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
-
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.
I don't think that is what Philologos is saying at all. Indeed, you would have to ignore the last sentence of his post (and the rest of it) to reach that conclusion.
Perhaps John Stott's "The Cross of Christ" would be of help to you. In particular chapters 1 - 6. Some interesting reviews on Amazon.com. (Though it is important not to confuse reviews of the book with the book itself.)0 -
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.
Your last sentence implies people can be saved even if they do not accept Jesus. Where do you draw the line regarding "hearing" about him? A Muslim child taught from the beginning that Jesus is not the son of God? A child taught by abusive clergy? A child taught by unconvincing clergy? Someone who found the Bible in a section marked "World Religions" in a book store?0 -
Neither science nor scientists believe in alternate universes as fact. All that can be stated currently is that the maths suggests it as a possibility.What are alternate universes like especially ones we cant measure?
They defy empiricism.
The science depends on scientists believing in them.
I would imagine that statistic came from the latest new scientist. Source survey is not provided as reference in the article...I read somewhere that 93% of internet posters claim things they cant supply any support for.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328562.300-the-god-issue-god-is-a-testable-hypothesis.html
I would imagine it is the same source, it is mentioned as only an approximation with no reference for the approximation provided.according to what source?0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »I don't think that is what Philologos is saying at all. Indeed, you would have to ignore the last sentence of his post (and the rest of it) to reach that conclusion.
Perhaps John Stott's "The Cross of Christ" would be of help to you. In particular chapters 1 - 6. Some interesting reviews on Amazon.com. (Though it is important not to confuse reviews of the book with the book itself.)
Not at all Fanny - this is just a variation on Lord Denning's ''appalling vista'' but in reverse. Faced with the logic of one's own beliefs one begins to equivocate.
Just to simplify matters- according to Philologos Ghandhi is in hell and Hitler potentially in heaven- is that correct ?
As an added question are the Jews since the New Testament saved or damned ?0 -
0
-
Advertisement
-
ISAW spends his day arguing religion and he attacks others for posting things they can't supply any support for.
Glass houses, man... glass houses.0 -
What are alternate universes like especially ones we cant measure?
They defy empiricism.
The science depends on scientists believing in them.
You keep claiming this. The current status of parallel universes in the scientific community is conjecture. It is simply the case that their possibility is suggested by current quantum theory. And regardless, they do not defy empiricism, as there has been speculation of possible experiments to detect other universes.0 -
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.
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.
You avoid my point; God chose a very inefficient method of spreading knowledge of Himself. Instead of requiring everyone to be evangelised He could have simply written Himself into our genome thereby removing the need for preachers who run the risk of not being believed. If God values our souls, then why didn't He provide better safeguards for them?this is a philosophy called the "watchmaker god" philosophy i think. It is not a mainstream christian ohilosophy.
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.
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.
As it stands, physics is incomplete and no decent scientist would say otherwise. But any assumtions made by science are constantly tested until they either break down or don't. It they break down then science adjusts its position and if they don't, a hypothesis remains supported. Religion doesn't operate that way, it makes an assumption then sticks to it no matter how badly the assumption fares scientifically.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
and to emphasise the Hellinisation aspect
Yes but I hold that natural law is determined by physical processes. And moreover, does natural law apply to all life? Is it wrong for old dogs to have sex with young dogs? Would 'good' and 'evil' exist in the absence of humans? Where does natural law apply outside of a human context?
'Good' and 'evil' are not 'things', they don't exist. They are simply the result of our tendency to differentiate what will benefit us (or society) and what would be harmful to us (and society). Humans are very exploitable and morality is a learned response which helps us get the most use from each other.
Furthermore, if you are going to use a term like 'natural law' you have to be able to define what 'natural' is. What happens to natural law in un-natural circumstances? If it meant the survival of the human species would rape be wrong?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.
You are being pedantic. I see no reason not to view different societies as single 'super-organisms' that have taken slightly different evolutionary paths due to environmental differences and so forth. I mean, for instance, the West 'evolved' democracy as an adaptation whereas the Middle-East evolved a political system that is incompatible with democracy but perhaps it is the case that democracy wouldn't suit the nature of Middle-Easterners. What is natural to you is not necessarily natural to others.
Doesn't 'natural law' depend on what is considered natural?Or made himself into a cosmological constant?
