The Unforgivable Sin, and why we're probably all screwed

[ceo_esq]

Perhaps, but I think that on this particular subject there is nobody authoritative - so nobody can really be said to be ignorant.

Shouldn't it be possible to figure out what the doctrinal teaching is by reference to conciliar documents and documents promulgated with direct papal magisterial authority (such as the Catechism)? Anything not there (even if it coincides with what is there) is not authoritative, right?


They are all saying things that could be true given the range of beliefs.

They might all be saying things that could be true to the extent that they constitute elaborations/explanations not formally inconsistent with the fairly sparse actual doctrine, it seems to me.


Aquinas is still regarded as being a somewhat important figure.

Absolutely. His work strikes me, though, as going pretty far beyond the what of the actual articles of faith though, and into well-developed (but presumably not salvation-essential) theories of the how and why.


Pain of loss is not self inflicted unless it really is chosen. I have expressed my doubt about whether it is possible to *choose* to disbelieve. I guess that theists are using the word "believe" in some sense that I am incapable of understanding.

If you are in a state of doubt rather than outright rejection of that premise, there's no immediate reason to conclude that you're incapable of understanding the theists in this regard. The theists could just be wrong, though, anyway.


So far as I know the majority of Hindus, Jews, Muslims etc are as sincere in their belief as the majority of Christians are.

I have no idea how sincere even a single Hindu, Jew, Christian, or Muslim is about anything, so I'm not about to contradict you here.


As far as I remember the Gospels themselves to not speak of Jesus dying for the worlds sins (I admit my memory may be shaky on this)...

Matthew 20:28 is the only Gospel passage I know that is really suggestive of this: "just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many." There are a number of directly relevant passages from the Pauline and Johannine epistles, and possibly even Revelation I think. But, interestingly, almost (though not quite) nothing in the Gospels themselves.


... the Gospel Jesus clearly does regard his death as a duty, but fulfillment of scriptural prophecy appears to be the motive. I don't think that Jesus identifies himself as God as such, or even as the Son of God (he tells all Christians to pray to God as "Dad").

Now it appears to me that if someone simply believed, as the Muslims do, that Christ was a prophet then this would be a reasonable interpretation of scripture.

By "scripture" I expect you mean the Gospels specifically. I understand your view, but I personally incline to the opinion that interpreting Christ as a prophet - within the confines of the texts, of course - is not especially reasonable (but this is fodder for another thread). I part ways with the Christians when it comes to the truth of their Gospels, but I grant that the traditional Christian interpretation of the Gospel story is, by and large, the most defensible one in wide circulation.


If someone simply believed that Jesus was an inspired teacher would this be disbelief?

If someone did not even believe that Jesus existed buy thought the ideas promoted were pretty good, would that be disbelief?

Those are good questions. Maybe, maybe not. Possibly only God, if he exists, knows for sure.


After all, what was more important, the teacher or the teachings?

As a general matter, I'm completely on board with the implied sentiment here, but doesn't this line of reasoning run up against the fact that one of the chief teachings in question is that there's something singularly and universally important about this particular teacher?


Given the wide range of views even withing the RCC, never mind the Christian church generally or the general theistic beliefs out there, at what point does disbelief start?

I really don't know, although I think we might reasonably be able to identify some points before or after that point.


Am I denying God because I say that if he existed and was benevolent then there could not be such a place as Hell as described by Christian tradition and the catechisms - even without the pain of sense?

Strictly speaking, I suspect you're denying logic, but I don't know whether you're denying God. ;)

[Robin]

Shouldn't it be possible to figure out what the doctrinal teaching is by reference to conciliar documents and documents promulgated with direct papal magisterial authority (such as the Catechism)? Anything not there (even if it coincides with what is there) is not authoritative, right?
You tell me. Look at the catechism on Hell and tell me is the pain of sense in or out? What exactly do they mean when they say that "body and soul" can both be lost in Hell. And is it a punishment, or a self-exclusion. It seems to me that the wording is having it both ways.

Also, I believe that the "self-exclusion" definition of Hell was not in the 1975 catechism, so it appears that I am right that this is a new addition to doctrine, (14 years old anyway). This would explain why it was not included in teaching material for new initiates 10 years ago (publishing lag).

Had I believed the old catechism to the required standard I would now have to believe differently.
If you are in a state of doubt rather than outright rejection of that premise, there's no immediate reason to conclude that you're incapable of understanding the theists in this regard. The theists could just be wrong, though, anyway.
I am philosophically in a state of doubt about anything and everthing. The point is that I cannot think of any subject in which I could "choose to believe of my own free will". I just do not understand that usage of the word "believe".

When people say "I choose to believe that", I cannot understand that they might literally mean this.
By "scripture" I expect you mean the Gospels specifically.
Well I actually mean the old testament since that is where the prophecies occur. The prophecies that Jesus died uttering are from the OT for obvious reasons.
I have no idea how sincere even a single Hindu, Jew, Christian, or Muslim is about anything, so I'm not about to contradict you here.
Well let's say that the catechism definition of Hell presupposes that all non-Christians really do believe that Christ is the true path to salvation, but are nevertheless enthusiastically and energetically pursuing eternal damnation. It is to put it mildly, drawing a long bow.
Strictly speaking, I suspect you're denying logic, but I don't know whether you're denying God. ;)
Well the logic depends on the meaning of believe. If it just mean to have an opinion (as in "II believe so") then no problem. But if it means to have a firm conviction then the logic is this:

If I choose something, this implies I could have chosen otherwise. If I choose to believe X then I might have chosen to believe not X. In this case it is neither firm nor a conviction.

So it is illogical to say that you can choose to believe. So the definition of Hell in the catechism depends on a meaningless phrase and so it meaningless in itself.

If this is a true representation of God's will then God punishes failure to achieve an impossibility with eternal exile. This is unjust and the definition of God requires infinite justice, so the God as described in this definition cannot exist.

I don't think that is denying logic.

[ceo_esq]

You tell me. Look at the catechism on Hell and tell me is the pain of sense in or out?

Subject to further analysis, I'd say it's out - not in the sense of "ruled out", but in the sense of the question not being disposed of in the Catechism. Presumably the Church feels that the truth of whether there is pain of sense in Hell (along with many other matters) was not vouchsafed to it as part of divine revelation.


What exactly do they mean when they say that "body and soul" can both be lost in Hell.

Could you give a pinpoint citation please?


And is it a punishment, or a self-exclusion. It seems to me that the wording is having it both ways.

Maybe they think self-exclusion is, in whole or in part, its own punishment.


Also, I believe that the "self-exclusion" definition of Hell was not in the 1975 catechism, so it appears that I am right that this is a new addition to doctrine, (14 years old anyway). This would explain why it was not included in teaching material for new initiates 10 years ago (publishing lag).

Possibly. Maybe it's a newly-coined phrase intended to refer to an old doctrine. It's difficult to say just from reading the online Catechism. My admittedly limited familiarity with Catholic dogmatic texts leads me to suspect that if the Church did not have a clever argument why "self-exclusion" had always been doctrine in all but name, it would not have placed it in the Catechism. I just don't know the facts.


Had I believed the old catechism to the required standard I would now have to believe differently.

It's not clear to me whether there is, in fact, a substantive difference.


Well let's say that the catechism definition of Hell presupposes that all non-Christians really do believe that Christ is the true path to salvation, but are nevertheless enthusiastically and energetically pursuing eternal damnation.

Why would we say that?


I am philosophically in a state of doubt about anything and everthing. The point is that I cannot think of any subject in which I could "choose to believe of my own free will". I just do not understand that usage of the word "believe".

When people say "I choose to believe that", I cannot understand that they might literally mean this.

...

Well the logic depends on the meaning of believe. If it just mean to have an opinion (as in "II believe so") then no problem. But if it means to have a firm conviction then the logic is this:

If I choose something, this implies I could have chosen otherwise. If I choose to believe X then I might have chosen to believe not X. In this case it is neither firm nor a conviction.

So it is illogical to say that you can choose to believe. So the definition of Hell in the catechism depends on a meaningless phrase and so it meaningless in itself.

Could you pinpoint-cite that phrase ("choose to believe") as well?

At any rate, there's no shortage of arguments over doxastic voluntarism (which I'll abbreviate here as "DV"). Many folks incline toward at least the logical possibility that some form of DV could be true. Perhaps it is true only in certain instances and with respect to certain kinds of beliefs. Perhaps real DV is only indirect, i.e. even if beliefs can't specifically be willed, the acquisition of beliefs can be partially the result of prior free choices. I'm not sure. I'd hate to think I was the sort to overlook a logical contradiction - but I don't actually see one in the relevant portions of the Catechism.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Robin :
And is it a punishment, or a self-exclusion. It seems to me that the wording is having it both ways.

Maybe they think self-exclusion is, in whole or in part, its own punishment.

Thank you.

Maybe I can expand on that, and perhaps avoid the repeat come-back that Robin has become famous for:

Christians consider that self-exclusion to be punishment, and "really, really bad".

However the recipient of the self-exclusion might not. Indeed, that is precisely what they wanted. It is self-exclusion. They might love it.

Doesn't that fit with this statement?:

If there is such a thing as Hell it is obviously infinitely preferable to spending eternity with the kind of mind that could devise it.

[ImaginalDisc]

Maybe they think self-exclusion is, in whole or in part, its own punishment.





How dare you call it "self-exclusion.” How dare you. Your imaginary friend allegedly wants simpering sycophants to cringe and worship, licking his boots, and to profess belief in him despite a glaring lack of evidence and a how-to manual so terribly written and edited, Reader's Digest wouldn't take a second glance at it. Your allegedly good and merciful invisible voyeur watches everything we do, judges people as unworthy of paradise based on an archaic list of acts he doesn't like. He is seemingly happy to cast out people, for all time, from paradise for their limited transgressions. It is religious people, like you and like Hunster, we squeal with delight at the thought of an eternity of reward and pleasure for your own bigotry, and who hope to look out of your magical happy land in the sky at the rest of us, and mock us for all time who are eager to blame us for not being convinced of your fairy tale.

