Mr Judas

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it depends on one's definition of free-will. If your definition is used, then no-one has free-will, for other people and events often frustrate our wills. The car in front, the inconvenient red-light, parental discipline, etc.

What is my definition of free will? I don't think I gave one.

wolfsbane wrote: »

They are speculating, for God doesn't tell us anything about it.

Easy way out of that issue I raised.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If by free-will we mean not being forced to do moral evil, then that would not be true. Even in our society, the concept of freedom is not lessened by being denied the freedom to do evil. Am I less free because the law says I will go to prison if I rob or murder?

It doesn't matter, he's still tampering with free will. So why not tamper with it a bit more? Get rid of evil altogether?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I doubt He is limited by any such definition of free-will; He does whatever is according to His free-will. Yes, that means He is free to chose when He brings evil to an end, or if He permits it in the first place.

If he chooses not to bring it to an end, or permits it to carry on, then he is malevolent.

wolfsbane wrote: »

God doesn't owe sinners anything but wrath. Who are we to tell God how to run the universe?

How exactly am I a sinner when he is the one who gave me the ability to sin in the first place? That's tantamount to entrapment, if you ask me.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why should sinners be spared from evil? If God cut us off immediately we would have been justly treated. Yet He spares us long and often. Our suffering from our sin and other's sin should cause us to see how evil sin is and to long to be rid of it. Most are only keen to be rid of other's sinful practices and would be quite put out if their sin were challenged.

He is the one who gave us the ability to sin in the first place, so if he cut us off he'd just be ending his own failed experiment.

wolfsbane

-JammyDodger- said:

What is my definition of free will? I don't think I gave one.

I took it from your statement, If he restrains each person, then that's certainly not allowing free will - that you think free-will is only present where a man is totally unrestrained.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They are speculating, for God doesn't tell us anything about it. Easy way out of that issue I raised.

Maybe, but factual.

It doesn't matter, he's still tampering with free will. So why not tamper with it a bit more? Get rid of evil altogether?

Yes, God could remove all evil right now. You and every sinner in the world would immediately be in hell. Is that a desireable outcome?

If he chooses not to bring it to an end, or permits it to carry on, then he is malevolent.

So sparing you another hour is malevolent?

How exactly am I a sinner when he is the one who gave me the ability to sin in the first place? That's tantamount to entrapment, if you ask me.

That would assume you are wiser and holier than God. You would have created a universe where man was not free to choose between sin and obedience - OK, that seems fine to me too, but I realise I know less than God how things should be.

He is the one who gave us the ability to sin in the first place, so if he cut us off he'd just be ending his own failed experiment.

Is the ability to sin essential to man's nature? No, for in eternity we will not have that ability. So God's 'experiment' did not end with Adam's sin - it was worked on and brought to ultimate perfection by the atonement offered by Christ. He brought lost sinners back into fellowship with God and in the end will bring them into God's presence forever.

BrianCalgary

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Not to sound condescending or patronising, but, I think that there are far greater things one can devote their intelligence to. But, again, that's just my personal opinion. Each to their own.

Such as???

PDN

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Such as???

Obviously such as arguing with Christians in the Christianity forum.

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Such as???

Science.

PDN wrote: »

Obviously such as arguing with Christians in the Christianity forum.

Well, yes actually.

Fanny Cradock

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Science.

One can be a Christian and also devote oneself to science. However, this is not to say that everyone can, or should, do science. Furthermore, any progress made by science would seem to be undone if we can't make similar moral and societal progress. And this is an area, I feel, science can not influence.

But what if a person's faith in Jesus brought them to do wonderful things for their fellow man? Would that not be a worthy and selfless use of ones time and energy? This thread skirted around the subject.

Fanny Cradock

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

One can be a Christian and also devote oneself to science. However, this is not to say that everyone can, or should, do science. Furthermore, any progress made by science would seem to be undone if we can't make similar moral and societal progress. And this is an area, I feel, science can not influence.

Oh I've no doubt that a Christian can also devote themselves to science. And I agree that not everybody should. The person just asked me what I considered to be a greater area to devote ones time to, and I said science. As I consider it to be far greater and more wonderful than religion. But, that's just my own personal opinion.

But what if a person's faith in Jesus brought them to do wonderful things for their fellow man? Would that not be a worthy and selfless use of ones time and energy? This thread skirted around the subject.

Of course it would be. If God and religion can inspire somebody to do great things, then I'm all for it. I'm not an anti-theist after all (Just as long as education, science and politics remain religion free)!

BrianCalgary

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Of course it would be. If God and religion can inspire somebody to do great things, then I'm all for it. I'm not an anti-theist after all (Just as long as education, science and politics remain religion free)!

Can you explain how education, science and politics can remain free from religion?

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Can you explain how education, science and politics can remain free from religion?

We live in a multi-cultural society, with people of many different religions and denominations. It wouldn't be fair to let one religion dominate politically or educationally. Well, let me clarify. I've no problem with religious education, as long as it's thought as philosophy, not fact; and with all major world religions included in the education.

I don't think I need explain why religion shouldn't be mixed with politics.

sukikettle

Some people just have no credibility;)

sukikettle

I wonder how many jeuvenilles or creepos depending on how they see themselves become mixed up in these contexts. any takers to my cryptic inquiry

BrianCalgary

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

We live in a multi-cultural society, with people of many different religions and denominations. It wouldn't be fair to let one religion dominate politically or educationally. Well, let me clarify. I've no problem with religious education, as long as it's thought as philosophy, not fact; and with all major world religions included in the education..

So you woul dnever want a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Wiccan or animist, etc, teaching at a school?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I don't think I need explain why religion shouldn't be mixed with politics.

You do need to give a reason for that view. You have staed that you think it's bad. I would like to know your reasons?

sukikettle

any?

sukikettle

I would think you need to have been on the planet a little longer to make a substantiated comment

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So you woul dnever want a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Wiccan or animist, etc, teaching at a school?

