FoG:
Hmm. So if they repent after death, then they won’t be punished eternally? Are we talking Purgatory here?
Kimstu
FriendofGod said:
The main problem here, oh FoGgy one, is that you don’t seem to understand the rules of evidence and logic.
Gravity is proveable. If the people in your description jump off of buildings, they will have the evidence hit them in the face – literally.
Your God is not proveable. There is no evidence of this sort. All you have is the “logic” that you think is so perfect, but others have shown how much they disagree.
Now maybe to you the existence of God is as obvious as the existence of gravity. But that is your personal opinion, not fact. And there your analogy falls apart.
Then we live in a world governed by a god who is no better than Slobodan Milosovec – a god that is a petty dictator.
And you can have him.
Polycarp wrote:
Huh. You must be reading into my posts (and I suspect reading them through a slightly different eye just because I’m gay). What I wrote was no more harsh, offensive, or “shrill” than anything, say, DavidB would have written. He and I, I think, are often just as passionate when we go point-by-point on an issue. Would you classify his posts as “shrill?” And I would hardly call being offended at having my friends’ faiths insulted as “easily provoked.” Also, FoG only apologized that I was offended by his comment, not that it was out of line to make it in the first place. But, all said, yes, I doubt he’d be able to distinguish the difference, but frankly I don’t think he read it as you did (although I do note that he hasn’t responded to me directly, but I don’t really expect him to).
Which doesn’t necessarily make me or not make me a theist or a deist, but anyway… 
Actually, from an historical perspective, I do give credence to the Bible as a collection of wise parables and inspired stories (I am a Medieval recreationist, after all, so history is good). As you said, though, I don’t consider it the word of God.
avalongod wrote:
It bends me out of shape because I don’t care to have my friends insulted to my face. Say what you like about me, but I’ll take you outside if you mess with my friends.
Esprix
You just knew I couldn’t leave this sequence of posts alone, didn’t you? 
First, Friend of God, we need to clarify precisely where the problem is here. There is not a person who has posted to this thread, except AvalonGod, who has not dealt with the questions you have raised in other, previous threads. I myself agree wholeheartedly with you that God is eager to enter into a love relationship “with those he calls according to his purpose.” I am fortunate enough to be one of those he has so called. Libertarian is another. Several other SD habitues can echo our testimony.
But you miss two significant points:
[li]You are completely at variance with everyone else on the nature of acceptable evidence. In short, even by your standards, the Bible is the collection of the tribal literature of the Hebrew people, supplemented by a series of accounts relating to one of their number and letters written by some of his chief followers. Whatever more it may be, that much is true. The point is that you can point to similar collections for the Norsemen, the Irish, the Germans, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Japanese… To an objective observer who is not taking the existence of God into account, there is nothing much to distinguish it from the others. The stories it tells could very easily be the stuff of myth and legend, not historical truth. And they bear some strong similarities to similar stories. You know about the baby who was put in this little floating boat of reeds, rescued by a princess who raised him as her own child, found his people and led them forth to conquer a new land, don’t you? Sargon of Akkad was a truly unusual person – and that story about him predates Moses by nearly a millennium.[/li]
[li]Even taking most of the major testimony about God’s work among the Jews and through Jesus at face value, the conservative Christian moral code does not necessarily follow as a logical inference. Jesus is repeatedly emphatic that it is not following rules but a life devoted to love of God and one’s fellow man that is pleasing to God. One must be wearing spiritual blinders not to see this in the repeated conversations he has with Pharisees whose legalism is put in a bad light, the stupidities his disciples perpetrate in the name of keeping the law, the parables he tells, and even Paul, who was fond of issuing moral ukases at the drop of an epistle, makes the point that we are free of the law. And what is more, those commandments are individual: you and I and Libertarian are to live a life devoted to God’s love; we, collectively, are not. It is not my responsibility to ensure that you do so, nor Lib’s to ensure that I do so. It’s on your head to follow Jesus through anything, as it is on mine. And I have lost a house, two cars, and over $16,000 in the process, and gained things much more valuable (other than eternal rewards, which would sit well above this in the first place, but on which we won’t get common agreement here) – in terms of quite practical earthly, if spiritual, rewards: friends, family, personal self-image, confidence, boldness, even skill at posting! To me there has been a net gain.[/li]
And what people resent from conservative Christians is that they stand in judgment over others. You (not you specifically, FoG, but the category of poster you represent) could post that God exists, wants everybody here to acknowledge him as Lord and Savior, sent Jesus to save us from our sins, sent the Holy Spirit to guide us, etc., etc., without end, and the worst you would do is be repetitious and boring to those who have heard it and choose not to believe. But when you whip out the Scriptures and selectively identify particuar behaviors that you are uninterested in indulging in or choose not to indulge in from your own moral scruples, and say that somebody else is damned on account of them, you are violating, not only the personal moral responsibility of that person to make his own choices before God, but the direct commandment of your own Lord to judge not lest you be judged. Esprix’s sex life is no more sinful, on your own standards, than your wearing cotton-polyester-blend underwear.
Okay? I agree with you on first principles: God loves us and wants us to love him back. The Bible is the record of his attempts to convince us all of this. Where we differ is in what further use we make of the Bible and how we treat our fellow men. As I’ve said before but not to you, I’m pledged before God to “respect the dignity of every human being.” It’s part of the baptismal covenant I made and renew on a regular basis (last time was on Pentecost Sunday, twelve days ago). I recommend it to you, and will be glad to post the full text for your information or e-mail it to you, if you happen to be interested.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Now, the question of the nature and existence of God, as debated at length by Avalongod and Gaudere.
First, let’s agree that there is no common ground for assuming something is so on the testimony of the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Granth, the Mahabharata, or any other piece of sacred writing. And further that the physical universe does not present conclusive proof of the existence of a Creator. Friend of God and I and a few others may concur that both the Bible and the Universe provide us quite satisfactory proof, but we cannot oblige the other debaters to agree.
Now, there being no matter or energy observable which demonstrates the existence of God, we must assume that if there is a God, he is of a character such that matter and energy do not represent him. We can use the traditional term “spirit” (in the sense of substance rather than individuated entity) to describe what this additional category of naturally occurring stuff may be. The question, as I noted earlier, then becomes, how do you detect and observe a spirit? And the answer, for me, would be, by one’s inner spirit. One’s own consciousness is not completely explained and comprehended by human knowledge of physiology and neurology; it remains a mystery. We appear to be possessed of some of this odd third category of stuff, by our own internal a priori sense of self. (That funny noise you hear is Rene Descartes spinning in his grave.;)) Now it would be my assertion that any connection with this hypothetical God through one’s own spirit is a valid proof, though for oneself alone, and for others only to the extent that one’s testimony on the subject bears credence.
But is this any different from my assumption that the planet Neptune exists? I have never seen it; I have been informed by credible people that they have, and I have seen pictures that purport to be it, and discussions of the competing astronomer teams that discovered it. But all that is by authority that I must judge whether I give credence to. Adamski stated he had regular discussions with Martians; should I give credence to his authority? Berlitz sets forth evidence for the Bermuda Triangle; what about his?
Whatever I choose to believe about this hypothetical deity must come either from my own senses or from authority that I give credence to. But that is true of anything that I may care to investigate as well. We’ve all heard the old canard about the Arkansas backcountry farmer who went to the city, saw the giraffe at the zoo, and said, “There ain’t no such animal.”
What one chooses to believe about the universe is based on what credence one gives authority and one’s inner sense of what fits logically into the framework of that authority. For me, there would be three categories of possible universes: those caused by random chance, those with logical structure but no “management,” and those with a Creator. However, a random-chance universe has no logical reason to have physical laws which it obeys. The decay of a free neutron is not required to produce a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino; it may just as likely produce Cthulhu. Clearly that theory-universe is not a valid model of our own. So we’re left with a logical structure one with or without management.
The universe has purpose. Assume that there is no God, for the sake of argument. Within this universe are people who act purposively. So not every act is without purpose. And by the laws of probability, in an arbitrarily large number of purposeless acts and a handful of purposive ones, the overall structure becomes purposive. If there is no Creator, we collectively become God for all intents and purposes (along with any alien races that may exist and act purposively). And it is clear that there is a sense of purpose to the universe: we may say that it is not logically required that the universe have purpose, but anyone who has ever fallen in love knows differently.
So I am convinced logically of the existence of some sort of entity that qualifies as God, the cause behind whatever the purpose of the universe turns out to be. Given that, my experiences in encountering this entity and the testimony contained in the Bible lead me to believe that he is to be identified with the God of whom Jesus spoke and of whom traditional Christian theology claims Jesus was the earthly manifestation/incarnation.
Your savaging of this rather vaunting philosophical construct is now welcomed.
I have a dream… that someday there will be a missonary-type to this board that does not bring up Pascal’s Wager. ARRGGGHH! Of course, I expect that the same day FoG gets a PhD in archeology, biology and philosophy.