And yet, your imaginary friend is often described and loving and forgiving. That's humbug.

[ceo_esq]

How dare you call it "self-exclusion.” How dare you. Your imaginary friend allegedly wants simpering sycophants to cringe and worship, licking his boots, and to profess belief in him despite a glaring lack of evidence and a how-to manual so terribly written and edited, Reader's Digest wouldn't take a second glance at it. Your allegedly good and merciful invisible voyeur watches everything we do, judges people as unworthy of paradise based on an archaic list of acts he doesn't like. He is seemingly happy to cast out people, for all time, from paradise for their limited transgressions. It is religious people, like you and like Hunster, we squeal with delight at the thought of an eternity of reward and pleasure for your own bigotry, and who hope to look out of your magical happy land in the sky at the rest of us, and mock us for all time who aare to blame for not being convinced of your fairy tale.

And yet, your imaginary friend is often described and loving and forgiving. That's humbug.

Before you start hyperventilating, let me point out that I didn't describe Hell as "self-exclusion", the Catholic Church did. I'm not a theist; I don't have imaginary friends. Which, incidentally, makes it all the more trying for me to find myself not infrequently in the position of having to correct your misstatements on all manner of topics touching even slightly upon religion, a subject about which you appear to harbor unreasoning hostility.

[ImaginalDisc]

Before you start hyperventilating, let me point out that I didn't describe Hell as "self-exclusion", the Catholic Church did. I'm not a theist; I don't have imaginary friends. Which, incidentally, makes it all the more trying for me to find myself not infrequently in the position of having to correct your misstatements on all manner of topics touching even slightly upon religion, a subject about which you appear to harbor unreasoning hostility.
Firstly, my hostility is based on reason. Secondly, I have no misconceptions about that cloistered, gilded, hierachy of interloping fools you call the Catholic Church.

[Huntster]

Firstly, my hostility is based on reason.

No, it's not. It's based on rejection.

And you are free to reject. Further, you're free to be hostile.

You just have to accept the consequences of both.

Secondly, I have no misconceptions about that cloistered, gilded, hierachy of interloping fools you call the Catholic Church.

Correct. They are not misconceptions.

They are rejections.

[I less than three logic]

No, it's not. It's based on rejection.

And you are free to reject. Further, you're free to be hostile.

You just have to accept the consequences of both.
You’re not a psychiatrist are you? May I suggest you never become one, you seem to be a lousy judge of the cause of people’s feelings. Care to explain exactly how one's rejection of Christianity or religion in general causes hostility towards it. Is it one of those “God did it” sort of things?

Sometimes you seem to form coherent responses, and other times you spout some nonsense like this. It appears that you are incapable, at least sometimes, to view the world from the perspective that many of us share. That is, your ideas, concepts, or understanding of what you consider God, and the feelings these concepts may invoke within you; they have little to no meaning to many of us, and, consequently, provide little to no feelings as well. My rejection of your religion does not make me feel outcast. I don’t feel a longing or separation from your God, nor any other’s. I am perfectly content with my worldview, as I feel it is the logical conclusion. I assure you, any hostility I harbor towards religion has more to do with mischaracterizations like these imposed upon me than my rejection of religion.

“It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.” - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Please do not take offense to the quote. I am not attempting to label you in anyway. I just think this particular one is a slightly more condensed and lucid way of conveying what I was trying to say. The main source of any hostility I may have towards religion is their inability to imagine that they may be wrong, and the arrogance many of them portray because they “know” they are right.

[kitakaze]

How dare you call it "self-exclusion.” How dare you. Your imaginary friend allegedly wants simpering sycophants to cringe and worship, licking his boots, and to profess belief in him despite a glaring lack of evidence and a how-to manual so terribly written and edited, Reader's Digest wouldn't take a second glance at it. Your allegedly good and merciful invisible voyeur watches everything we do, judges people as unworthy of paradise based on an archaic list of acts he doesn't like. He is seemingly happy to cast out people, for all time, from paradise for their limited transgressions. It is religious people, like you and like Hunster, we squeal with delight at the thought of an eternity of reward and pleasure for your own bigotry, and who hope to look out of your magical happy land in the sky at the rest of us, and mock us for all time who are eager to blame us for not being convinced of your fairy tale.

And yet, your imaginary friend is often described and loving and forgiving. That's humbug.*accordian in the background* Datta wazza spahcey meatabolla!...

Firstly, my hostility is based on reason. Secondly, I have no misconceptions about that cloistered, gilded, hierachy of interloping fools you call the Catholic Church.*accordian drops to the floor* Eeeeh, datta wazza justa meatabolla.

[ceo_esq]

Firstly, my hostility is based on reason. Secondly, I have no misconceptions about that cloistered, gilded, hierachy of interloping fools you call the Catholic Church.

I'm sure I haven't read every post you've written on the subject, although I've read quite a few. The posts where you set forth a reasoned basis for your hostility, or for that matter where you show yourself capable of discussing Christianity with any sort of objective detachment, must be among the ones I've missed. I seem to catch a lot of the posts where you tendentiously misstate Catholic doctrine, advance risible interpretations of the Bible, disparage the pope for imagined offenses, and so forth.

[kitakaze]

I found myself having somewhat of an understanding through all of ID's vitriol of where that frustration comes from and I'm sure I've felt a similar frustration many times myself. At times like these I like to remind myself that while there's no shortage of religious nutballs and hardcases, so too are there many wonderful people of great wisdom and clarity of all sorts of faiths who've enriched our lives personally and collectively. I'm sure it's fair to add that not all atheists and skeptics speak with wisdom or clarity. Whatever ones personal opinion on faith might be, there's no denying it as fundamental to the human condition and for all the great evils that have come of it, so too has great good.

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm sure I haven't read every post you've written on the subject, although I've read quite a few. The posts where you set forth a reasoned basis for your hostility, or for that matter where you show yourself capable of discussing Christianity with any sort of objective detachment, must be among the ones I've missed. I seem to catch a lot of the posts where you tendentiously misstate Catholic doctrine, advance risible interpretations of the Bible, disparage the pope for imagined offenses, and so forth.
I have never mistated Catholic doctrine. You have grossly misprespesented it in an attempt to massage it to fit your view.

[RandFan]

“It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.” - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Please do not take offense to the quote. I am not attempting to label you in anyway. I just think this particular one is a slightly more condensed and lucid way of conveying what I was trying to say. The main source of any hostility I may have towards religion is their inability to imagine that they may be wrong, and the arrogance many of them portray because they “know” they are right. (emphasis mine)

Bingo! And they all "know" they are right. That is the problem.

[elliotfc]

Who does this god person think he is anyway? Infinte punishment for finite crimes? How is that justice?

What finite crimes are you thinking about? Be specific, and I'll work it through.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I call you on this. Show me. Show me the definition I have used of God and why it is not reasonable for me to use this definition.

I didn't say your defintions were unreasonable! You have reasons for your definitions. You supply them.

Have you defined God in a very particular way? That was my assertion. Do you disagree with my assertion?

I also submit that you have rejected Jesus. Do you disagree with that assertion?

If I had all of your working premises, I too would define God as you define God. I recognize that your definitions are reasonable, based on your working premises. If I were to espouse your definitions, they would be unreasonable, because we do not share the same working premises.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Perhaps I represent RCC doctrine in the way some would not like me to. I plead guilty to that one. But when Huntster disagreed with my representation of Hell as "torture" and supplied instead "really, really, really bad", it was you who weighed in to say that there was no difference.

Oops didn't mean to clip this from the last message.

I did say that torture is reallyreallyreally bad, I admit to that. It is, isn't it?

All I'll add is I don't think that God is *directly* torturing people in Hell. Although I think that I could be wrong about that. Maybe he does...but I don't think so. And if he does, I'm not entirely satisfied with justifications for that, I must admit, although on the "it's objective justice, deal with it" level, I guess I just deal with it if I'm wrong.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

So would you say, to use eliotfc's earlier example, that Nero was dispensing justice to the Christians because the Christians chose of their own free will to go to the lions, rather than give up their faith?

You direct this to Hunster, but I'll chip in. Nero *was* dispensing justice. His justice. He was the emperor, he had the authority. Now, was the justice good? Bad? Objective? Subjective? Christian? Godlike? Those are different questions.

Would you term his actions as morally good?

The implication being that because Nero offered an opportunity for Christians to embrace Christ to the death that Nero was acting in a "good" way? No. Yes, evil deeds can lead to good deads, but that doesn't make the evil deeds good.

I suppose he would have been morally wrong for not providing this choice.

No, you can accept Christ and proclaim Christ any time you want. You don't have to be facing death to do that.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

As I said to Huntster, metaphors are normally chosen because of their similarity to the target.

Hell is reallyreallyreally bad. You *don't* wanna go there. Were the metaphors suitable to get that message across? You tell me.

So...you probably aren't a fan of the parable of the sower, because we aren't all that similar to seeds. Or the mustard seed, because the Kingdom of God probably doesn't look like a mustard tree.

If your point is that Jesus chose poor metaphors (I can name some more), I guess that's a matter of opinion.

The catechism supplied by Huntster tastefully fails to mention any unpleasantness whatsoever.

I guess you'd call that the other extreme. One extreme? Make it as unpleasant as possible. The other extreme? You'd call that the politically correct hell. Many ways to paint the picture. They all have some truth in them. The point? You don't wanna go to hell. You don't have to go to hell. Accept Christ, don't settle for the alternative.

Of course it is easy to make torture sound reasonable if you just don't mention the torture part.

