Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

1. There is no reason there should be something rather than nothing. Nothing can't create something. So since there is something, an entity immeasurably powerful, somehow outside of time must have created it.

Okay. That might make sense.

2. Any entity that created the universe is probably "good".

Okay. That might make sense.

3. Since he is good, he would likely make his existence and his wants known to creatures that are self aware enough to understand him.

Ditto.

4. He also would like his self aware creatures to love and admire him and to demonstrate that by respecting his wishes. Wishes that are in their best interest. On the other hand if they totally defy him there will a price to pay.

Perhaps not unreasonable.

5. He runs into a problem though. Because of his immense power, if not outright omnipotence, there will be those who have no love or respect for him but will obey his wishes soley because of fear of retribution. Similar to those I have written about who obey laws solely to avoid punishment. Not wishing to reward those who don't really feel in their heart what he wants them to feel, he gives them an opportunity to show their true colors. He does this by revealing himself to the world in a way that is not totally convincing. A way that gives those with hard hearts an excuse to defy him. That excuse being that they claim they don't think he even exists. In other words he is forced to make the evidence for his existence less than ironclad so as to make it clearcut (maybe not to him, but to others) that those who are with him are not just acting.

An interesting and somewhat plausible theory.

6. Among the remaining people. Those who love, honor, respect, revere, and worship him, he continues to give mixed messages. More detailed messages than the mere fact he exists and is there for mankind. And just like the messages regarding his existence, the truth is not clearcut. Especially to the person on the street who relies on the clergyman they grew up with. So what? This God wants more than just love respect and devotion. He wants you to be part of the ten percent or so who follow those who have studied his word and interpretted it the way he meant it. If your clergyman's interpretation is a tad off from that you are still OK. If however, its off by more than a little bit, it matters not that you love honor and obey him to the best of your ability. Off to hell you go.

Maybe its just me. But I have a problem with #6.

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

David, from a philosophical standpoint I would say that I think your post is spot-on. From a realistic/reasonable/scientific perspective, I think I have a problem with all of them. The only reason most intelligent people have to deal with these angles at all are because there are so many people out there with absolutely no perception of reality. Hence we are stuck trying to get into the 'mind' of some 'higher-being' even though there's obviously no reason to believe such a thing exists.

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

None of these assertions stands up to any kind of scrutiny and I don't really see why you think it's an interesting question.

Descartes thought about the "God" thing and came up with some really sketchy arguments that modern philosophers rip to pieces. Fortunately these days there's not any pressure to agree with whatever the Church says.

Scientists and philosophers these days don't even bother considering such questions. With good reason - it's so completely obvious to any critical thinker that the "God" that religious zealots try to make us believe in is made-up and non-existent. It's much more interesting trying to explain things that do exist, or for which there is evidence that they might.

If theologists want to worry about such questions, fine, but I don't see how it fits in with any of Science, Math, or Philiosphy.

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

David -

You seem to be advocating such an ecumenical view of God that it's hard to see who would qualify as "hard-hearted." Why are you even trying to preserve that category?

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. There is no reason there should be something rather than nothing. Nothing can't create something. So since there is something, an entity immeasurably powerful, somehow outside of time must have created it.

Okay. That might make sense.



2. Any entity that created the universe is probably "good".

Okay. That might make sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't make any sense. I mean, I can definitely understand why people would be inclined to believe those, but they don't make any scientifical sense. Even if when analyzing one, you assume the other is true.


Do you really think these could make sense? Or were you just being nice to the brainwashed americans who think you're a monster if you don't?

You can reply by PM, I won't tell. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

[ QUOTE ]
2. Any entity that created the universe is probably "good".

Okay. That might make sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

That may makes sense but it contradicts the evidence unless you are blind or somehow unaware of what goes on around you!

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. There is no reason there should be something rather than nothing. Nothing can't create something. So since there is something, an entity immeasurably powerful, somehow outside of time must have created it.