Look, we have pointed out the errors in logic. I suppose if you say a=1 and a=2 at the same time we shouldn’t argue, since our logic may be wrong. If you think the logic is unsound, you should refute it, you can’t just play “what if” since you can’t figure out the flaw in the arguments! I am using the laws of logic properly within the parameters you have specified, as far as I can tell. I am willing to listen if someone points out what they believe is an error, as I did with the whole “mercy” and “just” thing, and I think I have established that there are some severely illogical assertions in your explanations. You are using circular reasoning, which does not establish that you are wrong, but neither is it a logical proof. You say, essentially, “my particular interpretation of the Bible and God is perfectly logical; therefore if anyone finds any illogic, it isn’t illogical because my beliefs are perfectly logical.” If you want to have faith that your beliefs are in no way illogical, knock yourself out. However, the problem with this is that if you are wrong about your interpretation of God, you will never be able to correct your misconceptions, because you will refuse to accept the evidence you see. Why do you ignore the gift God gave you of the capacity for reason and logic? How will you ever know if you hold false beliefs if you refuse to admit that they might ever be wrong?
Not understanding something does not make it illogical. I don’t understand how my TV works, but that doesn’t make my TV illogical. However, if someone says A=B and A does not equal B at the same time, I can rightfully tell them it is illogical, and you can’t expect anyone to buy an attempt to weasel out of it by simply saying “well, I can’t explain why you’re wrong, but it really is logical, you just don’t understand”.
So I point out a illogical assertion (that God must punish people fairly, and does not punish them fairly). Then you say, well, it’s not illogical, I just don’t understand how it works.
You appear (again) to misunderstand entropy. I am uncertain where you are going with this, but certainly a child grows, thereby refuting your claim that all things at all times are subject to entropy. In an open system, and influx of energy can reverse entropy. In a closed system, energy moving around can reverse entropy in certain areas.
Polycarp says:
No. He just might be currently non-detectable. To believe that God has neither matter or energy is faith; if the Deist God made the universe and then absolutely ceased to interfere with it, how would we detect Him? Yet He could still possess matter or energy.
Truly? If I choose to move my hand and this causes a cascading atmospheric effect that causes a storm in India, should we consider that storm purposive?
By what definition of God?
Um, I’ve been in love. I do not see that the universe logically requires a purpose. Why do you say this? Be careful when you start making poetic statements as if they are logical proofs.
Uh, yeah. I do read into people’s posts the persona they have seen fit to show on line. I assume that Gaudere is going to post from the perspective of the single woman she is, with the wonderfully wry sense of humor she has, and treat tough subjects with a light touch. I am aware you are in a committed relationship, work in a Philadelphia office, have a quirky sense of humor I enjoy reading, and, oh yeah, you’re gay, too. Hey, I would hope by now you realize that I am not the sort of rectal aperture who finds that in any way obnoxious. What I saw was a very “out” gay man, whom I consider a friend, taking an attitude that, to me at least, called forth that old and obnoxious stereotype, which normally does not come anywhere near who he is in reality, and wanted to alert him to it (as I perceived it). No more, no less.
Well, now that you mention it… David is normally the soul of reasonableness, while standing firmly for truth against superstition, and for humanism against judgmentalism and discrimination. But arouse his ire, and he can get a trifle heavy-handed – we’ve both seen this. “Passionate” doesn’t come close to the kill-the-fly-with-the-naval-gun capabilities a truly irked David B. can show! And yes, there have been one or two posts of his over the years I would call “shrill.” (And, like yours, justifiably so.)
[quoteAnd I would hardly call being offended at having my friends’ faiths insulted as “easily provoked.”[/quote]
Agreed. “Easily provoked” was an adjectival phrase modifying the stereotype figure, not you. And I am equally offended by having anybody who claims a faith declared outside that faith by some high-handed hypocrite (as we’ve both seen happen – I’m not calling you that name, FoG, at least until you deserve to be called it!)
Hey, Friend of God, I am (1) a devout Christian, (2) an active Episcopalian, (3) born again in true conversion-experience style, (4) a student of the Bible and of theology by avocation, (5) for years active in an outreach ministry, (6) very vocal about my faith, (7) quite involved in one-on-one evangelism where I judge it will be worthwhile, (8) advocate of social justice in Christ’s name, (9) a non-fundamentalist, (10) fascinated by evolution and an avid reader of Steven Jay Gould, (11) friend of several fundamentalists and several gay people, (12) formerly involved in the charismatic renewal, and (13) passionate about God’s love being available to all people without somebody setting limits on it.
What Esprix and I are saying, quite simply, is “Back off!” There are people who feel same-sex desires – and many of whom act on them – who are convinced that Jesus has come into their lives and loves them, just as they are. It’s quite possible they are in error. It’s more probable, IMHO, that you are in denying the validity of their experience and saying they are not Christians. And you have blithely ignored the fact that you have indicted a fair chunk of quite nice people, including some who one or the other of us call friend, and claimed that they can’t be Christian. Maybe you’re right and they’re being immoral – but I’ve remarked here on other threads about what I think of the kind of hypothetical god who would create people in order to damn them for things beyond their ability to alter. Hey, go to a MCC sometime; there’s one in the nearest big city to you. You might be pleasantly surprised!
Careful, dear! You know the old saying about “Speak of the devil…” “O, Zion, haste…”
Conceded. But what use would the deist god be? If you care to advise me that Her Ineffable Pinkness was instrumental in creation and then ceased to be knowable by any human means, I would find the conclusion (a) irrefutable and (b) of no earthly value whatsoever.
Absolutely. Acts have consequences. If you had any reason to believe that moving your hand would cause such a storm, you would be honor-bound by your own conscience to consider carefully before moving your hand. 
Aw, c’mon. You’ve let Lib. and Tris. get away with it. I feel picked on!
More seriously, within the framework of the acceptance of interior subjective evidence, that sense of “this was meant to be” that virtually every person who has fallen in love gets becomes valid evidence of some purposiveness to the universe. I’m not demanding David accept it as an objective proof of the Christian God, for Pete’s sake; I’m adducing it within a specific framework as evidence acceptable within that framework.
quote:
Sheesh, it's tough to be the newbie in a philosophical roundhouse.That ought to have had “to my personal knowledge” stuck in… no doubt you have, but I happen not to have read it yet. Sorry!
What, knowing the truth is of no value? Besides, avalongod’s Deist God is not necessarily non-detectable, just non-detectable by current means.
Right, but most people can only forecast the consequences of their actions to a very slight degree. Therefore, while the initiating force may have been purposive, I am questioning whether you can say that the overall structure is therefore purposive.
I expect different from you, Poly. Tris has his butterflies, and with Lib, well, after the first 500 times he says that I’m a Christian, Atheism is a religion and Christainity isn’t, I just kind of give up. :)Once in a while I or others will call him on the fact that he redefines terms to the point that Libertaria starts to resemble Bizarro World to the rest of us who are not familiar with all his specialized definitions. It’s all very well for him since he lives in his own head, but it can boggle those of us who have to take on a raftload of new definitions for words we thought we knew in order to have a meaningful discussion.
I really honest to Gaud did not get this feeling, and I suspect there are others that do not as well. I thought he was the most wonderful thing in existence, yes, but I did not feel fated to meet him or fall in love with him. I tend to lean towards an “is”-centered philosophy rather than a “must”-centered philosophy, though. If you truly believe “this was meant to be” do you think there was no way this could have been avoided? If there was a way it could have not happened, then how is it fate?
Polycarp wrote:
A-ha! (No, not you, aha.) I knew it - you’re a closet UU! I mean, you do know that is the first P&P of UUism, right? 
Gotcha! {laughing outrageously}
Well then if you know I’m not a “screaming queen” based on what you’ve seen of me online, why did you read that into my post? I asked around, and no one else did. Yeah, it was tough, but not “shrill.” And I’ll say it again, his “apology” was hardly one at all, hence my strong stance. (I do appreciate your kind compliments, though - thank you. :D)
Well, at least I’m in good company…
What, and you don’t think he did just that in his statement? I think he does deserve to be called it.
Esprix
[kindly forgive this brief hijack]
David or Gaudere, could you please check your e-mails in reference to a problem with the Ask the LOC thread? Thank you.
I will, when I get home and can check my SDMB email addy. Or you can email me at gaudere32@hotmail.com if it is urgent. I don’t see a problem with the LOC thread.
Don’t know, Gaudere. But something is going on. It does seem okay now, but even with this Christianity and Love thread, the index reported that I was the last poster, when in fact, you were. Remember what happened just before the old Atheist Religion thread crashed?
It apparently takes it a while to update the database (showing who posted last and which thread is the most recent) at certain (busy) times, and there is a bug that sometimes causes it to display the “last posted” time as incorrect–off by anywhere from a few minutes to half an hour. The VBB designers are aware of this and are working on it. Since we seem to have the most trouble with longer threads, David and I will probably start closing them near the end of page 5.
You mean this thread might close soon?
Guess that means you get to start all over again, huh Gaud?
Poly said:
You were good so far…
If you’ve got a naval gun, you might as well use it!
Shrill?! Shrill?! Why, I never!
so this thread might get closed huh?
Sigh and I so enjoyed the hijacking
Pepperlandgirl!
I’m so glad you finally decided to join us at this thread.
Well, Avalon I’ve read every post made in this thread. But I didn’t really have anything to add. FofG seemed perfectly capable of being annoying on his own, and everybody else seemed perfectly capable of pointing out how annoying he can make himself. Though I did try to warn him.