Unless it *isn't* torture. Then you can not mention the torture part, right? Listen, if to you hell *has to be torture*, I doubt I can persuade you from believing that. All I can say is believe it, and then choose to not go to hell.

If this alternative that God has so generously provided involved eternal unbearable torment then the polite thing to do would be to mention it.

Since you aren't ever going to let go of the torture stuff, the stuff you keep mentioning over and over and over again...well...then make it YOUR MISSION in life to mention it. You already are.

Or...IT ALREADY HAS BEEN MENTIONED. The Bible, right? So you're bummed because the Catholic Church isn't mentioning what has already been mentioned in the Bible, the book which exists in billions of copies in hundreds of languages? Are you also bummed that the Catholic Church isn't demanding that every Catholic accept the literal Genesis creation account? How far do you extend this "polite thing to do" thing.

Robin I probably owe you about 20 replies, I'll get them all in tonight and tomorrow.

-Elliot

[RandFan]

What finite crimes are you thinking about? Be specific, and I'll work it through.

-Elliot Any crime (sin) commited before judgment is by definition finite. Therefore it would have to be all crimes.

This is a big problem I have also. Humans are far more capable of compassion and reason. If humans had an unlimited life span is there anyone who would really punish someone indifinatly? Ok, 10,000,000 years for Hitler but at some point justice has been satisfied. What point is there for someone to suffer endlesly?

[ImaginalDisc]

Any crime (sin) commited before judgment is by definition finite. Therefore it would have to be all crimes.

This is a big problem I have also. Humans are far more capable of compassion and reason. If humans had an unlimited life span is there anyone who would really punish someone indifinatly? Ok, 10,000,000 years for Hitler but at some point justice has been satisfied. What point is there for someone to suffer endlesly?
Thank you RandFan.

[Correa Neto]

I can predict the possible answers.

"God works in mysterious ways"
"Its not a democracy"
"We are not supposed to understand God´s mind"
"We should be happy and thankfull for God having created us. Isn´t obeying His laws a small price to pay for existence?"
[add evasive and/or submisse answer here]

Remember, you are not supposed to question. You are supposed to obey.

[RandFan]

I can predict the possible answers.

"God works in mysterious ways"
"Its not a democracy"
"We are not supposed to understand God´s mind"
"We should be happy and thankfull for God having created us. Isn´t obeying His laws a small price to pay for existence?"
[add evasive and/or submisse answer here]

Remember, you are not supposed to question. You are supposed to obey."Who are you to question God?"

[Correa Neto]

A creature that is supposed to have been created at His image and similarity.
Free will, something I am supposed to have as a gift from God.

This would be enough IMHO to allow me to question God.

However, I can´t question an entity that is not real...

[RandFan]

A creature that is supposed to have been created at His image and similarity.
Free will, something I am supposed to have as a gift from God. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. --1 Corinthians 3:19

This would be enough IMHO to allow me to question God. I do agree though.

However, I can´t question an entity that is not real... :)

[Correa Neto]

So, specially "if the wisdom of this world is foolishness", I want more information. I want to be instructed on the reasons. A booming voice saying "obey my commandments" is not enough for me. Tell me why I should obey. I can figure out why I should not kill, but why I should not eat crayfish? Why I should be thrown in to eternal suffering because I want to learn more, enjoy sex for non-procreation purposes, etc.?

A good teatcher understands the reasons students ask "why", and incentives their questioning. Obviously, God is not a good teatcher...

[elliotfc]

Any crime (sin) commited before judgment is by definition finite. Therefore it would have to be all crimes.

I might as well yield to Aquinas, eh? It's possible someone else has already submitted this, I'm about 3 pages behind...

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/208704.htm

[elliotfc]

What if you blasphemy while masturbating and fantasizing about having sex with both incubus and succubus and offering your soul to Satan for free?

Yeah, but who hasn't done that? Can you give as an extraordinary example please? -Elliot

[elliotfc]

If remorse, guilt and loneliness are the things that the metaphor is supposed to evoke, it is a very poor metaphor indeed. (And in fact since these things are so well understood, why do you need a metaphor for them?).

But Jesus also gives us that too, doesn't he? Read Matthew 8, and Matthew 22.

So you tell me, is it doctrine? Is there such a thing as doctrine, or is it all, as Hunster suggests, just a work in progress?

The vast majority of Catholic doctrine is a work in progress. Theology is an exercise in explanation, and they can always get better.

There are only a few dogmas that Catholics must universally believe, these dogmas are immutable, and Catholics ought to hold onto them tightly and proclaim them enthusiastically. Check the Nicene Creed. Short of that, it's up for grabs, and the Church tolerates a plethora of opinions about all of the other stuff. Really. No joke. -Elliot

[elliotfc]

He can even confront me in this one if he wants - always available for epiphanies.

That's like saying you can die any second now. I'm saying you eventually *will* die.

Are you suggesting that you reject Jesus because he doesn't manifest himself in a noticeable way to you? My point was that you *can* reject Jesus. Not on your time, but on his time.

To repeat myself I used contemporary and medieval sources to identify the Church's position on Hell. The scriptural metaphors were brought up by Huntster, I merely responded to them.

Fair enough.

Not really about me, I was just trying to make the general point that there are a lot of people out there that believe something other than the Christian faith. The theological position that they will all be cast away if they die disbelieving is not something that gels with the normal conception of God.

I'm pretty sure I agree with what you just said!

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

As far as I remember the Gospels themselves to not speak of Jesus dying for the worlds sins (I admit my memory may be shaky on this), the Gospel Jesus clearly does regard his death as a duty, but fulfillment of scriptural prophecy appears to be the motive.

You've got John the Baptist calling Jesus the Lamb of God, and you've got his crucifixion happening at the same time as the Jews offer sacrifical lambs to cover their sins. I think it's a case where the actions speak louder than words, and the words follow once the actions are appreciated. Jews get this more than Christians, and quite a few significant (well, I guess everybody is signicificant)Jewish converts, in their conversion stories, offer Jesus as the true sacrificial offering as the clincher.

I don't think that Jesus identifies himself as God as such, or even as the Son of God (he tells all Christians to pray to God as "Dad").

Right. Basically, the Trinity is the key. If you reject the triune God, I'd agree that Jesus doesn't identify himself as God. But if you believe in three persons of God, then he does identify himself as God. It's arguable if he identifies himself as God or not, as well...

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/miscclaims.html

Now it appears to me that if someone simply believed, as the Muslims do, that Christ was a prophet then this would be a reasonable interpretation of scripture. If someone simply believed that Jesus was an inspired teacher would this be disbelief? If someone did not even believe that Jesus existed buy thought the ideas promoted were pretty good, would that be disbelief? After all, what was more important, the teacher or the teachings?

What teachings are you talking about? How about the I am the Bread of Life stuff? Anyone who eats my flesh will live forever? Does that count as a teaching?

Given the wide range of views even withing the RCC, never mind the Christian church generally or the general theistic beliefs out there, at what point does disbelief start?

In the particular, and not the general, for one. Regarding the morality, you can accept the day-to-day morality of Jesus and still reject Jesus. I'm talking about rejecting Jesus as the way to the Father, the way to eternal life, the way that destroys our sin.

After all Eliotfc would be called a disbeliever by some for denying the infallibility of the Old Testament or saying that the New Testament was just a starting point.

Right. It's all relative. A person who rejects Neo-Darwinism is also a disbeliever.

Am I denying God because I say that if he existed and was benevolent then there could not be such a place as Hell as described by Christian tradition and the catechisms - even without the pain of sense?

No...but, you are denying him the authority to be both benevolent and have a Hell. He has that authority. If you are stuck on the definition of benevolent, I don't think that's as big a deal as recognizing his authority.

Or is someone denying God when they say that God might be unjust?

I don't think you can be in eternal communion with God if you think that he is unjust.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

What would be the differences between a state of "self exclusion from God" in this life and in a suposed afterlife, ressurrection, whatever?

Because on Earth you can not be completely cut off from God. On Earth the Church is the Body of Christ, so you have people who can be instruments of God connecting with people who would think they are cut off from God. When they aren't.

Actually, why there should be a difference? Assuming we all are immortal souls, our feelings, our consioussnesses would be the same! Maybe without "physical sensations", whatever are the meanings one ascribe to them. But still, the very same basic feelings. Love, hate, fear, doubts, etc are there.

No, God could great an infinite number of immortal souls with distinct characteristics and individuality.

Now, if I stop believing in God at this very moment, I have excluded myself from God. Following this reasoning, I would be in Hell right now.

You could be in a sort of hell, sure. But you could get out of that sort of hell.

I was raised on a Catholic family. I remember my childhood with the shadow of God's punishment always lingering. Gradually I stopped believing in God. Several concepts of God were sucessively dropped, the Christian God being among the first of them. I liberated myself from the last links with the Christian God in the early 90s. And it felt really good. If Hell is self-exclusion from the Christian God, then I am in Hell. And its a very good place.

I believe that people who are in hell, the hell we're talking about, may actually feel really good about it. Think it's a real good place.

Yes, you think that where you are at is a very good place? Where are you? You're on earth, which God created for us. Even with all the faults, earth is still a very good place. Why shouldn't it be? It was meant to be, and still is, even after the Fall.

A place where you can challenge, where we can be human beings instead of mere sheep. Much better than where one lives under a tyrannical deity who imposes arbitrary rules and penalties. Much better than living in a state of fear from punishment, and always feeling of being guilty of something.

The only problem is you will eventually die, won't you? Then what? That's what we're talking about, and that's why your life really isn't hell.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

(I am always amazed by how pain and submission are so deeply rooted in Christian faith and theology)

Read the Passion narratives! How can you be amazed? Now, if the Passion narratives weren't there, I might share your amazement. Or not.

Just suppose a certain person born in some country where Christianism is the dominant religion. What if this person does not accepts Christ because the priests, pastors, whatever, who were supposed to bring people to the church were incompetent?

