Christianity and Love, Part 2

Great Debates
61

andros said,

I think I gotta agree with you on this one, since jmullaney responded, in part, with:

Sounds pretty much like jmullaney does not think atheists can have a formal moral and ethical system that encompasses compassion and self-sacrifice. Now, that topic has had a number of threads devoted to it over the months, so I’ll just keep this short enough to say I find it hard to believe that such a comment, the ol’ Atheism = Amorality chestnut, even ironically, would come from someone who had any understanding of what constitutes atheism.

62

So, the development of agriculture and the resultant population explosion, the industrial revolution, the same science that gives us a vastly extended lifespan, remarkably low childbirth deaths, effective methods for easing pain and curing diseases, ways to actually move food to the starving (try sending grain from America to Somalia 10,000 years ago), etc., is “original sin”. More people may be starving and poor because there’s simply more people around, and 10% of a whole bunch is more than 20% of a little. I would, honestly, like to see evidence that life was overall better in those areas 10,000 years ago than it is today, and reasons why the population increase is due to moving away from God, and how moving back to God will somehow “fix” this “population problem”. If you love Jesus and your neighbor with all your heart, do you stop having kids? Certainly, the tenets of nearly all major religions would be effective, if properly used, against famine or poverty, so what is it about Christianity that makes it so much more effective at dealing with these things?

63

Scylla quoted somebody saying: “Catholics, for example, believe hell is merely the separation from God.” He then asked:

Um, the Pope.

But what’s he know?

From U.S. News & World Report, “Hell Hath No Fury,” 1/31/00:

"The latest round of revisionism was touched off last summer by a surprising editorial in La Civilta Cattolica, an influential Jesuit magazine with close ties to the Vatican. Hell, the magazine declared, ‘is not a ‘place’ but a ‘state,’ a person’s ‘state of being,’ in which a person suffers from the deprivation of God.’ A few days later, Pope John Paul II told an audience at the Vatican that ‘rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God.’ To describe this Godforsaken condition, the pontiff said, the Bible ‘uses a symbolical language’ that ‘figuratively portrays in a “pool of fire” those who exclude themselves from the book of life, thus meeting with a “second death.”’

From the U.S. News site, you can link to the Vatican’s site with the pope’s remarks on heaven, hell, and purgatory.

64

Polycarp wrote:

EEK! Real estate flashbacks!!
Get 'em off me, get 'em off me!!

65

David B:

Well, that’s sure new. Just last year I read a description of Purgatory from some Catholic website somewhere, and it said that Purgatory was filled with cleansing fire more excruciatingly painful than anything you could experience while you were still alive, and that “the only difference between Purgatory and Hell is that Purgatory is temporary.”

66

That is new. Let me check it out some and get back to you. I’ll probably start a new thread on it.

67

Wow. Well, I can truly say, of the multitudes of posts that have been made since I was last here, only one sentence stands out:

“I realize that FoG is swamped as it is replying to others”

Yeah you could say that! I think there are, what, at LEAST 10 - 15 responses? This could take all night.
Guadere and David, I wish I’d heard from you on your thoughts about avalon’s point. Apparenly you don’t agree since you just kept trudging on. Truthfully I’m sitting here and not sure what to do. I could a) Post another lenghty, point-for-point response, only to watch it get torn apart in a point-for-point response that concludes that it’s “not logical”, OR … b) “take the night off” and not even try to respond tonight, but do it tomorrow or this weekend … OR c) Realize that no one is getting the point and drop out of the debate.

Hmmmm … I was leaning toward “C”, but I actually have a small glimmer of hope that SOME folks on here are in fact “getting it” from what I just read, or at least part of “it”. At the same time, I cannot keep staying up all hours of the night posting lengthy responses every night. At the same time it’s tempting, because I don’t want to miss the possibility that SOMEONE on here might be open to the truth, and might actually be learning it. I am even not giving up hope that some of those who are directly debating with me will at least “get” some of what I’m saying.
I think … I’m going to go for a balanced approach. I will not respond to each and every detailed point, but I will TRY to give at least a short response to each person.
(revving up the engines)
… and we’re OFF ! …

1st up … Satan.

You said: “So a worldly punishment shouldn’t bother anyone”

Really? Try telling that to David the King (in the Old Testament). He committed adultery and murder and suffered incredibly for it.
You said: "What this means is that you will still have to atone for your sins even as a Christian. And you also say that we all sin. Therefore, life is nothing but sins that I will do regardless “coming back to haunt me,” eh? "

No, Jesus atones for your sins even as a Christian. And life is anything BUT “sins I will do regardless coming back to haunt me” … WHEN you give your heart to Christ. Part of what He does is change your desires and reverses the whole original sin thing. When you come to Him, He changes you so that your overall desires are aimed toward what’s good, and not toward what’s evil. That’s part of the benefits of the cross.

*** The following is a general, overall point to everyone***

Do you know what the real, overall problem here is? Everyone LOVES to compare THEMSELVES and all the so-called innocent ones to the “really bad” people in society (ie, murderers, rapists, etc). When you do that, SURE you can convince yourself that you’re innocent!

But here’s the problem. Let’s say you’ve got three people living on a street.

Person 1 says: “Well … yeah I’m a drunk, but hey, I treat my wife like a queen and I’m a hard worker. So I can’t be all that bad!”

Person 2 says: “Well … yeah I verbally abuse my wife, but hey, I’m sober as can be and I’m a hard worker. So I can’t be all that bad!”

Person 3 says: “Well … yeah I’m a lazy slug, but I treat my wife like a queen and I’m as sober as I can be. So I can’t be all that bad!”

This is a PERFECT example of how people can CONVINCE themselves that they are being logical when they are not.

Back to your point Satan: “You say that God is just when He lets murderers into heaven and you say that God is just when He doesn’t let the voctims of that murderer into heaven.”
Again, you are using extreme examples to try to make it appear untrue. Okay, let’s take up the challenge:

Murderer says: “Well . . . yeah I killed someone, but hey I give money regularly to good charities, I’ve built homes for some of my single-mom friends, and I’ve bought groceries for homeless people I see on the street. I can’t be all that bad! Surely God will let my good outweigh my bad!”

Murder Victim says: “Well … yeah I’ve hated my mother my whole life, I’ve stolen a few things here and there (but it didn’t REALLY hurt anyone), and I’ve carried on an affair with my coworker without my husband’s knowledge. But I’m not that bad! I bake cookies for the neighborhood kids. They LOVE me! I am on the PTA, and I am ALWAYS there for my children when they need me. I can’t be all that bad! Surely God will let my good outweigh my bad!”
Now, obviously these are two fictional characters. But take ANY two individuals and put them in the role of murderer and murder victim, and you will find some kind of similar line of thought. And it doesn’t work! We are all guilty.

End of post #1 of 35. (JUST KIDDING!!)

*so much for -short, quick replies- huh? I’ll have to do better with the rest. More coming up.

(PS, Satan I responded to your “people never had the chance” comment somewhere back in this post. I posted a scripture that shows God’s attitude. If you scroll back you’ll find it).

68

:smiley:

69

Here’s the U.S. News link:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/000131/hell.htm

If you read the whole article, it seems like the Pope is still hedging his bets, as the absence of God is implied as everlasting torment.

In other words, whether Hell has a zip code or not, whether the language is metaphorical or not, the Pope seems to be saying that Hell is still real and definitely sucks ass.

Interestingly to this discussion one might assume that this toning down of Hell, is a direct response to the God as Tyrant argument.

My Jesuit teachers in high school had no philosophical problem with Hell as a real place of eternal torment.

Basically, an evil man creates Hell for himself. He doesn’t need the help of a deity at all. He lives in it every day of his life. It is home. Positing an afterlife and free-will, why should this state of affairs change? Without them we simply have a Hell on earth.

Thought about this way, the existence of Hell becomes quite a seperate issue from religion, and becomes more a question of psychology. I.E. An atheist can burn in Hell without being proven wrong!

70

Okay, let’s see if I can move a little quicker …
On to Holly. Hi! :slight_smile:
You said, “First of all, no gets himself into the fix. You say that all people are sinners; everyone deserves to go to hell. Even if you live a good life, you have Original Sin hanging over your head.”
Original Sin is not something just “hanging over your head”, it’s an inclination in your heart. It’s an inclination toward evil that we are born with. We still have a CHOICE whether or not to follow that inclination, but we all do. Therefore, “even if you live a good life” is a misnomer.

Here’s an illustration Holly. Imagine I want to make a 5-egg Omelet (didn’t someone mention something about an omelet in one of these zillions of posts?!?) I put four good eggs in, then I crack open the fifth egg and it smells horridly rotton. Suppose I decide to mix it into the omelet and “hope no one notices”? It won’t work. Our consistant, persistant sin taints our whole lives, and no amount of “good” can make up for it.
… onward to …
David B. I question my own wisdom at continuing our debate but here I go anyway. I’m not going to respond to each and every point, because most of them would be repeating myself and you already pretty much know what I’d say. Here’s a few things to chew on however …
I said: “you are blaming God for the fix you got yourself into.”
You said: "Baloney. I am blaming the god you believe in for the mess he created, and then blamed everybody else for. I am blaming you for believing such nonsense and refusing to listen to reason. "

As the scripture in Job said, you are only condemning God to justify yourself. People can’t cope with the reality of the enormity of their guilt, so they have to throw it off on the nearest target, and God’s a pretty big target. God created no mess - EVERYTHING He created was good and mankind messed it up. It’s in the Bible. Whoops, I forget, you refuse to read the Bible. That makes your arguments against the Bible sooooo credible.
I said: “As for science “not ignoring reality”, it certainly has ignored it at times. There are many times science has been proven wrong.”
You re-mentioned that science is self-correcting.
Okay, science is self-correcting. How long does this self-correction take? How long did it take to discover the world wasn’t flat after all? My point is … if you place your faith in science, what if this self-correcting process takes place on your most treasured beliefs one year after you die? My point is, if you assume science is self-correcting, that proves the point that it needs correcting from time to time (and yes David I know you agreed to that). How much time can you afford to waste on what might be incorrect?

…I’ll save my Columbine comments for others who also responded to this point…

I said: “Based on your theory, “no one is hurt” so it must be okay. Where do you get this standard from?”
You responded: "I get this standard from reality and rational thought. Who have I hurt if I just have a thought and decided not to act on it? "

I already answered this, and you’ve once again ignored it. The answer is “YOURSELF”! And excuse me, but what possible rational argument can you use to argue that “if no one is hurt, it must be okay”? I’d REALLY like to hear this one.

You said: “I doubt that anybody here didn’t already know that you believe these things.”
You apparently don’t.

You kept saying: "But no matter how you restate them to make them look good, the simple fact still remains that God punishes people who don’t bow down to him in exactly the right way, just like any petty tyrant. "

LOL! David, is your job as an admin to try to ridicule Christians “just in case” they might be getting through to someone? This is just hilarious. When, o wise one, did I ever say that God punishes people who “don’t bow down to him in exactly the right way”? That cracks me up. I can just picture it – “You’re bending over too far! No, not far enough! Off to hell with you!!! Can’t you do anything right???”

God punishes people who live a life of sin, not those who … ahh, I’ve said it before. No more repeating. If you want to read your philosophy of life into what I’ve said Dave, go for it. You can’t prove Christianity wrong, so you have to take a simple statement and attempt to complicate it. Knock yourself out.

You said: "I have already told you numerous times that I don’t believe in any god, so why would you suggest that I do, other than to call me a liar? "
No, I think it’s possible that you’ve blocked out God subconsciously. I don’t think you’re a liar, I accept that you say you don’t believe in God. But I think it’s possible that subconsciously you do and you’ve blocked him out.
You said: "I have repeatedly explained that I am merely holding up a mirror to the god you profess belief in, trying to show you how ridiculous those beliefs are. "

No, you’re not. I’ll back off on one point - maybe you’re not deliberately twisting my words. Maybe you sincerely believe that to say God loves you and wants to rescue you from eternal damanation makes him a tyrannical dictator. But it’s kind of hard to believe. I don’t think that what I’m saying is THAT hard to grasp.
Finally, your parting shot: “Since I’ve already told you what I think of quotes from that book, why on Earth would you throw more of 'em here? Is it because it’s easier to do that than to think for yourself? That sure seems to be the answer…”

Here, David, you have really shot your credibilty. You are convinced the Bible is a fairy tale. You are convinced it’s not the holy inspired Word of God. Yet you won’t read it. How can you be sure it is what you think it is when you won’t even read it?

If you’re so confident in your ability to “think for yourself”, read it with an OPEN mind. Don’t go into it with the pre-conceived notion that you are right. Go into it with the pre-conceived notion that there MIGHT, just POSSIBLY be something worth reading in here.

I’ll admit that the chances of you reading the Bible are slim to none. And again, there goes your credibilty.

David I’ll give you a challenge. Read the gospel of Luke with an open mind. (I’m sure you’re shocked, as every other believer always says ‘start with the gospel of John’). It won’t take long. It won’t hurt you. Stay open. Even though you DON’T believe it to be the inspired Word of God, that’s fine. Just be open to the fact that there MIGHT just be some truth in there for you.

I hope you’ll do it, but I won’t hold my breath . . .
** note to self: REALLY, REALLY … start making SHORT, BRIEF RESPONSES or you’ll NEVER GET THROUGH!!! ***
end of note

71

Okay folks, I’m only one man and I’ve only got so much time. I’m DETERMINED to give quick respones to most of the rest of the posters, responding only to one or two of the main points. Sorry I can’t do it all. Here we go …

… on to …

slythe.
You said: "Also, using the Bible to prove the validity of the Bible is something we like to call Circular Reasoning. "

It’s not JUST the Bible itself that proves the Bible is true. Study the lives of those who believe it to be true and live what it teaches. Despite what David (or someone) said, it’s one of several valid points of proof.
… now we round the corner to …
pinqy! Ah, the one who understood my dilemna. I will try to honor that by answering the main essence of your post (I won’t quote the whole ‘fairy’ thing since it’s long).

You said: "Friend, here’s a chance for you to explain your logic again. " I don’t know if I should be happy or sad, since so many here are convinced my logic isn’t so logical!
But thanks for the opportunity anyway :).
My first comment: you mean fairies AREN’T real? :frowning: (sorry I couldn’t resist)
My REAL comment: Actually, by this illustration you will help me focus on the “other half” of the equation. The answer to your illustration is the same answer to ANYONE that comes along saying they believe ‘this or that’. In fact, the Bible says that MANY will preach false doctrines and you have to stay on your toes to notice them - many believers can even be deceived if they’re not careful.

I’ve zeroed in on the fact that I’ve had an experience with God and that that’s a big part of why I believe in Him. But it’s not the ONLY part. The other is the solid oak tree of truth called the Bible. As I said in an earlier post (possibly in another thread), it’s like the stripes on the road. Now, the stripes can’t tell me whether to slow down, stop, move forward, or speed up. That’s something that God in an experiential way has to show you somehow or another.

However, suppose I believe fairies are out to kill me. I’ve just driven onto the shoulder and I’m in danger of crashing! In other words, I’ve gotten outside the safe boundaries of the Bible. A Christian can never say he or she has “heard God” tell them to do something the Bible contradicts. It’s just common sense . . . God won’t contradict Himself.

This handles the whole “cult” issue. If someone warps what the Bible teaches they are outside the lines. That’s why it’s sooooo critical for Christians to understand clearly what the Bible teaches so they aren’t swayed by false teachings. This also handles what someone said earlier about so-called Christians who think it’s their right to shoot abortion doctors. They’ve driven outside the lines and they’re in dangerous territory!
Okay, end of post # 3, or whatever this is. We’re moving on …

72

… and the marathon post continues …

by the way the last one I saw was tracer’s 8 pm post tonite. I’ll use that as a cutoff and not respond to anyone past that point tonite. Any after that point I’ll respond to sometime this weekend.
Maybe I should hire a secretary or something!!
I’m trying to be brief, I’m really trying …
… now we arrive at …
John Corrado’s comments. By the way hi John, I don’t think I’ve met you on the board yet. Nice to meetcha!
You said: "DavidB does not believe in God. DavidB does not believe in an evil God. DavidB does not believe in an angry God. DavidB simply does not believe in any God at all.
When DavidB states “God is…” what he really means to say is “By your definition, God is…”. "

I actually do get that, but he doesn’t realize it. He is deliberately trying to twist my words about God to make him sound tyrannical. His goal seems to be to discredit the message of the Bible and I am merely trying to expose the sheer folly of what he is saying. He seems to believe in the old adage, “If you say it long enough, people will believe it”. As I said earlier, you can twist anything around to make it appear logical if you really want to.
You said: "By your definition, God sends people to Hell for their mere existence (as we apparently are born into sin). Now, God could remove that sin from us- He’s omnipotent, right? Or God could chose not to punish us- He’s only following rules He Himself made, so why can’t He just change them? "
And you said: "Except that there are probably a good two dozen other religions stating that their leader or prophet or way is divine, and that Christ’s way isn’t. And there is no evidence, no standing, nothing that makes any of these other religions any more or less valid than Christianity. "

John in the interest of time and sanity, I will direct you to the first few pages of the ORIGINAL “Christianity and Love” thread in which I answered most of what you said above. I also posted a topic within ONE of the other topics that I titled “Chrisitianity is the only logical religion” that gives my thoughts on that subject. Can anyone help me with the name of that thread? I can’t recall which one it was now.
… onward! …
… jmullaney …
said: “Well, that does it. FoG – I think you are the devil himself. I’ve never seen anyone do such a bad job of proselytizng before. You should take some time to examine your completely warped believe system before just going around doing everything you can to alienate people. I don’t think j.c. would be happy with your attitude.”

So, if I understand correctly, you have a small disagreement with my approach? :slight_smile:
… I round the corner and come face to face with …
Gaudere!
Hi Guadere. Thank you by the way for your gracious and kind comments. :slight_smile: I consider you to be one of the more gracious debaters, although no less strong in your beliefs by any means.
Let me zip through some of the highlights of your comments:
You said: "You consider a quick death, possibly painless (although undoubtably scary), and an eternity in heaven to be adequate punishment for the murder of a child, when if I fib I deserve an eternity of torture? "

sigh Once again you LUV to pull out the most dramatic, extreme case to make your point.
I’ll admit “hopefully” was a bad choice of words. Let me clarify … I believe that I bear consequences for EVERY sin I commit in this lifetime. If I was the ax murderer and “got away with it” from the perspective of the justice system, that doesn’t mean I really got away with it. God has very, very creative ways of executing justice that we don’t always see.

But that’s beside the point. In fact, I’ll direct you back to the first in my long string of posts here, in which I gave the illustration of three people trying to justify themselves. I even answered the murder vs murder victim one. That’s basically the same thing you’re talking about.
You said: "If Jesus is guilty, and God cannot abide sin, why isn’t Jesus suffering eternally in Hell? How can God Himself be guilty? "
Good question on the first one, I’ve wondered that myself! I don’t know. From what I understand scripturally, Jesus DID go to hell after the cross, but obviously not for eternity. Perhaps God being God, He was somehow able to cram an eternity’s worth of punishment into 6 hours on the cross. As I said, I’m not sure. It’d make an interesting Bible study topic.
God isn’t GUILTY by the way. For those who accept Christ, our guilt is PLACED on Jesus and God SEES Him as guilty. The fact that Jesus WASNT guilty of any sin was the very reason He qualified for taking on our sins.
I said: “You simply have to humble yourself, recognize your own wretched sinfulness, and come to Christ.”
You said: “Unless you don’t see any particular reason why Jesus would be real, and not any of the other Gods. Then, simply because you don’t believe, you get to suffer eternally.”

To your first sentence I say — no, the requirement is the same even if you don’t believe Jesus is real.

As for “Simply because you don’t believe, you get to suffer eternally” … I actually have something new for you here Guadere. Understanding the chronological order of things is key on this point.

We don’t suffer eternally because we don’t believe. We suffer eternally because we sin. The truth is, if God hadn’t intervened, every one of us would be headed to hell with no hope of any alternative.

Yes there’s a way of escape, but it’s not something we deserve. If we never hear of this way of escape and we get what we deserve, well, then we got what we deserved.

BUT … obviously, that’s NOT the way God wants it to happen. That’s why He puts in people like myself a desperate passion to share the gospel to as many people as possible on the earth. That’s why there are dozens of Christian organizations right now (including one in Colorodo Springs that several of my friends belong to) that are dedicated to translating the Bible into different languages so that every culture can hear the gospel. That’s why I’m spending so much time on this message board in the hopes that something I say will break through to someone’s heart.

Now are you ready for this? I’D like to say that I’m frustrated with God on one point in particular, myself. (Can I hear a gasp? :)) I don’t at all understand why He chooses to use us human beings to spread the gospel. Sometimes I and other Christians wonder why He would do that. I’ve theorized that maybe it’s the human touch, that people won’t believe in a God they can’t see but they can believe in a changed life and in love being expressed through a person. Maybe that’s it. Who knows. But believe me it’ll be one of the first questions I ask God when I get to heaven, if He doesn’t show me before then.
Finally, your parting comment:
“I am not certain that God doesn’t exist, but I lack belief that He does. The fact that your God is illogical means I think you must resolve the logicical contradiction somehow if you wish to have a coherent faith. The fact that despite your protestations, your God apparently does hideously unjust things makes me disinclined to worship Him even if He was logically possible and didn’t have a contradiction in attributes.”

I’ll be honest, I’m very glad you said “apparently”. I hope you meant that. I hope you are open to the fact that God knows what He’s doing. And by the way, unlike David, I have the feeling you are aware the Bible won’t bite you. I would encourage you again to read Job 38-42 because it is God’s answer to those who are skeptics of Him. I doubt many will like the answer, but it’s His answer. Have you ever read the book of Job overall by the way? It sometimes reads like this message board!

Okay that was TOOOOO long. I’m going to try to finish before the year 2000 is over …

73

I hope this will be it …

… Holly again. The following wasn’t addressed to me, but I wanted to comment because I was genuinely touched.
You said: "If heaven and hell did exist and at my death I was given a choice between going to heaven (unlikely, I know, but bear with me) or trading my place in heaven so a stranger could avoid hell, I would choose the latter. "

That is beautiful. You have really got a tender heart for people. Do you realize that’s the exact attitude Christ has toward you Holly? Do you realize Moses in the O.T. had this attitude toward the Israelites? Read this:

(Moses speaking) “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin – but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.” (Exod 32:32)
(**commentary note - the ‘book’ is the book of Life, which has the names of those who belong to God written in it **).

I truly pray that you will realize God tenderly loves you. He wants you in His kingdom so He can love you for all eternity. I pray that you will consider this.

… John Corrodo again …
Just briefly, thanks for your kind comments. I appreciate them “in the midst of the storm” as it were!

… down the slope, over the hill to …

Esprix.

You said: "And it’s not a matter of getting mad again - my anger from your rude, insensitive, irresponsible remark remains as fresh as they day you first posted it. "

Thus proving my point. Esprix, I won’t have a conversation with you about this when you’re angry. Obviously I have a lot to say about it. Look around Esprix, I’ve pretty much responded to everyone. I’m willing to do the same with you but not if you’re just angry at me. It doesn’t work in “real life” and for sure not on the Internet.

“Do not make friends with a hot tempered man, do not associate with one easily angered, or you may learn his ways and get yourself ensnared.” (Prov 22:24-25)

… andros
I can’t let this one slip by.

I said about the Columbine killings "My point is, in this day and age, there’s a mindset that ‘whatever you believe is true is true’, regardless. "
You responded: “Was I the only one who laughed at this?”

Pardon my bluntness, but are you blind?? This is THE ruling philosophy in American society in the year 2000. The attitude is - “You believe whatever you want to believe and that’s fine, but don’t push it on me. Don’t tell ME what to believe. If you say something’s not right, it might not be right TO YOU, but it might be right to ME. It’s just your OPINION that it’s not right, yada yada yada.”

Or, to summarize, if I believe it, it’s true ‘to me’. I think that’s what some people on this board TRIED to get ME to say when I first started posting, and I refused to do it.

…
… * gasp * … breathing heavily … one last sprint …

I think I’ve reached the finish line. whew

I did read the other posts and found them interesting, but didn’t see any more directed to me.
Welll that was fun in a weird sort of way. Those of you who disagree, have fun picking apart what I said. Those of you who are open or partly open, I hope that what I said made you think.

Have a delightful evening, all! :slight_smile:

74

I wasn’t laughing because I was disagreeing with you, FriendofGod. On the contrary, I agree wholeheartedly that the intolerance for the beliefs of others in the US is a cancer.

No, I was laughing because the very “I’m right and the rest of you are wrong” mindset is the very attitude you posess yourself.

What you believe is True, and dammit, you’ll not be swayed by the unrighteous! You, after all, have the Truth on your side!

What arrogance to decry such behavior in others. What hypocrisy. And I’ll warrant you cannot even see it.

There’s a plank in you eye, friend. I pray that the Lord will allow you to see it before you try to remove the speck from mine.

75

I just want to extend my thanks to everybody who has contributed to this thread. I haven’t been this amused in a long time.
I don’t know what funnier, the fact that a fundie is arguing with not one, but TWO atheists, or the fact that neither party will just let it go. To quote the dead horse “Stop beating me!”

76

OK, suppose, for a moment you were God. You had this spiffy new thing, a Universe, complete with an infinite dimension in scope, and detail. You really liked it. You had other aspects of yourself, lets call them angels. But they are but aspects of your own being. So, the problem is that you have no one to love.

Wouldn’t you love somebody to love?

Now, you could whip up a few billion God groupies in a flash. And every one of them would love you completely. But they would be aspects of your own being. There is no difference. If you want to create this love thing, you are gonna have to go out a real limb. You are gonna have to make beings that are not entirely of your own being. Living things, of the stuff of this universe you have going. That means they will have its limits. Entropy, and such. They will have to die. So you imbue them with the ability to seek you out, and gain from you that same aspect of your being that is immortality.

The reality of that difference is true free will. They may live, and then die, without ever seeking you out. You know that many will do so. Among those who do not seek love, will be those who perceive it, and grow to despise it in others. Hate will be born. Is it worth it to create so many lives, knowing that so many souls shall be lost forever? How can you let them die, if you created them only because you love them? But you must know that no real love can be, unless it grows up from the free heart of another, and it given freely. There can be no love without it.

But you could be another aspect of yourself, and take upon yourself the limits of that life you have given to them. In that way, you can grow closer to them, and touch them in a way that is of their world. And you can make the eternal aspect of your own being a part of their mortal being, and create a faith that Love is real. Still there will be those who will not be saved. But by that act, you can save every soul that will be saved. And by the nurture of your love, you will create something that never was, and could not be, even for you, God. You will create a Heaven, in which you and your children will expand a greater glory than ever the universe might know.

All you need is love.

It has very little to do with logic, and not much to do with religion. I have no idea how He will do it, but I believe that the Lord came to save us, each and all. In the end, I have untroubled faith that every soul that will be saved, shall be saved.

Whether or not I am a good Christian, Christ shall judge. But I shall be a Christian, good or bad. (I suppose it’s a loyalty thing.)

Tris

77

Poly

As you wish.

Gaudere

Let’s begin here (recent post from The ol’ Is Atheism a Religion debate revisited):

Naturally, that is (or ought to be) true for any premise set, like the Noncoercion Principle, for example. From this thread, my post earlier:

And now, recently here, this:

One of the things you may do with your rights is waive them. God did. Had He not, there would be no free will.

I hate to disagree with Tris, whom I love, but Christ does not judge you. (“If I were to judge, my judgement would be perfect in every respect… But I do not judge you. You judge yourselves by the words I speak.” — Jesus)

God gave over the Title Deed of your Spirit to you, lock, stock, and barrel. It is yours to fill with love or hate as you please.

Why would he do such a thing?

Because that makes you in the image of Him. Love is not even Love if it is not offered freely and willingly, just as He offers His. Indentured “love” is like a computer program printing “I love you” on the screen, according to its progammer’s instructions.

I know you must be sick of hearing me say it, because (sometimes) you don’t like me saying things more than once. But please indulge me, in the hopes that this present context might help make the meaning more clear: Life is not in the atoms; it is in the Spirit.

There is never Life where there is no Love. There is only death — death of the soul, death of the heart, death of the mind, death of the body. A loveless existence is a forlorn and melancholy spiral of hopelessness. A cold heart will destroy itself because it hates itself.

The human Spirit cannot live without Love. Though a man proclaim from the mountain tops, “I am a Christian!”, if his heart is cold, there is no Life in him. Though a woman scream out at God, “I hate you for not showing me the sign I specified!”, if her heart is warm and generous, then she is truly Alive.

Whether you call this Love Jesus, DNA, or the IPU is irrelevant, because when you see it manifest, you will know what it is. And because your heart is good, you will go to it straight away to bask in its warmth and Love. (You will judge yourself). Though He could judge your heart perfectly (by your Love), He lets you “make the call”. The cold heart will run away, as far as it can go, because it recognizes this Love as something it hates.

It is as you have said before: Love begets Love.

78

FriendofGod: I don’t have time now to respond (the boss likes me to come in to work on time occasionally :wink: ), but I didn’t see, in my quick perusal, a response to the point I specifically said I wanted to discuss – the one I split out from my other message because it wasn’t a rehash of things we’ve already gone back and forth on. Here, again is that message. I’d appreciate a response. (If you already responded and I missed it, I apologize in advance, but would appreciate somebody pointing me to it.)

FoG said:

It is? Does this mean our soul can be altered by psychiatric drugs, blows to the head, etc.?

I posted something in one of these threads as a follow-up to something Holly said. What happens to the person who was a good Born-Again Christian but got hit in the head and had a change of personality because of it? Does he still go to Heaven, or does he end up in Hell?

I’m keeping this separate from my larger response because 1) My son is waking up and I don’t know if I’ll have time to respond to the larger one, and
2) I think it’s a separate issue that warrants further discussion even if you don’t respond to the next message.

79

I guess I should have realized…the whole point of my Faerie analogy went right over FoG’s head. FoG: I was duplicating your arguments, only using faeries instead of God to show you exactly how your claims appear to unbelievers. You did not tackle the logic of my position, you did not deal with how one could discover the truth of the matter. You didn’t even apply your Pascal’s Wager. Why does that only work with God? You applied it to a madman with an ax, why doesn’t it apply to faeries who want to kill you? Isn’t it safer to believe in them, just in case? And on a further note…there is not even anything inherently contradictory between belief in faeries and the Bible. The Bible certainly mentions spirits and alludes to supernatural creatures. Faeries are not mentioned by name, but there is nothing that says not to believe in supernatural beings, just don’t worship other gods.

So in other words: you didn’t respond at all; you couldn’t say why we should treat your assertion of God any different than my assertions of faeries; you failed to apply your own assertion of Pascal’s Wager to this scenario; you made no arguments at all. Perhaps you should look up definitions of argument and debate.

pinqy

80

**

We all suffer at times on earth. This means nothing to the devout, as they await the day they are “called home.” And as I said (which you ignored) Jesus dealt with suffering too, and even went to hell for a three hour cruise before being resurrected.

In the context of what I was saying, this is not a rebuttal, it only says what I said.

**

Which directly contradicts your own religion AND the context of our discussion.

Christians are sinners, just like Christians, only they are forgiven. But you said before that all sin comes back to haunt us in our lifes, but Christians re simply forgiven for them. The punishment for all is only within our lifetime, whereas for a non-believer, they have eternity to pay.

This is exactly what you said, and exactly what I said.

**

Christians have the same esires as anyone else. Christians get hard-ons when they’re aroused. Christians show vanity. Christians are human, and the good ones can only hope to not act upon those human desires.

**

Do I need to point out the many times believers transgressed? You seem to be saying that the moment someone says, “I accepy Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior” that they suddenly get changed, or even over time are changed.

Sorry, but no. We’re all sinners, remember? Accepting this fact does nothing to eliminate the sin. Oh, sure, some believers modify their behavior. But not all, and far, far less motify their desires.

Now, as for your hypothetical people and all of them having some flaw, well duh! The difference is that God seems to think that me thinking to myself, “Gee, that woman who is not my wife sure has a nice ass, and I’d love to grab it and (insert gratuitous sex reference here)” and not acting on it is somehow the same as me killing this woman and eating her ass in a nice white wine sauce.

If you become a believer, you are forgiven of both. If yout do not, you are not.

Sorry, but even if you are for the death penalty (and being a Christian, you most likely are, unless of course it’s a fetus we’re talking about :cough:), you don’t want people to die because of jay walking. Your God does.

And I responded to your response, showing how inferior it was.

You essentially said that I shouldn’t worry about such things. Right, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

And I showed you how what you said about how God takes into account your intentions is essentially either a Jewish or Uniterian Universalist outlook on matters, and that I doubted you were either.

I also gave an example about the Viking who only knew Norse Gods all his life. This person not only did not know Jesus by His name, he also had false Gods!

Why don’t YOU scroll up and respond to what I said instead of repeating it, eh?

Yer putz,
Satan :wally

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, two weeks, five days, 13 hours, 20 minutes and 4 seconds.
3222 cigarettes not smoked, saving $402.78.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 4 hours, 30 minutes.