Okay. That might make sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

It might make sense, although not sure about that, but that in no way makes it likely. With no idea how to estimate this lets use the infamous DS principle to give the universe a 50-50 chance to have been created. Now you have made three further assertions to the one that the universe was created
1) That an entity created it. In other words some self contained object created the universe, rather than some generalized natural process of the meta-universe. I am not sure I understand what that means in this context so I will ignore it.
2) That the entity was powerful. You do not need to be powerful to have a large effect, levers - pulleys - button that releases N-bomb. And how dose one calibrate power in this context anyway.
3) That the universe was created outside of time. Since time is a human invention used to help simplify understanding of how the universe works, its not clear what it means in this context, but maybe that is what you mean.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Any entity that created the universe is probably "good".

Okay. That might make sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh!! What on earth does ‘good’ mean? I guess making anything can be considered constructive and you might relate that to ‘good’? Bit thin though. As this does not mean anything to me, I will ignore it for the moment.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Since he is good, he would likely make his existence and his wants known to creatures that are self aware enough to understand him.

Ditto.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hold on! This is going too far. You have slipped in so many extra assumptions that your proposed scenario has to be unlikely in the extreme even if it can be made to make sense.
1) Your use of the word ‘he’ and ‘his wants’ appear to apply that not only do we have an entity, but a aware one, even a self aware one. Most things in the universe are NOT self aware, self awareness is vary rare - think about dividing the number of self aware objects in the solar system by the number of objects in the solar system to get an idea of what I mean - maybe use this number as an upper bound for an estimate of the likelihood of an entity that created the universe being self aware.
2) That a self aware entity that made the universe knows what it has done. Well you do a trick with a couple of little black holes you created - they disappear - "Gosh! What fun I wonder what happened".
3) "wants known to creatures that are self aware enough to understand him" Yikes! If I created a universe in the lab as part of my "Meta-universe studies" practical I doubt I would care that much about anything in it. Further even if this entity is self aware, I see no reason why human emotions can be attributed to it. I still don’t understand the ‘good’ bit either.

Do you realize just how big the assumption of consciousness, that you have slipped in as if its automatic, actually is.

(Might make sense) to the power of three = Highly improbable.

[ QUOTE ]
4. He also would like his self aware creatures to love and admire him and to demonstrate that by respecting his wishes. Wishes that are in their best interest. On the other hand if they totally defy him there will a price to pay.

Perhaps not unreasonable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry - totally unreasonable. The universe is a big place. It unlikely that our highly improbable creator would be able to interact with the universe in any way. No reason to believe that its mental capacity is much greater than a typical human. With an infinite universe, however sparse life is there is still going to be too much of the stuff for anyone to cope with. So its specially selected us, why? Say there is one intelligent life form per galaxy, so an upper bound for the chance he has picked us might be estimated as around 1/(number of galaxies). "like his self aware creatures to love and admire him and to demonstrate that by respecting his wishes" - and if all the above does hold I still don’t see why it should care a $hit about us.

(Might make sense) to the power of three * (Perhaps not unreasonable.) = Indistinguishable from zero.

[ QUOTE ]
5 ...
An interesting and somewhat plausible theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

Each further assumption about this things feelings significantly reduces our already indistinguishable from zero estimate.

Without any form of experimental supporting evidence, every extra assumption reduce the likely hood of our hypothesis by at least an order of magnitude.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe its just me. But I have a problem with #6.


[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. Your not alone.

I do not see that the assumptions in 6 are noticeably less plausible then most of the other ones.

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

[ QUOTE ]
Isaiah 28:9-13 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

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

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

jesus also was very explicit, it says right in the gospels that jesus spoke in parables so that most people would hear him and not understand.

from what I can tell, if you actually read the bible it really has almost nothing to do with the popular notions people have about it.

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

The lord moves in mysterious ways. You're trying to force logic down the throat of faith.

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. There is no reason there should be something rather than nothing. Nothing can't create something. So since there is something, an entity immeasurably powerful, somehow outside of time must have created it.

Okay. That might make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHEN?