Which is infinitely more useful than an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God with a plan.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.
You misunderstand. My point is that if the laws of physics were just slightly different then so too, 'natural law' would be different.This comment illustrates more about the questioner than the nature of God.
I'm sorry, my intention was to illustrate the fact that God is for mankind so it would be pointless if God changed the laws of physics so that life could not exist in the form it presently does.
If there were no humans then who would God speak to?0 -
Wh1stler ;
God chose a very inefficient method of spreading knowledge of Himself. Instead of requiring everyone to be evangelised He could have simply written Himself into our genome thereby removing the need for preachers who run the risk of not being believed. If God values our souls, then why didn't He provide better safeguards for them?
I think He did, thats why religion has existed as long as man has been around. Why isn't it a compulsion? because that would remove free will and as we can see those who become obsessed with God don't end well or obsessed with anything for that matter.0 -
Neither science nor scientists believe in alternate universes as fact. All that can be stated currently is that the maths suggests it as a possibility.
Same for the Big bang, hubble expansion , random abiogenesis, non interventional evolution, relativity all possibilities all theories.
Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
Many-worlds implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe").
...
Prior to many-worlds, reality had always been viewed as a single unfolding history.0 -
Advertisement
-
You avoid my point; God chose a very inefficient method of spreading knowledge of Himself. Instead of requiring everyone to be evangelised He could have simply written Himself into our genome thereby removing the need for preachers who run the risk of not being believed. If God values our souls, then why didn't He provide better safeguards for them?
No you miss the point. the physical explanation of matter does not encompass the philosophical implications of language or the soul.
Again not the point. Physics is not sufficient to explain metaphysics.As it stands, physics is incomplete and no decent scientist would say otherwise.
And this view of science is only ONE philosophy . It is naive to assume all science has a single agreed philosophy.But any assumtions made by science are constantly tested until they either break down or don't. It they break down then science adjusts its position and if they don't, a hypothesis remains supported.
that is part of the History and Philosophy of science (HPS) called the Hypoductive method. HD epistemology is also not sufficient. Kuhn Lakatos nd Popper would all differ on this. I would think if you are interested in Language you could try Lev Vygotsky not really spoken of much today but a bloody genius.Religion doesn't operate that way, it makes an assumption then sticks to it no matter how badly the assumption fares scientifically.
to some things like"rape is always wrong"
but in other aspects there is a sociocultural lens. It isnt a choice
The Ethical Brain by Michael Gazzaniga ''The Nature of Moral Beliefs and the Concept of Universal Ethics,'' Dr. Zanniga explores whether there is ''an innate human moral sense.'' The theories of evolutionary psychology point out, Gazzaniga notes, that ''moral reasoning is good for human survival,'' and social science has concluded that human societies almost universally share rules against incest and murder while valuing family loyalty and truth telling. ''We must commit ourselves to the view that a universal ethics is possible,'' he concludes. (Sally Satel, NY Times 6-19-05)
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Normative_Ethical_Relativism.htm
Consider the question: Are all moral duties binding on all people at all times or are moral duties relative to culture? Few can think of a third alternative to these two choices. Finding absolutism untenable many simply accept the relativist position.Yes but I hold that natural law is determined by physical processes. And moreover, does natural law apply to all life? Is it wrong for old dogs to have sex with young dogs? Would 'good' and 'evil' exist in the absence of humans? Where does natural law apply outside of a human context?
Nature.'Good' and 'evil' are not 'things', they don't exist. They are simply the result of our tendency to differentiate what will benefit us (or society) and what would be harmful to us (and society). Humans are very exploitable and morality is a learned response which helps us get the most use from each other.
You sociological constructivist normative ethical relativism has problems as detailed in the link above.Furthermore, if you are going to use a term like 'natural law' you have to be able to define what 'natural' is. What happens to natural law in un-natural circumstances? If it meant the survival of the human species would rape be wrong?
Laws of physics if such exist when applied to nature
Morality when applied to ethics.You are being pedantic. I see no reason not to view different societies as single 'super-organisms' that have taken slightly different evolutionary paths due to environmental differences and so forth. I mean, for instance, the West 'evolved' democracy as an adaptation whereas the Middle-East evolved a political system that is incompatible with democracy but perhaps it is the case that democracy wouldn't suit the nature of Middle-Easterners. What is natural to you is not necessarily natural to others.
you are committing the same memetic fallacy of comparing society t a biological organismIf there were no humans then who would God speak to?
dunno. i suppose whoever he spoke to before there were humans.0 -
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.
I can't really disagree with this. The scientific community has many levels. Some graduates have faith in their tutors and trust the science on that basis. Some scientists are in the business of finding research money; some may compromise science for political reasons. And of course, there are likely to be corrupt elements at each level in the hierachy of science.
Science is such a powerful tool with its political and military implications that it is inevitable that there are those who would subvert it. The thing about science is though, there will always be those who are genuinely searching for truth and charge themselves with disposing of assumptions. These are the true scientists but we are not talking about them.What are alternate universes like especially ones we cant measure?
They defy empiricism.
The science depends on scientists believing in them.
I don't know but would each Universe have chosen ones of God? Or would it just be this one?how does god avoid explaining it?
Of course it is not necessary to believe. If it was you wouldnt have the choice to believe.
Sorry, I am lucky to have a choice. Some don't have a choice. And some have a genuine terror of going to a place called Hell. That's not about choice, it's about increasing club membership.
Let me ask you, what are the questions raised by reality such as 'How did the Earth come to be here?' or 'Where did life come from?' that can be succesfully explained by God?
It seems to me that the general explanation is that God just 'zapped' everything into being. (Everything except evil that is.)
What does God tell us about gravity and the speed of light?
By definition, it is not possible to believe in God through the scientific method as there can be no scientific evidence for God. God is irrelevant to science until God can be detected through science.
But faith removes the need for explanations. Faith in God is the answer to all unanswerable questions.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!
The Pope must have been very surprised to find that politicians had lied to him. If you ask me, the Pope seems to be out of the loop as far as God is concerned too. I mean, would it have killed God to send Gabriel to visit the Pope and tell him about the WMDs and maybe warn him about dishonest politicians at the same time?
Seriously, the Pope's club has about a billion members. God could have sent a stronger message to the Pope. Or shouldn't the Pope be trying to influence such goings on in the world. All those souls that were robbed of the opportunity of baptism, the Pope should be ashamed he wasn't more vocal about it then and now.
So again, what use is God to the living?0 -
Same for the Big bang, hubble expansion , random abiogenesis, non interventional evolution, relativity
The big bang and relativity are well established scientific theories with plenty of evidence.
Abiogenesis is an umbrella term for the investigation of possible mechanisms responsible for the beginning of life, covering topics like molecular evolution and early biochemisty. It is certainly evidence-based, and certainly scientific.
A typical example of an abiogenesis paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20907/?tool=pmcentrez
I have no idea what "non-interventional evolution" is.Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
Many-worlds implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe").
...
Prior to many-worlds, reality had always been viewed as a single unfolding history.
MWI is different to parallel universe conjectures. MWI is just an interpretation of quantum mechanics which says the unitary evolution of the wavefunction persists during measurements. A "world", in this case, is just a branch of the wavefunction with increasing Hamming distance due to decoherence. The theory is quantum mechanics, and the interpretation is MWI, as opposed to, say, the Copenhagen interpretation. What ontological significance you want to attach to the wavefunction is neither here nor there. All scientists care about is which framework provides the cleanest connections between the postulates of Quantum theory and observable reality.
The "multiple universes" conjecture you are thinking about is the "sum over spacetime topologies" modal realism espoused by scientists like Stephen Hawking, positions that are certainly classed as conjecture, and not established theory.0 -
-
No you miss the point. the physical explanation of matter does not encompass the philosophical implications of language or the soul.
That is an article of faith on your part, not mine.
But that wasn't the point, I said that verbal communication and the written word are not the most effective way of God maximising the number of souls that return to Him.Again not the point. Physics is not sufficient to explain metaphysics.
And this view of science is only ONE philosophy . It is naive to assume all science has a single agreed philosophy.
But physics will evolve into a theory that will sufficiently explain metaphysics if it doesn't already do so to your satisfaction.
As far as I'm concerned, love, fear, ghosts and God can be explained in terms of brain-chemistry.that is part of the History and Philosophy of science (HPS) called the Hypoductive method. HD epistemology is also not sufficient. Kuhn Lakatos nd Popper would all differ on this. I would think if you are interested in Language you could try Lev Vygotsky not really spoken of much today but a bloody genius.
