Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
And I'm officially done with this debate. Bye.0
-
-
-
I think we are a bit hung up on the term belief. As it used now it has a different connotation than when John wrote the gospel. BTW that quote says nothing about damnation, its about life or death. Eternal life is what we were designed for, the design was broken, Jesus fixed it so we could regain our birthright. Dose anyone really believe that God would have neglected everyone but the Jews? Everyone born before Jesus? Everyone who never could have heard of Jesus? It's a small god you worship if you do.
Or is it the bible / God thats too hung up on belief? To be skeptical of Christ not being the son of God or as a resurrected deity etc, but instead as an eccentric human preacher: - I think is an reasonable position to hold as per the many debates on boards.ie and around the world. I have to say again, I cant see how God would be moral to cast one into eternal fire for a crime such as this (to not believe he was the son of God etc etc), if you lead an otherwise moral and charitable life.
The quote says whoever believes in him shall not perish, implying that if you dont believe in him you will perish. Perish to me suggests eternal damnation.
Just back to the vicarious redemtion stuff, what kind of God are we dealing with who will accept the suffering of another person or animal for the sins of others. Ive been reading Leviticus recently, and it mentions page after page about animal sacrifice as sin offerings. I believe strongly in animal wellfare, yet the bible says for example:
"'If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the LORD a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed. He is to present the bull at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting before the LORD. He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it before the LORDThen the anointed priest shall take some of the bull's blood and carry it into the Tent of Meeting."
I would argue that it is surely a reasonable position to call into question the morality of these quotes.0 -
Indeed in the John quote it means spiritual death. Its dictionary definition is death destruction or ruin. Being Irish I mostly hear it used to mean I'm freezing, so a big roaring fire and perishing wouldn't be a natural association for me.Andrewf20 ;
Perish to me suggests eternal damnation.
I think from my reading of the bible that fear is the thing God hates most and actions from fear. Belief requires trust and courage so it may be seen as a prerequisite for love another virtue that requires trust and courage.0 -
Advertisement
-
Or is it the bible / God thats too hung up on belief? To be skeptical of Christ not being the son of God or as a resurrected deity etc, but instead as an eccentric human preacher: - I think is an reasonable position to hold as per the many debates on boards.ie and around the world. I have to say again, I cant see how God would be moral to cast one into eternal fire for a crime such as this (to not believe he was the son of God etc etc), if you lead an otherwise moral and charitable life.
Th quote says whoever believes in him shall not perish, implying that if you dont believe in him you will perish. Perish to me suggests eternal damnation.
Just back to the vicarious redemtion stuff, what kind of God are we dealing with who will accept the suffering of another person or animal for the sins of others. Ive been reading Leviticus recently, and it mentions page after page about animal sacrifice as sin offerings. I believe strongly in animal wellfare, yet the bible says for example:
"'If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the LORD a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed. He is to present the bull at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting before the LORD. He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it before the LORDThen the anointed priest shall take some of the bull's blood and carry it into the Tent of Meeting."
I think that very many read 'Leviticus' and react and give very little thought anymore - and truth be told very many are told to read it in isolation, it's a veritable quote mine; which is unhelpful to any kind of proper understanding, and lets face it, that's what we are looking for, if honesty is on the agenda -
I would recommend a good reading plan, and also a good spiritual director who understands historicity and also context and author - as these are essential. The OT imo is best read as a continuous historic and relationship narrative, and then to add in the books that contribute to other views during a given period. It can be confusing and disjointed if it's only read from beginning to end with no particular narrative or understanding - I know as a Catholic that's basically my earlier understanding - I knew the stories, but couldn't join the dots properly into a timeline, it's something that needs to be addressed.
If you are just looking to dip in and out of Scripture and not necessarily interested in securing or condemning a world view, than I think Proverbs in the OT and Ecclesiastes is something to get the mind thinking somewhat on some good questions.0 -
I think that very many read 'Leviticus' and react and give very little thought anymore - and truth be told very many are told to read it in isolation, it's a veritable quote mine; which is unhelpful to any kind of proper understanding, and lets face it, that's what we are looking for, if honesty is on the agenda -
I would recommend a good reading plan, and also a good spiritual director who understands historicity and also context and author - as these are essential. The OT imo is best read as a continuous historic and relationship narrative, and then to add in the books that contribute to other views during a given period. It can be confusing and disjointed if it's only read from beginning to end with no particular narrative or understanding - I know as a Catholic that's basically my earlier understanding - I knew the stories, but couldn't join the dots properly into a timeline, it's something that needs to be addressed.
If you are just looking to dip in and out of Scripture and not necessarily interested in securing or condemning a world view, than I think Proverbs in the OT and Ecclesiastes is something to get the mind thinking somewhat on some good questions.