To make sense, an argument needs accepted premises otherwise it's just cranking the organ and playing GIGO.
When did these premises become accepted? -
-There is no reason there is something rather than nothing.
- Nothing can't create something.

And then the most gigantic, almost disconnected to the wild assertion premises is "SINCE there is something ....MUST".

Come on, kids that can't play in vegas read this stuff, let's promote some semblance of logic on here.

luckyme

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

If you really think assertions 1-5 are "reasonable," then I'd like to compete against you for money in the type of $50,000 wager you offered last year to qualifying Christians.

However, I suspect your post merely points out that even *if* a believer accepts the muddled metaphysical arguments for the existence of a personal God via 1-5, it is nevertheless orders of magnitude less rational to accept assertion #6. (I don't disagree that 6 much more obviously silly than 1-5.)

Please Stop Talking About Assertions 1-5
 

I mean cmon. I'm trying to make a point here.

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

Think of it this way.

The point of reading Sklansky is not to please David. It is to “get it”. If one reads Sklansky and gets it then one wins lots of money. One can read Sklansky literally and still win money. When one reads Sklansky as a source material and is able to apply it to different situations, then one really makes money.

So, if one reads the Bible (for example) and “gets it” then one has the tools to get “into” Heaven. One does this by understanding that God wants us to love God and love our neighbor. Once we have this understanding it becomes possible to get “into” Heaven. When we begin to love God and love our neighbor we become capable of understanding how to be one with God. We reach a level of understanding, a level of consciousness if you will, in which we can realize that we are (will be) one with God.

We don’t actually “enter” Heaven, but we are able to realize that we are (will be) in Heaven (one with God).

So, the Bible and Religion are tools, sources, manuals. One doesn’t actually have to “be” Catholic/Christian. But, when one loves God/N, one becomes (is Christian).

The most important thing to keep in mind is that Religion is not an end, it is the means.

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

Although I quite often disagree with DS, I actually liked this post quite a bit. The devout or strict mathematical rigor may not prove 1 through 5, but I think what is written is decent enough. I too am disturbed quite a bit by #6 and it's actually my primary reason for turning me off of organized religion (well extend clergyman to any religious figure stating "do this and reach heaven," or the like).

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

I agree it's silly. At the very least, theists claiming number 6 is true have a fair bit of explaining to do as to what they mean by "benevolent".

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. There is no reason there should be something rather than nothing. Nothing can't create something. So since there is something, an entity immeasurably powerful, somehow outside of time must have created it.

Okay. That might make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can’t get past this statement or to be more precise, I can’t envision any but it. So, either it makes sense or it doesn’t. How does it not make sense?

(I don’t think we have to get hung up on the word “create”. For example, we can say something “other-worldly” caused our world to come into existence.)

Re: Please Stop Talking About Assertions 1-5
 

You shelve the Bayes, meet people halfway, and they still give you crap [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. There is no reason there should be something rather than nothing. Nothing can't create something. So since there is something, an entity immeasurably powerful, somehow outside of time must have created it.

Okay. That might make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can’t get past this statement or to be more precise, I can’t envision any but it. So, either it makes sense or it doesn’t. How does it not make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps there is a reason there has to be something rather than nothing. Perhaps we cant conceive of it, but it doesnt make his opening sentence true.

Perhaps nothing can create something, similar observation - perhaps even supported by the creation of matter-antimatter pairs in a vacuum?

Perhaps the creator is limited in everything except the "creation of a universe" ability. No need to leap to the idea that a creator is "immeasurably powerful".

The opening statement may be right, but in order to demonstrate it as "making sense" I think you'd have to provide good evidence for why the above couldnt be true.

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps nothing can create something, similar observation - perhaps even supported by the creation of matter-antimatter pairs in a vacuum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bunny,

Please expand (explain to me) on what your example is.

TY,

RJT

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

I dont feel qualified, but my understanding is that, in a true vacuum trillions and trillions of electrons and other subatomic particles spontaneously spring into existence, paired with a corresponding antimatter particle. They then rapidly annihilate, but I understand that if this is prevented in some way the effect of their existence (something coming from nothing) can be observed.