Thanks. Which do you think came first, the human soul or the ability to communicate through speech? When did the human species aquire souls?
And out of interest, do you accept that humans evolved from monkeys?to some things like"rape is always wrong"
but in other aspects there is a sociocultural lens. It isnt a choice
The Ethical Brain by Michael Gazzaniga ''The Nature of Moral Beliefs and the Concept of Universal Ethics,'' Dr. Zanniga explores whether there is ''an innate human moral sense.'' The theories of evolutionary psychology point out, Gazzaniga notes, that ''moral reasoning is good for human survival,'' and social science has concluded that human societies almost universally share rules against incest and murder while valuing family loyalty and truth telling. ''We must commit ourselves to the view that a universal ethics is possible,'' he concludes. (Sally Satel, NY Times 6-19-05)
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Normative_Ethical_Relativism.htm
'Universal Ethics' - is that something that would be good for everyone all the time?Consider the question: Are all moral duties binding on all people at all times or are moral duties relative to culture? Few can think of a third alternative to these two choices. Finding absolutism untenable many simply accept the relativist position.
Or does our own personal morality influnce us in our choice of duties to be bound to?Nature.
Constantly changing nature.You sociological constructivist normative ethical relativism has problems as detailed in the link above.
I disagree, it just goes to show how hypocrisy can occur.Laws of physics if such exist when applied to nature
Morality when applied to ethics.
Whose morality? Are we looking for a moral standard that sanctifies all human life to all mankind? Can you imagine the disaster that that could lead to? Soylent Green anyone?you are committing the same memetic fallacy of comparing society t a biological organism
What? Can you not see that different cultures evolved in a similar way to Darwin's finches, becoming specialised depending on environmental pressures? And what is society if not a biological organism?dunno. i suppose whoever he spoke to before there were humans.
He still needed to write a new book though didn't He?0 -
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.
People before Jesus were judged in terms of their acknowledgement of God prior to that point. Jesus is the fulfillment of that fundamental problem that we have as human beings.
I can tell an aggressive tone to your last few points. I'm just going to state unequivocally that I will only be continuing this discussion if you're willing to be calm about it. I post on boards.ie recreationally, yes, I do want to post about Jesus on boards, but it'd be better if we did this on acceptable terms.
Your entire post is based on the presupposition that humans are inherently good. That isn't the reality. Even if we look to the Ten Commandments, we can see that we are all guilty by God's standard if we're honest about it.- “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
“You shall have no other gods before me. - “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
- “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
- “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
- “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.
- “You shall not murder.
- “You shall not commit adultery.
- “You shall not steal.
- “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
- “You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbour's.”
Being honest, I've broken every single one of these, if we regard hatred in your heart as being akin to murder as Jesus describes (Matthew 5:21-22), and lust after another as being akin to adultery (Matthew 5:28).
On looking to these alone, I realise that I'm guilty towards God and rightfully at the day of judgement according to His standard, I'm guilty. There's nothing I can do about that. Ultimately you think that God's standard is unjustified, but if God is the Creator of this world, and if He has authority over it. He's fully entitled to give us standards to live by for our own good.
Ultimately, there's nothing I can do to save myself. Even any good works. Even if I do good works, I'm still guilty before God. It is only by Jesus' saving grace on the cross that I can come to know Him. The idea that this is unfair or ridiculous is absurd, I am guilty before God, and God has done everything in His power to rescue me from my sin. God has bent over backwards for mankind, even though He didn't have to. He rescued us while we still were sinners, while we still hated Him (Romans 5).
God has the right to judge, but if we are willing to accept Jesus as our Saviour we can be brought back into relationship with Him. The question is why is man so stubborn, and so prideful? Why doesn't man want to acknowledge the truth about their condition and put things right with God through His Son Jesus who died as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).