I didn't say that; I didn't even imply that. I'd have absolutey no problem with them teaching at a school. As long as they don't teach (or indeed preach) their beliefs as factual, and as long as their beliefs didn't influence their methods for the worse. Religion in school should be thought in a purely philosophical sense. It should be up to the students to choose their own religion (or lack of); a religion shouldn't be imposed on to them from a young age, especially in a school.

You do need to give a reason for that view. You have staed that you think it's bad. I would like to know your reasons?

Well I strongly believe in secularism. For example, just say Irelands political decisions became influenced with a Christian bias. How would that be fair to it's many other inhabitants? To atheists, Muslims, Sikhs etc.? Decisions would be made on their behalf that would go against what they fundamentally believe in.

And anyway, I think superstitions and ideas not based on fact or evidence should be left out of politics. We don't want our Government providing garlic to aid in our battle of vampires, do we?

sukikettle

LMAO ....youngsters these days or creepos eh!

BrianCalgary

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I didn't say that; I didn't even imply that. I'd have absolutey no problem with them teaching at a school. As long as they don't teach (or indeed preach) their beliefs as factual, and as long as their beliefs didn't influence their methods for the worse. Religion in school should be thought in a purely philosophical sense. It should be up to the students to choose their own religion (or lack of); a religion shouldn't be imposed on to them from a young age, especially in a school.?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well I strongly believe in secularism. For example, just say Irelands political decisions became influenced with a Christian bias. How would that be fair to it's many other inhabitants? To atheists, Muslims, Sikhs etc.? Decisions would be made on their behalf that would go against what they fundamentally believe in.?

Since you strongly believe in secularism then you'd be fine with a secularist making the laws and influencing teh direction of society?

You see JD, it can't be done. Everyone brings to the table their beliefs and brings them as fact.

When I was a kid in High School I had a science teacher who taught as fact that we were headed for another Ice Age.
whoops, according to todays popular wisdom he got that wrong. But you couldn't tell him that nor could you stop him from teaching it as fact.

Had another teacher who taught about the wonders of communism and how that society was so much more loving and caring than our system. Whoops, got that one wrong as well.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

And anyway, I think superstitions and ideas not based on fact or evidence should be left out of politics. We don't want our Government providing garlic to aid in our battle of vampires, do we?

No, but at least it would improve Irish cooking somewhat.

sukikettle

Judas was replaced...you'd need to read the bible to know that...are we really discussing a book no one in here has read

Since you strongly believe in secularism then you'd be fine with a secularist making the laws and influencing teh direction of society?

Yes, I would. As long as their decisions were informed and unbiased. And I think secularism is the only way to get unbiased decisions.

You see JD, it can't be done. Everyone brings to the table their beliefs and brings them as fact.

That's true. But it doesn't make it right.

No, but at least it would improve Irish cooking somewhat.

I wouldn't be the biggest fan of garlic, so I'd have to disagree.:p

sukikettle

by the way I'm not in the slightest impressed by the grown-up tone...it's a tad fraudulent and a little beyond one's ears...I mean years:P

BrianCalgary

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes, I would. As long as their decisions were informed and unbiased. And I think secularism is the only way to get unbiased decisions.

And now you are deciding that a religious person, regardless of religion, has to keep quiet about their beliefs but a secularist, of which you are one, can stand and teach their beliefs as being the correct one?

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And now you are deciding that a religious person, regardless of religion, has to keep quiet about their beliefs but a secularist, of which you are one, can stand and teach their beliefs as being the correct one?

When did I say they had to keep quiet? You keep misreading things I post, I think. I said, and all I've said, is that religion and politics shouldn't be mixed.

But a secularist hasn't any religious beliefs to be biased about.

BrianCalgary

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

When did I say they had to keep quiet? You keep misreading things I post, I think. I said, and all I've said, is that religion and politics shouldn't be mixed.

But a secularist hasn't any religious beliefs to be biased about.

you said that they had to keep quiet about anything that isn't factual.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

As long as they don't teach (or indeed preach) their beliefs as factual, and as long as their beliefs didn't influence their methods for the worse. Religion in school should be thought in a purely philosophical sense. It should be up to the students to choose their own religion (or lack of); a religion shouldn't be imposed on to them from a young age, especially in a school..

Then you went on to add about secularists:

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes, I would. As long as their decisions were informed and unbiased. And I think secularism is the only way to get unbiased decisions...

Also saying that Anyone with a religion can't be unbiased and informed.


Secularists do have a set of beliefs, everyone has a set of beliefs.

PDN

Sukikettle is on holiday from the forum for the next 2 weeks.

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote: »

you said that they had to keep quiet about anything that isn't factual.

Yes, because their religious beliefs aren't based on fact, they're based on faith. You're taking what I said out of context. I said as long as they don't teach their religious beliefs as fact, then I've no problems. If they teach their religion under a philosophical guise, then it's ok; as long as they don't portray their beliefs as fact. I don't see where you could have a problem with this? I think most people would agree that that is reasonable.

Also saying that Anyone with a religion can't be unbiased and informed.

Again, I didn't say that. Show me where I said "anyone with a religion can't be unbiased and informed"? I said that I believe in secularism. That religion and politics should be kept seperate. I don't care who is in power, be they athiests, Muslims, Christians, whatever. As long as they are secularist then I don't care. Secularists aren't confinded to being atheists, you know.

Secularists do have a set of beliefs, everyone has a set of beliefs.

Yes, they may have. If they're in a position of political power, and they keep their beliefs seperate from any of their decisions, then they're secularist. Then, I don't have a problem.

BrianCalgary

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes, because their religious beliefs aren't based on fact, they're based on faith. You're taking what I said out of context. I said as long as they don't teach their religious beliefs as fact, then I've no problems. If they teach their religion under a philosophical guise, then it's ok; as long as they don't portray their beliefs as fact. I don't see where you could have a problem with this? I think most people would agree that that is reasonable...

