Christians" believe that UNLESS a person believes that
"Jesus is LORD" (however that is interpreted) and that God
raised Jesus from the dead, that person is not "saved". To
believe that (the "UNLESS" part in the last sentence) is to
deny how broad the "cross of Christ" is and how merciful God
can be. I am not saying there is universalism, but how can
anyone exclude certain groups of "believers" (theists that
believe in the God of Abraham) based merely on belief or
theology? I am not talking about "cults" such as Mormonism,
but are the "saved" only going to be the "Orthodox"? Are
"Catholics", "Protestants", "Jews", and "Muslims" excluded?
And what about somebody like Ghandi who stated (according
to Wikipedia) when asked if he were a Hindu:

"Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and
a Jew."

[ Reminds me of 1 Cor 9:19-23 ]


Of course, Romans 10:9-10 (which many of the "faithful"
know) states:

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and
believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you
believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that
you confess and are saved.

Some key points of Romans 10: belief in the God of Israel
is a "minimal requirement" and a reference to Joel 2:32:

32 And everyone who calls
on the name of the LORD will be saved;
for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
there will be deliverance,
as the LORD has said,
among the survivors
whom the LORD calls.



How the dead are "judged" in John's vision
----------------------------------------

Revelation 20:11-15

The Dead Are Judged

11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated
on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was
no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small,
standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another
book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were
judged according to what they had done as recorded in the
books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and
death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and
each person was judged according to what he had done.
14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.
The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name
was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown
into the lake of fire."

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
If we are willing to accept this, then there is no reason to believe that Hitler's slaughter of millions isn't also just in god's eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Human free will is an obstacle to temporal justice. Soteriological justice can be meted out unilaterally.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Could you please stop debating the easy adversaries


[/ QUOTE ]

If they're so easy how come they won't say "uncle"?


Which parts do you think I don't agree with?

Hint: Some, but not all. Also, I expect I've already answered the parts you think I don't agree with.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

how does it make any sense at all to call god "righteous" anyway?


[/ QUOTE ]

Righteousness has to be defined. God is the definition. If He wasn't, He wouldn't be God.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell does this mean?

p --&gt; q
if not q not p
therefore, p

LOL

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

- Is it your position that justice is whatever God says it is, even if 100% of the people on Earth were to disagree?


[/ QUOTE ]

I can answer that yes but of course you have phrased it to make it seem that justice could be arbitrary, i.e., God could say it's ok to steal or it's not ok to steal. But the Biblical position is that God says what is right or wrong based on His nature and since He is by nature perfectly good and righteous, He can't say it's ok to steal any more than He can make a square circle. And, in a sense, at least at some point in time, 100% of the people of the earth ( minus one) HAVE disagreed with God. "Let God be found true though every man a liar". "There is none righteous, no, not one". "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". "Death passed to all because all sinned".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to take this as a "yes". It's not arbitrariness I'm interested in but rather your denial that there is any yardstick by which God himself can be judged. For instance, I was struck by your telling me to go and look on Tektonics for Bible verses which bothered me. This is an acknowledgement that some Old Testament verses need some amount of "explanation". But if you really believe your story about absolute justice, there should be no need for this. Take the following passage:

[ QUOTE ]
2 Kings 2:23-24:

"And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

[/ QUOTE ]

This, to me (crazy godless moral-relativist that I am) seems a little unjust. But it should present you with no problems whatsoever. Since God's nature is to be perfectly just, it appears that the just punishment for mocking prophets is to be eaten by bears, even for children. Since there is no yardstick by which to judge God, there is absolutely no reason for you to read this passage and see anything other than God's justice at work. By the way, a quick search on Tektonics reveals nothing about the above passage; I can't see how it could possibly be defended.

It is not just in Scripture that you should often be unable to judge whether things are or are not just. For instance, here's the problem I set KUJustin:

[ QUOTE ]
Try this, for instance: a little girl becomes angry at her parents and runs away from home. When she returns a day or two later, as punishment her parents sell her into slavery in Africa. Do you think this is unjust, or do you not have an opinion until God makes a ruling? Given that the Bible is silent on the issue of slavery and very vocal on the issue of honouring one's parents, there should be no way you can currently determine whether this is just or not, is that correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see any way that you can possibly know this is unjust. Responding that you know it is unjust because the hand of God is guiding you won't do at all, since extremely devout Christians have in the past defended slavery using exactly the same argument.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

2 Kings 2:23-24:


[/ QUOTE ]

Try Tektonics. Let me know.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2 Kings 2:23-24:


[/ QUOTE ]

Try Tektonics. Let me know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had another look using Google, rather than the site's search engine, and dug up this (http://www.tektonics.org/af/callahanproph.html#2kin223). Wow. This is horribly unconvincing. It runs like this:

1. They may not have been "children" but rather "youths", ie 14 or 15.
2. Maybe there was more to their mocking than baldness. But in any case, no sin is trivial in the eyes of God.
3. Maybe they were criminals in other ways.

