Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

No he is morality, God doesn't follow any law in the sense that He could choose evil or good but chooses good.

Then it makes no sense to say that God knows what is good, or what is best for us, or is caring to us, since all those concepts would simply be defined as what ever God happens to treat us like.

Again take the parent of a child. It is common to say that a parent decides what is good for a child. It sounds nice but we don't actually mean it. Society gives parents freedom to decide things for their children up to a certain point and after a certain point the State will step in to protect the child.

But imagine if we actually meant it, that what is good for the child was genuinely totally decided by the parent. So if a parent is beating the crap out of their child, that is good for the child. If the parent is burning fags out on his arm then that is, by definition, good for the child.

We know that is not the case, but we can only do that by being in a position to judge the parent independently to the notion that she knows what is good for the child.

Imagine if we didn't have that ability, if by definition you had to agree that what the parent was doing was good for the child. It would make "good" meaningless. What is good for the child by human standards means what will help and nurture and protect the child. But that is our standards, and we have just thrown them away and replaced them with what ever the mother comes up with.

If the mother harms the child, that is good. What? we had a notion that harming the child isn't good? Well we were wrong, because the mother just harmed the child and since the mother did it it must be good.

As such we divorce "good" from any tangible meaning. I could say that "good" relates to not harming the child. But if the mother harms the child I'm wrong. I could say that "good" relates to making the child feel safe and secure. But if the mother threatens the child, I'm wrong. etc.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Philologos, in your opinion,do all those Muslims and non believers that either won't or can't believe in Jesus go to hell ?

I don't believe that it is true that people aren't capable of believing in Jesus. It is more that people don't desire to do so.

Ultimately, if we've all sinned, and if Jesus is the only way that we can be saved (John 14:6), then there are very clear consequences for refusing to acknowledge Him. That's why Christians long to tell people about Him, so that they might be saved through Him.

Zombrex: Caring is taking an interest in Creation. I don't see why it need be any more complex than that . God loves us, God knows the parameters of Creation and as a result knows how to live in it. That's why He's given us standards that we ought to follow. It is for our own benefit than for our detriment.

tommy2bad

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that it is true that people aren't capable of believing in Jesus. It is more that people don't desire to do so.

Ultimately, if we've all sinned, and if Jesus is the only way that we can be saved (John 14:6), then there are very clear consequences for refusing to acknowledge Him. That's why Christians long to tell people about Him, so that they might be saved through Him.

Zombrex: Caring is taking an interest in Creation. I don't see why it need be any more complex than that . God loves us, God knows the parameters of Creation and as a result knows how to live in it. That's why He's given us standards that we ought to follow. It is for our own benefit than for our detriment.

But lets say people who never heard of Jesus? You knew that was coming, right?

RichieC

Seems to be a common enough phenomenon that people think the majority religion they grew up around is the one true religion.

HamletOrHecuba

marienbad wrote: »

Philologos, in your opinion,do all those Muslims and non believers that either won't or can't believe in Jesus go to hell ?

There are a lot of truths in Islam, and though this question wasnt aimed at me Im going to be cheeky enough to give my opinion; I do think and hope its possible that a lot of Muslims will be saved through the Divine Truth there is in Islam though they are (hopefully) saved through what is true in it and despite of what is false in it. I would have a lot more hope of pious Muslims entering into the Kingdom of Heaven they I would of most who call themselves Christian in Ireland today doing so.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: Caring is taking an interest in Creation. I don't see why it need be any more complex than that . God loves us, God knows the parameters of Creation and as a result knows how to live in it. That's why He's given us standards that we ought to follow. It is for our own benefit than for our detriment.

The parent who beats their child every day for being soft is taking an interest in their child. That doesn't make it caring.

Like I explained to tommy2bad if morality is defined by God it makes no sense to say that he cares for us simply by taking interest in us, since there would be no such thing for him to take a non-caring interest in us. You and all other Christians would simply define that as "caring".

You cannot tell that something is good unless you can say you know what it would be like if it was bad.

If what ever it is must be good then you cannot say it is good. Thus the term becomes meaningless. It is pointless to say God loves us, since a non-loving God is unimaginable given that what ever God does you simply define that as loving us.

If you don't believe me simply ask yourself what would a "bad" or "non-loving" God be?

ISAW

RichieC wrote: »

Seems to be a common enough phenomenon that people think the majority religion they grew up around is the one true religion.

how do you explain the growth of Christianity among paganism or Judaism?

RichieC

ISAW wrote: »

how do you explain the growth of Christianity among paganism or Judaism?

I'm not a historian, but I do know the Christians outlawed Paganism in 350 and began to murder Pagans or Convert them and destroy their temples. Christianity was a political power back then.

What's that got to do with what I said anyway? It is a self evident fact. most people in Eire are Catholics because it was the dominant religion. Mormonism arose as a regional religion as was Judaism back in the day.

If Christianity had of arose on two sides of the planet at once with two Identical bibles I'd be inclined to perhaps give it more thought. But it didn't. No religion has.

Zombrex

RichieC wrote: »

I'm not a historian, but I do know the Christians outlawed Paganism in 350 and began to murder Pagans or Convert them and destroy their temples. Christianity was a political power back then.

Explaining why a small percentage of people convert to a religion they were not raised in also doesn't explain why so many people simply continue in the religion they were raised in.

It is almost as if for most people it is not the details of the religion itself but the broad themes any of them can provide. Almost as if religion in general is some sort of human phenomena

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

Then it makes no sense to say that God knows what is good, or what is best for us, or is caring to us, since all those concepts would simply be defined as what ever God happens to treat us like.

discussed earlier
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Explaining why a small percentage of people convert to a religion they were not raised in also doesn't explain why so many people simply continue in the religion they were raised in.

It is almost as if for most people it is not the details of the religion itself but the broad themes any of them can provide. Almost as if religion in general is some sort of human phenomena

Nail and head. Thats because we are created by God
(See what I did their)

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that it is true that people aren't capable of believing in Jesus. It is more that people don't desire to do so.

Ultimately, if we've all sinned, and if Jesus is the only way that we can be saved (John 14:6), then there are very clear consequences for refusing to acknowledge Him. That's why Christians long to tell people about Him, so that they might be saved through Him.

Zombrex: Caring is taking an interest in Creation. I don't see why it need be any more complex than that . God loves us, God knows the parameters of Creation and as a result knows how to live in it. That's why He's given us standards that we ought to follow. It is for our own benefit than for our detriment.

So that is a yes then ?

All those Muslims that live good lives according to their beliefs are wasting their time as they are going to hell anyway ?

And all those murderers dictators torturers rapists child molesters that repent and believe in Jesus are going to heaven ?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

discussed earlier
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

That is a pointless argument, since it does the same thing as asserting God is good.

If God acts a particular way and we find it unreasonable or illogical then we are, by definition, wrong.

If you say "God will not do X because that would defy reason" and then God did X you would not say that cannot be God or God does not exist. You would say our understanding of X being something that defied reason was flawed.

The illogical nature of a number of Christian doctrine has been pointed out by atheists and other non-Christians on this forum and far beyond. Aside from a few converts this seems to have very little effect on you guys.

You simply say that we are wrong, even I would point out, while happily admitting you do not know why we are wrong, as PDN and Phil have done many times.

Even right now we are discussing the unreasonable assert that God does not want us to suffer yet made it so that we would suffer in his absence. You are desperately searching for a way to make that sound reasonable, wheedling out all manner of straw man arguments from free will to God just respecting our choices, none of which even begin to answer the actual questions.

Others have thrown up their hands and simply said they don't know, but they do know there is a reason and they will ask God what it is when they see him.

It is some what off topic, but it should also be pointed out that you have nothing to base your assertion that God is reasonable on other than that is simply how you choose to believe he is.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Nail and head. Thats because we are created by God
(See what I did their)

Which one .. see what I did there ...

HamletOrHecuba

marienbad wrote: »

All those Muslims that live good lives according to their beliefs are wasting their time as they are going to hell anyway ?

And all those murderers dictators torturers rapists child molesters that repent and believe in Jesus are going to heaven ?

Define a good life?

Also God is merciful- why should He not have mercy on those who repent and call upon Him however evil their deeds and send the "good" atheists into the fire for their rebellion?

It seems that people often have as big or a bigger issue with God's Mercy than they do with His Justice.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

That is a pointless argument, since it does the same thing as asserting God is good.

If God acts a particular way and we find it unreasonable or illogical then we are, by definition, wrong.

If you say "God will not do X because that would defy reason" and then God did X you would not say that cannot be God or God does not exist. You would say our understanding of X being something that defied reason was flawed.

You dont seem to understand.
Read it again.
the christian would say " that cannot be God" the Muslim would say "it is gods will"

The illogical nature of a number of Christian doctrine has been pointed out by atheists and other non-Christians on this forum and far beyond.

that is handwaving! WHAT is illogical or against reason in Christian theology?

You simply say that we are wrong, even I would point out, while happily admitting you do not know why we are wrong, as PDN and Phil have done many times.

More handwaving.
A bt like claims of the Bible ordering rape. and then when we look we dont find it; but it wont stop claims of "God ordered rape" being made.

Even right now we are discussing the unreasonable assert that God does not want us to suffer yet made it so that we would suffer in his absence.

you keep trying to assert that. Noone except you claimed Christian theology says it.

You are desperately searching for a way to make that sound reasonable, wheedling out all manner of straw man arguments from free will to God just respecting our choices, none of which even begin to answer the actual questions.

christians didnt claim it! YOU did!

Others have thrown up their hands and simply said they don't know, but they do know there is a reason and they will ask God what it is when they see him.

that is unfair. PDN admitted he didnt have the answer to all the unknowns. It was not a case of "it is allahs will"

It is some what off topic, but it should also be pointed out that you have nothing to base your assertion that God is reasonable on other than that is simply how you choose to believe he is.

that is nonsense. the same logic and reason is used by mathematics and science . It is the Logos of the greeks. If yu think it is absent in christian theology you are willfully ignorant.

marienbad

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Define a good life?

Also God is merciful- why should He not have mercy on those who repent and call upon Him however evil their deeds and send the "good" atheists into the fire for their rebellion?

It seems that people often have as big or a bigger issue with God's Mercy than they do with His Justice.

So all the inhabitants of north and south america before 1492 went to hell ? all those millions in asia back to the dawn of time that never even saw a christian are going to hell ?

Is that correct ?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

So all the inhabitants of north and south america before 1492 went to hell ? all those millions in asia back to the dawn of time that never even saw a christian are going to hell ?

Is that correct ?

no. not to mainstream christian theology.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

You dont seem to understand.
Read it again.
the christian would say " that cannot be God" the Muslim would say "it is gods will"




that is handwaving! WHAT is illogical or against reason in Christian theology?



More handwaving.
A bt like claims of the Bible ordering rape. and then when we look we dont find it; but it wont stop claims of "God ordered rape" being made.


you keep trying to assert that. Noone except you claimed Christian theology says it.



christians didnt claim it! YOU did!



that is unfair. PDN admitted he didnt have the answer to all the unknowns. It was not a case of "it is allahs will"



that is nonsense. the same logic and reason is used by mathematics and science . It is the Logos of the greeks. If yu think it is absent in christian theology you are willfully ignorant.

Must interrupt here , you don't find the bible orders rape ISAW- others do and there is nothing you can do about it- get over it .

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

no. not to mainstream christian theology.

what do you mean by mainstream ? how about those on here ? a lot appear to think so ?

Wh1stler

I think it is strange that God chose language and the written word as the method through which He makes Himself known to us rather than just getting the genetics right in the first place.

Especially when you consider the primitive nature of these tools at the time they were being used.

If there is a One True God then it is apparent that His relationship with the Universe ended at the Big-Bang event. And so, because of that, as far as the Universe is concerned, God can be considered as the fundamental laws of physics as it is they that will govern all the outcomes of the Universe.

The thing is that physics seems to explain so many observations made by humans based on simple unchanging laws from which the Universe can proceed.

Whereas, when God is introduced into an explanation of how existence came into being, it relies on rules that change in order to reconcile events that take place with the will of God.

But ultimately, physics can explain 'the will of God' too; the will of God can be described as the evolution of human behaviour which is biology which relies on chemistry which relies physics which only relies on the constancy of the speed of light.

Even if there is a God who caused the Big-Bang then by creating the laws of physics, He cancelled Himself out of the equation.

If God decided to change the laws of physics, it would be inconsequential; there would be no humanity to write and talk about Him. It would be as if we had never existed.

Who would God show off to then?

Wh1stler

ISAW wrote: »

that is nonsense. the same logic and reason is used by mathematics and science . It is the Logos of the greeks. If yu think it is absent in christian theology you are willfully ignorant.

But mathematics and science are supported by logic and reason whereas necessarily, Christian theology relies on something that is not supported by logic and reason. That is where 'faith' comes into it and you have to 'make' yourself believe that certain events occurred through supernatural means even though the same phenomena can be more easily explained by logic and reason and an analysis of human tendencies.

i.e., there may well be a God but it is not necessary to invoke God in order to describe human development. God doesn't explain it, God avoids explaining it.

I read about a survey todat that said that 93% of a group of scientists claimed not to believe in a personal God. In contrast, that is about the same proportion of all Americans that claim to believe in the existence of a personal God.

I think that is quite scary actually; these are the same people who put Bush in power. How can God have anything against Afghanistan and Iraq that He doesn't have against Bush and Blair?

This amounts to evidence that in order to apply the laws of physics on reality, one must completely ignore the effect that God has directly on anything. Only when one does that can it all make perfect sense.

You can't really blame God for anything so why should such a God be praised, He's not even watching or listening? And even if He was, all He would be able to do is look upon His creation in shock and horror.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

So that is a yes then ?

All those Muslims that live good lives according to their beliefs are wasting their time as they are going to hell anyway ?

And all those murderers dictators torturers rapists child molesters that repent and believe in Jesus are going to heaven ?

People who out and outright reject Jesus, will be condemned according to the Biblical text. Honouring God and following Him is good, rejecting God and rejecting His standard is evil. I think it is a Christian's responsibility to share the Gospel with all those around them for a reason. It's really important.

If I held to a universalist position - I would be denying the value and significance of Jesus' death and resurrection. If I said that anyone who the world perceives to be "good" should be saved irrespective of whether or not they hate God, I would be cheapening Jesus' death. It would be as if He died and rose again for nothing.

I have no issue in saying that if a murderer repents truly, and accepts Jesus that they can be transformed through Him. Likewise rapists, child molestors, torturers anything under the sun that is evil. The problem is that many people don't acknowledge that they have done wrong, and that they need to repent also. Jesus can play a key role in turning peoples lives around, indeed that's why many churches take part in prison ministry. Jesus makes it quite clear in the Gospel that anyone irrespective of how much of a sinner they are can accept Jesus and live for Him.

There is a grey area in respect to those who have never heard about Him. I trust God's better judgement in that situation.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Must interrupt here , you don't find the bible orders rape ISAW- others do and there is nothing you can do about it- get over it .

That is a fallacy against logic and reason.
First YOU claimed the God of the Bible ordered rape.
when pressed on it you couldnt support your contention.
the later you came back and made the same unsupported assertions!
The burden is on YOU who made the claim to support it.
Second it isnt a matter of "others have a different opinion" . You were clearly saying that it is written in the Bible that god ordered rape.
It ISNT!
It is not reasonable to conclude that your opinion is one of balance when clearly it panders more to bigotry than balance.
Furthermore the idea of "i cant prove P therefore P is true" is preposterous.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

what do you mean by mainstream ? how about those on here ? a lot appear to think so ?

I mean those subscribing to central dogmas e.g the roman church and associated eastern Christians and the Orthodox church and most Anglicans (other than Biblical fundamentalists)
that would be i guess about 80 to 90% of Christians.

ISAW

Wh1stler wrote: »

I think it is strange that God chose language and the written word as the method through which He makes Himself known to us rather than just getting the genetics right in the first place.

The written word is just a our representation of the concepts which we use to communicate.
The primary function of language is philosophy not communication so what is strange about that.
Ironically it is difficult to discuss (no pun intended) "right" genetics when we dont agree on what "right" is or what "evolution" is. I mean the words in quotes not the concepts.

Especially when you consider the primitive nature of these tools at the time they were being used.

And in what way do you suggest language or writing were primitive?
The nature is a heady topic for which you had best be prepared. for starters it isnt primarily about communication. that is a secondary function.

If there is a One True God then it is apparent that His relationship with the Universe ended at the Big-Bang event.

this is a philosophy called the "watchmaker god" philosophy i think. It is not a mainstream christian ohilosophy.

And so, because of that, as far as the Universe is concerned, God can be considered as the fundamental laws of physics as it is they that will govern all the outcomes of the Universe.

that is assuming such laws exist! thre are theological and/or atheistic philosophies of science which would suggest there might not be laws of physics.

The thing is that physics seems to explain so many observations made by humans based on simple unchanging laws from which the Universe can proceed.

Yes but not a theory of everything. quantum chromo dynamics is not sufficient. and physicists admit that a theory of everything while sufficient to explaing matter and how it behaves still would not be sufficient to explain human nature.

Also, metaphysics tackles things physics cat such as "should we use atomic weapons" " what is love" " what is value" We cant derive answers to these from physics alone.

Whereas, when God is introduced into an explanation of how existence came into being, it relies on rules that change in order to reconcile events that take place with the will of God.

Nope. Already dealt with. christianity is not morally relative. it accepts natural law. Mind you this inst exclusive to Christianity there can be secular natural law. but christianity doesnt say "all rules are always the same" in fact Christianity abolished many of the Jewish laws; what matters is the spirit of the law. yes the same act may be fair one time and not fair another time depending on context. But somethings are always wrong.
but the pôint about "will of god" is dealt with in the Regensberg quote

here it is again
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

and to emphasise the Hellinisation aspect

In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God's voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul - "λογικη λατρεία", worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).[10]

But ultimately, physics can explain 'the will of God' too; the will of God can be described as the evolution of human behaviour which is biology which relies on chemistry which relies physics which only relies on the constancy of the speed of light.

ther is a lot of handwaving there. i mean yu are mixing academic fields and misattributing th same to all. but you are using "evolution" in two different modes; biological "evolution" of a species is NOT the same as "social evolution" of a society. ther are problems with htis for example we can see where such thinking was used as a justification for ayrianism in Nazism.

Even if there is a God who caused the Big-Bang then by creating the laws of physics, He cancelled Himself out of the equation.

Or made himself into a cosmological constant?

If God decided to change the laws of physics, it would be inconsequential; there would be no humanity to write and talk about Him. It would be as if we had never existed.

there isn't much point discussing a universe in which there are no people and where we cant get to. Not from an empirical physics point of view. From a metaphysical point of view there is. You have just demonstrated it by doing it. You discussed the idea of something beyond the laws of physics -assuming they exist.

Who would God show off to then?

This comment illustrates more about the questioner than the nature of God.

ISAW

Wh1stler wrote: »

But mathematics and science are supported by logic and reason whereas necessarily, Christian theology relies on something that is not supported by logic and reason.

christianity also relies on greek logos.
some science can be argued to rely on belief. all science is not empiricism. telelogical arguments are in the philosophy of science.

That is where 'faith' comes into it and you have to 'make' yourself believe that certain events occurred through supernatural means even though the same phenomena can be more easily explained by logic and reason and an analysis of human tendencies.

What are alternate universes like especially ones we cant measure?
They defy empiricism.
The science depends on scientists believing in them.

i.e., there may well be a God but it is not necessary to invoke God in order to describe human development. God doesn't explain it, God avoids explaining it.

how does god avoid explaining it?
Of course it is not necessary to believe. If it was you wouldnt have the choice to believe.

I read about a survey todat that said that 93% of a group of scientists claimed not to believe in a personal God.

I read somewhere that 93% of internet posters claim things they cant supply any support for.

In contrast, that is about the same proportion of all Americans that claim to believe in the existence of a personal God.

according to what source?

I think that is quite scary actually; these are the same people who put Bush in power. How can God have anything against Afghanistan and Iraq that He doesn't have against Bush and Blair?

Christian fundmentalists were part of putting Bush in power. Bt they are fringe christians. the Pope and most christians opposed the invasion of Iraq! they only assented because they were lied to about WMD and al Khyda bases supported by Saddam!

You can't really blame God for anything so why should such a God be praised, He's not even watching or listening? And even if He was, all He would be able to do is look upon His creation in shock and horror.

Watchmaker god argument already dealt with -not christian

tommy2bad

philologos ;
If I held to a universalist position - I would be denying the value and significance of Jesus' death and resurrection.

No you would not.
Holding a position of special redemption is denying the value of the Incarnation.
God becomes man to redeem the world, we then restrict this redemption to our own pigeon fanciers club? Nah I don't buy it. I can say for certain that followers of Jesus will be saved but it's arrogance of the highest order to say that everyone else is damned.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

That is a fallacy against logic and reason.
First YOU claimed the God of the Bible ordered rape.
when pressed on it you couldnt support your contention.
the later you came back and made the same unsupported assertions!
The burden is on YOU who made the claim to support it.
Second it isnt a matter of "others have a different opinion" . You were clearly saying that it is written in the Bible that god ordered rape.
It ISNT!
It is not reasonable to conclude that your opinion is one of balance when clearly it panders more to bigotry than balance.
Furthermore the idea of "i cant prove P therefore P is true" is preposterous.

Firstly ISAW I did'nt claim it , others did , I joined in an ongoing conversation, Secondly I did'nt re-state it, you did. But all that is of no matter , I just mention it in the interests of accuraccy.

You have this habit of when a conversation runs its course of assuming that you have won the day- not so, There is usually nothing more to be said on the issue on either side and people move on .

You are correct though that I do believe the bible consents to rape .Now if that was rape by ancient or modern standards ( as raised by Morbert)is a good question that it might be interesting to pursue.

But for now I read the bible and I come to one conclusion and you come to a different conclusion. That has been the way since time immemorial.

For instance you say all those heathens don't go to hell, philologos is'nt sure and retreats befind the ''mysterious ways'' defence.And fundamentalist christians chuck them into hell in the blink of an eye.

All from reading the one book ! Get over it ISAW yours is obviously not the only interpretation.

This is a bit like the assertion that Shakespeare was a catholic, I believe so, the evidence is in the plays and in his life, circumstantial though it is says so. But I have seen the most reasonable of men foam at the mouth at that assertion. A bit like this rape issue- it all comes down to one reading over another.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

People who out and outright reject Jesus, will be condemned according to the Biblical text. Honouring God and following Him is good, rejecting God and rejecting His standard is evil. I think it is a Christian's responsibility to share the Gospel with all those around them for a reason. It's really important.

If I held to a universalist position - I would be denying the value and significance of Jesus' death and resurrection. If I said that anyone who the world perceives to be "good" should be saved irrespective of whether or not they hate God, I would be cheapening Jesus' death. It would be as if He died and rose again for nothing.

I have no issue in saying that if a murderer repents truly, and accepts Jesus that they can be transformed through Him. Likewise rapists, child molestors, torturers anything under the sun that is evil. The problem is that many people don't acknowledge that they have done wrong, and that they need to repent also. Jesus can play a key role in turning peoples lives around, indeed that's why many churches take part in prison ministry. Jesus makes it quite clear in the Gospel that anyone irrespective of how much of a sinner they are can accept Jesus and live for Him.

There is a grey area in respect to those who have never heard about Him. I trust God's better judgement in that situation.

SO this is a yes than ?

All those Muslims go to hell ? All those Buddists ? All those Native Americans ? Gandhi ,Nehru ,Avicenna ,Averroes,Muhammed Yunus, all the ancient Irish Kings and people before St.Patrick , the ancient Greeks Romans and Egyptians on which our civilisation is built all go to hell ?

And possibly in heaven Hitler Himmler Heydrich Borman Speer Mengele, Stalin Franco Salazar , virtually every serial killer in the western world ( definitely in heaven -that lot) , Brendan Smyth, Fortune et al .

Is my summation correct Philologos .

'' If I held to a universalist position - I would be denying the value of jesus' death and resurrection'' - What a thought - so billion and billions go to hell just because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time !

And ISAW with his unending lists of the fatalities from ''there is no god regimes'' - Who needs hitler and Stalin when you have a God like this ?

It makes a mockery of the conversation concerning universal rights etc.