God takes everything into consideration. He is reasonable.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I don't know of purgatory, do you have scripture that I can read on it?

Here's a pretty good dose of it for ya:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

It was basically immediately appreciated that Jesus "saved" the just Jews during his descent to the dead. Also, it was basically immediately appreciated that Christians ought to pray for the dead. The doctrine of purgatory certainly developed from these two points, among others.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Is God’s ego so fragile that a mere question against him shatters it?

No.

Then again, I don't know if God has an ego. Ego implies distinction from those like you. I have an ego, you have an ego, our egos are distinct from each other. Who is at God's level, where God's "ego" can be seen as distinct from that of another?

Also, isn't the Greek understanding of ego that of the actual human person?

Apparently so, the act is upsetting enough for him to condemn you to eternal punishment.

No, you are assuming the "upsetting" bit. If it is justice, then it is justice, and emotion has nothing to do with it.

Is it just for a professor to fail you if you simply question his understanding of the class subject matter? He should clearly have some authority on it.

If you question God's understanding? Meaning, your understanding is greater than God's? Maybe I didn't read that right.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

God seems to be very annoyed when a human dares to ask "why".

You certainly get that in Job. But Job did alright in the end.

Asking "why" is the basic reason or motivation for human progress. Accepting orders and rules without questioning will not bring anything but stagnation. Exactly what some groups truly would like to see.

Well you're speaking from a particular frame of reference, also limited by the finite lifespans of ours. It's a whole new ballgame in the next one.

If we can't challenge, if we can´t ask why, why should we have free will?

No!

You CAN challenge it! You CAN ask why! People do it all the time! We do have free will!

If God's intentions were to have perfectly tamed and obedient creatures, ants and bees, not humans would be the answer.

Obviously it wasn't his intention. And sometimes ants and bees go haywire and have to be dealt with by the collective.

Just add a "worship" gene or function and there you are- the perfect religious community.

No, the perfect religious community is with people who choose to participate in it.

I am a human, I am not a drone (I am also not a number). I have no fear of using my (limited) free will to challenge, to question, to investigate. I am quite proud of it and would not have it any other way.

There is no other way! You don't even have to worry about strangle bubbles coming out from under the water to snatch you!

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

If God created and loves us all yet we are required to accept and worship him lest we go to Hell why would he allow a world in which billions do not find him and therefore upon passing burn for eternity?

Not all Christians believe this. I can't give you a percentage, I've tried in the past but polling is sketchy, or limited to just Americans.

If I am the hindu child of hindu parents and have lived a pure and simple hindu life am I destined to perpetual torture in the hellfires for my ignorance of Jesus? (That's not how I phrased it when I was seven, mind you.)

I think that Hindus will recognize Jesus in the next one, for Jesus is Love, hippie skippie. No worries about the Hindus. And if you are worried about them, start proselytizing!

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

'Oh?' and 'yeah, I heard that' I guess would be responses to those. That and concerning the first, I guess God coming to us in the form of his son Jesus to spread his word was kind of a trial and error thing? Faith makes us do wonderful and terrible things.

No, it was a necessary thing to conquer sin. Everyone's sin. If they accept Christ. Which I believe they can do here (without knowing it, articulating it) or in the next one.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Is she therefore destined for an eternity of suffering based on the opinions she formed in the life and circumstances she was born into? Is acceptance of God a prerequisite to the redemption of our original sin? (Sorry for the obvious questions.)

No, he's just destined to be called a she I think.

I'm sure Batman's sidekick got it too.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

It does not help that he then uses a condescending attitude towards those of us who have not made the same "choice" he has made.

I think he's just giving you validation. You have free will. You don't want to accept Christ. Then don't. What's the big deal? Does that choice have repercussions? Sure. Deal with them. If you don't want to, make another choice.

It's blunt, not condescending.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

So what would you have me do, lie to Jesus?

No. Even if you did, Jesus would know you're lying.

Let me try again. You die. You find out that there is life after death. And there is a Jesus. Is it true that you did not believe in either during your lifetime. Ostensibly. Get over it. Now deal with reality. I'm not saying it's easy, it's not easy to accept that you're wrong (it's hard for me). Ask for help! Seek re-education! Don't obsess over the past, work through it, and you're gonna need help. Lose the pride. It's doable.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

1. Do you finally accept that the RCC defines hell as a punishment?

Of course hell is a punishment! Can people accept punishment? Sure! Kolbe did.

2. If Nero gives the Christians a choice of recanting or being fed to the lions is he acting justly?

Sure he is, Nero is an absolute ruler in his own sphere, of course he is acting justly. Is his justice absolute? No, it's restricted.

If there were laws against Nero's acting as he acted, then he would be acting unjustly.

Is Nero acting justly as Christians appreciate justice? No. Nero is confusing life with death. To proclaim belief in Christ is to choose life, but Nero makes that into a choice of death. It's a sick perversion of justice. But God's justice trumps Nero's justice.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

How dare you call it "self-exclusion.” How dare you. Your imaginary friend allegedly wants simpering sycophants to cringe and worship, licking his boots, and to profess belief in him despite a glaring lack of evidence and a how-to manual so terribly written and edited, Reader's Digest wouldn't take a second glance at it.

Dang dude, I guess I can respond by saying "how dare you call him an imaginary friend".

You're all riled up about this. Listen man, if we're wrong, don't let it get you down, you've got a finite life to live, just ignore us. You have power over your own emotions, I recommend you exercise that power. How dare I suggest that? Easy. I'd rather not see you all riled up.

See, I'm looking out for you in two ways. First, get your way of thinking closer to my way, then you won't get all riled up. Second, keep thinking as you do, and just find a way to live where you either avoid, or act non-plussed, about our terminology. In both cases you can save yourself the indignation and indigestion.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Firstly, my hostility is based on reason. Secondly, I have no misconceptions about that cloistered, gilded, hierachy of interloping fools you call the Catholic Church.

I think like .0001% of all Catholics are cloistered, and that's only talking about the ordered Catholics. Kick in the lays and you've got some funky out-dated misconception.

I'm glad you've got it all figured out though. This gives you even less reason to get all hepped up. I'm sorry that your reason leads to hostility, it doesn't have to. You've got a fixed amount of time left bro, get through this.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

all[/I] "know" they are right. That is the problem.

Or a solution. Depends how you look at it I guess.

If only everybody would be a skeptic? A shame that we have these finite lifespans full of annoyance, then oblivion.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I can predict the possible answers.

"God works in mysterious ways"
"Its not a democracy"
"We are not supposed to understand God´s mind"
"We should be happy and thankfull for God having created us. Isn´t obeying His laws a small price to pay for existence?"
[add evasive and/or submisse answer here]

Remember, you are not supposed to question. You are supposed to obey.

So I can't question this post of yours, I must obey it? That stinks. You're an awful God.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

[QUOTE=Correa Neto;1682759]This would be enough IMHO to allow me to question God. [QUOTE]

What a straw animal. Anybody can question God! People do it all the time!

Why do people wax stupid about how people aren't allowed to question God? What utter bunk! I'm not annoyed or vexed either! I'm flabbergasted!

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

So, specially "if the wisdom of this world is foolishness", I want more information. I want to be instructed on the reasons. A booming voice saying "obey my commandments" is not enough for me.

Nor for God, that's why he became man.

Tell me why I should obey. I can figure out why I should not kill, but why I should not eat crayfish? Why I should be thrown in to eternal suffering because I want to learn more, enjoy sex for non-procreation purposes, etc.?

I don't know if you should obey or not. That's completely up to you.

A good teatcher understands the reasons students ask "why", and incentives their questioning. Obviously, God is not a good teatcher...

I think that God understands the reasons that we ask why, and I'm sure he'll answer those why questions in the next one. I'd add that Jesus answered a lot of them to, but I suspect you've already rejected those answers. So I'm hopeful for the ones to come. And no, they don't have to be good enough, and no, you don't have to obey.

You never have to obey. God can answer your questions, and you still don't have to obey. The why's don't have to be good enough for you. Don't listen to anyone who says otherwise.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

Dang dude, I guess I can respond by saying "how dare you call him an imaginary friend".

You're all riled up about this. Listen man, if we're wrong, don't let it get you down, you've got a finite life to live, just ignore us. You have power over your own emotions, I recommend you exercise that power. How dare I suggest that? Easy. I'd rather not see you all riled up.

See, I'm looking out for you in two ways. First, get your way of thinking closer to my way, then you won't get all riled up. Second, keep thinking as you do, and just find a way to live where you either avoid, or act non-plussed, about our terminology. In both cases you can save yourself the indignation and indigestion.

-Elliot

I'd be glad to come closer to your way of thinking, if your imaginary friend would do us the courtesey of proving it exists, and answering a few questions. Questions such as "Why cancer?" Not why cancer anything, just why cancer?

[ImaginalDisc]

I think like .0001% of all Catholics are cloistered, and that's only talking about the ordered Catholics. Kick in the lays and you've got some funky out-dated misconception.

I'm glad you've got it all figured out though. This gives you even less reason to get all hepped up. I'm sorry that your reason leads to hostility, it doesn't have to. You've got a fixed amount of time left bro, get through this.

-Elliot

The Church is cloistered, not the lay members. Please note I was calling those prosyletizing, baby killing, misery loving, self-marytring fops idiots.

[elliotfc]

I'd be glad to come closer to your way of thinking, if your imaginary friend would do us the courtesey of proving it exists, and answering a few questions. Questions such as "Why cancer?" Not why cancer anything, just why cancer?

I think he has proved himself to exist, so I guess we disagree on that one.

As for your questions, I think we have cancer because of cell mutation in genes that control cell division. Do you need God to answer that one?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

The Church is cloistered, not the lay members. Please note I was calling those prosyletizing, baby killing, misery loving, self-marytring fops idiots.