I have read alot of the preceding chapters (Genesis etc) however it still says what it says - it talks of sacrificing animals for the sins of humans. It seems very clearly spelt out. This is from a recently translated edition of the bible. If the bible needs a further spiritual director to assist me in understanding it, then I would say its plausible to suggest that the bible is not a divinely inspired coherent moral guide like it aims to be.
A God who warrants the killing of animals as offerings for the sins of humans seems an immoral act surely, past or present? Im thankful its an idea not promoted today.0 -
I have read alot of the preceding chapters (Genesis etc) however it still says what it says - it talks of sacrificing animals for the sins of humans. It seems very clearly spelt out. This is from a recently translated edition of the bible. If the bible needs a further spiritual director to assist me in understanding it, then I would consider it reasonable to suggest that the bible is not a divinely inspired coherent moral guide like it aims to be.
A God who warrants the killing of animals as offerings for the sins of humans seems an immoral act, past or present. Im thankful its an idea not promoted today.
Are you a vegetarian?0 -
-
But again, what is so special about belief? I agree that religon may be used as a guide to live our lives but putting the bible into practice doesnt require in believing that it was inspired by a supernatural deity imo.
John 3:16 the Bible says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
The treat of eternal damnation is an infinitely unfair punishment to those who may not or cannot believe in the biblical testimonies, but yet many live ethical and moral lives.
I think we are a bit hung up on the term belief. As it used now it has a different connotation than when John wrote the gospel. BTW that quote says nothing about damnation, its about life or death. Eternal life is what we were designed for, the design was broken, Jesus fixed it so we could regain our birthright. Dose anyone really believe that God would have neglected everyone but the Jews? Everyone born before Jesus? Everyone who never could have heard of Jesus? It's a small god you worship if you do.
An interesting article on the term 'belief' can be read here http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jul/12/religion-christianity-belief-science
On a mobile device, can't get the quote buttons, but here's the intro:
The question: Should we believe in belief?
The extraordinary and eccentric emphasis on "belief" in Christianity today is an accident of history that has distorted our understanding of religious truth. We call religious people "believers", as though acceptance of a set of doctrines was their principal activity, and before undertaking the religious life many feel obliged to satisfy themselves about the metaphysical claims of the church, which cannot be proven rationally since they lie beyond the reach of empirical sense data.
Most other traditions prize practice above creedal orthodoxy: Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, Jews and Muslims would say religion is something you do, and that you cannot understand the truths of faith unless you are committed to a transformative way of life that takes you beyond the prism of selfishness. All good religious teaching – including such Christian doctrines as the Trinity or the Incarnation – is basically a summons to action. Yet instead of being taught to act creatively upon them, many modern Christians feel it is more important to "believe" them. Why?0 -
Advertisement
-
On the subject of animals. The agricultural practices of today divorce us from the realities of meat produce. This is a unfortunate as it breaks the links between man and animal. There is the rise of anti-hunting, fur etc, which seem to have the basis premise that without man's interference the natural balance would be maintained. Whilst grisly by modern standard, a sacrifice would bring home the basis of the fast food culture.0
-
...religion is something you do, and that you cannot understand the truths of faith unless you are committed to a transformative way of life that takes you beyond the prism of selfishness.
It starting to sound so ambigious and complicated. Why can the process not be simpler?All good religious teaching – including such Christian doctrines as the Trinity or the Incarnation – is basically a summons to action. Yet instead of being taught to act creatively upon them, many modern Christians feel it is more important to "believe" them. Why?
Im not really sure what this question is asking tbh. I think its suggesting that alot of Christians think its more important to believe in Jesus and the son of God than to call themselves to moral and ethical action. Well, its back to my posts earlier for a likely answer, where we are told in the bible that we need to believe to be saved - or thats how I see it and I guess many other Christians also. Pascals wager may also be a large contributor.0 -
No - Im pudding and sausages no. 1 fan.
So am I I like mine with tomatoes.
You do realise that a sacrifice, in the Christian understanding, whether it is one of a human giving their life for another as the ultimate display of what is 'good' or 'noble', or whether it was in earlier times something that was regarded as 'life giving' and 'valuable' and very very special was one and the same thing. It was something of 'value' that a person gives over to providence.
Yet we eat sausages, but give out about temple sacrifice? People ate the flesh of the lamb at passover too, it was not wasted, no. It was part and parcel of Passover to respect the lamb in doing so, and it's life giving properties.0 -
Yet we eat sausages, but give out about temple sacrifice? People ate the flesh of the lamb at passover too, it was not wasted, no. It was part and parcel of Passover to respect the lamb in doing so, and it's life giving properties.