Why did Jesus die on our behalf - as a ransom for many? If there is no such thing as penalty for sin, Jesus would have died for nothing. Ultimately to claim that it is not fair to God punishes for sin is absurd, especially when He has even sent Jesus into the world to save us.0 - “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
-
I can't really disagree with this. The scientific community has many levels. Some graduates have faith in their tutors and trust the science on that basis. Some scientists are in the business of finding research money; some may compromise science for political reasons. And of course, there are likely to be corrupt elements at each level in the hierachy of science.
so if you believe science is contextually linked to society and society itself isnt reducable to physical equations then science is not internally determined. it isn,t sufficient. the HD method is reliant on HPS.Science is such a powerful tool with its political and military implications that it is inevitable that there are those who would subvert it. The thing about science is though, there will always be those who are genuinely searching for truth and charge themselves with disposing of assumptions. These are the true scientists but we are not talking about them.
They may also be the true monks.I don't know but would each Universe have chosen ones of God? Or would it just be this one?
Frances of Assisi the Christian Mystic would regard all creation including inanimate objects as deserving of respect.Sorry, I am lucky to have a choice. Some don't have a choice. And some have a genuine terror of going to a place called Hell. That's not about choice, it's about increasing club membership.
There is an ongoing debate on that in Christianity. I would think it not a mainstream Christian interpretation of Hell. Believe it or not that like the scientific concept of the cosmos - changes.
The first cause/prime mover question.Let me ask you, what are the questions raised by reality such as 'How did the Earth come to be here?' or 'Where did life come from?' that can be succesfully explained by God?It seems to me that the general explanation is that God just 'zapped' everything into being. (Everything except evil that is.)
It may seem that way to you but the cosmological argument is not only contingent
but there exist in esse and in fieri variations so the "just" does not apply.What does God tell us about gravity and the speed of light?
Is there a cause which let light be?By definition, it is not possible to believe in God through the scientific method as there can be no scientific evidence for God. God is irrelevant to science until God can be detected through science.
A fish may be unable to be aware of us as it swims in its bowl but that dos not mean we are irrelevant to the fish.
No it dosn't. and it isnt necessarily; That would be a Jewish fatalist interpretation of Jonah or Job.But faith removes the need for explanations. Faith in God is the answer to all unanswerable questions.
He didnt want deaths even if there were WMD.The Pope must have been very surprised to find that politicians had lied to him.If you ask me, the Pope seems to be out of the loop as far as God is concerned too. I mean, would it have killed God to send Gabriel to visit the Pope and tell him about the WMDs and maybe warn him about dishonest politicians at the same time?
Causality violation. And just because we have knowledge doesnt mean we have no problems. in fact it probably means the opposite.Seriously, the Pope's club has about a billion members. God could have sent a stronger message to the Pope. Or shouldn't the Pope be trying to influence such goings on in the world. All those souls that were robbed of the opportunity of baptism, the Pope should be ashamed he wasn't more vocal about it then and now.
i dont think he could have been. god could also stpo time or do all sorts of other god things. Bt apparently christians believe that isnt necessary. what is necessary is that people can get to god without having to use supernatural powers. apparently christ shows them how this can be done. And it isnt hard to learn.So again, what use is God to the living?
As much use as bread or water but not for the body apparently.0 -
Same for the Big bang, hubble expansion , random abiogenesis, non interventional evolution, relativity all possibilities all theories.
Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
Many-worlds implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe").
...
Prior to many-worlds, reality had always been viewed as a single unfolding history.
I don't understand. Are you trying to agree, disagree, or just state the obvious? All I wanted to do was point out an inaccuracy that science depends on scientists to "believe in" alternate universes, that is simply not true.
The thing about many worlds interpretations is that they don't currently make predictions that can be observed, and as such scientists do not "believe in them" (poor terminology but I'll let it slide given the forum).0 -
I think He did, thats why religion has existed as long as man has been around. Why isn't it a compulsion? because that would remove free will and as we can see those who become obsessed with God don't end well or obsessed with anything for that matter.
Free will doesn't come into it though. If you are born and raised in a Catholic community you are indoctinated in Catholicism. You are baptised, you attend mass and before you know it, you're being confirmed. There is no choice.
It is the same for Islamics, Jews, Hindus etc. We pick up things from our parents and our peer groups. Things like these form our views without even calling upon free will.
In fact, I think that free will nothing more than the decision making process of weighing up what you want to do by nature against what you should do morally. It is a process of justification in a way.