1 is irrelevant. 2 and 3 are pure speculation and as such unanswerable. You can justify anything by simply making up additional details that are nowhere present or even implied in the original story. The idea that the youths were "roving criminals" is however rather implausible since the verse records them coming "out of the town". If they were thieves, presumably they would be unwelcome in the town.

In any case, you haven't answered my central point. Why are Tektonics trying to alter this story? The story records an action of God. God is infinitely just, and there is no yardstick by which to judge his actions. If you really believe that doctrine then there is no impediment to believing that this story represents justice in action, and you should not have any motive to try and alter it.

[Lestat]

This is a most excellent post.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Librescu is simply dead and some might say he made a -EV </font>

Why is it necessarily -EV? He possibly saved many bright young students with much life ahead of them. If one of them goes on to find a cure for cancer, do you still view it as -EV?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Librescu is simply dead and some might say he made a -EV </font>

Why is it necessarily -EV? He possibly saved many bright young students with much life ahead of them. If one of them goes on to find a cure for cancer, do you still view it as -EV?

[/ QUOTE ]
He means -ev from Librescu's pov, being dead he gains nothing from the future.

Dead is zero happiness. The calculation is just whether he would have +ev or -ve future happiness from being alive when he believes he should have tried to save the students.

We can stick some probabilites in if we want to state that more precisely.

Edit: I missed out the very important factor that it may be +ev now to be the sort of person who would behave in that way if the situation came up.

chez

[Lestat]

Plus it could be +EV if someone he saved goes on to develop a cure for something that saves one of the professor's descendants.

But I agree the main thing is how troubled he would be in all likelihood, if he did nothing. The guy was a true hero. Those theists that can't understand such actions without the existence of a God, shows they can be a pretty shallow and selfish lot.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus it could be +EV if someone he saved goes on to develop a cure for something that saves one of the professor's descendants.

But I agree the main thing is how troubled he would be in all likelihood, if he did nothing. The guy was a true hero. Those theists that can't understand such actions without the existence of a God, shows they can be a pretty shallow and selfish lot.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the main factor is the one I forgot and added with the edit. Although this case is extreme I think in generally +ev if we are the sort of people who don't always put ourselves above others . We gain so much from living in a community of such people.

As Utah and others will point out it may be even more +ev to fake it and defect in exteme circumstaces but insincerity is tough.

I think any half-decent god would be far more impressed with heroes who don't believe in god and expect no reward.

chez

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
about the revelations passage, some may say that the passage in the NT about no one can come to father but through me(jesus) has some effect upon my argument. I can only say that I have not code plead out that "but through me" passage so I'm not exactly sure what that means. However, the revelations passage is pretty straightforward.

So we have a pretty straightforward passage vs. an ambiguous one, so it seems to me a no brainer at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

An ambiguous passage in the Bible? Say it ain't so...

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
An ambiguous passage in the Bible? Say it ain't so...

[/ QUOTE ]

you might not be aware that the bible explicitly states that it is written so that most people will not be able to understand it.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An ambiguous passage in the Bible? Say it ain't so...

[/ QUOTE ]

you might not be aware that the bible explicitly states that it is written so that most people will not be able to understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what are the people who cannot understand it supposed to do, guess?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An ambiguous passage in the Bible? Say it ain't so...

[/ QUOTE ]

you might not be aware that the bible explicitly states that it is written so that most people will not be able to understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what are the people who cannot understand it supposed to do, guess?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one knows what they should do. I mean, the Bible says they should believe anyway, but who can understand what THAT means? Maybe by 'have faith' they mean don't have faith...not sure, I wasn't intended to be able to understand it.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An ambiguous passage in the Bible? Say it ain't so...

[/ QUOTE ]

you might not be aware that the bible explicitly states that it is written so that most people will not be able to understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This absolutely wrong, even heretical. The biblical message is NOT difficult to understand. It comes solely on its own terms, outside human wisdom, on its authority as God's revealed message. Thus an intellectual, human understanding of it is irrelevant. In fact, the very notion of such an understanding is sacrilegious.