Thats a fair point. I will hit the leaba now and have a think about it. Goodnite to all. : )0 -
...religion is something you do, and that you cannot understand the truths of faith unless you are committed to a transformative way of life that takes you beyond the prism of selfishness.
It starting to sound so ambigious and complicated. Why can the process not be simpler?All good religious teaching – including such Christian doctrines as the Trinity or the Incarnation – is basically a summons to action. Yet instead of being taught to act creatively upon them, many modern Christians feel it is more important to "believe" them. Why?
Im not really sure what this question is asking tbh. I think its suggesting that alot of Christians think its more important to believe in Jesus and the son of God than to call themselves to moral and ethical action. Well, its back to my posts earlier for a likely answer, where we are told in the bible that we need to believe to be saved - or thats how I see it and I guess many other Christians also. Pascals wager may also be a large contributor.
Just to be clear, those words are the author's, not my own, I'm just having trouble with the quote button.
I think the point she's making is that Christians engage in arguments about belief in a way other faiths do not - because they retain the importance of ritual and myth. Myth, correctly understood, has importance, and functions as a kind of primitive psychology. But for us, myth has fallen into disrepute, and we argue over biblical texts in a very literal way, ignoring 'mythos' and only focusing on 'logos'. Indeed, even the use and meaning of the word 'believe' has evolved, from commitment to credulity.
The question she seems to be asking is how did it get to this. Which is probably where her book comes in.
0 -
Can you imagine what a temple must have been like, blood and defecation everywhere, it must have been a lot more ahem visceral than any high mass.Just back to the vicarious redemtion stuff, what kind of God are we dealing with who will accept the suffering of another person or animal for the sins of others. Ive been reading Leviticus recently, and it mentions page after page about animal sacrifice as sin offerings. I believe strongly in animal wellfare, yet the bible says for example:
"'If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the LORD a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed. He is to present the bull at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting before the LORD. He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it before the LORDThen the anointed priest shall take some of the bull's blood and carry it into the Tent of Meeting."
I would argue that it is surely a reasonable position to call into question the morality of these quotes.
Context again, this piece is from a time and place that we as 21 century urbanites cant even imagine, to try to suppose that the values we hold now should be retrospectively applied to then is to miss the point of the stories. Any way Leviticus is an odd set of rules and obligations, their purpose to establish a priesthood and rituals. The idea of blood offerings is interesting as it's commonly used as a metaphor for Christs sacrifice. However crucifixion isn't a particularly bloody execution, if the blood letting was so important beheading would have been more useful. Thus the story of the soldier piercing Jesus side fulfilling the blood sacrifice aspect.0 -
where is the evidence other than the Bible? Why are there contradictions in the Bible? Why is there no real substantial proof that he was the Son of God other than some pages of a book where someone writes about what they claim to have seen or heard about?
If this is your stance then you are ignorant of scholarship as applied to ancient history.
I mean as i usually say, where is the evidence for Socrates or Alexander the Great -two of the most famous people in the history of the world.
All we have are books from 300 years later and no writings from people at the time they lived. The historicity of Jesus is an established field and draws on all sorts of sources outside of the Bible. first you have to accept the accounts refer to a person at that time. then you have to decide whether stories abut people being cured are plausible. i mean that you cant say people intentionally made them up and reverse engineered them into history unless you accept the same for Alexander the Great or Socrates. Maybe they were made up? after all they have even less evidence than Jesus. Just how far can your scepticism extend and why is it only reserved for Jesus and not others in history? If you aren't anti christian or anti religion then why are you not criticising all the possible "made up stuff" about Alexander or Socrates?0 -
0
-
no it isnt!As others have said, religion is the one which is making the claim that X happened or that Y is right. The onus is on religion to prove itself to be correct.
Not if the point at issue was your philosophy of historicity.
You cant turn your critique of history of Jesus into "prove God exists".
The Temptation of Christ,... Nobody else was there, so we only have Jesus's word that it really happened. The only way it could have been written into the Bible is if Jesus told his followers that it happened, and they then told others who either wrote it in the Bible or told others who then wrote it in the Bible etc.
[/quote]
not necessarily it could have been related by an angle to a later christian as the Muslims believe of the Koran. Jesus might not have gone anywhere. ther are theories that the "Wilderness" in in his head or spirit and not a geographic one.So the only proof we have that this happened is that Jesus said it did. No one else was there. No other proof is available. So how can we know it happened? Sure, it's in the Bible, but if Jesus lied about it or embellished certain facts, or if those he told 'spiced up' the story a bit, it would still have ended up in the Bible because the people who wrote the Bible were writing stories of Jesus's life, and that's the story they were told.