The institution is cloistered, eh? But you can't say that about everything institution. You could say that about a science laboratory.

I dunno, I'm not sure if I ought to respond to anymore name calling, I know it's not directed towards me, but they're big boys, they can handle it.

And I'm all out of bubble gum!

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

I think he has proved himself to exist, so I guess we disagree on that one.

As for your questions, I think we have cancer because of cell mutation in genes that control cell division. Do you need God to answer that one?

-Elliot

I welcome you to start a new thread with this evidence for god's existance you claim to have.

[ImaginalDisc]

The institution is cloistered, eh? But you can't say that about everything institution. You could say that about a science laboratory.

Incorrect. Scientists base their work on evidence, and revise their conceptions when faced with new evidence. Catholic Church does no such thing.

[elliotfc]

I welcome you to start a new thread with this evidence for god's existance you claim to have.

Kurious Kathy's been there, done that. Evidence for some, not for others. Evidence is contingent on humans, nothing is inherently evidence.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

Kurious Kathy's been there, done that. Evidence for some, not for others. Evidence is contingent on humans, nothing is inherently evidence.

-Elliot
In case you were unaware, Kurius Kathyis not a role model.

[elliotfc]

In case you were unaware, Kurius Kathyis not a role model.

Too late! She certainly fills a *role* does she not? Or are people calling her a troll for no reason?

Would it make you feel better if I start a thread called "the Bible as evidence for God"? I'll do it if you say so.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Incorrect. Scientists base their work on evidence, and revise their conceptions when faced with new evidence. Catholic Church does no such thing.

So the Catholic Church has never revised any conception?

My goodness what an immaculate conception you have of the Catholic church. Is it inviolable, or would you care to face evidence to the contrary?

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

So the Catholic Church has never revised any conception?

My goodness what an immaculate conception you have of the Catholic church. Is it inviolable, or would you care to face evidence to the contrary?

-Elliot
Not from evidence, no. A) There is no evidence of invisible people in the sky. B) There is evidence that Jesus existed. C) There is no evidence that he, if he existed, did anything miraculous. D) There is no evidence of an afterlife and E) The Catholic Church continues to tell lies to people about condom use. I have no patience for those self righteous leeches.

[ceo_esq]

You've got John the Baptist calling Jesus the Lamb of God, and you've got his crucifixion happening at the same time as the Jews offer sacrifical lambs to cover their sins. I think it's a case where the actions speak louder than words, and the words follow once the actions are appreciated.

Do you agree that Matthew 20:28 seems directly relevant here?

[Correa Neto]

Because on Earth you can not be completely cut off from God. On Earth the Church is the Body of Christ, so you have people who can be instruments of God connecting with people who would think they are cut off from God. When they aren't.
Sorry. One can be on Earth and have absolutely no link with any Christian church.

No, God could great an infinite number of immortal souls with distinct characteristics and individuality.
And dump in to Hell those with the characteristics it does not considers desirable? Why would God create them? God is supposed to know everything, right? Why would God create "soul A" when God already knows "soul A" is hellbound?

You could be in a sort of hell, sure. But you could get out of that sort of hell.
Why?

I believe that people who are in hell, the hell we're talking about, may actually feel really good about it. Think it's a real good place.
Care to explain why its not good?

Yes, you think that where you are at is a very good place? Where are you? You're on earth, which God created for us. Even with all the faults, earth is still a very good place. Why shouldn't it be? It was meant to be, and still is, even after the Fall.
Well, it seems god also created Hell for us...
Why should I or anyone else deserve eternal suffering?
Is this justice?

The only problem is you will eventually die, won't you? Then what? That's what we're talking about, and that's why your life really isn't hell.

-Elliot
Care to elaborate?
Besides the fact that I see no evidence of an afterlife, I fail to see, assuming there´s one, why my basic feelings and reasonings, etc. should change too much when I am dead; Of course I will be surprised, but as soon as I recover from the surprise, I will start asking "whys"...

Not to mention that my life may not be Hell, but I'm, sure plenty of people right now are living much worse lives. Lives that could be labelled Hell. And besides this Hell on Earth, they are elligible to an eternal Hell... Is this justice?

[Correa Neto]

Read the Passion narratives! How can you be amazed? Now, if the Passion narratives weren't there, I might share your amazement. Or not.
You are certainly aware of the many narratives (OT, NT as well as the lives of the Catholic saints) that do involve suffering, pain and submission. Quite convenient when it comes to keep the status qou. Obey now, suffer now, don't complain about not having enough to eat while the landlords stuff their bellies and you will rewarded in the afterlife...

God takes everything into consideration. He is reasonable.

-Elliot
Then why can't God provide me a reasonable motivation to belive He/She/It is real?
Why can't God provide me a reasonable explanation about how a condenation to eternal suffering can be considered as justice?
Why can't God provide me a reason on why I should follow His/Hers/Its laws?

[Huntster]

.....I have no misconceptions about that cloistered, gilded, hierachy of interloping fools you call the Catholic Church.

I have no misconceptions about self-important, know-it-all fools who live on resentment and hatred of religion.

[ImaginalDisc]

I have no misconceptions about self-important, know-it-all fools who live on resentment and hatred of religion.

Please show me the good and noble things religion does for us, and compare it to the list of despicable things it does to us.

[Huntster]

You’re not a psychiatrist are you?

Nope.

May I suggest you never become one, you seem to be a lousy judge of the cause of people’s feelings.

I have no intention whatsoever to delve into such a field. I've known lots of nutcases, and I try to avoid them.

Care to explain exactly how one's rejection of Christianity or religion in general causes hostility towards it. Is it one of those “God did it” sort of things?

Nope, and nope.

Sometimes you seem to form coherent responses, and other times you spout some nonsense like this. It appears that you are incapable, at least sometimes, to view the world from the perspective that many of us share.

You got it. That's why I moved to the wilderness. I don't fit with ya'll.

...I am perfectly content with my worldview, as I feel it is the logical conclusion....

Same here.

You and I are like "two peas in a pod".

I assure you, any hostility I harbor towards religion has more to do with mischaracterizations like these imposed upon me than my rejection of religion.

And the hostility I harbor towards those who are anti-religious has more to do with mischaracterizations imposed upon me and my religion.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by I less than three logic :
“It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.” - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Please do not take offense to the quote. I am not attempting to label you in anyway. I just think this particular one is a slightly more condensed and lucid way of conveying what I was trying to say. The main source of any hostility I may have towards religion is their inability to imagine that they may be wrong, and the arrogance many of them portray because they “know” they are right.
(emphasis mine)

Bingo! And they all "know" they are right. That is the problem.

That doesn't fit me. I don't "know" that I'm right, nor do I care.

I believe that God and Jesus Christ exists/existed, and I seek His/Their goodness, and those people who belittle that belief are my enemies.

I reserve the right to talk back. If they don't like it, they can go pound sand.

[rocketdodger]

And the hostility I harbor towards those who are anti-religious has more to do with mischaracterizations imposed upon me and my religion.

The hostility I harbor towards the religious is identical to that I harbor towards any member of a hierarchy based on authority.

My existence as a free agent challenges the existence of the hierarchy they insist on following, and is therefore a threat to their way of life. As a threat, they will likely try to forcefully bring me into the hierarchy or else end my existence. Therefore, I in turn consider them a threat.

The difference between us is that my way of life depends on nobody else (except that others make it more fun and easier) whereas the religious hierarchy NEEDS people (like me) by definition -- otherwise it isn't a hierarchy at all. That is very threatening to me... so I am hostile.

[Huntster]

....The Catholic Church continues to tell lies to people about condom use......

Okay, supposed "evidence lover":

Please provide a RCC doctrinal document which "tells lies to people about condom use".

[ImaginalDisc]

Okay, supposed "evidence lover":

Please provide a RCC doctrinal document which "tells lies to people about condom use".

It is with the utmost saddness that I present this evidence to you:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html#article_continue
The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/hivaids/bishopsopposecondoms.asp
Cardinal Alfonso Lopéz Trujillo
In an interview for a Spanish newspaper, Cardinal Alfonso Lopéz Trujillo discredits a statement made by Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini that the use of condoms for AIDS prevention is "a lesser evil," insisting that the statement was not reflective of the church's position. Despite confirmation given late in April by the President of the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, Cardinal Trujillo also denied that Pope Benedict XVI ordered a study on condoms.

Indian Bishops Conference
The Health Commission of the Catholic Bishops Conference of India opposes the ABC method of HIV prevention because it includes condom use. The commission issues a statement claiming, "We do not think that condoms do much to prevent AIDS.… It's just a false promise. They say consistent and continuous use of condoms would yield results. That's not practical. So we do not support it proactively."

That was from ten seconds of googling.

[Correa Neto]

You certainly get that in Job. But Job did alright in the end.
Job's ultimate solution was to...

Well you're speaking from a particular frame of reference, also limited by the finite lifespans of ours. It's a whole new ballgame in the next one.
My finite lifespan is all I have. Along the lives of all human beings, daring to ask why is what caused progress. The will to improve. I see no reason why it should be different in an eventual afterlife.


No!

You CAN challenge it! You CAN ask why! People do it all the time! We do have free will!
Can I?
So, I challenge God to explain why we should be condemned to an eternity of suffering by our finite sins.
I challenge God to show me where's the justice of it.
I challenge God to prove there's no contradiction on the statement He/She/It loves us and His/Hers/Its later act of dumping our souls in to the eternal fires of Hell.

Obviously it wasn't his intention. And sometimes ants and bees go haywire and have to be dealt with by the collective.
If this is so, why all the punishment? Why all the sins?

No, the perfect religious community is with people who choose to participate in it.
And those who choose not to enter?
Why should anyone be supposed to be a part of such a thing?