(There's something about 2 metal plates very close in a vaccuum - the pressure or other interactions of the created particles can be observed...here's where I become clueless)

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

[ QUOTE ]
6. Among the remaining people. Those who love, honor, respect, revere, and worship him, he continues to give mixed messages. More detailed messages than the mere fact he exists and is there for mankind. And just like the messages regarding his existence, the truth is not clearcut. Especially to the person on the street who relies on the clergyman they grew up with. So what? This God wants more than just love respect and devotion. He wants you to be part of the ten percent or so who follow those who have studied his word and interpretted it the way he meant it. If your clergyman's interpretation is a tad off from that you are still OK. If however, its off by more than a little bit, it matters not that you love honor and obey him to the best of your ability. Off to hell you go.

Maybe its just me. But I have a problem with #6.

[/ QUOTE ]

David - God or lack thereof is about God. You are not talking about God, you are talking about the interpretation of a series of written documents commonly referred to as "Christianity" in one form or another. You are mostly talking about fundie theology, which is hardly worthy of the name.

As I have stated elsewhere and would be happy to demonstrate - Jesus never said anyone was going to hell. He never said the word hell, not even a Greek equivalent of it in terms of anyone being sent there.

You are absolutely correct that what you have written makes no sense whatsover.

Now, as for Supreme Being. The Hindu have a name for God "neti-neti" which translates: "not this - not this." It means if you go throughout the universe and point to everything there is, God is nothing you can point to.

God as nothingness is a very mystical concept common to every form of mysticism I ever heard of.

No hell, David. Jesus (notwithstanding a history of bad translation and pagan ideas like hell) never said anyone was going to hell.

Re: Please Stop Talking About Assertions 1-5
 

Fine.

My point is that from our perspective 6 is really no more improbably than 1-5, however more absurd 6 might sound.

So which world is more likely to actually exists exactly as portrayed by the author, Token’s Middle Earth, or Terry Pratchet’s Diskworld?

Fantasy’s fantasy.

Re: Please Stop Talking About Assertions 1-5
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that from our perspective 6 is really no more improbably than 1-5, however more absurd 6 might sound.

So which world is more likely to actually exists exactly as portrayed by the author, Token’s Middle Earth, or Terry Pratchet’s Diskworld?

Fantasy’s fantasy.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you live in a world without God, Piers, it's a world created by your own fantasy, as you have no evidence of "not-god." Atheism is a choice, not perfect perception.

Re: Please Stop Talking About Assertions 1-5
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is that from our perspective 6 is really no more improbably than 1-5, however more absurd 6 might sound.

So which world is more likely to actually exists exactly as portrayed by the author, Token’s Middle Earth, or Terry Pratchet’s Diskworld?

Fantasy’s fantasy.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you live in a world without God, Piers, it's a world created by your own fantasy, as you have no evidence of "not-god." Atheism is a choice, not perfect perception.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you live in a world without the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it's a world created by your own fantasy, as you have no evidence of "not-Flying Spaghetti Monster."

Re: Please Stop Talking About Assertions 1-5
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you live in a world without God, Piers, it's a world created by your own fantasy, as you have no evidence of "not-god." Atheism is a choice, not perfect perception.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you have evidence for God, eh? Amusing.

The very fact that there's no evidence FOR God is already quite strong evidence against his existence, as David explained in his exodus and crossdressers thread.

But in any case, you can't disproof the celestial teapot, or the flying spaghetti monster, or the faeries at the bottom of the river, santa claus, the giant turtle-head king, or any other figment of my imagination. Please think before you post something in this forum, would you?

Re: Please Stop Talking About Assertions 1-5
 

[ QUOTE ]
I mean cmon. I'm trying to make a point here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just trying to work out what the point is exactly.

At a guess (and please correct me if I've misunderstood), could it be paraphrased as "When Christians tell you you're going to Hell because you're not of their religious denomination, you shouldn't believe them because it doesn't make any sense."?