Because Christianity is based on fact so for a Christian to teach as such or have this fact influence their politics is quite legitimate.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Again, I didn't say that. Show me where I said "anyone with a religion can't be unbiased and informed"? I said that I believe in secularism. That religion and politics should be kept seperate. I don't care who is in power, be they athiests, Muslims, Christians, whatever. As long as they are secularist then I don't care. Secularists aren't confinded to being atheists, you know..

you said it here:

Originally Posted by -JammyDodger-
Yes, I would. As long as their decisions were informed and unbiased. And I think secularism is the only way to get unbiased decisions...

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes, they may have. If they're in a position of political power, and they keep their beliefs seperate from any of their decisions, then they're secularist. Then, I don't have a problem.

This is what is so disturbing: silence all those religious folk, who aren't as smart as me, because they believe in a deity, whereas I say just allow secularists to influence young minds and politics.

And in tehsame sentence you say, 'I am neither a deist nor an atheist'.

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Because Christianity is based on fact so for a Christian to teach as such or have this fact influence their politics is quite legitimate.

Christianity is based on "fact" only for Christians. Not for anybody else. What about all of the other people who disagree or have different beliefs? Is your attitude just "screw them"?

you said it here:

Originally Posted by -JammyDodger-
Yes, I would. As long as their decisions were informed and unbiased. And I think secularism is the only way to get unbiased decisions...

What exactly is wrong with what I said? Do you know what secularism is? Obviously it's the only way to get unbiased decisions. How could it not be? And you do know that Christians and Muslims etc. can be secularists, don't you? If you do, then there should be no problem with what I said.

This is what is so disturbing: silence all those religious folk, who aren't as smart as me, because they believe in a deity, whereas I say just allow secularists to influence young minds and politics.

I honestly don't know what this debate is about with you anymore. Do you have any idea at all of what secularism is? Where did I say, or even imply, that I want to silence "religious folk"? Where did I imply that people who believe in a deity aren't as smart as those who don't?

To be honest, I don't believe you have an understanding of what secularism is. Do you think that all secularists are atheists? That they're out on some mad vendetta do banish all religion? You're obviously blinded by your religion if you can't see where I'm coming from.

And in tehsame sentence you say, 'I am neither a deist nor an atheist'.

What are you on about now?

BrianCalgary

Secularism:

George Jacob Holyoake, the originator of the term "secularism," defined it most explicitly in his book English Secularism:

Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three:

The improvement of this life by material means.
That science is the available Providence of man.
That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good."

From the Dictionary:
sec⋅u⋅lar⋅ism   /ˈsɛkyələˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sek-yuh-luh-riz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

Do you ascribe to either of these?

And in the same sentence you say, 'I am neither a deist nor an atheist'.

What are you on about now?

You start of fby saying that you don't believe in God and then you say that you don't believ there is no God. Heavens you contradict yourself in one sentence.

Has this debate resorted to an argument over semantics already? It usually takes a bit longer. But anyway. I clearly defined what I meant by secularism; people often use words without meaning to use them by there exact definition. But, I clearly defined what I meant by it. I said, numerous times, that I define it to be "the seperation of church and state", "the seperation of religion and politics" et cetera. I think you understood what I meant by it; I don't understand why you've resorted to an argument over semantics already.

And as regards to my saying that I don't believe in God, and that I don't believe there is a God. I think you understood what I meant. There isn't any need to be so pedantic. To clarify: I don't believe there is a God. There. I'm an atheist, I small misplacement of words in a sentence doesn't mean otherwise.

philologos

Religion and politics cannot be seperated if people make their vote based on their personal conscience. These consciences may be motivated by faith or not. It's a reality of life.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote: »

I took it from your statement, If he restrains each person, then that's certainly not allowing free will - that you think free-will is only present where a man is totally unrestrained.

Yes, well, I suppose that would be my personal definition. I don't believe it to be true will otherwise.

Maybe, but factual.

It still doesn't answer any question; I find it very unsatisfying.

Yes, God could remove all evil right now. You and every sinner in the world would immediately be in hell. Is that a desireable outcome?

Yes, I suppose it would be. You know, being free is worth the price you've to pay and all that jazz.

So sparing you another hour is malevolent?

He's sparing me another hour from hell, when he's the one who's going to be sending me there anyway? Yes, that sounds very loving. Not one bit malevolent. Kind of like pointing a gun at somebody and saying "relax, I'm not going to shoot you for another 10 minutes! Enjoy!". No, not malevolent at all.

That would assume you are wiser and holier than God. You would have created a universe where man was not free to choose between sin and obedience - OK, that seems fine to me too, but I realise I know less than God how things should be.

Again, another easy way out of a question. Typical from most (not all) Christians I attempt to debate with.

Is the ability to sin essential to man's nature? No, for in eternity we will not have that ability. So God's 'experiment' did not end with Adam's sin - it was worked on and brought to ultimate perfection by the atonement offered by Christ. He brought lost sinners back into fellowship with God and in the end will bring them into God's presence forever.

So humans won't have the ability to sin in heaven? That doesn't sound like fun at all! We all know that some of the best things in life are considered sinful.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Religion and politics cannot be seperated if people make their vote based on their personal conscience. These consciences may be motivated by faith or not. It's a reality of life.

Yes. A sad reality, really.

BrianCalgary

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

He's sparing me another hour from hell, when he's the one who's going to be sending me there anyway? Yes, that sounds very loving. Not one bit malevolent. Kind of like pointing a gun at somebody and saying "relax, I'm not going to shoot you for another 10 minutes! Enjoy!". No, not malevolent at all.
l.

Also, God is not sending you ro Hell. You are choosing to go there. You are making the choices here and now that will end up taking you to Hell.

I was telling my son on the weekend: it is my responsibility as hi Dad and friend to warn him of his potential pitfalls that I see in any path he chooses to take.