The important response, and the only difficult one, is to BELIEVE the message. Anyone who claims otherwise is a heretic. I challenge you to cite any respectable theologian who would disagree with this.

[bigpooch]

About Karl Barth (from Wikipedia), a well-known Swiss
theologian:

Once a young student asked Barth if he could sum up what was most important about his life's work and theology in just a few words. The question was posed even with gasps from the audience. Barth just thought for a moment and then smiled, "Yes, in the words of a song my mother used to sing me, 'Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.'"

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
About Karl Barth (from Wikipedia), a well-known Swiss
theologian:

Once a young student asked Barth if he could sum up what was most important about his life's work and theology in just a few words. The question was posed even with gasps from the audience. Barth just thought for a moment and then smiled, "Yes, in the words of a song my mother used to sing me, 'Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.'"

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, sounds like metaphor to me. I don't think Jesus LITERALLY loves you.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
This absolutely wrong, even heretical. The biblical message is NOT difficult to understand. It comes solely on its own terms, outside human wisdom, on its authority as God's revealed message. Thus an intellectual, human understanding of it is irrelevant. In fact, the very notion of such an understanding is sacrilegious.

The important response, and the only difficult one, is to BELIEVE the message. Anyone who claims otherwise is a heretic. I challenge you to cite any respectable theologian who would disagree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Matthew 13:10-17
Mark 4:13
Mark 4:33-34

Luke 8.10
10And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.


Isaiah 6:9

Isaiah 28:9-13
9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

13But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

[Subfallen]

Please. As if doctrine was established by laypeople randomly copy+pasting verses and doing some vaguely intuitive exegesis. Scripture does not have a single coherent interpretation. Thus orthodox doctrine is presented as a dictum, not as an interpretation allegedly "supported" by logical reasoning or appeal to intuition.

FACT: There is nothing "difficult to understand" about Christianity. It's not even meant to be understood, but rather---BELIEVED. And belief is difficult.

It should probably bother you that I'm an atheist and am about 10x more familiar with your religion than you are.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Scripture does not have a single coherent interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The scripture is not of a private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)
and god does not change(Mal.3:6, Hebrews 13:8 ), so I think it does.

As to the rest, I make my argument supported by the primary text, something which you do not do. Btw, you changed your argument from it's meant for everyone to understand and easy, to it's not even meant to be understood.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Scripture does not have a single coherent interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]
The scripture is not of a private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)
and god does not change(Mal.3:6, Hebrews 13:8 ), so I think it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Which is precisely why Christianity today looks like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_membe rs). Because it's so obvious just how to extract doctrine from Scripture without an external interpretative authority. Sooooo easy.

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, you changed your argument from it's meant for everyone to understand and easy, to it's not even meant to be understood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? From my first post:

[ QUOTE ]
Thus an intellectual, human understanding of it is irrelevant. In fact, the very notion of such an understanding is sacrilegious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you mean to say that you can't manage a consistent interpretation of my posts? Fairly astounding, considering you're capable of an accurate a priori construction of Christian theology via interpretation of scripture.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you mean to say that you can't manage a consistent interpretation of my posts? Fairly astounding, considering you're capable of an accurate a priori construction of Christian theology via interpretation of scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may have misread your post where you said "The biblical message is NOT difficult to understand."

Anyway, I don't really care what you think, that's fine with me. But I would think that if you want to discuss the bible you might, you know, want to discuss the bible. I mean, if you want to discuss the literary merits of hamlet or something, yet steadfastly refuse to read or quote or talk about a passage in hamlet, but just talk in total generalities, then don't expect people to talk about hamlet with you.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
But I would think that if you want to discuss the bible you might, you know, want to discuss the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Bible is the problem, not the solution. We would like you to rationally, and logically, discuss your beliefs without constant reference to an inconsistant, error-ridden book written 2000 or more years ago.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible is the problem, not the solution. We would like you to rationally, and logically, discuss your beliefs without constant reference to an inconsistant, error-ridden book written 2000 or more years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

you want me to talk about the bible without referencing the bible?
I mean, I've told you my beliefs that
1) people can be spared hell or lake of fire based soley on their actions in life
2) the bible is written in code so people cannot understand it
3) probably some other stuff that I can't remember right now
and I have provided support for my beliefs via quotes from the material in question.

This is how I was taught to do literary criticism so what can I say.

[PLOlover]

I mean, if I made a new topic post and said how star wars was a bad movie/trilogy 6tolodgy wahtever cause darth vader ends up killing luke and raping princess leah, I wouldn't get mad cause someone points out that my premise is incorrect and provides support for his point by quoting or paraphrasing the script.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

I may have misread your post where you said "The biblical message is NOT difficult to understand."

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I admit that was ambiguous. I was being imprecise, but did not mean to assert a different position from my later statements. Let me clarify. The biblical message as interpreted within orthodox Christianity includes things like:
<font color="white">aa</font>1. Every human has a supernatural soul that will eternally exist after she dies.
<font color="white">aa</font>2. God incarnated Himself as a Man.
These statements are not "understandable" beyond their immediate impact on consciousness. That impact may be impressive! But, by definition, these statements have no comprehensible meaning in the natural world of space-time and biological consciousness.

In that sense, they are both impossible to understand and trivial to understand. Trivial to understand because any conscious reaction to these statements is as good an "understanding" as any other reaction. Impossible to understand because the denoted quantities are not part of the universe---or at least our possible conscious perception of it.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I don't really care what you think, that's fine with me. But I would think that if you want to discuss the bible you might, you know, want to discuss the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said I wanted to discuss YOUR arbitrary interpretation of the bible.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
aa1. Every human has a supernatural soul that will eternally exist after she dies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than say that this is not true and then cite supporting passages I will just say that this is not supported by the bible, but it is a religious belief of many religions.

As to my arbitrary interpretation, that's why I provide support.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Rather than say that this is not true...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the point. It's not "true" or "false." IT HAS NO COMPREHENSIBLE MEANING OR TRUTH VALUE.

[ QUOTE ]
As to my arbitrary interpretation, that's why I provide support.

[/ QUOTE ]

This mindset is anathema. I can assure you with complete sincerity that, if Christianity is "true", you will be in hell as surely as I will---unless you repent of this obscene arrogance.

"Faith, then, is not a lesson for slow learners in the sphere of intellectuality, an asylum for dullards. But faith is a sphere of its own, and the immediate identifying mark of every misunderstanding of Christianity is that it changes it into a doctrine and draws it into the range of intellectuality." (Kierkegaard, Postscript, Copenhagen, 1846 [emphasis mine.])

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Rather than say that this is not true...



Not the point. It's not "true" or "false." IT HAS NO COMPREHENSIBLE MEANING OR TRUTH VALUE.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just trying to be polite. to speak plainly, it is my understanding that the soul
in OT and NT is mortal, and the concept of an immortal soul is pagan.

edit: I mean I understand it can't be tested, but the concept of an immortal soul is clearly pagan and not scriptural if you read the bible. I mean, it's like saying light sabers are from star wars, not star trek. I understand that light sabers are not real, but still it's a fact they are from star wars, not star trek.

[Subfallen]

I like your analogy, but haplessly it misses a key point. It's not that the idea of an immortal, non-biological soul can't be tested---it's that such an idea can't be understood. It's meaningless except that it has a very exciting impact on our little biological minds that so desperately need an arbitrary choice of time coordinates to make any sense of anything.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

"Faith, then, is not a lesson for slow learners in the sphere of intellectuality, an asylum for dullards. But faith is a sphere of its own, and the immediate identifying mark of every misunderstanding of Christianity is that it changes it into a doctrine and draws it into the range of intellectuality." (Kierkegaard, Postscript, Copenhagen, 1846


[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a doctrine?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"Faith, then, is not a lesson for slow learners in the sphere of intellectuality, an asylum for dullards. But faith is a sphere of its own, and the immediate identifying mark of every misunderstanding of Christianity is that it changes it into a doctrine and draws it into the range of intellectuality." (Kierkegaard, Postscript, Copenhagen, 1846


[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a doctrine?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. As I said earlier: doctrine comes as dictum of Divine authority. Kierkegaard was a philosopher, not an apostle. I quoted him because I /images/graemlins/heart.gif him, and he explains things better than I do.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I like your analogy, but haplessly it misses a key point. It's not that the idea of an immortal, non-biological soul can't be tested---it's that such an idea can't be understood. It's meaningless except that it has a very exciting impact on our little biological minds that so desperately need an arbitrary choice of time coordinates to make any sense of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my point is that the concept of an immortal, non-biological soul is a pagan one, and a quite common one across many religions, however, it is not the concept to be found in either the old or new testaments. You can call it the doctrine I suscribe to, or the branch of christianity that I believe in or whatever, that all people will die, go into the ground, rot, etc., and then god will resurrect them, restore their bodies, and the people that god doesn't like he throws them into the trash can incinerator called the lake of fire and theyre gone, theyre dead again. Kinda like the riverworld novels by philip jose farmer. I mean, I can understand that. I really can.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course not. As I said earlier: doctrine comes as dictum of Divine authority. Kierkegaard was a philosopher, not an apostle. I quoted him because I him, and he explains things better than I do.