There are extremes, mind you. Stealing food because you are hungry would not be a moral issue to me whereas politicians awarding themselves payrises is. In general, I think that stealing is wrong but starving to death is more wrong.0 -
It grinds my gears a little bit when atheists try to claim that science is the handmaiden of atheism. Ultimately, that isn't any more true than saying that it is the handmaiden of Christianity or Islam.0
-
Advertisement
-
philologos wrote: »People before Jesus were judged in terms of their acknowledgement of God prior to that point. Jesus is the fulfillment of that fundamental problem that we have as human beings.
I can tell an aggressive tone to your last few points. I'm just going to state unequivocally that I will only be continuing this discussion if you're willing to be calm about it. I post on boards.ie recreationally, yes, I do want to post about Jesus on boards, but it'd be better if we did this on acceptable terms.
Your entire post is based on the presupposition that humans are inherently good. That isn't the reality. Even if we look to the Ten Commandments, we can see that we are all guilty by God's standard if we're honest about it.
Being honest, I've broken every single one of these, if we regard hatred in your heart as being akin to murder as Jesus describes (Matthew 5:21-22), and lust after another as being akin to adultery (Matthew 5:28).
On looking to these alone, I realise that I'm guilty towards God and rightfully at the day of judgement according to His standard, I'm guilty. There's nothing I can do about that. Ultimately you think that God's standard is unjustified, but if God is the Creator of this world, and if He has authority over it. He's fully entitled to give us standards to live by for our own good.
Ultimately, there's nothing I can do to save myself. Even any good works. Even if I do good works, I'm still guilty before God. It is only by Jesus' saving grace on the cross that I can come to know Him. The idea that this is unfair or ridiculous is absurd, I am guilty before God, and God has done everything in His power to rescue me from my sin. God has bent over backwards for mankind, even though He didn't have to. He rescued us while we still were sinners, while we still hated Him (Romans 5).
God has the right to judge, but if we are willing to accept Jesus as our Saviour we can be brought back into relationship with Him. The question is why is man so stubborn, and so prideful? Why doesn't man want to acknowledge the truth about their condition and put things right with God through His Son Jesus who died as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).
Why did Jesus die on our behalf - as a ransom for many? If there is no such thing as penalty for sin, Jesus would have died for nothing. Ultimately to claim that it is not fair to God punishes for sin is absurd, especially when He has even sent Jesus into the world to save us.
Steady on there Philologos, there is no aggressive tone what so ever in my posts , and if you see it as such and in the context of this forum then have done with it. I only post here also in a recreational mode.
Again you are not answering my question . You say my entire position on an incorrect supposition , I say not so.
You have already acceped that serial killers torturers child abusers dictators are either in heaven and can enter heaven . That leaves those that ignored the message or did'nt get or had no opportunity to hear it.
It is a simple question -so to recap are all those Muslims Budhists etc in hell or not . Are all those billions that never had an opportunity to hear the message of Jesus in Hell ? Are all the Jews since the New Testament in Hell.0 -
I think it is based on an incorrect presumption, and that's why I'm challenging it. I need to do that if we're going to have a meaningful discussion.
The point is that anyone can be saved. They simply need to acknowledge that Jesus is Lord and by His grace to be transformed and live for Him. Ultimately I don't believe I'm any more "good" than a murderer, or a rapist. Before God I'm just as guilty.
People who have ignored God, are still guilty for sin. Rejecting God is serious, and it is wrong. It has consequences. I understand that, and that's why I repent of my sin and strive to follow Jesus day to day, because ultimately Jesus is right about the state of my heart and ultimately Jesus is the only one who can bring me back to a meaningful relationship with God.
As for those who never heard of it, the Bible is silent on that issue, so it is right for me to leave that to God's better judgement.
I've rather clearly stated my position. Jesus came to rescue us from our sin, if one rejects Him one rejects the very means of salvation. Ultimately one will be condemned.0 -
philologos wrote: »I think it is based on an incorrect presumption, and that's why I'm challenging it. I need to do that if we're going to have a meaningful discussion.
The point is that anyone can be saved. They simply need to acknowledge that Jesus is Lord and by His grace to be transformed and live for Him. Ultimately I don't believe I'm any more "good" than a murderer, or a rapist. Before God I'm just as guilty.
People who have ignored God, are still guilty for sin. Rejecting God is serious, and it is wrong. It has consequences. I understand that, and that's why I repent of my sin and strive to follow Jesus day to day, because ultimately Jesus is right about the state of my heart and ultimately Jesus is the only one who can bring me back to a meaningful relationship with God.