There is no other way! You don't even have to worry about strangle bubbles coming out from under the water to snatch you!

-Elliot
So, why all fuss about challenging god?

[Correa Neto]

So I can't question this post of yours, I must obey it? That stinks. You're an awful God.

-Elliot

Me? An awful god?

All I am asking are reasons. Explanations for what seem to be injustices from His/Hers/Its part.

So far, all I get is "These are the rules. Obey or be punished through all the eternity".

Does not seem fair.

[Correa Neto]

This would be enough IMHO to allow me to question God.

What a straw animal. Anybody can question God! People do it all the time!

Why do people wax stupid about how people aren't allowed to question God? What utter bunk! I'm not annoyed or vexed either! I'm flabbergasted!

-Elliot

Straw?

Its not what seems to be written in the Bible...
What I see on it and at Christian theology is not free questioning. Its not justice. Its not the attitude I would expect an everloving father or mother to have in regard to His/Hers/Its children.

So, anybody can question God, but at the risk of going to Hell?

I shall restrain myself when it comes to comments regarding strawmen and religious doctrine.

[Huntster]

...That was from ten seconds of googling.

Congratulations on the depth of your research.

You have provided a couple of statements made by Cardinal Trujillo, and one by the Indian Bishop's Council.

Now:

Please provide a RCC doctrinal document which "tells lies to people about condom use".

(You seem to like the merry-go-round game. You're the recipient this time. We'll see how you like it, now......)

[ceo_esq]

Please provide a RCC doctrinal document which "tells lies to people about condom use".

If there were such a doctrinal document I think we'd know about it. I doubt one exists. I'd settle for seeing a papal document or something collective from the Curia, though.

[Correa Neto]

Nor for God, that's why he became man.
And?
Still, I can see no anwers to my questions among what's supposed to be the words and teatchings of "God made Man".

I don't know if you should obey or not. That's completely up to you.
Aim a gun at an unarmed man and tell him "dance".
Its completely up to him to obey...
Riiiiiiiiiiiiigth.
Tell humans to follow arbitrary sets of rules or they will be punished through eternity. Its completely up to humans to obey...

I think that God understands the reasons that we ask why, and I'm sure he'll answer those why questions in the next one. I'd add that Jesus answered a lot of them to, but I suspect you've already rejected those answers. So I'm hopeful for the ones to come. And no, they don't have to be good enough, and no, you don't have to obey.
No. Its not a question of merely "rejecting" Jesus' answers. Its a question of finding incoherencies, ead ends, lack of logic, etc.

For example, why my questions will be answered only in the next life?

You never have to obey. God can answer your questions, and you still don't have to obey. The why's don't have to be good enough for you. Don't listen to anyone who says otherwise.

-Elliot
OK, and if I don't obey...
Eternal punishment.
Why should I consider this as justice?
Because God thinks it is?

[Huntster]

....Aim a gun at an unarmed man and tell him "dance".
Its completely up to him to obey...
Riiiiiiiiiiiiigth.
Tell humans to follow arbitrary sets of rules or they will be punished through eternity. Its completely up to humans to obey...

There seem to be quite a few unarmed folks around here unwilling to dance.

BANG!

Complain if you wish, but you still loose.

Unless, of course, you wanted the bullet hole through you..............

...OK, and if I don't obey...
Eternal punishment.
Why should I consider this as justice?
Because God thinks it is?

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm........................

Yeah.

[ceo_esq]

Bingo! And they all "know" they are right. That is the problem.

Is this what I less than three logic meant? After all, he seemed to quote approvingly Chesterton's statement that being certain one is right is not the problem.

[I less than three logic]

Is this what I less than three logic meant? After all, he seemed to quote approvingly Chesterton's statement that being certain one is right is not the problem.
It is not so much in believing you are right that causes problems. That is basically what all belief boils down to anyway, the fact we think that particular idea is correct. This is true for both ideas based on evidence and reason, as well as those based on faith. Although I must admit, I prefer the former to the latter.

The fault comes in when you are unable to believe the possibility exists you may be wrong, and, consequently, act superior to those that do not hold your view. Worse yet, and this is a major fault contained within most if not all of the major religions, believing that because you are right you have some obligation to convince, forcefully if necessary, everyone else that your belief is right.

[elliotfc]

Not from evidence, no. A) There is no evidence of invisible people in the sky. B) There is evidence that Jesus existed. C) There is no evidence that he, if he existed, did anything miraculous. D) There is no evidence of an afterlife and E) The Catholic Church continues to tell lies to people about condom use. I have no patience for those self righteous leeches.

I see.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Do you agree that Matthew 20:28 seems directly relevant here?

Maybe. Ransom/sacrifice? Are they commensurate? I don't feel confident enough to answer that one. Certainly, I think, many people see them as basically equivalent.

I think they're close I guess.

Here is a neat site I use often, it provides textual info about all verses.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Mat/20/28.html

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Sorry. One can be on Earth and have absolutely no link with any Christian church.

Right. I was talking about the Body of Christ, more than a specific Christian church. Like, believe it or not, you have a link to me, and I am a part of the Body of Christ on earth.

Also, I think that just be being alive, physically, we are not entirely cut off from God's grace.

And dump in to Hell those with the characteristics it does not considers desirable?

Well, anyone who doesn't want eternal communion with God. I guess that's a characteristic.

Why would God create them? God is supposed to know everything, right? Why would God create "soul A" when God already knows "soul A" is hellbound?

Oh dear, I feel like I've already been through all of this with Robin. In this thread, or another? Oh dear. I'll make it brief, and please respect my statement that I will not elaborate any further. Maybe in a few months. I've just gone all over this with Robin. Ask him. He'll vouch for me. Not that you'd find what I say satisfactory anyhow.

God creates things because he feels it is good to create things. In particular, he creates other creative beings. God knows everything in his own way, and that does not invalidate free will. If alternative choices were made with free will, then he would know that. In this sense his omniscience is contingent, because he values free will and allows for it and respects it. Does that mean he is not omniscient? I DON'T REALLY CARE. That word does not appear in any of my creeds. Does he know we are hellbound before he creates us? In my opinion...NO. If you want to tell me that my opinion conflicts with Christianity, be my guest. Believe me, I remain in full communion with my church, though you're happy to submit this to the bishop of Rockville Center if you like. And that's all I'll say on this. If you have other ideas, surely you find them elsewhere. Be content with them, and discard mine. Whatever.

Why?

You made the analogy that the earth is a sort of hell, right? I say you can get out of a sort of hell. That's why it is a sort of hell.

Care to explain why its not good?

From my subjective position, it's better to live with God than to live without God. Sure, I allow for other subjective opinions. I mean, if someone says "screw you, who are you to tell me what's good for me, and what's not good for me"...I guess there's not much I can say to that, right?

Well, it seems god also created Hell for us...
Why should I or anyone else deserve eternal suffering?
Is this justice?

No, not just for us. There is a hierarchy of creative beings, or, an assortment. A sundry cacophony.

I think that anyone who would rather have eternal suffering than eternal communion with God deserves eternal suffering. Why? I dunno. Why not? Feel free to disagree with me on that one.

Is it justice? I don't know. Who is the judge? What is the objective standard? Is it your opinion? Are you the judge? Or, what thing, outside of yourself, would answer the question for you? I'm guessing my answers won't satisfy you, but correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Care to elaborate?
Besides the fact that I see no evidence of an afterlife, I fail to see, assuming there´s one, why my basic feelings and reasonings, etc. should change too much when I am dead; Of course I will be surprised, but as soon as I recover from the surprise, I will start asking "whys"...

Please do, I guarantee God will give you better answers than me.

Not to mention that my life may not be Hell, but I'm, sure plenty of people right now are living much worse lives. Lives that could be labelled Hell. And besides this Hell on Earth, they are elligible to an eternal Hell... Is this justice?

Sure, anything could be labeled hell.

Is eligibility to eternal Hell justice? Sure, as long as everyone is eligible, and I believe that everyone is eligible. I guess that's just fairness, or equity. Refer to my previous queries about your notion of justice.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

You are certainly aware of the many narratives (OT, NT as well as the lives of the Catholic saints) that do involve suffering, pain and submission. Quite convenient when it comes to keep the status qou. Obey now, suffer now, don't complain about not having enough to eat while the landlords stuff their bellies and you will rewarded in the afterlife...

I hope you're not suggesting that I'm content with all of that other stuff you bring up. I'm not, and for good reason, reason that I find in the gospels.

As for status quo...was it kept? Hasn't Christianity really shaken and challenged the status quo in its history?

Then why can't God provide me a reasonable motivation to belive He/She/It is real?

He can. I think he has, but your definition of reasonable is contingent on yourself. If you want God to do what you want God to do, that's not an uncommon complaint. If, in the future, you get a reasonable motivation, then be glad for that! The status quo includes instant gratification now, doesn't it?

Why can't God provide me a reasonable explanation about how a condenation to eternal suffering can be considered as justice?

See the above.

Why can't God provide me a reason on why I should follow His/Hers/Its laws?

Ditto.

You are not content with what makes me content. It is my belief that you'll get what you want in the next one, and I just hope you're content with that.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Please show me the good and noble things religion does for us, and compare it to the list of despicable things it does to us.

Religion doesn't do things. People do things.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

The difference between us is that my way of life depends on nobody else (except that others make it more fun and easier) whereas the religious hierarchy NEEDS people (like me) by definition -- otherwise it isn't a hierarchy at all. That is very threatening to me... so I am hostile.

Well...yeah. I mean, teachers need students. Bosses need employees. Baseball managers need people to manage.

Yeah. I guess religious hierarchical figures need people in their religion to be hierarchical too.

Repairmen need people to ask them to repair things. I could go on and on and on and on and on.....

Thanks for the selective hostility. Rage against the mechanics! Who need mechanisms to repair!

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Job's ultimate solution was to...

Acquiesce.

My finite lifespan is all I have. Along the lives of all human beings, daring to ask why is what caused progress. The will to improve. I see no reason why it should be different in an eventual afterlife.

OK.

Can I?
So, I challenge God to explain why we should be condemned to an eternity of suffering by our finite sins.
I challenge God to show me where's the justice of it.
I challenge God to prove there's no contradiction on the statement He/She/It loves us and His/Hers/Its later act of dumping our souls in to the eternal fires of Hell.

He'll get around to it...and I wouldn't be in too much of a rush...because when he gets around to it...well, you won't be able to supply this forum with the answers to the challenge. Be patient. Or don't. Your choice.

If this is so, why all the punishment? Why all the sins?

Because we aren't ants or bees. Sin is a product of free will. Punishment is a product of justice.

And those who choose not to enter?

They won't be part of a perfect religious community then.

Why should anyone be supposed to be a part of such a thing?

Because it's good to be together with other like-minded people, don't you think?

So, why all fuss about challenging god?

You're serious? Read post #320? I don't know where this comes from.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Me? An awful god?

All I am asking are reasons. Explanations for what seem to be injustices from His/Hers/Its part.

I agree that to you, they seem to be injustices.

So far, all I get is "These are the rules. Obey or be punished through all the eternity".

Does not seem fair.

Well...I say it's fair because those rules work for everybody. If you say it isn't fair, you're speaking with some notion of fairness, and I don't know how you have derived it or whether you consider it to be anything more than your pure subjective notion.

For now, I'm content with your phraseology. I won't challenge it...but surely, you're aware that the average Christian wouldn't talk about these things as you do. I'm not saying you should care about that. I dunno. No offense, but I don't see anything productive coming out of a continued discussion on this...feel free to disagree.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Straw?

Its not what seems to be written in the Bible...
What I see on it and at Christian theology is not free questioning. Its not justice. Its not the attitude I would expect an everloving father or mother to have in regard to His/Hers/Its children.

So, anybody can question God, but at the risk of going to Hell?

Teresa of Avila questioned God. Hell, I think most saints did. I think most Christians question God. You can argue that Jesus questioned God.

I don't think the risk of Hell has anything to do with it. Why not ask questions? Be not afraid.

I shall restrain myself when it comes to comments regarding strawmen and religious doctrine.

Thanks for that.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

And?
Still, I can see no anwers to my questions among what's supposed to be the words and teatchings of "God made Man".

Sorry it's late and I can't understand this sentence of yours, surely that's my fault, but maybe you could restate it.

Aim a gun at an unarmed man and tell him "dance".
Its completely up to him to obey...
Riiiiiiiiiiiiigth.

I agree that God makes the choice a hell of a lot easier. You'd prefer something else? You'd prefer God to make the choice harder? No, I know what you'd prefer. Separation from God on your own terms, blissful ones at that. I dunno...part of me actually thinks that God allows for that...not a big part of me.

Tell humans to follow arbitrary sets of rules or they will be punished through eternity. Its completely up to humans to obey...

I dunno about the word arbitrary. Are the rules all that arbitrary? You tell me. Name a dozen of the rules, we can sort it out.

No. Its not a question of merely "rejecting" Jesus' answers. Its a question of finding incoherencies, ead ends, lack of logic, etc.

I see.

For example, why my questions will be answered only in the next life?

I allow for the possibility that they can be answered tomorrow. I'm only giving you a certain answer. I'm not comfortable in speculating on anything besides that, dealing with you/God in particular. But maybe God will act in a different way, in your case.

OK, and if I don't obey...
Eternal punishment.
Why should I consider this as justice?
Because God thinks it is?

Surely not because you think it is, because you don't.

My turn to ask you. What is justice?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

The fault comes in when you are unable to believe the possibility exists you may be wrong, and, consequently, act superior to those that do not hold your view.

Does this extend to some skeptics? Surely it does.

Worse yet, and this is a major fault contained within most if not all of the major religions, believing that because you are right you have some obligation to convince, forcefully if necessary, everyone else that your belief is right.

If the world was predominantly occupied by skeptics, it is my assertion that there would a total role reversal on this.

-Elliot

[I less than three logic]

Does this extend to some skeptics? Surely it does.
I have never claimed it doesn’t.


If the world was predominantly occupied by skeptics, it is my assertion that there would a total role reversal on this.

-Elliot
Well, that’s interesting. A total reverse you say. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assume you are religious, most likely Christian. Also, whether you’d like to admit it or not, you are most likely a skeptic as well, at least to some degree. I believe I’ve already stated this in your “What if I’m wrong” thread, but the opposite of skepticism is not being religious. The opposite of skepticism is being credulous, gullible, to believe without thinking it over. Once again, you are confusing skepticism with Atheism or being agonistic.

As for your assertion, I’m not sure how to interpret it at the moment, so I’m unsure whether I agree or disagree. However, it makes little difference. In the end it is just that, an assertion and nothing more.

[RandFan]

...the opposite of skepticism is not being religious. The opposite of skepticism is being credulous, gullible, to believe without thinking it over. Once again, you are confusing skepticism with Atheism or being agnostic.Bingo. Christians are typically skeptical of other religions and the existence of other deities. Christ himself admonished his followers to be skeptics "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. --Matt. 7:15. It would also be wise for Christians to be skeptical of people who would otherwise take advantage of them including con artists like Kaz (http://www.stopkaz.com/).

To quote Martha Stewart, skepticism, "it's a good thing".

The apostle Paul would seem to agree. "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." --1 Thessalonians 5:21

[elliotfc]

The opposite of skepticism is being credulous, gullible, to believe without thinking it over. Once again, you are confusing skepticism with Atheism or being agonistic.

Ummm...they don't have to be opposites as far as my point went...but I get your point as well.

As for your assertion, I’m not sure how to interpret it at the moment, so I’m unsure whether I agree or disagree. However, it makes little difference. In the end it is just that, an assertion and nothing more.

I agree that it's only an assertion.

To restate...if the world was pre-dominated by people with an antipathy towards religion, I think religious types would have the same real historical gripes, if not current gripes, as do irreligious types who invoke the Inquisition, et al. A non-testable opinion.

-Elliot

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

You know this whole thread has been conducted (mostly) in a very calm, reasonable and relatively friendly manner.

Some days, don't you just miss 1inChrist?

Sorry for the derail.....

YBW

[elliotfc]

You know this whole thread has been conducted (mostly) in a very calm, reasonable and relatively friendly manner.

Some days, don't you just miss 1inChrist?

Sorry for the derail.....

YBW

No...it reminds me...the past few weeks I've been wondering about a couple people. Muscleman and Panhasiri. Panhasiri used to always say "may you be happy and well" at the end of his messages, at least to me. And sometimes he'd have these smily faces who would like stroke the head of other smily faces. It was kinda creepy but I guess there was a point to it. Muscleman was major. Major!

Anyhow was 1inchrist banned, or is 1inchrist now actually 1inchrist in the next one?

-Elliot

[Huntster]

....Christians are typically skeptical of other religions and the existence of other deities.....

I'm not.

You wouldn't be stereotyping, would you?

...Christ himself admonished his followers to be skeptics "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. --Matt. 7:15....

As far as I'm concerned, that means people like you.

To quote Martha Stewart, skepticism, "it's a good thing".

I would agree, until it becomes extreme.

Just like all other ideologies, including religion.

The apostle Paul would seem to agree. "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." --1 Thessalonians 5:21

Paul the skeptic!

Isn't it great?

[RandFan]

I'm not. Your not skeptical of Zeus, pagon gods, etc.?

You wouldn't be stereotyping, would you? Of course, note the word "typical". Skepticism isn't a pejorative term. Stating that most Christians take a skwptical view of other dieties is not controversial. That you accept the possibility of other gods does not make your view typical.

As far as I'm concerned, that means people like you. ? I don't claim to be something I'm not. Please to explain?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I'm not.

Your not skeptical of Zeus, pagon gods, etc.?

I consider most religions to be different interpretations or revelations of the same spiritual source and entities.

As far as I'm concerned, that means people like you.

? I don't claim to be something I'm not. Please to explain?

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. --Matt. 7:15.

This can explain many people, not just those with a different version or interpretation of God.

In fact, it can even better be seen among those who deny the very existence of God.

[I less than three logic]

This can explain many people, not just those with a different version or interpretation of God.

In fact, it can even better be seen among those who deny the very existence of God.
The point remains. You are still a skeptic (unpleasant thought? :)), even if you are only skeptical of the non-religious. Being religious and skeptical are not mutually exclusive.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
This can explain many people, not just those with a different version or interpretation of God.

In fact, it can even better be seen among those who deny the very existence of God.
The point remains. You are still a skeptic (unpleasant thought? :)), even if you are only skeptical of the non-religious....

Yes, I am highly skeptical, and no, that isn't an unpleasant thought at all. In fact, I consider myself more skeptical than many on this forum who claim to be the skeptic's skeptic.

However, instead of "being skeptical" about religions other than my own, I see the similarities among religions.

What I tend to be skeptical about with regard to religion are people who claim that there is no God, or no spirituality.

Being religious and skeptical are not mutually exclusive.

Thank you. You appear to be the first person I've interacted with on this forum willing to admit that.

[elliotfc]

The point remains. You are still a skeptic (unpleasant thought? :)), even if you are only skeptical of the non-religious. Being religious and skeptical are not mutually exclusive.

Huntster, consider this a tip o da cap.

-Elliot

[Correa Neto]

Right. I was talking about the Body of Christ, more than a specific Christian church. Like, believe it or not, you have a link to me, and I am a part of the Body of Christ on earth.