[/ QUOTE ]


Is that a special pleading?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that a special pleading?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obv. But that's what religion is. Special pleading with heaven for a carrot and hell for a stick. Not very complicated really.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, I can understand that. I really can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Obv. But that's what religion is. Special pleading with heaven for a carrot and hell for a stick. Not very complicated really.


[/ QUOTE ]

You funny.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Obv. But that's what religion is. Special pleading with heaven for a carrot and hell for a stick. Not very complicated really.


[/ QUOTE ]

You funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I am and maybe I'm not. But I can say this with certainty: if you tried to found a religion on anything but special pleading, you would fail miserably. The key requirement for not special pleading is admitting you may be wrong. And religious people can never do that.

Thus a successful religion will never be rationally compelling---only emotionally compelling. And I don't see how any religion could compete for emotional compulsion without throwing in a heaven and hell. So feel free to explain what I'm missing, but as far as I know my description of religion is pretty accurate.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The key requirement for not special pleading is admitting you may be wrong. And religious people can never do that.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think its possibly might be the case that you are wrong and many religous people happily admit they may be wrong. Its authoritarians who have trouble admiting they may be wrong because then they couldn't justify banning things they don't like.

chez

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its possibly might be the case that you are wrong and many religous people happily admit they may be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for any culturally relevant religion such as Christianity or Islam. It doesn't make sense for a believer to treat the tenets of these religions as being "maybe" or "probably" true. The tenets are so fantastically arbitrary that once you open the door to skepticism even a crack, belief won't have a chance.

Thus doubting the truth of doctrine is built-in as sinful into these religions, and is not an option for their adherents. Someone who's just generally "spiritual"...sure. But not a Christian or Muslim.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think its possibly might be the case that you are wrong and many religous people happily admit they may be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for any culturally relevant religion such as Christianity or Islam. It doesn't make sense for a believer to treat the tenets of these religions as being "maybe" or "probably" true. The tenets are so fantastically arbitrary that once you open the door to skepticism even a crack, belief won't have a chance.

Thus doubting the truth of doctrine is built-in as sinful into these religions, and is not an option for their adherents. Someone who's just generally "spiritual"...sure. But not a Christian or Muslim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lots of christians are happy to admit that they believe but don't know.

Its simply not a problem for them, I'm not sure why you think it is.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think its possibly might be the case that you are wrong and many religous people happily admit they may be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for any culturally relevant religion such as Christianity or Islam. It doesn't make sense for a believer to treat the tenets of these religions as being "maybe" or "probably" true. The tenets are so fantastically arbitrary that once you open the door to skepticism even a crack, belief won't have a chance.

Thus doubting the truth of doctrine is built-in as sinful into these religions, and is not an option for their adherents. Someone who's just generally "spiritual"...sure. But not a Christian or Muslim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lots of christians are happy to admit that they believe but don't know.

Its simply not a problem for them, I'm not sure why you think it is.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just fun with words. They would admit they believe but don't know, but they would most certainly never put the likelihood of their God existing at &lt;50%. They believe but don't know in rhetorical terms only; in fact they are as certain of it as anything else.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Not for any culturally relevant religion such as Christianity or Islam. It doesn't make sense for a believer to treat the tenets of these religions as being "maybe" or "probably" true. The tenets are so fantastically arbitrary that once you open the door to skepticism even a crack, belief won't have a chance.

Thus doubting the truth of doctrine is built-in as sinful into these religions, and is not an option for their adherents. Someone who's just generally "spiritual"...sure. But not a Christian or Muslim.


[/ QUOTE ]

Religion is a mystery, especially Christianity. Why is it so hard to comprehend that Christianity is in movement especially since you might BELIEVE that science is in movement? Denial of the future is a debilitating perspective especially when you lay it upon someone else. All of Christianity is about the FUTURE and in that lay the hearts of many Christians.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think its possibly might be the case that you are wrong and many religous people happily admit they may be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for any culturally relevant religion such as Christianity or Islam. It doesn't make sense for a believer to treat the tenets of these religions as being "maybe" or "probably" true. The tenets are so fantastically arbitrary that once you open the door to skepticism even a crack, belief won't have a chance.