As for those who never heard of it, the Bible is silent on that issue, so it is right for me to leave that to God's better judgement.
I've rather clearly stated my position. Jesus came to rescue us from our sin, if one rejects Him one rejects the very means of salvation. Ultimately one will be condemned.
I understand all that Philologos- so that consigns all the Muslim and Jewish communities etc to hell as they came in contact with the message of Jesus and refused to accept it - So Gandhi Nehru Avicenna Einstein etc are all in hell.
That just leaves those who never heard of Jesus or christianity in any shape or form and were never given an opportunity to do so , for example
all those Native Americans born before 1492, you say the Bible is silent on that one ! A bit of a gap one would think - no?
And this before we get to infant deaths and aborted fetuses which in Christian terms are human beings - all straight to hell or is the Bible silent on that also ?0 -
I've mentioned people before Christ already. I'm not going to engage with rhetoric. I'm also not going to specifically list people. What I will do is state my position and you can do the rest.
As for unborn children - I don't see how someone who hasn't been born is capable of sin. Do you?0 -
Just to simplify matters- according to Philologos Ghandhi is in hell and Hitler potentially in heaven- is that correct ?
You would have to ask him that.As an added question are the Jews since the New Testament saved or damned ?
Christianity teaches that we are all damned, and justifiably so. It also teaches that we have been offered the gift of salvation.
Millions of Jews have lived out their lives both before and after the time of Jesus, some of them even wrote the Bible. I have no idea what their ultimate fate is. Should I know?0 -
philologos wrote: »I've mentioned people before Christ already. I'm not going to engage with rhetoric. I'm also not going to specifically list people. What I will do is state my position and you can do the rest.
Phil, the atheist wants to know how God judges an individual soul - but also wants to put words in your mouth about who is or is not saved, things you couldn't possibly know.....lol.....Crazy questions.
We do know that Scripture mentions that to those whom much has been given much is expected - it doesn't tell us 'Christians' whether we are 'saved' or not either - just that God is a God of love and mercy and to trust in him and his Son is the foundation of all wisdom, knowledge and understanding, since that is what 'he' created too - anything else is vanity and a chasing after wind from his perspective ultimately.
Whether one 'knows' God or not is entirely up to them - seek and you will find, ask and it will be given to you, knock and the door will be opened, and he judges an earnest heart perfectly.0 -
-
philologos wrote: »I've mentioned people before Christ already. I'm not going to engage with rhetoric. I'm also not going to specifically list people. What I will do is state my position and you can do the rest.
As for unborn children - I don't see how someone who hasn't been born is capable of sin. Do you?
I am open to correction of course , but are they not stained with original sin ? Or is that just catholics ? Otherwise what is the need for baptism ?
By the way Philologos I am sorry you dismiss my argument as rhetoric and refuse to specify people. It would appear to me that not naming names makes just makes it easier to ignore the consequences of your position, that at least 66% of the world population at any given time are not going to heaven no matter how well they lives their lives.And at least half of that 66% ( at a minimum) are going straight to Hell.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »You would have to ask him that.
Christianity teaches that we are all damned, and justifiably so. It also teaches that we have been offered the gift of salvation.
Millions of Jews have lived out their lives both before and after the time of Jesus, some of them even wrote the Bible. I have no idea what their ultimate fate is. Should I know?
Only some have been offered the gift of salvation Fanny .0 -
Advertisement
-
I haven't dismissed your argument. I've given you the mechanics that the Bible puts forward in respect to our salvation. If we are willing to trust in Jesus, and if we are to give up our lives to follow Him we will be saved from God's rightful judgement.
I'm not going to go through individuals names, or anything else, because it really isn't necessary. I believe that Jesus is the way to salvation, if we believe in Him, He will transform our lives for His glory, we will be brought back to God.
You seem to wonder why it is that people like me even bother to mention the Gospel. It is because it is so serious for ones salvation. I understand in full the consequences of my position, that's why I'm posting about this. I long for all people to know Jesus and to be rescued from sin.
If we've sinned and fallen short of God's glory, each and every one of us. Then it doesn't particularly matter how well people think we've lived. Ultimately when push comes to shove, we've all done evil before God, and we need to repent and turn away from it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement