Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Wh1stler

tommy2bad wrote: »

Tacitly excluded??? I give up. Whats the answer?

According to the Pope, Israel!

lmaopml

Wh1stler wrote: »

And are consigned to hell because no man can keep the law of God.

i.e., Jews who reject Jesus must go to hell.

No that's wrong; you are very misinformed methinks. The Jewish people are Gods chosen people. The law of Moses predates the incarnation and New Covenant. Jews who reject Christ still operate under the Old Covenant.

But the son is the father is He not? And didn't Jesus Himself say that those who deny Him will be denied by Him? What could that mean?

Well, one would want to know him first woudn't one? It means what it says.

And to deny that Jesus is the son of God means a trip to eternal damnation. Jews and Muslims are going to hell according to Jesus.

Jesus certainly did not say that 'Jews and Muslims' are going to Hell - He was far more eloquent. He claimed to be the way, the truth and the light.

Wh1stler wrote: »

So when Jesus said, 'no-one comes to my father but through me' He meant, 'no-one comes to my father but through me, except everyone who does'?

Well everybody that does, er 'does', yes.

He went even further, even calling Jesus 'Lord!' (having faith) is not enough. 'The gate is narrow' and all that.

He wouldn't have said this if it wasn't so- The Gate is narrow and the path is hard that walks in the light. There are people who claim to be Christian but (you may know some) don't live in the light of Christ. These are the people that cry out 'Lord, Lord..' - when they never knew him.

Also, according to Jesus' words, if you deny Him, He will deny you.

Correct. You deny truth, love, justice, mercy, peace - even though you have been offered it, instead choose to hate Christ. So, correct.

Where did the ambiguity of Jesus' words come from?

There is no ambiguity. You pick and choose pieces of Scripture and try to understand the Love of Christ, and it's like picking and choosing a couple of photos and telling a persons life story - can't do it.

And when Jesus instructed that the gospel be taken to all nations, which nations were tacitly exempted?

Absolutley none. Christians are given the task of spreading the Gospel to all nations.

According to the words of Jesus, if you don't recognise Him as God, or the son of God, then you go to hell.

Oh, simplicity.

Wh1stler wrote: »

You should have let Jesus finish. He goes on to say:

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
44 “Then they also will answer Him,URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-24053d"][COLOR=#0000ff]d[/COLOR][/URL saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

So almost everyone is going to hell since almost everyone will be on the left hand.

No. You don't know that, you are not God. In fact there are very many people who love God with all their heart, with all their soul and with all their mind, and their neighbour as themselves. There are good people.

Faith in Jesus is not enough but according to Jesus it is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Yes faith is necessary for salvation, faith in God and a sincere heart that seeks him out and loves their neighbour too.

Wh1stler wrote: »

I see, Paul should be heard over Jesus.

Rubbish.

Abraham and Mary must feel awfully lonely.

More rubbish.

Wh1stler wrote: »

According to the Pope, Israel!

Absolute steaming pile of rubbish.

Wistler, you don't know a thing about Christianity, just some sarky comments you picked up from God knows where all strung together into some incoherent muddle that no more describes the Christian God or what Christianity is; God who is all knowledge, all wisdom, all powerful, all mercy and all justice. You want to know who is 'saved' and isn't and claim to already.....More rubbish.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

This forum (repeatably) demonstrates that ain't the case. You do not say that cannot be God, if you did you would be an atheist by now. Instead you either find convoluted and illogical reasons why it still is God, or simply throw your hands up and say you don't know why but it is.

Read the reference
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
Age of dehellization with respect to faith and reason!
In it the Pope clearly shows the links between "Logos" and Christianity
It is the same "word" to excuse the pun!
The root word of LOGIC.

It is quite clear that acting withing reason is rooted in hellintic philosophy.

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.

not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature
Controversy VII, 2 c: Khoury, pp. 142-143; Förstel, vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.5, pp. 240-241
the Pope agrees with Manuel II on this point but not necessarily on the way it was made.

Christian faith is no more reason based than Muslim faith. Simply declaring that your god is follows reason and theirs doesn't is pointless posturing.

No it isnt! You dont understand the difference between "surrenderring to the will of allah" when/if it means " 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."
as expressed by French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that
source: R. Arnaldez, Grammaire et théologie chez Ibn Hazm de Cordoue, Paris 1956, p. 13; cf. Khoury, p. 144.

the Pope goes so far as to point out how this IS NOT mainstream christian Thelogy in relation to Duns Scotus (he of the old Irish five pound note fame) in the Late Middle Ages

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)

You have to note that Augustine of hippo and Thomas Aquinas were doctors of the church who adopted Greek reason into Christianity. It is the same Greek element which is be basis for Western Science or as Wolpert or Chalmers would claim.
i pointed out all this to you before and as usual you resorted to shallow satirical comments
you were even aware of the link between logos and christian philosophy
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65378670&postcount=59
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65381438&postcount=73
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65381726&postcount=75
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65388025&postcount=80

Where to start. Oh yes, how about the thing we were just discussing, the conflict between the idea that God does not wish us to suffer yet created us to suffer if he was not present, something he knew would affect a great deal of humans.