This seems a simple and obvious point, although I suppose there are some unfortunate brainwashed people who might believe otherwise. Probably not too many of them browsing internet poker forums though.

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

[ QUOTE ]
(There's something about 2 metal plates very close in a vaccuum - the pressure or other interactions of the created particles can be observed...here's where I become clueless)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the Casimir effect

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dont feel qualified, but my understanding is that, in a true vacuum trillions and trillions of electrons and other subatomic particles spontaneously spring into existence, paired with a corresponding antimatter particle. They then rapidly annihilate, but I understand that if this is prevented in some way the effect of their existence (something coming from nothing) can be observed.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Their is some discussion of this here..

Mostly at the start and the pair production section. I know David hates rigor but making statements like "Nothing can't create something" which may "seem" obvious is anything but obvious when you look at fundamental physics.

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

If God kills, lies, cheats, discriminates, and otherwise behaves in a manner that puts the Mafia to shame, that's okay, he's God. He can do whatever he wants. Anyone who adheres to this philosophy has had his sense of morality, decency, justice and humaneness warped beyond recognition by the very book that is supposedly preaching the opposite.

Re: Please Stop Talking About Assertions 1-5
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you live in a world without God, Piers, it's a world created by your own fantasy, as you have no evidence of "not-god." Atheism is a choice, not perfect perception.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you have evidence for God, eh? Amusing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be absurd. Do you believe for a moment I care what you think? Or would spend a second typing anything to convince you of something?

The fact is, your unbelief is as much an action of faith as any theists. You can't even define the God you don't believe in.

[ QUOTE ]
Please think before you post something in this forum, would you?

[/ QUOTE ]

You first.

Re: Please Stop Talking About Assertions 1-5
 

gimmick, yo?

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

Is your problem (with #6) with the fact that:
a) there exist clergymen who are not excellent at their profession and therefore others suffer
or
b) all of Christianity and organized religion in general suffer because of the system. (i.e. clergymen are involved and that’s inherently weaksauce because you’re following the interpretation of others.)

and, IMO, there is extremely little room for error. You gots to get it right, yo. If your clergymen are off at all, you could be experiencing life better. And you're probably better off studying your own thing, listening to others, and keeping an open mind, etc, etc.

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

I dunno if you can "gimmick" a method of studying.

As for #5, and to a lesser but related extent, #6...

Ask a metalsmith, especially one who forges swords. It's a lengthy, focused process with attention to detail and quality.

I don't really think an omnipotent being, as it were, would settle for billions of yes-men. Seems to discredit the concept, or shows a lack of understanding of what omnipotence is.

And to implement those concepts while still leaving room for originality of thought and freedom of expression (albeit not on finite scales) requires the motivational threat of a Hell.

Most people, to a certain point, do fulfill more of their potential under pressures they can't quite handle. The carrot of salvation, etc.

A hypothetical God would get frustrated and might do things out of spite because he lacks peers. So you'd have to give at least some credit to the fact that such a path to omnipotence would come through a very long period of trial and error. Time being subjective, alas.

tpir,

<chuckles> Isn't that the way sometimes? When they finally reach across and rap your knuckles, it's a good thing to have happen.

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

[ QUOTE ]
If however, its off by more than a little bit, it matters not that you love honor and obey him to the best of your ability. Off to hell you go.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably the biggest misconceptions about Christianity.

There is only one thing you have to do to get into heaven.

And it's nothing that you listed.

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If however, its off by more than a little bit, it matters not that you love honor and obey him to the best of your ability. Off to hell you go.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably the biggest misconceptions about Christianity.

There is only one thing you have to do to get into heaven.

And it's nothing that you listed.

[/ QUOTE ]
what a tease

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

Wow, this is the best poker board ever. It's like getting mental candy everyday. Thanks.

Although, I'm unclear on one precept here. Is this a relation of God in our physical existence? Or the relation of God to how one would confront a personal God when the question of faith is presented to the individual?

I would guess it's the latter question, because then the assertions would be reasonable. Yes, 6 would be scary and is followed/exploited by various faith groups all across the world. Just watch the nightly news to see evidence of the exploition of assertion 6. With the other 5, hey if science does indeed to be wrong, well then they could be reasonable. I wouldn't particularly mind if that's the way it was. Maybe a bit pissed at the simplicity of all that we are.

With my first question, well, it seems there are many here with far more physics based knowledge to discuss that than I have. Which is also extremely interesting, but I think it might be missing the point of the "reasonable assertions about personal God".

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

[ QUOTE ]

Descartes thought about the "God" thing and came up with some really sketchy arguments that modern philosophers rip to pieces. Fortunately these days there's not any pressure to agree with whatever the Church says.

Scientists and philosophers these days don't even bother considering such questions. With good reason - it's so completely obvious to any critical thinker that the "God" that religious zealots try to make us believe in is made-up and non-existent. It's much more interesting trying to explain things that do exist, or for which there is evidence that they might.

If theologists want to worry about such questions, fine, but I don't see how it fits in with any of Science, Math, or Philiosphy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't the thought process behind non "critical thinkers" be of interest to the scientific methods? Afterall that group is the majority of the population. Whatever makes up the thought process behind billions of people across thousands of years must be of some value to at least one critical thinker. It would make sense to study a group, or sub group that represents a vast majority of the total human population versus the smaller secular population.

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

[ QUOTE ]
5. He runs into a problem though. Because of his immense power, if not outright omnipotence, there will be those who have no love or respect for him but will obey his wishes soley because of fear of retribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he despises these people, enough to send them to hell to burn for eternity, why would he even bother creating them?

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

[ QUOTE ]
This God wants more than just love respect and devotion. He wants you to be part of the ten percent or so who follow those who have studied his word and interpretted it the way he meant it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bible says to never trust nor blindly follow mens words, see if the words match the actions, moreover whether the "actions" and "words" are in harmony with "Gods word". This eliminates all organized religion I know of. hence it is doomed according to the bible. "Babylon the great", The harlot"... etc...


[ QUOTE ]
If your clergyman's interpretation is a tad off from that you are still OK. If however, its off by more than a little bit, it matters not that you love honor and obey him to the best of your ability. Off to hell you go.

Maybe its just me. But I have a problem with #6.

[/ QUOTE ]

It only matters to "the church", not God. "The Churches" are covered in blood and hypocrisy. The only thing that matters is "that you love honor and obey him to the best of your ability." P.S hell is hades which is "the grave" so whatever it is its not hot! Perhaps heaven and hell are literally, both here in this dimension? Something to do with what other cultures refer to as "karma"?

Re: Reasonable Assertions About Personal God Except One
 

There's a lot of debate and different interpretation as to what "hell" actually is.

For those that aren't familiar with Christianity, this is how it works:

1. You don't earn your way to eternity. No matter how many "good" things or deeds you do, you can't "earn" a ticket to eternity.
2. The wages of sin is death. Why? Because God said so. Maybe somewhat out of anger. He had a vision for the world and left it up to us to fulfill that vision. I believe at some point God may have? regretted making this rule. But he has to follow it. Why? Because if he didn't that would make him a liar. And he is too rightious to lie.
Some astute readers might note that much of the Old Testament covers things such as laws that are not applicable today. That is because they were written for a specific time period and were replaced when Jesus brought the "new covenant".
3. Jesus came not just to teach, but also to offer payment for our sins. Jesus' death is the payment for our sins, so that the punishment of death might not be inflicted on us. It is available to everyone and anyone who accepts it. It really is that easy.

Based on #3, Sklansky's original post, specifically #6, is wrong.

4. To know Jesus is to love him. Once you accept the gift, and do so really believing you are receiving it, you will be filled with the holy spirit. This will make you want to learn more about God and his plan. It will also make you want to appease him. Things will be "revealed" to you which will further strengthen your faith.