Ie. if he is riding his bike and I am aware of a 70 foot cliff coming up do I warn him or no? I would warn him. Can I stop him? No I can't. Whose fault is it when he tumbles? Mine or his?

Obviously his because HE coses to ignore the warnings.

God gives you warnings and plenty of opportunity to change the path you are on and flip Him the bird. It is you own fault that you end up in Hell. Not God's not mine, not wolfsbanes, but yours.

BrianCalgary

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Has this debate resorted to an argument over semantics already? It usually takes a bit longer. But anyway. I clearly defined what I meant by secularism; people often use words without meaning to use them by there exact definition. But, I clearly defined what I meant by it. I said, numerous times, that I define it to be "the seperation of church and state", "the seperation of religion and politics" et cetera. I think you understood what I meant by it; I don't understand why you've resorted to an argument over semantics already.

It hasn't resiorted over semantics, I decided that I would try and define seculars as it ius apparent that you have your own definition of what it is and accused me of not understanding what secular meant. Therefore I have shown you what I understand semantics to be as defined by the dictionary.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

And as regards to my saying that I don't believe in God, and that I don't believe there is a God. I think you understood what I meant. There isn't any need to be so pedantic. To clarify: I don't believe there is a God. There. I'm an atheist, I small misplacement of words in a sentence doesn't mean otherwise.

Well you stated clearly your belief in the last stament, I nor anyone else here is a mind reader.
Thank you for clarifying your position. You are an Atheist and do not believe in God.

And you wish that all Christians should keep their beliefs out of the public arena because you dont agree.

You come across as being very condescending to anyone with Christian faith and that we have all checked our brains at the door and you are the intelligent enlightened one.

MrPudding

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Also, God is not sending you ro Hell. You are choosing to go there. You are making the choices here and now that will end up taking you to Hell.

Well, no. he created us and he is punishing us for a weakness he built into his creation. He created a being that tends towards sin, and he then punishes that creation for tending towards sin.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I was telling my son on the weekend: it is my responsibility as hi Dad and friend to warn him of his potential pitfalls that I see in any path he chooses to take.

Ie. if he is riding his bike and I am aware of a 70 foot cliff coming up do I warn him or no? I would warn him. Can I stop him? No I can't. Whose fault is it when he tumbles? Mine or his?

Not really a good analogy. If you had created you son and created him in such a way that he had a natural propensity to ride his bike off cliffs, then perhaps it might be more valid.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

God gives you warnings and plenty of opportunity to change the path you are on and flip Him the bird. It is you own fault that you end up in Hell. Not God's not mine, not wolfsbanes, but yours.

Obviously, I disagree.

MrP

BrianCalgary

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, no. he created us and he is punishing us for a weakness he built into his creation. He created a being that tends towards sin, and he then punishes that creation for tending towards sin.

Not really a good analogy. If you had created you son and created him in such a way that he had a natural propensity to ride his bike off cliffs, then perhaps it might be more valid.


Obviously, I disagree.

MrP

No surprise. :rolleyes:

Do you guys ever take responsibilty for any of your actions or do you try and drop the blame on others?

As PDN so aptly pointed out, you wish that God had a world that everyone got Heaven, then when presented with it you reject it as being boring.

Must be nice to wander through life without having to take a stand on anything, change you rbeliefs as the wind blows and then blame everyone else when it all goes wrong.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Do you guys ever take responsibilty for any of your actions or do you try and drop the blame on others?

What a strange question to ask. With your hand on your heart, can you really say that you've made a genuine effort to understand what's "us guys" are writing?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Must be nice to wander through life without having to take a stand on anything, change your beliefs as the wind blows and then blame everyone else when it all goes wrong.

Again, I have to ask, do you genuinely think that this is the position of any atheist?

MrPudding

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No surprise. :rolleyes:

Do you guys ever take responsibilty for any of your actions or do you try and drop the blame on others?

What a stupid comment. Of course we take responsibility. I don’t believe in your god / creator.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

As PDN so aptly pointed out, you wish that God had a world that everyone got Heaven, then when presented with it you reject it as being boring.

Wrong again, I am afraid. I wonder why christians are so quick to believe their god is so good and perfect but has done, by any reasonable standard, a really bad job of creation. I don’t believev in god so why would I wish it would do something?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Must be nice to wander through life without having to take a stand on anything, change you rbeliefs as the wind blows and then blame everyone else when it all goes wrong.

Well, I don’t have the liberty of someone with a 2000 year old alleged instruction manual telling me what stand to take, so I am afraid you are a bit wrong there.

I take my stands and if I do wrong I have no one to blame but myself. And I am quite happy with that.

MrP

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Also, God is not sending you ro Hell. You are choosing to go there. You are making the choices here and now that will end up taking you to Hell.

If God truely loved me, then he wouldn't send me to hell, regardless of what I've done.

Can you say, with all honesty, that if your own child commited a "terrible" act such as not obeying you, that you still wouldn't love him? That you'd wish him to be eternally tortured? The idea of infinite punishment for finite sin is disgusting. If God was real, and that was what he promoted, I still wouldn't worship him.

I was telling my son on the weekend: it is my responsibility as hi Dad and friend to warn him of his potential pitfalls that I see in any path he chooses to take.

Ie. if he is riding his bike and I am aware of a 70 foot cliff coming up do I warn him or no? I would warn him. Can I stop him? No I can't. Whose fault is it when he tumbles? Mine or his?

Obviously his because HE coses to ignore the warnings.

As MrP pointed out, if you "built" your child with a propensity to fall off cliffs on his bike, then yes it would be your fault; For two reasons:

1) You shouldn't have "built" him with that inclination. It is your fault that he wishes (or is able) to fall off cliffs, therefore, it is your own fault, and not his, if he fell off.

2) Even if he still wanted to, and you let it happen, that would make you a terrible father. And yes, it would be your fault.

God gives you warnings and plenty of opportunity to change the path you are on and flip Him the bird. It is you own fault that you end up in Hell. Not God's not mine, not wolfsbanes, but yours.

When has he warned me? I don't recall any warnings.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It hasn't resiorted over semantics, I decided that I would try and define seculars as it ius apparent that you have your own definition of what it is and accused me of not understanding what secular meant. Therefore I have shown you what I understand semantics to be as defined by the dictionary.

I clearly defined on numerous occasions what I meant by secularism. So you shouldn't have had a need to be so pedantic. Anyway, people use words out of context, and without employing their extact definiton, every day. How often have you described something large as enormous (can't remember who pointed this out in another post!) for example? I clearly defined what I meant by secularism, so there should be no problem. I'll define what I mean by it again, for the third or fourth time: The seperation of religion and state; Keeping religion (all of them) out of political (or other issues which affect everyone) decisions. Now, clear?

Well you stated clearly your belief in the last stament, I nor anyone else here is a mind reader.
Thank you for clarifying your position. You are an Atheist and do not believe in God.

I don't believe in God; I don't believe there is a God. I don't think there is a huge difference between the two statements: one implies that I'm refusing to believe, the other implies that I don't believe. I think it was obvious all along which of the two I meant, even if I slipped up by misplacing a word or two in a sentence. Anyway, this has absolutely nothing to do with our original argument.

And you wish that all Christians should keep their beliefs out of the public arena because you dont agree.

Again, where did I say this? Typical, you see this as an attack on Christianity don't you? Out of the public arena? If that arena is politics, then yes. I clearly said numerous times that, and I'll make this clear, I DON'T BELIEVE ANY RELIGION SHOULD BE MIXED WITH POLITICS. I didn't say only Christianity. So, don't make it out to be an attack targeted at just Christianity. And as regards to the public arena. Religion has its place, and politics isn't one of it. That's all I've been saying all along.

You come across as being very condescending to anyone with Christian faith and that we have all checked our brains at the door and you are the intelligent enlightened one.

What on earth are you on about now? When did I even insinuate anything like that? When? Give me a single example. Don't accuse me of doing so otherwise.

This argument has turned out to be typical. You cry that I'm making attacks on JUST Christianity, when I say all religions.

And, I'm amazed that it has broken down to an argument of semantics already. That usually takes a bit longer. You aren't even discussing what we were originally talking about anymore. You just picked certain sentences, purposely misinterpreted them, and started accusing me of basically wanting to destroy Christianity.

wolfsbane

-JammyDodger- said:

Quote:
Yes, God could remove all evil right now. You and every sinner in the world would immediately be in hell. Is that a desireable outcome?
Yes, I suppose it would be. You know, being free is worth the price you've to pay and all that jazz.

OK, but once you see your freedom is the freedom desired by the thief, rapist, murderer to do as they please, you will find such freedom a lot different from that which is usually meant by the term. Your's is actually freedom from goodness, righteousness, truth.

Quote:
So sparing you another hour is malevolent?
He's sparing me another hour from hell, when he's the one who's going to be sending me there anyway? Yes, that sounds very loving. Not one bit malevolent. Kind of like pointing a gun at somebody and saying "relax, I'm not going to shoot you for another 10 minutes! Enjoy!". No, not malevolent at all.

Only the one with the gun is the holy God, the one it's being pointed at is a sinful man deserving to be shot, and God is giving him time to repent. If he repents, he will not be shot, but brought into God's family.

Quote:
That would assume you are wiser and holier than God. You would have created a universe where man was not free to choose between sin and obedience - OK, that seems fine to me too, but I realise I know less than God how things should be.
Again, another easy way out of a question. Typical from most (not all) Christians I attempt to debate with.

Yes, we don't have all the answers to the origin and purpose of everything in the spiritual and material world. You think we should?

So humans won't have the ability to sin in heaven? That doesn't sound like fun at all! We all know that some of the best things in life are considered sinful.

That's only because you have a fallen nature, and can't appreciate holy things. 70 virgins at one's beck and call is something both atheists and false religionists might think one of the best things, but it is a wicked desire, contrary to God's standard of faithful monogamy in this life and total fellowship in the next.

philologos

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes. A sad reality, really.

Freedom of conscience is a sad reality?

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, but once you see your freedom is the freedom desired by the thief, rapist, murderer to do as they please, you will find such freedom a lot different from that which is usually meant by the term. Your's is actually freedom from goodness, righteousness, truth.

My point is, which I maintain, if God is already "tampering" with free will by not allowing us "true" free will, why not go that one bit further and eradicate evil altogether?

Only the one with the gun is the holy God, the one it's being pointed at is a sinful man deserving to be shot, and God is giving him time to repent. If he repents, he will not be shot, but brought into God's family.

So I deserve to be shot for not obeying him? Even so when I'm "sinful" without choice?

A slave driver points a gun at his slave, he says "If you stay my slave, I will not kill you; But, if you no longer work for me, I'll shoot you right now". Now, what's the slave to do? Continue to do something which he doesn't want to (the analogy being worshipping a god that you see unfit for worship) do? Or stand up for what he believes in (i.e. stand up for freedom, for not being forced into doing something he doesn't believe in doing. The analogy being not wishing to worship god; to be free), stand up for being free; even if it costs him his life? I know which one I'd pick.

Yes, we don't have all the answers to the origin and purpose of everything in the spiritual and material world. You think we should?

Well I'd like if he had. I'm not saying that we should know, I'm just saying it's an easy answer to give to get out of a debate.

That's only because you have a fallen nature, and can't appreciate holy things. 70 virgins at one's beck and call is something both atheists and false religionists might think one of the best things, but it is a wicked desire, contrary to God's standard of faithful monogamy in this life and total fellowship in the next.

So you're saying 70 virgins await us all in heaven? I always thought that was just a Muslim belief. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying in that paragraph.

Jakkass wrote: »

Freedom of conscience is a sad reality?

No of course not. I meant that not being able to seperate personal biases from decisions that can potentially affect a lot of people is a sad reality.

Fanny Cradock

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

If God truely loved me, then he wouldn't send me to hell, regardless of what I've done.

Most Christians would argue that it's not God sending you to hell, rather our final destination is open to each individual. Using an iconic image to better explain this:


You either take the red pill or you take the blue.

As an aside, one could have an entirely separate debate as to what 'hell' entails. I favour the notion that it's eternal separation from God. So it's not a place where God actively punishes a person for rejecting Him; however, it is a realm devoid of God's goodness - which is to say all goodness in the universe.

But, I find it hard to reconcile God allowing us to be sent somewhere that might be considered "hell", and his supposed omnibenevolence. Even if it is our actions that send us to (we'll call it hell for now) hell, if he was omnibenevolent he wouldn't care. Would you wish your child eternal torture, or unlove, just for being "sinful"? I don't think many humans answer yes to that question; and humans aren't even omnibenevolent! So how could an all-loving god allow it to happen? It isn't possible, in my opinion.

BrianCalgary

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

If God truely loved me, then he wouldn't send me to hell, regardless of what I've done..

But (and what part of this don't you understand) YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE THE PATH THAT LEADS TO SEPERATION FROM GOD, WHICH IS HELL.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Can you say, with all honesty, that if your own child commited a "terrible" act such as not obeying you, that you still wouldn't love him? That you'd wish him to be eternally tortured? The idea of infinite punishment for finite sin is disgusting. If God was real, and that was what he promoted, I still wouldn't worship him..

My kids are now 20, 18 and 16. They will make their choices. I will never stop loving them. But if one chooses to statr taking drugs and live on the streets there is not much I can do about it is there?

If you have ideas on thi slet me know and I'll pass the info on to parents that I know and are faced with this situation and are left mourning the loss of their child and ruminating on the torture that they have chosen to put themselves through.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

As MrP pointed out, if you "built" your child with a propensity to fall off cliffs on his bike, then yes it would be your fault; For two reasons:

1) You shouldn't have "built" him with that inclination. It is your fault that he wishes (or is able) to fall off cliffs, therefore, it is your own fault, and not his, if he fell off...

Exactly what I am talking about the attitude of 'Lets blame someone else for my lack of deiscernment'.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

2) Even if he still wanted to, and you let it happen, that would make you a terrible father. And yes, it would be your fault..

What a load of rubbish. And you call claim that those who believe in God are lacking wisdom. Sheesh. What an utterly stupid statement.

I ask again how does a parent prevent their child from going down that path?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

When has he warned me? I don't recall any warnings..

You are getting them right here mate. Repent or end up in Hell. There is your warning. Now all you have to do is listen and pay attention and there are many here who love you enough to help you along on your path of spiritual growth.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I clearly defined on numerous occasions what I meant by secularism. So you shouldn't have had a need to be so pedantic. Anyway, people use words out of context, and without employing their extact definiton, every day. How often have you described something large as enormous (can't remember who pointed this out in another post!) for example? I clearly defined what I meant by secularism, so there should be no problem. I'll define what I mean by it again, for the third or fourth time: The seperation of religion and state; Keeping religion (all of them) out of political (or other issues which affect everyone) decisions. Now, clear?.

But that is not a complete definition and therefore I do not accept it as part of this discussion. It is incomplete. Now are you clear?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I don't believe in God; I don't believe there is a God. I don't think there is a huge difference between the two statements: one implies that I'm refusing to believe, the other implies that I don't believe. I think it was obvious all along which of the two I meant, even if I slipped up by misplacing a word or two in a sentence. Anyway, this has absolutely nothing to do with our original argument..

It does in a sense, because you stated your position of belief, although now that you have corrected yourself that is fine, as I said before we are not mind readers. We can only go by what you tell us.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Again, where did I say this? Typical, you see this as an attack on Christianity don't you? Out of the public arena? If that arena is politics, then yes. I clearly said numerous times that, and I'll make this clear, I DON'T BELIEVE ANY RELIGION SHOULD BE MIXED WITH POLITICS. I didn't say only Christianity. So, don't make it out to be an attack targeted at just Christianity. And as regards to the public arena. Religion has its place, and politics isn't one of it. That's all I've been saying all along..

I'm sorry if I have given that impression that it is only Christians. I know that you have said all religions. Now back to th eoriginal argum,ent that I have, is that it can not be done as everyone has a faith of some sort and that faith regardless of denomination is brought intoi the public arena. You would therefore have to ban everyone from politics.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

What on earth are you on about now? When did I even insinuate anything like that? When? Give me a single example. Don't accuse me of doing so otherwise..

He's sparing me another hour from hell, when he's the one who's going to be sending me there anyway? Yes, that sounds very loving. Not one bit malevolent. Kind of like pointing a gun at somebody and saying "relax, I'm not going to shoot you for another 10 minutes! Enjoy!". No, not malevolent at all.


Quote:
That would assume you are wiser and holier than God. You would have created a universe where man was not free to choose between sin and obedience - OK, that seems fine to me too, but I realise I know less than God how things should be.

Again, another easy way out of a question. Typical from most (not all) Christians I attempt to debate with.

It still doesn't answer any question; I find it very unsatisfying.

Why do Christians keep turning it into a personal issue? I was asking a question, not for your nonsensical advice.

Depends on your definition of God. If you mean, in essence, the universe and all it contains? A pantheistic God. Then yes, it can offer me a far greater relationship than religion can. But, if you mean God as a being, then no, I'm afraid it can't. That's left to the realm of mythology, in my opinion.

Not to sound condescending or patronising, but, I think that there are far greater things one can devote their intelligence to. But, again, that's just my personal opinion. Each to their own.

And anyway, I think superstitions and ideas not based on fact or evidence should be left out of politics.

And I think secularism is the only way to get unbiased decisions.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

This argument has turned out to be typical. You cry that I'm making attacks on JUST Christianity, when I say all religions..

Sorry but you are on a Christian board. Try and take this to teh Islam board.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

And, I'm amazed that it has broken down to an argument of semantics already. That usually takes a bit longer. You aren't even discussing what we were originally talking about anymore. You just picked certain sentences, purposely misinterpreted them, and started accusing me of basically wanting to destroy Christianity.

I am not accusing you of trying to destry Christianity. I am trying to point out that you premise of removal of persons of faith from using their beliefs in the public arena is an impossibility as everyone has a set of beliefs.

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote: »

But (and what part of this don't you understand) YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE THE PATH THAT LEADS TO SEPERATION FROM GOD, WHICH IS HELL.

Ok, that's clear I suppose. But, I still don't agree with it. If God was omnibenevolent and all-forgiving like Christians always say, then, I don't see how he could allow me to go to hell. I don't see why He should be so megalomaniacal and petty, always wanting me to express that I'm a sinner; if he was omnibenevolent, that shouldn't matter to Him. And one more thing: is seperation from God considered hell? Or do you consider there to be a definite place called hell?

My kids are now 20, 18 and 16. They will make their choices. I will never stop loving them. But if one chooses to statr taking drugs and live on the streets there is not much I can do about it is there?

If you have ideas on thi slet me know and I'll pass the info on to parents that I know and are faced with this situation and are left mourning the loss of their child and ruminating on the torture that they have chosen to put themselves through.

No, there isn't. But, you didn't even address my question. Here, I'll post it again:

"Can you say, with all honesty, that if your own child commited a "terrible" act such as not obeying you, that you still wouldn't love him? That you'd wish him to be eternally tortured? The idea of infinite punishment for finite sin is disgusting. If God was real, and that was what he promoted, I still wouldn't worship him."

My question, specifically, is would you wish them to be eternally tortured in hell for not obeying you? Even if they commited the most terrible acts, would you honestly wish them to spend eternity in hell?

Exactly what I am talking about the attitude of 'Lets blame someone else for my lack of deiscernment'.

I'm not blaming anybody else for anything. If I have a natural propensity to be sinful, is it my fault that I'm sinful? No, it isn't. If a god creates it's "children" with an inclination to be sinful, then it is it's fault if they sin; not theres.

What a load of rubbish. And you call claim that those who believe in God are lacking wisdom. Sheesh. What an utterly stupid statement.

I ask again how does a parent prevent their child from going down that path?

I don't think it's an "utterly stupid statement".

That's not the point of what I was saying. If the child has a propensity to cycle off the cliff - if he's been born with an inclination to do so - then is it his fault? No. If the parent just stands by and says "he has to learn, I can't prevent him from doing this" and just lets his child cycle off the cliff, then, that makes him a bad parent.

You are getting them right here mate. Repent or end up in Hell. There is your warning. Now all you have to do is listen and pay attention and there are many here who love you enough to help you along on your path of spiritual growth.

No, I'm getting a warning from you - a person. I've never gotten a warning directly from God. Any warning I may have gotten has come from the mouths of Christians, like yourself; or from the bible, which was written by man. I've never gotten a direct warning from God; and I doubt anyone ever has. Warnings always seem to use humans as their conduit - should that raise suspicion? Yes.

But that is not a complete definition and therefore I do not accept it as part of this discussion. It is incomplete. Now are you clear?

I didn't employ it to mean the complete definition! I specified the limited context I wished to use it in, I even specified it numerous times (4, to be exact) - you shouldn't have had a problem. You're just arguing over semantics now.

To remove future problems, how about I just invent a new word with the specific meaning I intened attached? Ok... Cuddlewinkle. Now, let me define it. Cuddlewinkleism is the seperation of religious/supernatural/spiritual ideologies from political issues, or other issues which affect the mass population. Seperation of religion from state basically (wait, doesn't another word have that definition - one I've used on numerous occasions?). Now, I believe in cuddlewinkleism. I don't think religious affairs should be allowed to mix with issues which affect people who share a plethora of different beliefs. It's a fair request and belief, is it not?

It does in a sense, because you stated your position of belief, although now that you have corrected yourself that is fine, as I said before we are not mind readers. We can only go by what you tell us.

You, and all others, knew very well what I meant. You've just resorted to this because you can't keep up with the original debate.

I don't believe in God. Ok, let's examine that sentence. That sentence implies that the person knows/thinks there is a god(s), but still refuses to believe. Quite a stupid thing to do, wouldn't you agree? Because, for the person not to believe in God, they must think/know that He exists. (I'm sure you knew very well I didn't belong to this group).

I don't believe that there is a god. Now, this sentence would imply atheism wouldn't it? And adeism (if such a word existed). I belong to this group (which should have been blatantly obvious all along).

I'm sorry if I have given that impression that it is only Christians. I know that you have said all religions. Now back to th eoriginal argum,ent that I have, is that it can not be done as everyone has a faith of some sort and that faith regardless of denomination is brought intoi the public arena. You would therefore have to ban everyone from politics.

You're completely missing the idea behind secularism, or in this case, cuddlewinkleism. Obviously everybody has their own belief/belief system. So, if as you suggested, I meant nobody with a belief should be allowed in politics, that wouldn't be secularism/cuddlewinkleism.

Secularism/cuddlewinkleism states that people (both with and without religious beliefs) should keep their personal biases/beliefs seperate from any decision that they make in politics (or any other position that affects a large amount of people). They can have their personal beliefs, but as long as they don't have the arrogance/ignorance to base their political decisions on these beliefs, then, that is secularism/cuddlewinkleism. It applies to all people in a position of power, a position which can make decisions that affect people of all beliefs. This is the general idea, the philosophy one might say, behind cuddlewinkleism. I think you'll agree that it is a fair philosophy - in that it gives everybody equality of their personal beliefs. If you don't agree, then you've either misunderstood the idea of cuddlewinkleism, or you're just too blinded by your own religion to allow equality.

He's sparing me another hour from hell, when he's the one who's going to be sending me there anyway? Yes, that sounds very loving. Not one bit malevolent. Kind of like pointing a gun at somebody and saying "relax, I'm not going to shoot you for another 10 minutes! Enjoy!". No, not malevolent at all.

Quote:
That would assume you are wiser and holier than God. You would have created a universe where man was not free to choose between sin and obedience - OK, that seems fine to me too, but I realise I know less than God how things should be.

Again, another easy way out of a question. Typical from most (not all) Christians I attempt to debate with.

It still doesn't answer any question; I find it very unsatisfying.

Why do Christians keep turning it into a personal issue? I was asking a question, not for your nonsensical advice.

Depends on your definition of God. If you mean, in essence, the universe and all it contains? A pantheistic God. Then yes, it can offer me a far greater relationship than religion can. But, if you mean God as a being, then no, I'm afraid it can't. That's left to the realm of mythology, in my opinion.

Not to sound condescending or patronising, but, I think that there are far greater things one can devote their intelligence to. But, again, that's just my personal opinion. Each to their own.

And anyway, I think superstitions and ideas not based on fact or evidence should be left out of politics.

And I think secularism is the only way to get unbiased decisions.

I thank you for letting me re-read my previous posts. Where did I express in any of those posts that I believe that religious people are less intelligent than atheists/secularists, as you suggested? Am I not allowed to articulate myself? I don't see where I implied that I was more intelligent than the religious - as you insinuated.

And with regards to this particular quote:

"Not to sound condescending or patronising, but, I think that there are far greater things one can devote their intelligence to. But, again, that's just my personal opinion. Each to their own."

Somebody stated that they believed that religion was the greatest thing one could devote their intelligence to. I disagree. Do I have to share the same opinion as others? That was my own personal belief. Not offensive/condescending in the slightest.

I believe science is the greatest thing that one can devote their mind to. You believe religion is. Do I think that you sound condescending/arrogant to say so? Do I take offensive? No, not if I'm older than six years of age.

Sorry but you are on a Christian board. Try and take this to teh Islam board.

We started talking about secularism (or as the case may be, the newly defined cuddlewinkleism), did we not? I'm not sure if you're aware, but secularism doesn't apply to just Christianity. So, it would not be possible to debate about it without talking about other religions. Stop nit-picking, please.

I am not accusing you of trying to destry Christianity. I am trying to point out that you premise of removal of persons of faith from using their beliefs in the public arena is an impossibility as everyone has a set of beliefs.

I've addressed that point already. I didn't imply that a person should not have a set of beliefs if they are in a position of political power, or as you call it: the public arena. I said that people should not base decisions that affect people of a multitude of different beliefs, on their own beliefs. That's the whole philosophy behind secularism/cuddlewinkleism.

Fanny Cradock

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Ok, that's clear I suppose. But, I still don't agree with it. If God was omnibenevolent and all-forgiving like Christians always say, then, I don't see how he could allow me to go to hell. I don't see why He should be so megalomaniacal and petty, always wanting me to express that I'm a sinner; if he was omnibenevolent, that shouldn't matter to Him. And one more thing: is seperation from God considered hell? Or do you consider there to be a definite place called hell?

There seems to be a barrier to your understanding of what most Christians believe. God doesn't wants us to be eternally contrite and in a perpetual state of grovelling. I believe it's quite the opposite - at its simplest, God forgives and forgets our sins - we then move on!

Hell is not something I think much about, TBH. But my own opinion is that it is a real place (metaphysical, even) as opposed to something nebulous like 'a state of mind' or whatever. Though I'm open to the suggestion that it is not eternal. (Better discussed in another thread.)

You may have heard the phrase 'God is good'. Well, I actually think that there is slightly more depth to the phrase than might otherwise be assumed. It not that God is good - like ice-cream or the sun is good, it's that God is good - as in He is the causal agent or the primacy for everything good. Bearing this in mind - and you are free to disagree :pac: - hell would be the place devoid of God's presence and therefore devoid of all good.

BrianCalgary

Well Jammy from your last post I have come to the conclusion that you just dont want to get it and understand. You wish to blame others for your pitfalls. You have no understanding of choice, resulting consequence of choice and no clue of what it is to be a father.

You can't even attempt to understand the basic idea that everyone has a belief system that can not be excluded from any decision, even you.

I see it on th other thread you started on teh universe.

Sad indeed.

And I know it's all my fault.

There is so much faulty reasoning within your post that has been shown and on go the blinkers.

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Well Jammy from your last post I have come to the conclusion that you just dont want to get it and understand. You wish to blame others for your pitfalls. You have no understanding of choice, resulting consequence of choice and no clue of what it is to be a father.

You can't even attempt to understand the basic idea that everyone has a belief system that can not be excluded from any decision, even you.

I see it on th other thread you started on teh universe.

Sad indeed.

And I know it's all my fault.

What are you on about? You really don't understand what I've said, do you? Did you even read my posts? I find this hilarious!

Can a third party come in and confirm that my posts have been completely irrelevant to what BrianCalgary has said? Are they not coherent? Do they not make sense? Did I not address his points?

Brian, I have to say, I at least expected a response to my points. But, if you want to get out of the debate like this, then fair enough. I know my points were valid and coherent.

Edit: And thank you for your pity Brian, but, you can keep it. Perhaps put it to better use.

BrianCalgary

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

What are you on about? You really don't understand what I've said, do you? Did you even read my posts? I find this hilarious!

Can a third party come in and confirm that my posts have been completely irrelevant to what BrianCalgary has said? Are they not coherent? Do they not make sense? Did I not address his points?

Brian, I have to say, I at least expected a response to my points. But, if you want to get out of the debate like this, then fair enough. I know my points were valid and coherent.

That's because Jammy I have responded to all your points and your response is pretty consistent: Well, I dont believe that.