That was you invention! you want to believe it but no christian theology supports it.
you just make up a theory bout christianity and thn try to cobble together anything at all to support it. But your house is built on sand.
Guess what?
The tide came in.

Therefore the statement "God does not wish us to suffer" and "God is omnipotent and created humans" cannot both be true while retaining reason. As far as I can see, and so far you have provide nothing to demonstrate otherwise.

Maybe you dont see so for because you have sunk into the footprints of giants?

I think many a Christian theologist has claimed God created humans.

But your argument is that creation itself means that they are crated to suffer.
the point is they are created with a potential to chose to suffer. they dont have to do that . and it is quite clear if one removes the ability for people to suffer then the coiise does not exist. simple.

You are not claiming that Christian theology is based on reason (its not but that is a different matter),

It is and it is not a different matter!
You have been shown the basis for it.
Just as science is based on reason.
It is the SAME Greek logos on which BOTH are based.

you are claiming God himself is reasonable. You have nothing to support that other than your own assertion, which is in itself circular since you simply define reason not as we judge it but by what God decided anyway.

NO! I define it as the thing in greek philosophy (which PREDATES christianity) which is ALSO the basis for science. As defined by Wolpert Chalmers Kuhn et. al. in academic publications it is a well established concept and you have been shown they before!

It is the Logos of the greeks. If you think it is absent in christian theology you are willfully ignorant.
You have been shown where hetrodox theology departs from it and how mainstream theologians point this out.

Andrewf20

ISAW wrote: »

I think you are a bit misinformed.

1. Your interpretation of the Bible above is a fundamentalist one and is more suitred to the koran for reasons given earlier e.g. islam believed the Koran was dictated by god and corrections made to ensure the Kàoran was perfect.

Some people consider the bible as the word of God, an objective (and fundamentalist on certain things it seems) source of morality and a book that no man could possibly write without divine inspiriation. As the main reference for Chrisitians world wide, its interesting for me to examine the detail in the bible closely considering how big the claims are.

For sure, I am not an expert on the Koran, but I was using it as an example - it could be any religon not related to the stories and teaching of Christ.

ISAW wrote: »

2. the bible isnt a core it is only a book. It reflects part of a "core" for mainstream christianity ther is also the Magisterium , apostolic succession, and oral tradition.

One could say for example the anglicans move more to the Word Romans to the Body and Orthodox to the Spirit. And that is leaving out the emphasis of the centre of the church in terms of pôwer knowledge and numbers for 1000 years -Asia (who had the same but a smaller edited versin of the bible) and the African church.

The magisterium and the apostolic succession from what ive read on Wiki, would they not use the bible as their reference for their religon? After growing up in a Christian background for decades, Christian teachings always seems to come back to the bible the vast majority of the time.

ISAW wrote: »

the act of believing?

Yes.

ISAW wrote: »

In the sence of salvation through faith as distinct from faith and good works. The issue here is not that christians think good works by non christians or by christians are not necessary. the point is that they view pride as a sin and saying you dont need god and you can save yourself is pride and running away from god. that is why faith becomes essential.

And christianity would agree with you on that. People can have some of the message and all people can be saved.

You say faith is essential, yet Philogos implies otherwise in a post a while back.

I dont understand the pride bit - I dont see this pride in athiests I know about their non belief, in the same way I dont really see it in believers in relation to their faith either. They simply dont believe. Alot of people I know keep their non belief to themselves unless asked about it. I could be "proud" I helped an old woman across the street, I dont see how this is a sin. I have yet to hear an answer to my question, name a moral or ethical act done by a believer that could not be done by a non believer? I think its an important question. I think alot of people feel they dont need to believe in a deity to live good lives.

ISAW wrote: »

An alcoholic who says "i am not an alcoholic and can cure myself of addiction to alcohol" is only fooling themselves. similarly for sin; If you reject god then you cant absolve yourself and declare you are with God or on gods side. You especially cant say it if you dont believe god exists.
thats the theology as i view it anyway.

But they dont believe in the concept of being saved in the first place. When they die, for them its light out, for them, its as simple as that.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes and christian theology accepts exactly what you say here. There isnt an argument about that.

So what do you believe is their faith after they die?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature

... is a baseless and meaningless statement, just Christian chest pumping. God, as described by Christianity, acts no more reasonable than any other religion's god.

ISAW wrote: »

i pointed out all this to you before and as usual you resorted to shallow satirical comments
you were even aware of the link between logos and christian philosophy

I'm well aware of the claim ISAW. You seem to be ignoring that the claim has no substance. Anyone can claim anything, doesn't make it true, even if it is a Pope making the claim.

ISAW wrote: »

That was you invention! you want to believe it but no christian theology supports it.