How can we know Alexander opened the Gordian knot. Or successfully sieged Tyre and killed all the inhabitants? Or married Roxanne? Or Socrates actually existed? could he not have been made up? so why do you follow makey uppy philosophers?0 -
And again, it's not a question of belief. You're talking about something which is literally, an 'imaginary number'. However, it is a concept used to solve a problem of creating a square for -1. It is a mathematical solution to a mathematical problem. It's like asking me "Do you believe that is called a table?" while pointing to a table. The word table is what we use to describe what we commonly know to be a table.
you are playing at semantics here!
We dont have to know about the difference between signifiers and signs
If i ask you do you believe in the concept of the number six it makes no dirrerence if I use "6" or "six" or "vi" or "uibhir a sé" we all know what the concept otf the number means.
iota is just a representation like six or 6 is . the number is not the representation . the Map is not the territory.
do you believe the imaginary number represented by they symbol iota exists?When it comes to forum discussions, rabbit-holes are bad things, because if we continued along the "i" route, we would be two non-mathematicians arguing semantics of a mathematical problem trying to determine if God is real.
Mathematics is barely more than an extension of formal logic. Mathematical concepts like numbers are not real things in the real world. they hold what a mathematician might term a one-to-one correspondence with sets of objects in the real world. The set is indexed by
this correspondence of a one-to-one relationship and it is this which yields the set of natural numbers.
does that make any sense to you? If not can you accept "6" oir "six" is not a number it is a representation of a number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MagrittePipe.jpg
The french says "This is not a pipe"
and it isnt
It is a picture of a pipe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation
Id also suggest you consider this and the inherent problems arising from it as atheists are sailing close to it and i have referred to the problem of universals and lay do so again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NominalismIf we're going to discuss religion, let's get down to the nitty-gritty and discuss religion. If your religion is right, it shouldn't need a maths analogy to prove itself.
Unless of course you rely on a strict definition of "evidence" and require logical deductive proofs!But that's like asking me "Does a man named Jeff Anderson live in Kentucky?". There could be a Jeff Anderson living in Kentucky. Odds are, there very well could be. Just like do I accept a man named Jesus lived 2000 years ago. There might have been.
that is just fudging! Do you accept Socrates or Alexander the Great existed? Or just that they might have been and we really should not pout much stock in the stories about Alexander or Socrates?
So you believe Jesus the man existed. you believe he was of the house of David. you believe he said all the things that the bible says? You just dont believe he was God.In that case, no. Jesus Christ to me would signify, not a man named Jesus, but the Son of God, Jesus Christ who performed miracles and rose from the dead etc. No. I do not believe he was a real person, as depicted in the Bible. A man named Jesus who shared similar traits and who Jesus Christ was based on, maybe, but not the actual son of God.
so you believe he was a Jewish holy man do you?0 -
Advertisement
-
This is whats grates alot of people I think. Whats so special about belief? Can a person not be good, moral and ethical without a belief in Jesus? Is God moral to consider us "evil" for not believing in him, baring in the mind the following - for us to be thrown into existence where little or no tangible evidence is available of his existence, where confusion around the world reigns with multiple religions and heated word spliting debates, due to so much ambuiguity and interpretation. To be considered "evil" for not believing and therefore to be thrown into everlasting fire seems like a situation where the punishment doesnt fit the crime.
As for the point that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. That presumes that you are judge. Not God. There's nothing special about belief at all. What is probably special about Christianity from my perspective is that I think it is likely to be true, and it is likely to be significant for all mankind when they are brought before Jesus to be judged.
Bear in mind, I have already said that I fully deserve to be condemned and to be in hell. However I have acknowledged that Jesus has taken away my sin on the cross. I love and serve God in response to His amazing grace.
It's not that difficult from my POV. If you elect to separate yourself from God, which is sin. Then you will be condemned and separated from Him for all eternity. If you repent of your sin and come to accept God.
I don't agree that there is no tangible evidence for God's existence. We discussed earlier in this thread, that morality as a concept makes little sense without an objective law giver. The Resurrection makes logical sense given the early history of the Christian church. There's plenty of archaeology to back up the Bible. Creation makes little to no sense without a Creator. The Biblical text, makes sense about human nature. Pick up a newspaper today and tell me that you don't see a world which has fallen through it. God has given us a heck of a lot actually. We can look to His word, and look at the world around us. I find such a comparison makes His existence more evident than less. It is evident from the New Testament that it is not written in a fictional style, and it is also evident from the New Testament that it makes some profoundly honest, and humiliating statements about the founders of the Christian church, in Jewish, Greek and Roman societies for example the idea that women were the first to the tomb would have been humiliating, particularly given that in that region of the world that the testimony of two women was equal to the testimony of one man. Secondly, the continual idea of the disciples being ignorant, unable to get it, selfish at times, cowardly at others isn't what you put across if you want to be a totalitarian leader of a church with power and wealth.
There's an abundance of evidence from my perspective.The idea of Jesus having to suffer for our sins (vicarious redemption) makes no sense to me and I have never heard a clear and concise counter argument.
The position that I subscribe to is substitutionary atonement. Meaning that Jesus died in our place, taking on the punishment that we deserved:1 Peter 3:18 wrote:For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God
Simply put, here's the reasoning:- God created the world, and as loving ruler of the world He gave us commandments for our benefit.
- We rejected God, and turned away from Him, by no longer deciding to reflect the standards that He gave, but reflect our own standards.
- For doing this we rightfully deserve God's wrath and condemnation, for disobeying Him and His standards in the world which He created.
- God in His mercy sent Jesus into the world. Jesus established standards for a people under grace, He lived the perfect life, but to take away the wrath and condemnation that we deserve He died a sinners death, which you and I deserved to die.
- Through this, Jesus has taken away our sin, we are no longer separated from God if we trust in Him, and we can start a new relationship with Him. We can repent and accept this offer of forgiveness, or we can reject God's offer of salvation and face God's rightful wrath ourselves.
One can't claim that God hasn't given us a chance. Ultimately, this comes down to you and I. Claims that God isn't just and hasn't given you reason to believe in Him, or claims that God hasn't given you a way to take away your sin and know Him is false as far as I can tell.Alright, I gave the message ID. As for the beliefs/tenets/philosophies of atheism, (I'm sure it has been said time and again here and on the A&A,) Atheism has none of the above. Why is it theists are so intent on making atheism a religion of its own or ideology? It is the null position on the existence of God.
That's probably because it is an ideology. One would be lying if they were trying to argue that atheism is a neutral position of any kind. It's putting yourself on the fence in respect to the God question. A lot of how atheists form their personal philosophy arises from that point as well. There are a number of logical conclusions to atheism. The universe arose out of spontaneity it has no ultimate meaning or purpose and neither do we as people. There is no ultimate authority in respect to morality. Therefore good or evil can be whatever the heck we like them to be. There's no doubt more, but those are some assumptions that atheism leaves us with.But again, what is so special about belief? I agree that religon may be used as a guide to live our lives but putting the bible into practice doesnt require in believing that it was inspired by a supernatural deity imo.
I don't agree. The Bible talks about God throughout. Jesus' teachings are underpinned on God. Take away Him, and take away His word, you have nothing left. I'd challenge you to go through the New Testament for example and pick out the lines that had nothing to do with God, and tell me if there was much left.
By pick out, I don't mean change like Thomas Jefferson did. I mean literally go through the lines which have nothing to do with God. I suspect that it'll probably come down to a whole lot of verses like "He went to Bethel and lodged there" which in combination with the rest of the passage makes sense, but isolated doesn't.John 3:16 the Bible says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
The treat of eternal damnation is an infinitely unfair punishment to those who may not or cannot believe in the biblical testimonies, but yet may live ethical and moral lives. This is especially true when so much skepticism reigns.
It's entirely fair. What is moral is what is good under God's standard. What is immoral is what is evil under God's standard.
If you have lived in contempt of God's standard, He has the right to punish. Much as the State authorities have the right to punish on the basis of you murdering someone.
God has come into the world Himself, to rescue you and I from our sins. Again, why don't atheists consider this a possibility? They always speak in terms of what will happen if I reject God. What would happen if you accepted Him, and lived for Him?
I think skepticism is valid, but only when it is well placed. A whole lot of the skeptical arguments I've heard on boards.ie are based on untruths. Going through the average "God doesn't exist" thread on After Hours one will find bizarre notions about Christianity or what the Bible says. Or some analogy with Mithraism or other pagan faiths despite the fact that one a cursory look these are entirely false.
Skepticism for example in respect to vaccinations are dumb at best, dangerous at worst. In fact, a lot of atheists condemn a common form of skepticism, that is skepticism concerning evolution. Personally I don't hold skepticism in this respect and I feel it's probably unfounded skepticism.
The point is why is atheism any less unfounded than other forms of skepticism.
Well placed skepticism is a rational tool. Unfounded skepticism is foolish at best, dangerous at worst.0 -
3. No, that scenario implies that all the patient has to do is give up the ''bad habits'' and he'll be fine. I have no ''bad habits'' yet I'm still going to die. So lets expand that scenario:
" A doctor examines a patient and says to them 'your lifestyle is killing you; give up your bad habits and pay me this exorbitant amount of money so I can give you this medication or you will die' " The payment in your case is worship.
How is thanking God for His mercy towards me "expensive". How is speaking for Him honestly to others "expensive"? How is striving to live as God would expect me to "expensive"?
Nothing is "expensive" in comparison to what Jesus did for us on the cross.0 -
philologos wrote: »You didn't reflect my post accurately in your previous one. God punishes evildoers if they don't repent and accept Jesus as their Saviour. Jesus paying the absolute price for sin.
And again I ask aren't we all evil doers?
And rejection of God deserves eternal suffering in a lake of fire to be just?philologos wrote: »I agree entirely with this. If you don't want to know God, then ultimately the option is to be separated from God, and from salvation through Jesus. Rejection of God, is rejection of God as far as Christianity is concerned.philologos wrote: »Also, if no sin can't be forgiven through Jesus, then no sin is greater or lesser than the other. Essentially the same penalty is given to all on the account of their rejection towards God. That's how I would make sense of it.
And you would view that as just? Do not take into account what the "crime" was, simply give everyone the same punishment.
This is justice to you? If so why do you think it isn't the basis of most western justice systems? Are they wrong?philologos wrote: »Atheists always focus on what will happen if they continue rejecting God rather than actually focusing on what could happen if they accepted Jesus as their Saviour.
Well yes, critically considering the what happens if you reject God bit is a main bit in exposing that Christianity is, to my mind, nothing more than the crazy ideas of some cult members 2,000 years ago. The idea that an omnipotent deity would think this is some how justice when a first year law student can see it isn't is frankly nuts.
Interesting though that you would rather we focus on the nice bit, not the troubling bit.philologos wrote: »See above. Sin isn't a finite concept. It is a rejection of God. If you reject God, you are in sin. Sin is what separates us from Him. As someone who rejects God you are in separation from Him. This is why Jesus' death and resurrection are so critical. If in that state when before Jesus at judgement, then one will be perpetually in separation from Him.
That doesn't answer the question. Sin and the punishment for sin are two difference concepts. At some point God decided that the just punishment for sinful acts (which are finite given you can only be disobedience to God a set number of times in a life time, even if that is your entire life it is still only 85 years) was for the person to be tortured in a lake of fire for all eternity.philologos wrote: »One of the realisations I made when I decided to follow Jesus was the very notion that I deserved to be in hell for my rejection against Him. It was merely His grace alone that saved me through faith.
So what have you done that deserved for you to be tortured for all eternity.
Do you torture yourself at the moment for this?0 -
I really wish I knew another word for belief, with that tiny bit of doubt, that was different to faith to avoid confusion. Anybody?
Just use faith normally, it is a perfectly fine word no matter how much others on this forum are trying to redefine it to their own ends.
When someone asks you do you have faith ask then to clarify "in what". Faith is an act of trust. If you beliefs do not require that you trust someone or something then you do not have faith.0 -
Wtf? Are you just trolling now?
I think he trying to get us to see or admit his point through a series of rhetorical questions.
The problem is that this tactic back fired on him about 3 pages ago where through the answers to his questions it became clear (I suspect even to Festus) that in fact the opposite conclusion was emerging.
Rather than admit that he did what any good poster on Boards.ie does, he plowed on regardless.
He is now stuck but, one assumes, hoping that if he just continues on others will give up and leave and he can claim hollow victory by saying that they could not face the conclusions of his questions.0 -
-
Zombrex: Read my last post to you. We're all evildoers, the question is what do we do when we acknowledge that? In my original post to you I stated the following, in my last post to you I requoted it. Please, listen to what I'm saying rather than ignoring it.
That's key.I agree God punishes evildoers if they refuse to repent.
In the quote that you used this time:God punishes evildoers if they don't repent and accept Jesus as their Saviour. Jesus paying the absolute price for sin.Zombrex wrote:And rejection of God deserves eternal suffering in a lake of fire to be just?
I think that if you reject God, and if you refuse to acknowledge Jesus as taking away that, ultimately you must face the punishment yourself.
As Christians, we long that this happens to nobody. We want people to enter into a fruitful relationship with God through Jesus, and we believe that this is truly best for everyone and in every respect.Zombrex wrote:And you would view that as just? Do not take into account what the "crime" was, simply give everyone the same punishment.
This is justice to you? If so why do you think it isn't the basis of most western justice systems? Are they wrong?
Absolutely, that's just. I think it isn't the basis of most Western justice systems because Western justice systems aren't dealing with morality, they are simply dealing with keeping people away from danger. Which in and of itself is useful. Civil legislating is a duty from God and should be respected as such. Nonetheless, God also has authority to judge accurately as to what is good and evil, and will do so at the end of time. As Creator, He has full right to legislate over His Creation.
It's not civil justice versus divine justice. Both have their place, purpose, and their time. I wouldn't even get into such an argument. Civil justice from a Christian perspective is valuable, but also subordinate to God's just rule.Well yes, critically considering the what happens if you reject God bit is a main bit in exposing that Christianity is, to my mind, nothing more than the crazy ideas of some cult members 2,000 years ago. The idea that an omnipotent deity would think this is some how justice when a first year law student can see it isn't is frankly nuts.
Interesting though that you would rather we focus on the nice bit, not the troubling bit.
I think it's absurd that you think a first year law student has any more moral authority than God does. Who determines what justice is?
No, I don't want you to focus on any bit. I hope that people acknowledge the reality of the situation, but ultimately see that Jesus was who He said He was and repent and trust in Him.That doesn't answer the question. Sin and the punishment for sin are two difference concepts. At some point God decided that the just punishment for sinful acts (which are finite given you can only be disobedience to God a set number of times in a life time, even if that is your entire life it is still only 85 years) was for the person to be tortured in a lake of fire for all eternity.
Sin is ultimately a state, there are things which lead us into that state. Things that take us out of that state. You decide. I still think that if one lives in this world, and is fully aware of this, and yet decides to deny God and refuse to acknowledge Him, why do you expect God to acknowledge you?So what have you done that deserved for you to be tortured for all eternity.
Do you torture yourself at the moment for this?
Denied God's standard, rejected Him for a sizeable portion of my life, and having lived in a way that dishonoured Him.
Much the same as everyone else.
I don't torture myself for this, because I don't need to. I'm thankful to God, and I strive to live for Him. I strive to live in response to God's grace no matter how difficult this may be, or no matter what others in society may think of it.0 -
philologos wrote: »Zombrex: Read my last post to you. We're all evildoers, the question is what do we do when we acknowledge that?
No that isn't the question. That might be what you want me to focus on, but it isn't my question.philologos wrote: »Absolutely, that's just. I think it isn't the basis of most Western justice systems because Western justice systems aren't dealing with morality, they are simply dealing with keeping people away from danger.
Surely locking everyone up forever irrespective of the crime would keep people away from danger as much as locking them up for a finite period.philologos wrote: »Nonetheless, God also has authority to judge accurately as to what is good and evil, and will do so at the end of time. As Creator, He has full right to legislate over His Creation.
But you personally agree with it, not just because it comes from God but because you think it is just as well.
Would you support punishing all crimes equally here on Earth as well, locking everyone up for a long as physically possible irrespective of the crime they have committed?philologos wrote: »It's not civil justice versus divine justice. Both have their place, purpose, and their time. I wouldn't even get into such an argument. Civil justice from a Christian perspective is valuable, but also subordinate to God's just rule.
Well yes, that is the point of my question, surely there is just justice.philologos wrote: »I think it's absurd that you think a first year law student has any more moral authority than God does. Who determines what justice is?
But it isn't a question of whether God has moral authority, it is a question of whether this concept of eternal suffering in hell really comes from God or whether it was just made up by some ancient people who wanted to scare people into following their religion.
You don't think it is odd that the concept of absolute punishment for minor crimes hasn't been found in Western civilisations for over 100 years? That we no longer cut off the hands of people who steal? Or rip out the tongues of people who lie. That these are all ancient ideas of justice that we have long since abandoned. Yet if you turn to the Bible what do you find. The same ancient concepts, eternal suffering for finite crimes or even misdemeanors.
Almost as if these same ancient folk who though cutting off the hand of a criminal was a just action also made up this notion of hell ...philologos wrote: »Sin is ultimately a state, there are things which lead us into that state. Things that take us out of that state. You decide. I still think that if one lives in this world, and is fully aware of this, and yet decides to deny God and refuse to acknowledge Him, why do you expect God to acknowledge you?
I don't expect God to acknowledge me. I'm perfectly happy if he doesn't.
But I would question what crime you think I've done that deserves that I am tortured for all of eternity.philologos wrote: »Denied God's standard, rejected Him for a sizeable portion of my life, and having lived in a way that dishonoured Him.
Much the same as everyone else.
And that deserves eternal suffering? Why exactly, given that it is impossible to hurt or damage God, and thus no action of yours can have a negative effect on God. Yet you (and I) deserve punishment far in excess of any punishment you would receive here on Earth for even the worst crimes against other humans.philologos wrote: »I don't torture myself for this, because I don't need to.
What does need have to do with it? You deserve to suffer unending pain and torture. And you agree with this. So should you not be suffering unending pain and torture?0 -
I just read the first post in this thread and I'm a little confused. I see that the question "What evidence do you have for God?" is 'frequently off-topic' in a thread whose partial title is 'Existence of God' debate. Surely there is a mistake here? Or can someone explain the logic? Is it how this question is so tormenting/frustrating for those who make the claim or what is the idea?