Thus doubting the truth of doctrine is built-in as sinful into these religions, and is not an option for their adherents. Someone who's just generally "spiritual"...sure. But not a Christian or Muslim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lots of christians are happy to admit that they believe but don't know.

Its simply not a problem for them, I'm not sure why you think it is.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just fun with words. They would admit they believe but don't know, but they would most certainly never put the likelihood of their God existing at &lt;50%. They believe but don't know in rhetorical terms only; in fact they are as certain of it as anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that's it at all. Non-egotistical maniacs recognise that in general they are no better at forming beliefs than others so they recognise their belief systems are not preferential.

Hence they realise that it may be the others who are correct (see DS's best reason post). They have faith but recognise that that they may be a property of them not of the world.

They may not put it in those terms but its a straightforward property of relatively humble people.

they don't take the step of it diminishing their beliefs - that's a property of irrational faith and not having read the book of bayes.

chez

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think its possibly might be the case that you are wrong and many religous people happily admit they may be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for any culturally relevant religion such as Christianity or Islam. It doesn't make sense for a believer to treat the tenets of these religions as being "maybe" or "probably" true. The tenets are so fantastically arbitrary that once you open the door to skepticism even a crack, belief won't have a chance.

Thus doubting the truth of doctrine is built-in as sinful into these religions, and is not an option for their adherents. Someone who's just generally "spiritual"...sure. But not a Christian or Muslim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lots of christians are happy to admit that they believe but don't know.

Its simply not a problem for them, I'm not sure why you think it is.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone who happily says Jesus may or may not have been God Incarnate is not a Christian according to my theological understanding. Certainly such people may call themselves Christians, but I prefer to avoid such imprecise language. They're not Christian.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think its possibly might be the case that you are wrong and many religous people happily admit they may be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for any culturally relevant religion such as Christianity or Islam. It doesn't make sense for a believer to treat the tenets of these religions as being "maybe" or "probably" true. The tenets are so fantastically arbitrary that once you open the door to skepticism even a crack, belief won't have a chance.

Thus doubting the truth of doctrine is built-in as sinful into these religions, and is not an option for their adherents. Someone who's just generally "spiritual"...sure. But not a Christian or Muslim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lots of christians are happy to admit that they believe but don't know.

Its simply not a problem for them, I'm not sure why you think it is.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone who happily says Jesus may or may not have been God Incarnate is not a Christian according to my theological understanding. Certainly such people may call themselves Christians, but I prefer to avoid such imprecise language. They're not Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]
then you'd exclude many including many leading lights of the Church of England. Which may be fair enough /images/graemlins/smile.gif

but then you haven't claimed anything any more as you are excluding by definition anyone who hasn't got the property you say they all have.

chez

[Subfallen]

Yeah, I'm exercising a properly dogmatic special pleading in my theological assertions. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Also, I'm an American, and I suspect American evangelicals haven't mellowed nearly as much as the Church of England. Certainly both of them have diverged far from what was once orthodoxy. (Changing orthodoxy in the face of a changeless God!?!)

But, seriously, IMO NotReady and txag007 are the only two posters in this forum who demonstrate a properly Christian dogmatism about the specific truth of their doctrines. (Although, ironically, I'm sure they still differ on some key points as NotReady seems a Calvinist and txag a fundamentalist.)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I'm exercising a properly dogmatic special pleading in my theological assertions. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Also, I'm an American, and I suspect American evangelicals haven't mellowed nearly as much as the Church of England. Certainly both of them have diverged far from what was once orthodoxy. (Changing orthodoxy in the face of a changeless God!?!)

But, seriously, IMO NotReady and txag007 are the only two posters in this forum who demonstrate a properly Christian dogmatism about the specific truth of their doctrines. (Although, ironically, I'm sure they still differ on some key points as NotReady seems a Calvinist and txag a fundamentalist.)

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with USA christianity is that its a political movement. In England we performed the cunning trick of an established church with no real power - they're easily confused poor dears. Same went for the monarchy.

I think NotReady concedes the possibiltiy he is mistaken. He just doesn't believe he is. Its as DS put it so well in his hi-falootin days, a matter of operating under the assumption rather than believing.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think NotReady concedes the possibiltiy he is mistaken. He just doesn't believe he is. Its as DS put it so well in his hi-falootin days, a matter of operating under the assumption rather than believing.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just an assumption but also a belief. I also believe I'm fallible.