Can you point out specifically what no Christian theology teaches, given that Christian theology teaches God does not want us to suffer and that God made humans.

ISAW wrote: »

Guess what?
The tide came in.

Oh no, not the tide :rolleyes: Perhaps when the tide is gone you can point out which part is actually flawed and why.

ISAW wrote: »

But your argument is that creation itself means that they are crated to suffer.
the point is they are created with a potential to chose to suffer. they dont have to do that . and it is quite clear if one removes the ability for people to suffer then the coiise does not exist. simple.

We have been over this. No one mentioned removing the ability to suffer, just the ability to suffer in one particular instance (in the absence of God).

There are lots of circumstances where God has chosen that we will not suffer. When I choose to open my laptop I did not suffer. When I choose to lie down in my bed I did not suffer. This is because how I was design, and thus it is part of God's choice.

If I choose to set myself on fire I would suffer. Again that is God's choice, lying on bed no suffering, setting yourself on fire, suffering.

What would stop God from adding "Choosing to be in my absence" to the set of things that we can choose to do but that do not cause us to suffer?

ISAW wrote: »

It is and it is not a different matter!
You have been shown the basis for it.

You seem to genuinely not understand the difference between demonstrating something and merely claim it.

ISAW wrote: »

It is the Logos of the greeks. If you think it is absent in christian theology you are willfully ignorant.

It is utterly absent from Christian theology. Simply claiming otherwise is not demonstrating otherwise. Right now we are discussing a conclusion of Christian theology that demonstrates the illogical nature of its under pinnings.

A feature of reason and logic is that claims must be justifiable based on the axioms of the system. 1+1=2 can be said to be supported by the axioms of normal mathematics. 1+1=3 isn't. Based on the axioms of the system it is an irrational claim. You can change the axioms of the system in order to make it logical based on the new axioms, but that doesn't mean it is logical based on the original ones.

This is where theology falls utterly utterly appart, since because it is a religion there is an under riding assumption that both the axioms and the claims must be true, even if the later claims cannot actually be supported by appeals back to the initial axioms.

The case we are discussing now is a clear example. The theological claim of the existence of hell cannot be supported by the axioms "God does not want us to suffer" and "God made humans". It is in conflict, as much as 1+1=3 cannot be supported by the axioms of normal mathematics.

I very much doubt a single Christian on this forum cares, least of all you. Simply proclaiming that it is all reasonable has nothing to do with demonstrating it is reasonable. And if you could have demonstrated the concept of hell is reasonable based on the axioms of Christianity you would have done so pages ago.

lmaopml

It seems that there is a claim being made that God is 'unjust' in creating humans and allowing free will and knowledge of good and evil to exist?

In the first instance one would have to be of the opinion that there is an absolute 'justness' to claim that 'injustice' exists, or by what standard do you think absolute justness is not just what it is?

Or what exactly is 'unjust' about the concept that one chooses their own destiny? Especially in the light that Christians don't particularly claim to know their own destiny, but are told not only to love their neighbours but even more difficult and against our nature to love our enemies too; that this is 'wisdom'.

1 + 1 = 2 is very fine indeed - but numbers spread backwards and forwards into infinity-we know this; do we 'understand' it? Numerical logic is lovely - I'd go so far as to say 'beautiful' - A Christian doesn't claim to know precisely 'who' in their heart is incompatible with being in God's presense, who is 'Holy' - they don't claim that judgement - but it seems the arguement here is that they 'should' know ALL things - which quite frankly is ridiculous and an assumption of the highest order...

It's as ridiculous as asking an Atheist to explain everything about 'everything' that they understand through their reason and rational soley, and explain it rationally about life, love, laughter, friendship, war, famine, prejudice and courage etc. etc. - If you start talking mathematical equations and evolutionary psychology and chemicals than I'm afraid Christians have decided you are one language short - which is our prerogative!

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

It seems that there is a claim being made that God is 'unjust' in creating humans and allowing free will and knowledge of good and evil to exist?

That isn't my claim. My claim is that there is an incompatibility between the Christian idea that God does not wish for us to suffer, the idea that God made humans, and the Christian concept of hell.

lmaopml wrote: »

Or what exactly is 'unjust' about the concept that one chooses their own destiny?

The choice isn't the issue. The range of choices, and consequences of each choice, is.

God giving you the choice that he leaves you alone if you want him to is not the issue. God deciding that the consequence of that choice will be that you suffer eternally as if you were in a lake of fire, is.

Using a real world analogy. I start going out with a girl. We go on a few dates and things don't really work out that well. I really like her, but she isn't in to me. I finally say to her look clearly you aren't sure about this, so I'll leave the choice up to you. if you think this can work give me a call tomorrow. If you don't think it will work you don't need to call me, I will leave you alone.


... oh and if you don't call I'll burn your house down.

I'm respecting her choices. She can choose to be with me or not, and if she doesn't want to be with me I'll respect that and stay away from her. Yes I might burn her house down, but I'm still respecting her choice, and that is the key point.

Of course it isn't the key point, the burning down the house is the key point. That is in no way excused simply because you give the poor girl a choice. In fact is it much of a choice if one outcome is her house burns down?

Saying God is just respecting your choice to be away from him and that is what hell is is frankly ridiculous (so much of ISAW's ideas of reason). If God really respected that choice he would make the consequences of that choice neutral to the person making the choice. He wouldn't decide that the way humans will experience his absence is by making it so that they feel as if they are in a lake of fire for all eternity.

Through frankly I'm not even convinced that this idea that God is just respecting your choice to be away from him is Biblical. The Bible talks of hell as some where God will throw you as punishment. The suffering in hell is described not as simply a consequence of your choice, but a direct action of punishment.

This idea does not sit particularly well with a lot of modern Christians, it is understandably hard to justify based on our modern notions of justice and fairness eternal torture when we don't even use finite torture on modern criminals as punishment.

lmaopml wrote: »

1 + 1 = 2 is very fine indeed - but numbers spread backwards and forwards into infinity-we know this; do we 'understand' it? Numerical logic is lovely - I'd go so far as to say 'beautiful' - A Christian doesn't claim to know precisely 'who' in their heart is incompatible with being in God's presense, who is 'Holy' - they don't claim that judgement - but it seems the arguement here is that they 'should' know ALL things - which quite frankly is ridiculous and an assumption of the highest order...

The argument is that Christian doctrine is inherently nonsensical, and most likely made up. It is reasonable then to reject it, and look around for other reasons why some would believe this stuff without it actually being required that it is true.

You do not need to look particularly far for answers to that question.

lmaopml

All that is very fine Zombrex, and it's up to you certainly how you absorb experience and knowledge etc. etc. in your lifetime, and whatever persuits you think are a 'good' thing if that's using the right word.

The question isn't so much about what 'Christians' believe about God, and how they describe God - which in fact we don't claim to even be able to come near describing other than saying what he is not.

The question is what right do you claim out of your knowledge and experience and choices, to have to say anything is 'unjust' when the claim being made is that God is supreme 'justice' - all knowing, all merciful all just.

It seems you are saying, no that's not just? So on what basis do you make that claim?

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

The question isn't so much about what 'Christians' believe about God, and how they describe God - which in fact we don't claim to even be able to come near describing other than saying what he is not.

Well actually that is the entire issue, since Christianity makes a whole host of claims about God and the correct way for humans to behave in order to please him.

If Christianity didn't claim anything about anything their wouldn't be any conflicts or logical problems. But then there also wouldn't be a religion.

lmaopml wrote: »

It seems you are saying, no that's not just? So on what basis do you make that claim?

No I'm saying it is not compatible with the claim that God does not wish you to suffer.

If you are happy to accept the concept of a God that does wish you to suffer then there is no issue. Though I suspect you aren't.

lmaopml

Without God Zombrex there wouldn't be any Atheists -

I submit to the concept that there is such a thing as 'good' and 'evil', a real 'right' and 'wrong', something I barely grasp, but acknowlede is true - that there is such a thing as 'truth' moreso than 'facts', facts only lend themselves to it - speaking from personal perception of the world and my own understanding, I couldn't but describe my own personal behaviour in any other way.

Chesterton once wrote.

The Christian optimism is based on the fact that we do not fit in to the world. I tried to be happy telling myself that man is an animal, like any other which sought it's meat from God. But now I really was happy, for I had learnt that man is a monstrosity. I had been right in feeling all things as odd, for I myself was at once worse, and better than all things. The optimist's pleasure was prosaic, for it dwelt on the naturalness of everything; the Christians pleasure was poetic, for it dwelt on the unnaturalness of everything......

I think you are quite entitled to see this world how you see fit. I just don't think you describe it quite to my satisfaction; I'm sorry, but you don't.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Without God Zombrex there wouldn't be any Atheists -

Without God there wouldn't be anything I would have thought (if we assume that he exists, which your statement seems to).

lmaopml wrote: »

I think you are quite entitled to see this world how you see fit. I just don't think you describe it quite to my satisfaction; I'm sorry, but you don't.

Ok... Going slightly off topic, but can you describe what would satisfy you (eg scientific evidence?) What are you standards for assessing descriptions about the world around us?

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

Without God there wouldn't be anything I would have thought (if we assume that he exists, which your statement seems to).

Exactly, no 'injustice' to speak of.

Ok... Going slightly off topic, but can you describe what would satisfy you (eg scientific evidence?) What are you standards for assessing descriptions about the world around us?

Well, with respect, I am not satisfied entirely by 'scientific evidence' as the means to describe human persons in totality and their inherent value that we seem to often fight over- I don't think it even 'should' do this.

I am perfectly happy to love science for what it is, a means to better understanding, and a reaching out of the human mind to establish just how fascinating and exciting learning about reality is, especially when science is by it's very nature self correcting and certainly not about facts, but about debunking the old to bring in the new....

I don't believe that science has a 'creed' - I don't think it does either, do you?

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Well, with respect, I am not satisfied entirely by 'scientific evidence' as the means to describe human persons in totality and their inherent value that we seem to often fight over- I don't think it even 'should' do this.

I am perfectly happy to love science for what it is, a means to better understanding, and a reaching out of the human mind to establish just how fascinating and exciting learning about reality is, especially when science is by it's very nature self correcting and certainly not about facts, but about debunking the old to bring in the new....

I don't believe that science has a 'creed' - I don't think it does either, do you?

Science was simply a suggestion. The question remains, what would satisfy you in relation to notions about the world?

The obvious example would be what would satisfy you that Christianity was a made up religion?

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Abraham and Moses never encountered Christianity, right? So what does Christianity say about them?



I'm sorry but you seem misunderstood me. I didn't say, nor did I suggest, that you should not post here. I also did not say, nor did I suggest, that atheists, by the simple fact that they reject the existence of God (lack belief in the existence of God or whatever), are unwelcome to post on a forum I visit occasionally.



What are you suggesting the consequences of my belief are? That potentially Hitler could go to heaven and others that we think of as better individuals wont? If that is what you are saying then, yes, I accept that this is a possibility. I also think it unlikely that he was in any way repentant. But that is really besides my point. Is it not?

Again, the notion that God is interested in talking out the cosmic weighing scales to see if you are more good than bad is not something supported by classical theology. What Christianity teaches is that each and every one of us has already failed the standard and that is why we need salvation. Mary Poplin shares the content of a dream she had (and she says that this was more than a dream) that is very pertinent to what I've said above. (About 12 minutes in.) You don't have to believe a word of to understand what she is getting at.

Let me be clear. What I have never claimed is that I have special knowledge about either the deepest thoughts of individuals or the result of God's judgement - who is saved and who is lost. I'm not a mind reader (of either man or God) and I can't know the result of a judgement that hasn't yet happened. In fact, I readily admitted that I don't have access to such knowledge. So I am therefore unsure what your point is.

Well as far as Abraham and Moses are concerned , I presume they wer'nt Christians but followed the one true God. I am afraid I will have to rely on my Dante for any further explanation where in Canto 4 , lines 52-63, first circle - Limbo, Christ following his crucifixion and resurection descended to the Inferno in the harrowing of hell sequence and rescued Abraham Moses Adam Eve and all the virtuous people from the Old Testament. All this witnessed by none other the Virgil who recounts it to Dante 1300 hundred years later. The event has been dated as 34 AD. What a poem .

I am not asking anyone to use the cosmic scales Fanny , And I do accept the possibility that Hitler may have entered heaven. I am just using him and others for contrast to the notion of analysing who cant enter heaven no matter how good their lives were.

Now your final paragraph where you say you don't have knowledge of others thoughts or Gods Judgement is with the greatest respect to you, a cop out. If it were not so why would you believe in the Christian religion as opposed to any other ?

So I ask again, according to your best reading of the texts available to you -

-Are all Muslims Buddhists Zoroastrians etc damned ?
-Are all practicing Jews since since Christ came on earth damned
-Are all those who never heard of Christ, never came in contact with the Christian message, damned ?
-And since you brought Abraham into the conversation,are all those that did'nt follow the old testament before the arrival of Christ damned ?
-Are unbaptised infants damned ?
-are aborted fetuses damned ?

At this rate Heaven would appear to be more exclusive than the Groucho Club:)

Wh1stler

lmaopml wrote: »

No that's wrong; you are very misinformed methinks. The Jewish people are Gods chosen people. The law of Moses predates the incarnation and New Covenant. Jews who reject Christ still operate under the Old Covenant.

Well, one would want to know him first woudn't one? It means what it says.

Jesus certainly did not say that 'Jews and Muslims' are going to Hell - He was far more eloquent. He claimed to be the way, the truth and the light.

Well everybody that does, er 'does', yes.

He wouldn't have said this if it wasn't so- The Gate is narrow and the path is hard that walks in the light. There are people who claim to be Christian but (you may know some) don't live in the light of Christ. These are the people that cry out 'Lord, Lord..' - when they never knew him.

Correct. You deny truth, love, justice, mercy, peace - even though you have been offered it, instead choose to hate Christ. So, correct.

There is no ambiguity. You pick and choose pieces of Scripture and try to understand the Love of Christ, and it's like picking and choosing a couple of photos and telling a persons life story - can't do it.

Absolutley none. Christians are given the task of spreading the Gospel to all nations.

Oh, simplicity.

No. You don't know that, you are not God. In fact there are very many people who love God with all their heart, with all their soul and with all their mind, and their neighbour as themselves. There are good people.

Yes faith is necessary for salvation, faith in God and a sincere heart that seeks him out and loves their neighbour too.

Rubbish.

More rubbish.

Absolute steaming pile of rubbish.