Thanks0 -
Advertisement
-
No that isn't the question. That might be what you want me to focus on, but it isn't my question.
It is the key question that people need to answer decisively one way or the other, that's why I keep coming back to it. As a Christian naturally that is what I desire for people to consider.Surely locking everyone up forever irrespective of the crime would keep people away from danger as much as locking them up for a finite period.
It's because in this world, we acknowledge (and indeed even Christians acknowledge) that people can change, and people can indeed repent and turn their lives around. It's largely why Christians also believe that God has spared His judgement for us for so long. People ask why hasn't Jesus returned yet, it's been 2,000 years. Peter in his second letter to the Christian communities he worked with preempted this question.
When judgement comes, it's too late.Hebrews 9:27-28 wrote:And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Again, I've clearly mentioned that as far as Christianity is concerned, there is a clear distinction between civil law, and God's standard. God's standard is what we will ultimately face at the end of time. Civil law is human law that is in place in order to keep some form of order in society. Both have their place. Indeed, when God gave humankind dominion over Creation (Genesis 1:26). The Bible also acknowledges that rulers have been given authority by God to do this (Romans 13).
This argument has to do with divine law, rather than civil law. Both have their place, and I have no position in undermining civil law, I just recognise that divine law should come first in an individuals life.But you personally agree with it, not just because it comes from God but because you think it is just as well.
I think it's inherently fair. Nobody has any excuse, particularly not those who have consistently heard the Gospel.
I agree with it because I believe that God is right, and that His standards are the only ones that should be followed.Would you support punishing all crimes equally here on Earth as well, locking everyone up for a long as physically possible irrespective of the crime they have committed?
No for the reasons I've mentioned above.Well yes, that is the point of my question, surely there is just justice.
Civil law, has an entirely different purpose to divine law. Justice, is simply put treating people according to the law. God in giving everyone His ethical principles, and Jesus judging mankind at the end of time according to those principles is entirely and wholly just and fair. Likewise, the courts judging people to the full extent of the law is just and fair.But it isn't a question of whether God has moral authority, it is a question of whether this concept of eternal suffering in hell really comes from God or whether it was just made up by some ancient people who wanted to scare people into following their religion.
Yes, it is a question as to whether or not God has ultimate authority. The reason I acknowledge that Jesus will have the absolute authority to judge, is that the Father has given all authority to Him, it is also because God has created the world and ultimately He has final authority over it even if He has given humans dominion over it.You don't think it is odd that the concept of absolute punishment for minor crimes hasn't been found in Western civilisations for over 100 years? That we no longer cut off the hands of people who steal? Or rip out the tongues of people who lie. That these are all ancient ideas of justice that we have long since abandoned. Yet if you turn to the Bible what do you find. The same ancient concepts, eternal suffering for finite crimes or even misdemeanors.
Read what I've said about the distinction between civil and divine law.Almost as if these same ancient folk who though cutting off the hand of a criminal was a just action also made up this notion of hell ...
Where does Christianity state that criminals should have their hands chopped off? I have no interest in discussing any other faith with you.I don't expect God to acknowledge me. I'm perfectly happy if he doesn't.
Ultimately, that will mean condemnation at the end of time. Personally, I wouldn't want anyone to go through that.But I would question what crime you think I've done that deserves that I am tortured for all of eternity.
We all deserve it, because we've all rejected God's standards in His Creation. We've all rejected God and turned away from Him. None haven't. (Romans 3:23).
The predicament that mankind is in is that we've all done wrong, and we all deserve to be judged.
The good news, is that Jesus came to rescue us. If we repent and follow Him, we can enter a new relationship with God which will ultimately lead to eternal life rather than eternal condemnation.And that deserves eternal suffering? Why exactly, given that it is impossible to hurt or damage God, and thus no action of yours can have a negative effect on God. Yet you (and I) deserve punishment far in excess of any punishment you would receive here on Earth for even the worst crimes against other humans.
Again, it has to do with the distinction and purpose between divine law and human law.What does need have to do with it? You deserve to suffer unending pain and torture. And you agree with this. So should you not be suffering unending pain and torture?
If it weren't for Jesus coming into the world and rescuing me from my sin, then yes, I would be. I'm in the position now where I'm walking with God, no matter how difficult that has been, is, and will be until I die. That is satisfying in so far as I am finally experiencing the truth I should have known all along, and I desire for that truth to be more widely known, in Ireland where I hail from, here where I am now in London, to the ends of the earth.
I strive to live, so that people won't have to know condemnation, but that they will know eternal life and the Lord Jesus.
That's why I say that you and others should know Jesus too.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement