Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

I may have an advantage you don't- objectivity, as your understanding is predestined by virtue of your belief.

coming from someone who asks us to forget about objective statistics and goes in more about how you feel about the issue instead i find this hard to accept.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

coming from someone who asks us to forget about objective statistics and goes in more about how you feel about the issue instead i find this hard to accept.

There is more to any argument than just statistics and wiki.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

There is more to any argument than just statistics and wiki.

so then care to supply it?

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

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:)

No problem ISAW, as a start could you give me an answer to this post and we can take it from there ?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

The big bang and relativity are well established scientific theories with plenty of evidence.

As far as i know ther are maybe two or three pieces of evidence for the Big Bang

1. the observed expansion rate of the universe - but that in itself is onlky NOW and if you take now and work back it is in error!
so they had to introduce "inflation" and other add ons.

2; the H/He ratio in todays universe. yes but it also is observed post Big Bang since we cant see further back than the CMB. But the energy levels for the creation of matter do suggest a universe that was at that temperature and that suggests a smaller universe. but not necessarily a big bang. although it is a good oiece of evidence

3. the cosmic Microwave background radiation. suggests matter condensed out of a cooling expanding universe. but again one could have a go at this and say it is evidence of just that and not that a cooling expanding univrse mans a creation moment of a Big bang.

But if you have anything other than those three Id like to see it.

ISAW

Wh1stler wrote: »

I'm glad you brought this up.

When did adultery become a sin?

Didn't Abraham commit adultery with Hagar who bore Ishmael? Hagar was Sarah's 'slave' and was given to Abraham for sex. It sounds like statutory rape to me and God seems to have had no problem with that.

And when Sarah bore Isaac, Hagar was 'kicked to the kerb'.

When did Abraham's (and Sarah's) morality become immoral so as to give rise to the commandment not to commit adultery?

Wasent he drugged by others at the time?
But im asking about god ordering rape in the Bible.
where is it?

Abraham was not ordered to rape nor do i think he did rape.

tommy2bad

marienbad wrote: »

No problem ISAW, as a start could you give me an answer to this post and we can take it from there ?

marienbad, you have to leave out the ones ignorant of God, Jesus and the gospel, they have a get out of hell card;From the catheism

The following are not subject to penalties when they have violated a law or precept:
(1) a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;
(2) a person who without any fault was unaware of violating a law or precept; however, inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

Its refereed to as invincible ignorance. In John's gosple Jesus says to some pharisees, that if they had not witnessed his works, they would not "have had sin" in rejecting him.
Paul on the other hand says their screwed and most hard-line protestant denominations take that view. Calvinists, well they think it all over before it begun anyway.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

No problem ISAW, as a start could you give me an answer to this post and we can take it from there ?

I already have but i say it again
The christian view is not all people are condemned.
some have some of the truth.
and they can lead good lives and ultimately get to heaven.
even if they are not christian with a small c
Of course they would be acting like christians.
Again back to CS Lewis some of the Tash followers were saved by Aslan.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

I already have but i say it again
The christian view is not all people are condemned.
some have some of the truth.
and they can lead good lives and ultimately get to heaven.
even if they are not christian with a small c
Of course they would be acting like christians.
Again back to CS Lewis some of the Tash followers were saved by Aslan.

I know some of that from my own catholic childhood ISAW, but that still leaves loads of questions-

-what do you mean ''christian with a small c'' ?
-how do they ultimately get to heaven and how are they selected ?
-how about the aborted fetuses and infant mortality ?

Would you agree that based on current interpretation more people did not get to heaven than did ?

And potentially the majority of those who did'nt lead perfectly virtous lives ?

Are you taking account of Limbo ?

Fanny Cradock

Wh1stler wrote: »

To me, they are all reasonable candidates for hell.

Yes, which is exactly what Christianity teaches.

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

Well as far as Abraham and Moses are concerned , I presume they wer'nt Christians but followed the one true God.

You asked me what I thought the fate of non-Christians is. I gave an answer by referencing the fate of two non-Christians. You are now asking a different question. "What is the fate of everybody apart from Jews and Christians?". (Or at least that's what I gather the "one true God" reference is about.) The short answer is "I don't know". My personal opinion is that God is fair, just and doesn't desire to send his creations to hell.

Perhaps at this point we should actually discuss the various theological positions on the nature of hell. Do we subscribe to universalism, annihilationism, eternal punishment, eternal separation or something else? (Click here for a discussion on annihilationism vs eternal punishment)

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 .

Why rely on Dante? I fail to see the relevance.

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.

Yes, I understand your question but I'm afraid I can't give you a definite answer. Partly because I personally don't know the answer (a position I have maintained all along) and partly because I don't believe that anyone else does either. That is why there is no one single Christian soteriological position.

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 ?

You have previously suggested that it's OK to say "I don't know" and that saying such is not a crime. (thatn's very much, BTW. Very gracious of you.) Now you accuse me of copping out when I said that I can't know the mind of God, the hearts of man or predict the outcome of a judgement that hasn't yet happened. So which is it?

I've no idea what your last sentence means. I am a Christian because I believe it to be true. I'm not a Buddhist, naturalist or whatever else precisely because I think them all untrue. They all make mutually exclusive claims. Only one can be metaphysically true (though all contain truths) and I believe that Christianity is that one.

BTW, I didn't actually say that I had no knowledge of God's Judgement. What I actually said was that I had no special knowledge of the result of God's Judgement. There is a difference between what I said and what you reported I said. If my position is unclear then go back and read the last paragraph of the relevant post.

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 ?

Again, I don't know. But my best guess is "no".

-Are unbaptised infants damned ?
-are aborted fetuses damned ?

- I don't believe there is any warrant for infant baptism. I don't think that it does anything.
- The death of unborn has already been covered in this thread surely? And in direct response to you. I don't believe that the unborn or the very young are condemned to hell. Read the previous post if you want to know why.

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You asked me what I thought the fate of non-Christians is. I gave an answer by referencing the fate of two non-Christians. You are now asking a different question. "What is the fate of everybody apart from Jews and Christians?". (Or at least that's what I gather the "one true God" reference is about.) The short answer is "I don't know". My personal opinion is that God is fair, just and doesn't desire to send his creations to hell.

Perhaps at this point we should actually discuss the various theological positions on the nature of hell. Do we subscribe to universalism, annihilationism, eternal punishment, eternal separation or something else? (Click here for a discussion on annihilationism vs eternal punishment)



Why rely on Dante? I fail to see the relevance.



Yes, I understand your question but I'm afraid I can't give you a definite answer. Partly because I personally don't know the answer (a position I have maintained all along) and partly because I don't believe that anyone else does either. That is why there is no one single Christian soteriological position.



You have previously suggested that it's OK to say "I don't know" and that saying such is not a crime. (thatn's very much, BTW. Very gracious of you.) Now you accuse me of copping out when I said that I can't know the mind of God, the hearts of man or predict the outcome of a judgement that hasn't yet happened. So which is it?

I've no idea what your last sentence means. I am a Christian because I believe it to be true. I'm not a Buddhist, naturalist or whatever else precisely because I think them all untrue. They all make mutually exclusive claims. Only one can be metaphysically true (though all contain truths) and I believe that Christianity is that one.

BTW, I didn't actually say that I had no knowledge of God's Judgement. What I actually said was that I had no special knowledge of the result of God's Judgement. There is a difference between what I said and what you reported I said. If my position is unclear then go back and read the last paragraph of the relevant post.



Again, I don't know. But my best guess is "no".


- I don't believe there is any warrant for infant baptism. I don't think that it does anything.
- The death of unborn has already been covered in this thread surely? And in direct response to you. I don't believe that the unborn or the very young are condemned to hell. Read the previous post if you want to know why.

OK Fanny, there are substantial differences then between the thinking of the various Christian denominations.

When I was growing up as a Roman Catholic virtually all the examples I have asked about would be in Hell- and not some nebulous hell but the fiery furnace kind.

The only exceptions may have been the unbaptised infants going to Limbo but I could be wrong on that.

The aborted fetuses never arose as it was just unheard of but I think it is an interesting question.

The answers to these and similar questions and the perceived injustice is to my mind more responsible than anything else for the kind of a la carte christianity we seem to have today- certainly in Ireland.

Just on a separate issue - why not Dante ? he was as good a catholic theologian as any and better than most. Ruthlessly consistent no matter who or what the cost . And he got the separation of the Church and State right, virtually invented Purgatory and was the best apologist for heaven ever-

But then my mind was struck by light that flashed
and,with this light,received what it had asked.
Here force failed my high fantasy; but my
desire and will were moved already- like
a wheel revolving uniformly- by
the Love that moves the sun and the other stars.

L'amor che move il sole e l'altre stelle

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

... and the perceived injustice

But the whole point - and probably not really a contentious one amongst most Christian denominations - is that everybody is justifiably condemned to hell, whatever hell is. Yes, I agree that the notion that some may not receive a gift because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time is troubling but only in so far as it doesn't seem consistent.

marienbad wrote: »

Just on a separate issue - why not Dante ?

Why not Dogma, Hellboy or any other known works of fiction?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

I know some of that from my own catholic childhood ISAW, but that still leaves loads of questions-

-what do you mean ''christian with a small c'' ?

some people like the followers of Tash in the story were doing what aslan would have wanted.
some people who say they are not christian believe in the same things and act in a christian manner.

-how do they ultimately get to heaven and how are they selected ?

they select themselves by doing what Aslan would have wanted them to do.

-how about the aborted fetuses and infant mortality ?

i don,t know what yu mean. If you mean young children die and should we not care for them as well , i would suggest Christianity says yes we should.

Would you agree that based on current interpretation more people did not get to heaven than did ?

Well seeing as you claim it it is for y to provide the statistics.

And potentially the majority of those who did'nt lead perfectly virtous lives ?

All who have virtue would get to heaven according to the theory.

Are you taking account of Limbo ?

Haw can one account in column A or B for the set of "things not in column A or B"?

tommy2bad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But the whole point - and probably not really a contentious one amongst most Christian denominations - is that everybody is justifiably condemned to hell, whatever hell is. Yes, I agree that the notion that some may not receive a gift because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time is troubling but only in so far as it doesn't seem consistent.



Why not Dogma, Hellboy or any other known works of fiction?

Consistent with what? there is no Biblical message about the fate of those who have never heard. Any answer we give will be a guess at best an educated guess but still an argument from silence.
Actual Dogma wouldn't be a bad choice, it's got the bit about all we have to do is ask right.It also has some interesting ideas and themes that would make a good discussion.

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

Consistent with what? there is no Biblical message about the fate of those who have never heard. Any answer we give will be a guess at best an educated guess but still an argument from silence.
Actual Dogma wouldn't be a bad choice, it's got the bit about all we have to do is ask right.It also has some interesting ideas and themes that would make a good discussion.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25391c"]c[/URL; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25391d"]d[/URL”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denariiURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25399e"]e[/URL and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But the whole point - and probably not really a contentious one amongst most Christian denominations - is that everybody is justifiably condemned to hell, whatever hell is. Yes, I agree that the notion that some may not receive a gift because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time is troubling but only in so far as it doesn't seem consistent.



Why not Dogma, Hellboy or any other known works of fiction?

Surely is a bit more than troubling and not just on the grounds of consistancy Fanny ? Particularly if one thinks of it in the sense of a continuum of a life and an afterlife. Some poor sod wakes up one day and finds himself in hell , never having known of its existance and having had no opportunity to avoid it and having lived a good life to the best of his ability and knowledge and finding himself in the company of all his extended family and friends. Where is the justice in all of this ?

Because to many Dante is not fiction, and is more orthodox than most.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

some people like the followers of Tash in the story were doing what aslan would have wanted.
some people who say they are not christian believe in the same things and act in a christian manner.



they select themselves by doing what Aslan would have wanted them to do.



i don,t know what yu mean. If you mean young children die and should we not care for them as well , i would suggest Christianity says yes we should.


Well seeing as you claim it it is for y to provide the statistics.



All who have virtue would get to heaven according to the theory.


Haw can one account in column A or B for the set of "things not in column A or B"?

I am not claiming anything ISAW I am genuinely asking questions , why not just forget Aslan ,column A or B and just give a straight answer to the best of your ability . Yon indicated you were on for discussion- lets have one.

tommy2bad

lmaopml wrote: »

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25391c"]c[/URL; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25391d"]d[/URL”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denariiURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25399e"]e[/URL and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Their was a time when the parable of the good Samaritan was read as an allegory for Christs work of redemption. Man fallen in a ditch is rescued by Jesus who takes him to the inn and pays the price of his keep Himself. I can see that but how dose it apply to those outside the faith or those who have never heard the gospel.?
Tomorrow though, this hour thing will kill me in the morning if I don't get to bed.

Andrewf20

philologos wrote: »

I believe that anyone even if they are a mass murderer or a rapist can change their lives through Jesus. Indeed there are a number of examples of this.

But a non believing genocidal dictator vs a non believing moral, charitable ethical missionary worker? Do they share the same destiny when they die?

philologos wrote: »

I'm feeling that you're not feeling the logic because you're unwilling to accept that you've done wrong in your life as all other people have. There is no way we can put this right with God, that's why Jesus came into the world and stood in our place.

However, people who are simply too prideful to acknowledge that they too have done wrong even if people regard that as smaller are ultimately in a more difficult situation. They refuse to acknowledge that they need forgiveness, many others who have been criminals have acknowledged this and their lives were changed forever through Jesus.

Not true, I have made mistakes, but if I hurt someone, its in my nature to apologise and make it up to them. I think its more important so seek forgiveness from the person I have offended and repay them in some way. In your argument there is no mention of the earthly victim of my crime / sin. Where is their say in this?

philologos wrote: »

Yes, I did in 2007, but it was God who opened my eyes, and He can open your eyes, and any unbelievers eyes to His truth.

I guess its a good thing that you feel you have found answers that tips your conviction towards belief but some of us are still searching. For some people the deeper they dig, the more reasons to not believe can come to fruitition.

philologos wrote: »

Ultimately all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). What are we going to do about it, are we going to repent and turn our lives around by accepting God's transformational love in our lives, or are we going to ignore God, and treat Him with contempt?

Ultimately, God is the one who saves. We're all sinners, we're all guilty of sin that's irrespective as to if and when we do ethical things. Much in the same way that we're all guilty of turning away from God and rejecting Him in varying ways. In doing what is clearly wrong, in refusing to listen to what He has to say.

To some people this is simply white noise. In order to do this you would have to believe as a first step which some people, who have yet to be convinced, cannot do.

If God truely wants to save us, as i said before, he should perform an act that nullifies all discussion. Whats stopping him?

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

Surely is a bit more than troubling and not just on the grounds of consistancy Fanny ? Particularly if one thinks of it in the sense of a continuum of a life and an afterlife. Some poor sod wakes up one day and finds himself in hell , never having known of its existance and having had no opportunity to avoid it and having lived a good life to the best of his ability and knowledge and finding himself in the company of all his extended family and friends. Where is the justice in all of this ?

Well, assuming that we are dismissing the possibility that God doesn't extend his gift to all - even those who can't know of Christ - it still doesn't get us by the problem of sin. A defence of "Living to the best of one's ability" is harping back to the cosmic scales of good and bad that you said you weren't talking about. The justice in all of this, at least according to Christianity, is that we are all condemned by our sin and damnation is a fitting sentence. The question of justice is separate to the question of why not all people * at least for the purposes of this discussion * are offered the gift of salvation from a befitting judgement.

What do you think the Biblical teaching on sin is? Is it just a funny word that means doing naughty things occasionally? Or is it a word for something infinitely more terrible?

Of course, all of this talk of sin and justice brings use back to the gift of salvation. Is it extended to all people thought time? Or is it exclusive? And around we go...

Because to many Dante is not fiction, and is more orthodox than most.

Sorry but would you expand on this? Who believes that The Divine Comedy is something more than an allegorical poem? And why should anyone who doesn't share their view give it any attention? After all neither you nor I believe (for different reasons obviously) that TDC is an actual depiction of hell. So why mention it as authoritative, especially in the context of what happened to Moses and Abraham?

Fanny Cradock

tommy2bad wrote: »

Consistent with what? there is no Biblical message about the fate of those who have never heard. Any answer we give will be a guess at best an educated guess but still an argument from silence.

I agree with all of that.

To clarify - I was suggesting that the offer of the gift isn't consistent (and perhaps I could have used a better word) if we are to take the perspective that you can only receive salvation if you first happen to be in the position to have heard about him.

But I don't take this perspective and so it isn't really a problem to me.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

I am not claiming anything ISAW I am genuinely asking questions , why not just forget Aslan ,column A or B and just give a straight answer to the best of your ability . Yon indicated you were on for discussion- lets have one.

1. I gave you a straight answer. in the CS Lewis story Aslan represents christ.
He saves those who worshiped Tash because they were righteous and believed they were worshiping a good God.

2. you cant say "here is a red basket for red things only and a blue basket for blue things only. Now into which basket should i put all the yellow things?"

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

1. I gave you a straight answer. in the CS Lewis story Aslan represents christ.
He saves those who worshiped Tash because they were righteous and believed they were worshiping a good God.

2. you cant say "here is a red basket for red things only and a blue basket for blue things only. Now into which basket should i put all the yellow things?"

I really don't have a clue what you are talking about and life is to short to read the Chronicles of Narnia ? to decipher it.

If you have something to say -say it and lets leave the parables to the bible.

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, assuming that we are dismissing the possibility that God doesn't extend his gift to all - even those who can't know of Christ - it still doesn't get us by the problem of sin. A defence of "Living to the best of one's ability" is harping back to the cosmic scales of good and bad that you said you weren't talking about. The justice in all of this, at least according to Christianity, is that we are all condemned by our sin and damnation is a fitting sentence. The question of justice is separate to the question of why not all people * at least for the purposes of this discussion * are offered the gift of salvation from a befitting judgement.

What do you think the Biblical teaching on sin is? Is it just a funny word that means doing naughty things occasionally? Or is it a word for something infinitely more terrible?

Of course, all of this talk of sin and justice brings use back to the gift of salvation. Is it extended to all people thought time? Or is it exclusive? And around we go...



Sorry but would you expand on this? Who believes that The Divine Comedy is something more than an allegorical poem? And why should anyone who doesn't share their view give it any attention? After all neither you nor I believe (for different reasons obviously) that TDC is an actual depiction of hell. So why mention it as authoritative, especially in the context of what happened to Moses and Abraham?

So if I am following you correctly Fanny - the sequence is a follows-

1- we are all since the fall born condemned
2- Christ came on earth to remove that original sin and
3- by his death gave a pathway to a fresh start and a way into heaven

except for one caveat which I will get to later everything is fair if a little draconian ( at least to me) in that everyone is treated equally with the exception of the chosen people. Now we get to

4-entry into heaven seems to in some way contingent in believing in the Christian message , so it is a pathway for some but not all and thus is esssentially unfair.

Now back to that caveat- if Christ died for us why are we still impure so to speak, why not we all start out pure and by our own efforts remain so and enter heaven or we become the authors of our own downfall.

The obvious side effect to the belief that Christ died for us in order just to give us a second chance is that every single person outside the Old Testament chosen people must have gone to hell ?

Wh1stler

ISAW wrote: »

Wasent he drugged by others at the time?
But im asking about god ordering rape in the Bible.
where is it?

Abraham was not ordered to rape nor do i think he did rape.

It was you who brought rape into it as being morally 'right' or 'wrong' and I answered with 'In the the event that the human race depended on it, I don't think that rape would be wrong.'

I hadn't made any claim that God ordered rape but when I looked into that question, the situation with Abraham occurred to me and that tied in with 'objective morality' with regard to adultery and I found a story where a father was drugged and raped by his two daughters who were concerned that he didn't have a male heir.

God seems to not have been too concerned about this.

So, this is where we are at; you believe that it is always wrong to rape but it is sometimes good to hack children to death whereas I think that it is always wrong to hack children to death but it is sometimes good to rape.

Is your position as I put it? My position is as I state above.

philologos

Jesus didn't come on earth to "remove original sin". Jesus came in order to bring us back to God by paying for all of our sin on the cross.

Phrasing it in the "remove original sin" matter is unbiblical firstly, and secondly it stops people accepting that they have sinned right here right now in their own lives. However all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). For some reason people have difficulty in accepting that.

tommy2bad

Andrewf20 ;
If God truely wants to save us, as i said before, he should perform an act that nullifies all discussion. Whats stopping him?

Maybe its not necessary?

marienbad ;
entry into heaven seems to in some way contingent in believing in the Christian message , so it is a pathway for some but not all and thus is esssentially unfair.

We seem to put a silent belief in into the piece "No one comes to the Father except through me". Its not their and while we dont know how it works or exactly what Jesus meant adding an unsaid clause is wrong.

life is to short to read the Chronicles of Narnia ?

Heresy !:eek: next you'll be saying that TLOTR is too long .;)

Wh1stler

I was on a different thread where Wolfsbane made an interesting point. I thought I was in this thread and as it is pertinent here I thought I would re-post my reply here. I think it might add an interesting and useful dimension to this discussion.

Wh1stler wrote:

wolfsbane wrote: »

Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

If there is any truth in the Bible then it is in this verse. It is actually a very beautiful way to put it.

What a pity that they had to confuse the issue by building a bible around it.

Every word of Romans 1:20 could easily be an expression of the nature of vacuum fluctuations; the source of the Universe.

'The sap rises, the sap falls; such is the power of quantum dynamics.'

If God could be defined as the nature of the Universe, for better or worse, for good or bad; no will to be but unable to remain constant then I think atheism would become an amusing relic of the past.

Romans 1:20 seems to offer an opportunity for science and religion to be reconciled.

Religionists believe in the existence of God because He simply must exist, (I know this is a gross over-simplification but please go with it), whereas science is searching for a force in nature that could give rise to the existence of the Universe. Another over-simplification.:o)

Or, it might be said that that science is ultimately searching for a force that can account for all the acts that God could possibly perform, i.e., a force in nature worthy of the title of 'God'.

In a way, isn't science looking for that which the faithful have already found? In the end, aren't they the same thing?

If Romans 1:20 could be taken as a starting point for both science and religion in the debate on the Existence of God and a central point agreed, then I honestly think that science and religion could move together along the road of understanding.

Let me explain; to me there seems to be a lesson in 'Zen' to be learned from Romans 1:20; it seems to indicate a fundamental truth.

There is one truth about the Universe; it must always change.

And therein lies a philosophical challenge.

Firstly: If it is the case that change occurs in all things and at any scale then it can be said that all things must change, always.

In that case, the tendency to change would the only objective reality that could exist; or the inability to stay the same. The one truth would be:

'Everything must change'.

But this leads to a paradox; if the tendency to change is constant, then the tendency to change is not contained in the 'set of everything'. i.e., the law that states that all must change is not itself subject to that law.

So the one truth should read more like 'Everything must change except the truth' or, 'Everything must change except the law. The law is the truth and the truth is the law.

This sounds nice to me and if I were to worship the one true God, I would like Him to be This.

Wouldn't science? Wouldn't religion?

Personally, I am happy to start from there but I realise that there could be problems if the base assumption were to fail.

If the truth is subject to the law then the truth must change too; if the law is subjective to the law then the law must change. This means that the law influences itself, that the law is subjective; that what the law changes into depends on what the law is! The truth is like the border between 'that that was' and 'that that is yet to be'.

And bang goes objectivity.

Fortunately, we still have a constant: 'Everything must change', the only truth that the truth cannot change. The one thing that exists outside the set of 'everything'.

And ultimately we, the religionists and the scientists, arrive at the same place; what shall be shall be. 'YHWH'.

Part of the Romans 1:20 verse reads, 'being understood by the things that are made'. This is the part that conveys a 'Zen-ist' message to me. We can see how inanimate objects are at peace with themselves as they are submitted totally to the force of nature. A mountain has no desire to become a rock and a river has no desire to become a cloud. Nor does a mountain desire to remain a mountain or a river to remain a river. And what if they did? Because the mountain will become rocks and the river will become clouds. But should they express sorrow? No, because they are the truth and the law.

Religion and science could take a leaf; this isn't about the existence/non-existence of God, this is about a description and definition of the nature of God that satisfies all sides of the debate in a rational way, without causing offense.

Can we not start from: 'There is a force that brought the Universe into existence'?

tommy2bad

Wh1stler Good post, expresses something that I have been trying to say throughout this thread better than I have.

Can we not start from: 'There is a force that brought the Universe into existence'?

We did " In a beginning was the word"
As to 'everything must change except the law', How about 'Everything Changes, but God Changes Not', Or 'everything changes but the love of God'.

In a way, isn't science looking for that which the faithful have already found? In the end, aren't they the same thing?

No. Science is looking for 'how', religion looks for 'why' Ultimately they may be caused by the same thing but the approach is different and the answers will differ wildly. Science will never satisfy those looking for a why.