Wistler, you don't know a thing about Christianity, just some sarky comments you picked up from God knows where all strung together into some incoherent muddle that no more describes the Christian God or what Christianity is; God who is all knowledge, all wisdom, all powerful, all mercy and all justice. You want to know who is 'saved' and isn't and claim to already.....More rubbish.

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Okay, where in that do you get 'except for Jews'?

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

To whom does this apply?

Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

But from Paul:

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me [Paul] was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision.
Galatians 2:8 (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me [Paul] also among the Gentiles.)

Who should we listen to, Jesus or Paul? Can you not see that they are at odds?

Jesus seems to refer to unbelievers as 'antichrist' but you say that 'antichrists' are welcome in heaven. Jesus says that they will go into the fiery lake but you say they can abide with God.

I think I understand Christianity better than you ever will. :P

Wh1stler

lmaopml wrote: »

Correct. You deny truth, love, justice, mercy, peace - even though you have been offered it, instead choose to hate Christ. So, correct.

You accuse me of speaking 'rubbish' and then claim that disbelief = hatred.

Do you hate Santa Claus?

Wh1stler

lmaopml wrote: »

Without God Zombrex there wouldn't be any Atheists -

What an odd thing to say. Without God we would all be atheists.

And bearing in mind that God does not exist but atheists do then your assertion makes even less sense.

Or, to use your word; RUBBISH.

lmaopml wrote: »

I submit to the concept that there is such a thing as 'good' and 'evil', a real 'right' and 'wrong', something I barely grasp, but acknowlede is true - that there is such a thing as 'truth' moreso than 'facts', facts only lend themselves to it - speaking from personal perception of the world and my own understanding, I couldn't but describe my own personal behaviour in any other way.

You submit? Barely grasp? But you will name it truth?

You accept that there is such a thing as truth and yet you accept that God is not bound by His word. That is truly hilarious. What will be the 'truth' tomorrow?

lmaopml wrote: »

Chesterton once wrote.

The Christian optimism is based on the fact that we do not fit in to the world. I tried to be happy telling myself that man is an animal, like any other which sought it's meat from God. But now I really was happy, for I had learnt that man is a monstrosity. I had been right in feeling all things as odd, for I myself was at once worse, and better than all things. The optimist's pleasure was prosaic, for it dwelt on the naturalness of everything; the Christians pleasure was poetic, for it dwelt on the unnaturalness of everything......

So what? Anyone can write prose that is self-contradicting. This is the problem; contradictory clauses exemplify Christianity perfectly.

But it seems that you support the view that in creating humans, God created a monstrosity. Are monsters not evil? Then didn't God create evil after all?

You claim that you cannot know what is just and yet you accept that God is just. You are a true Christian.

Is it just that God should circulate a rumour about His son and then consign anyone who doesn't accept that rumour at face value to hell? Even though the rumour is littered with contradictions? And man is endowed with intelligence which can be used to discern falseness?

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

At this rate Heaven would appear to be more exclusive than the Groucho Club:)

Are you asking or are you telling? Because when you sign off with lines like this I don't see the point in responding. You back to asking if I still beat my wife.

ISAW

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Some people consider the bible as the word of God, an objective (and fundamentalist on certain things it seems) source of morality and a book that no man could possibly write without divine inspiration. As the main reference for Christians world wide, its interesting for me to examine the detail in the bible closely considering how big the claims are.

For sure, I am not an expert on the Koran, but I was using it as an example - it could be any religon not related to the stories and teaching of Christ.

no it couldnt. Yes Christianity think the bible is inspired. But Islam believes the Koran was dictated word for word from God. that is an entirely different kettle of fish and if you cant see that i think you have a problem.

The magisterium and the apostolic succession from what Ive read on Wiki, would they not use the bible as their reference for their religion? After growing up in a Christian background for decades, Christian teachings always seems come back to the bible.

to some degree yes. But the is oral tradition as well. and the other stuff i mentioned
since you like wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiology
Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J. contributed greatly to the use of models in understanding ecclesiology. In his work Models of the Church, he defines four basic models of Church that have been prevalent throughout the history of the Catholic Church. These include models of the Church as institution, as mystical communion, as herald, and as servant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipione_Rebiba
more than 90% of all living Catholic bishops can trace their episcopal lineage back to him.
Today, more than 91% of the New World's and more than 5,000 Catholic bishops alive today, including Pope Benedict XVI,[3] trace their episcopal lineage back to Rebiba.[4]

You say faith is essential, yet Philogos would say other wise it seems from a post a while back.

what post?

I dont understand the pride bit. I for example may be internally proud I worked hard in college and did well etc, but I dont see why this is an issue. It seems to be me to be a natural internal emotion, I cant see how this is a sin. Boasting about it, well fair enough, you wont be popular for long.

Pride isnt confined to boasting; and ther is nothing wrong in being "proud" of ones achievements. Pride in the way i am discussing it is basically the first commandment -thinking you can replace God.

Alot of people keep their non belief to themselves unless asked about it.

so what? we ar discussing those who dont.
By the way I keep my personal beliefs to myself even when asked about them.

I have yet to hear an answer to my question, name a moral or ethical act done by a believer that could not be done by a non believer?

You have to pay attention . i gave you one . the act of believing; To which you replied "yes"
so you have accepted one and the idea that you "have yet to hear an answer to my question, name a moral or ethical act done by a believer that could not be done by a non believer" is a contradiction since a non believer cant believe!

I think al ot of people feel they dont need to believe in a deity to live good lives.

Yes we know you think that. so what?

So what do you believe is their faith after they die?

i refer you to the Aslan and Tash story in C S Lewis last book.
some of them didnt even see the world around them because they didnt believe it was there.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

... is a baseless and meaningless statement, just Christian chest pumping. God, as described by Christianity, acts no more reasonable than any other religion's god.

You hve been shown one clear example of the dfference between " 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."
as expressed by French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that
source: R. Arnaldez, Grammaire et théologie chez Ibn Hazm de Cordoue, Paris 1956, p. 13; cf. Khoury, p. 144.

the Pope goes so far as to point out how this IS NOT mainstream christian Thelogy in relation to Duns Scotus (he of the old Irish five pound note fame) in the Late Middle Ages


If you cant see the difference between "we would even have to practice idolatry." and " a reasonable god would not ask people to practice idolatry" i cant really help you on that im afraid.

I'm well aware of the claim ISAW. You seem to be ignoring that the claim has no substance. Anyone can claim anything, doesn't make it true, even if it is a Pope making the claim.

If you cant see the difference between "we would even have to practice idolatry if god told us to do it" and " a reasonable god would not ask people to practice idolatry" i cant really help you.

they are not logically the same thing. whether or not you believe in one or the other is NOT the issue.
the issue is they are NOT saying the same thing.

Can you point out specifically what no Christian theology teaches, given that Christian theology teaches God does not want us to suffer and that God made humans.

And you are back to your tired old trick of suggesting people post lists of all the things they do not know.

I dont have to do anything about your faux claims.
If you think God designed humanity because he wanted them to suffer go get it published in a journal. The revisionist history journal of nazis doesnt rate Im afraid.

What would stop God from adding "Choosing to be in my absence" to the set of things that we can choose to do but that do not cause us to suffer?

You have already been shown that there has to be at least one thing we can chose which will cause suffering . It dos not matter how many things wont cause it or how many you add to the list of things that wont cause it. You have the logic backwards! the set of things that will cause it is what matters.

You seem to genuinely not understand the difference between demonstrating something and merely claim it.

You seem not to understand set theory and logical proof!
there is a set of things which will cause suffering.
At least one element of that set has to be chosen by us for us to chose to suffer.
If none of the elements of that set are capable of being chosen by us then we dont chose them and are designed only to suffer and have no free will. It is automatic.

so the argument you make about being designed to suffr and not chosing to suffer can only be true if we have no free will.
If you are claiming we have no free will and everything is predestined you would have to believe god predestined it.
You dont however believe in god.
Most christians dont believe in predestination but Im sure you would like to believe they do.

It is utterly absent from Christian theology. Simply claiming otherwise is not demonstrating otherwise. Right now we are discussing a conclusion of Christian theology that demonstrates the illogical nature of its under pinnings.

Only if the case is predestination and no free will.

A feature of reason and logic is that claims must be justifiable based on the axioms of the system. 1+1=2 can be said to be supported by the axioms of normal mathematics. 1+1=3 isn't.

I know about logic set theory and arithmetic.
Her you go again! the "axioms" you claim about god, free will, and the necessity of suffering are???

Based on the axioms of the system it is an irrational claim. You can change the axioms of the system in order to make it logical based on the new axioms, but that doesn't mean it is logical based on the original ones.

To which axioms do you refer?

that god gave us free will?
Are you assuming he did or he didnt?
that God preordained all outcomes? Again did or didnt?
that absence of god is suffering by definition?
Or that absence of light is darkness?

This is where theology falls utterly utterly appart, since because it is a religion there is an under riding assumption that both the axioms and the claims must be true, even if the later claims cannot actually be supported by appeals back to the initial axioms.

You are contradicting yourself! If they are axioms they are assumed to be true in the beginning.

Now back to mathematics. You are aware that arithmetic and set theory suggests that formal systems are inconsistent?
that is a mathematical proof!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic.

Gödel's first incompleteness theorem shows that any consistent effective formal system that includes enough of the theory of the natural numbers is incomplete: there are true statements expressible in its language that are unprovable.

The case we are discussing now is a clear example. The theological claim of the existence of hell cannot be supported by the axioms "God does not want us to suffer" and "God made humans". It is in conflict, as much as 1+1=3 cannot be supported by the axioms of normal mathematics.

Assume P = "God does not want us to suffer"
and Q = "God made humans"

Who claimed P and Q support the existence of hell?

Simply proclaiming that it is all reasonable has nothing to do with demonstrating it is reasonable. And if you could have demonstrated the concept of hell is reasonable based on the axioms of Christianity you would have done so pages ago.

but it is demonstrably reasonable and you have been shown YEARS ago!
the links from 2010 wher you wre shown about "faith and reason" and the links with the History and philosophy of science are shown above.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77731224&postcount=3514
and in
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65378670&postcount=59
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65378670&postcount=72
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65378670&postcount=75
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65378670&postcount=80

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Are you asking or are you telling? Because when you sign off with lines like this I don't see the point in responding. You back to asking if I still beat my wife.

I am asking Fanny , and lets not lose our sense of proportion it is just a mild attempt at humour.

After all every atheist on this forum has ,at some time or other ,either directly or indirectly , been advised that they are going to hell, sometimes in the nicest possible way , sometimes less so. So what is so difficult in this question.

ISAW has already answered that some don't go to hell , he has yet to say where they go. I assume that you and Philologos are not catholics so I am interested in your opinions on the issue. The same with PDN and Imaopml if they care to give them .

Maybe I have read too much Dante where is there absolutely no equivocation. Aristotle Plato Virgil - all in hell, Mohamed in hell , a succession of popes in hell and surprisingly Cato though as the guardian of Purgatory !

Please take my posts at face value Fanny , I am genuinely curious as to what the answers will be. Is such dialogue the point of this whole thread.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW has already answered that some don't go to hell , he has yet to say where they go.

i think that i have outlined that Hell is a state of mind rather than a physical place.

It was an atheist who said "Hell is other people"

deano86

www.jesusneverexisted.com
Everything is there to prove Christianity is all one big scam.

deano86

......................

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

i think that i have outlined that Hell is a state of mind rather than a physical place.

It was an atheist who said "Hell is other people"

Is that Catholic orthodoxy ISAW ?

tommy2bad

deano86 wrote: »

www.jesusneverexisted.com
Everything is there to prove Christianity is all one big scam.

http://www.kingdavid8.com/_full_article.php?id=5abdb2a5-6ca7-11e1-b1f8-842b2b162e97
And everything here to prove it wrong.
Good you have an open mind though, just dont keep it so open your brain falls out

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Firstly ISAW I did'nt claim it , others did , I joined in an ongoing conversation,

Yes you did claim it!
the fact that others before or since also did is beside the point.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76607512&postcount=1966
where you stated

1-And to come back to the rape issue - that is my reading of the bible - yes, and I am prepared to stand over it

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.

To be accurate yes yu DID restate it
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77449040&postcount=2824
where you stated

My reading of it leads me to believe the God indeed condoned rape and it was an inevitable consequence on that particular passage in the text.

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 have a habit of thinking what you have stated can be ignored or forgotten and later denied but you leave a clear record. You cant deny you claimed god in the Bible ordered rape. You claimed it and it isnt supported.

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.

Not alone is that a cop out it is a cointradiction since the rape issue is there in the first place because people like me were arguing about things which were always wrong and your side chimed in with the "bible ordered rape" issue!
Nobody on my side claimed "that isnt rape it was a different time" i tis only people on your side that argue moral relativism when it suits them !
Ironically when they do I ask "is rape always wrong"
And NOTE in the above messasage to which you were responding that is what i was doing because i usually ask "is child sexual abuse always wrong" as well

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77449040&postcount=2824

I happened to agree with them, and secondly I never said anything about children. As a matter of fact the whole focus of the discussion was on just women.

but muy poi,nt was on moral relativity so you cant now claim that raping women was a different then when you were responding to a point about raping women and children as always wrong by claiming we were discussing women only as being always wrong and hadnt mentioned children.

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.

Wrong ! If something says 1+1=2 it isnt equql to something else.

You have produced NOTHING to show rape being ordered and you were shown apmle evidence forbidding sex with unmarried women.

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.

Off the topic! The bible mentions nothing of Muslims going to Hell but it does mention rape and nowhere does god tell anyone to commit rape.
No christian theologists fundamentalist or not says the bible anywhere orders rape.

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.

No it doesnt! Nobody who has any qualification in the bible says it orders rape!

Wh1stler

ISAW wrote: »

i think that i have outlined that Hell is a state of mind rather than a physical place.

It was an atheist who said "Hell is other people"

So we shouldn't confuse the place that God prepared for the devil and his angels with this place from Matthew 25:

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

Dead people don't have a mind to be in any state.

And is hell just a state of mind for the devil too?

Wh1stler

tommy2bad wrote: »

Good you have an open mind though, just dont keep it so open your brain falls out

You fool. Is that how you love your neighbour?

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

It is the same reasoning that led to the Nurenburg trials too.

Actually not true.
Nuremburg was based on natural law jurisprudence.
in fact some Us jurists had problems with that i.e. the Grmans had passed anti Jew laws so who were the US to interfere and tll them Germany was wrong? The US could not appeal to genocide of the Jews because no such laws existed. however they could appeal to a "natural law" which was the basis for the jurisdiction of the court!