Also, I think that just be being alive, physically, we are not entirely cut off from God's grace.
Well, it all boils down to speculation...
Most religions state that spiritual links, bonds, etc. are stronger in the afterlife. It seems a bit weird to see the opposite speculation. To be always linked with God while surrounded by a material body and then to have this link cutted in the afterlife... Anyway, there many problems with the "link" idea, but its an OT digression, I guess.

Well, anyone who doesn't want eternal communion with God. I guess that's a characteristic.
Would this be the single one? Juts "want to"?
I guess not. I guess one would also want to be submitted to a certain set of rules. I can not speak about the supposed rules of the afterlife, but if they are similar to those in this life... They would be too restrict and arbitrary IMHO. All I am ask are reasons for the rules.

Oh dear, I feel like I've already been through all of this with Robin. In this thread, or another? Oh dear. I'll make it brief, and please respect my statement that I will not elaborate any further. Maybe in a few months. I've just gone all over this with Robin. Ask him. He'll vouch for me. Not that you'd find what I say satisfactory anyhow.
I'm sorry you had to deal with it again, but since the aspects are interconnected, it should not be a surprise...

Have no illusion, this issue will be raised again.

Skeptics are also repeatedly "interrogated" by believers regarding some items they consider as key issues, such as the nature and source of morality. If it is of any help, I know how you feel...

God creates things because he feels it is good to create things. In particular, he creates other creative beings. God knows everything in his own way, and that does not invalidate free will. If alternative choices were made with free will, then he would know that. In this sense his omniscience is contingent, because he values free will and allows for it and respects it. Does that mean he is not omniscient? I DON'T REALLY CARE. That word does not appear in any of my creeds. Does he know we are hellbound before he creates us? In my opinion...NO. If you want to tell me that my opinion conflicts with Christianity, be my guest. Believe me, I remain in full communion with my church, though you're happy to submit this to the bishop of Rockville Center if you like. And that's all I'll say on this. If you have other ideas, surely you find them elsewhere. Be content with them, and discard mine. Whatever.
Elliot, as you know this is one of the key subjects when it comes to Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrines (or whatever term you would like to use). Its also a key issue when one discuss God concepts based on the OT. You may be happy with the compromise you reached. Its your right. Just as I deserve myself the right of not being convinced with the explanations I've seen so far.

You made the analogy that the earth is a sort of hell, right? I say you can get out of a sort of hell. That's why it is a sort of hell.
Can the people who are suffering right now from the many problems that affect our world get out from their hells? I fail to see how...

From my subjective position, it's better to live with God than to live without God. Sure, I allow for other subjective opinions. I mean, if someone says "screw you, who are you to tell me what's good for me, and what's not good for me"...I guess there's not much I can say to that, right?
Maybe.
Maye you could explain the person why a certain thing is good or not for him/her. This is one of my central points. "Why?"

No, not just for us. There is a hierarchy of creative beings, or, an assortment. A sundry cacophony.
You mean angels, archangels, potencies, demons, etc.?
Well, shall we try to avoid another OT digression? Or at least start another thread on it?

I think that anyone who would rather have eternal suffering than eternal communion with God deserves eternal suffering. Why? I dunno. Why not? Feel free to disagree with me on that one.
I think there's a bit of oversimplification here...
If I fail to see that God is real...
If I fail to grasp what would be this eternal communion with God...
If I fail to see why I should follow His/Hers/Its rules...
If I fail to see justice in God, as stated in Christian beliefs...
Can you really say I deserve eternal suffering?
Can you call this "justice"?

What brings us to yout next paragraphs...

Is it justice? I don't know. Who is the judge? What is the objective standard? Is it your opinion? Are you the judge? Or, what thing, outside of yourself, would answer the question for you? I'm guessing my answers won't satisfy you, but correct me if I'm wrong on that.
I would be satisfied by a logical answer.
Mr. X cheated his wife. He will spend 10 years in jail.
Mr. Y killed 15 persons. He will spend 10 years in jail.
The judge considers this as justice, since he followed the rules by the book.
But would you consider this as justice?
Wouldn't you at least like to know why this is considered justice?
And what if the answer you receive is "the judge and the laws are wise".
Would this satisfy you?

Please do, I guarantee God will give you better answers than me.
If I have the chance, I will. But I don't think I will have the chance.

Sure, anything could be labeled hell.
Yep. Including Heaven.

Is eligibility to eternal Hell justice? Sure, as long as everyone is eligible, and I believe that everyone is eligible. I guess that's just fairness, or equity. Refer to my previous queries about your notion of justice.

-Elliot
So, everyone is eligible to punishment...
And here ends the equity.
Because you may be condemned to an eternity of suffering by acts that have very distinct relative weights. Different sins, with different implications, all with thes same penalty.
Surely this is not with my notions of justice.

[Correa Neto]

Because we aren't ants or bees. Sin is a product of free will. Punishment is a product of justice.
Perhaps by now we should consider the very notion of sin... What is a sin?
Are all sins equally capital? Why certain acts are considered as "sins" in one culture and normal in others? Why should I consider Christian culture as the standard that will define what is or not a sin?

Why should sin be considerd a consequence of free will?
A sin can be commited by sheer ignorance of the rules.

They won't be part of a perfect religious community then.
And if they are not part of the religious community?

Because it's good to be together with other like-minded people, don't you think?
Sure.
But I also think that in diversity lies the key to progress and sucess.

You're serious? Read post #320? I don't know where this comes from.

-Elliot
Well, my experience with Christian doctrines (be it Catholic or Protestant ) indicates questioning does not seem to be well received. You can question, but up to certain point. Certain questions are not well seen.

[Correa Neto]

I agree that to you, they seem to be injustices.



Well...I say it's fair because those rules work for everybody. If you say it isn't fair, you're speaking with some notion of fairness, and I don't know how you have derived it or whether you consider it to be anything more than your pure subjective notion.

For now, I'm content with your phraseology. I won't challenge it...but surely, you're aware that the average Christian wouldn't talk about these things as you do. I'm not saying you should care about that. I dunno. No offense, but I don't see anything productive coming out of a continued discussion on this...feel free to disagree.

-Elliot

I am aware and I am glad to find someone who actually cares about discussing in polite terms. I was from RCC at early stages of my life. Now I am no longer, despite my wife being catholic (a rather lousy one, probably due to my influence, what shall be added to my list of sins if you are right and I am wrong).

All I am asking are reasons. And the lack of reasonable answers is what caused my move towards an agnostic (atheistic when it comes to Abrahamic religions) position.

I do agree the notions of fairness and justice are relative. I am a moral relativist (better say I try to be one). I acknoweledge my notions may be wrong or not adequate for people from other cultural backgrounds.

Everybody is subject to the same penalty. Yep, at a first glance this is just. But the same penalty comes for acts that have different weights. What does not seem to be just to me.

And we have not even touched (at this thread) in some issues such as if the individual had or not the opportunity to commit a sin, if the individual restrains him/herself from commiting it just because he is afraid of punishment or because he/she actually considers it as wrong...

[Correa Neto]

Teresa of Avila questioned God. Hell, I think most saints did. I think most Christians question God. You can argue that Jesus questioned God.

I don't think the risk of Hell has anything to do with it. Why not ask questions? Be not afraid.



Thanks for that.

-Elliot
Teresa was one of the saints I had in mind when I wrote my initial comment. I'd rather make no further comments on this particular issue on the risk of making OT digressions and commentaries that potentially may be seen as unpolite or unconvenient.

Back on the topic, yes, there's some questioning, but there's little on why the rules and the judge are fair. What exists is a surrendering (not totally unlike to what is found in Islam IMHO) to god's will.

The reasons are the experiencing of the numinous, a religious experience, something that may not be bound by logic, some would say. What I am asking is for the logic behind the rules. Yep, its an open door for you to say I will not find it in reason. But I can counter this...

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by elliotfc :
Because we aren't ants or bees. Sin is a product of free will. Punishment is a product of justice.

Perhaps by now we should consider the very notion of sin... What is a sin?...

Sin: (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#s)

An offense against God as well as a fault against reason, truth, and right conscience. Sin is a deliberate thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to the eternal law of God. In judging the gravity of sin, it is customary to distinguish between mortal and venial sins (1849, 1853, 1854).

Are all sins equally capital?

In judging the gravity of sin, it is customary to distinguish between mortal and venial sins

Why should sin be considerd a consequence of free will?

Source (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art8.htm)

Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self-exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125

A sin can be commited by sheer ignorance of the rules.

1860
Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

Finally, and in the spirit of the title of this thread:


1864
"Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

[Correa Neto]

Sorry it's late and I can't understand this sentence of yours, surely that's my fault, but maybe you could restate it.
No problem, its not hard to see English is not my first language.
I have not found in Christ's teatchings, as presented in the Bible, answers to my questions. Please note that its not a matter of finding answers that I would like. Its about finding answers that I would consider reasonable, logocal and consistent with the world I live in.

I agree that God makes the choice a hell of a lot easier. You'd prefer something else? You'd prefer God to make the choice harder? No, I know what you'd prefer. Separation from God on your own terms, blissful ones at that. I dunno...part of me actually thinks that God allows for that...not a big part of me.
UNeasy, I would say...
Authoritary, arbitrary, menacing... Where's the all loving God?

I dunno about the word arbitrary. Are the rules all that arbitrary? You tell me. Name a dozen of the rules, we can sort it out.
Well, take a look at Leviticus...

I allow for the possibility that they can be answered tomorrow. I'm only giving you a certain answer. I'm not comfortable in speculating on anything besides that, dealing with you/God in particular. But maybe God will act in a different way, in your case.
Maybe. Maybe I will have another epiphany...
Why should God act on a different way in my case? Would this be just? I ask for not special treatment.

"Oh, but then why are you asking for reasons? God does not provide them..." You could say.

What I am asking are reasons that should have been known to all humans, if God is all He/She/It is supposed to be.

Surely not because you think it is, because you don't.

My turn to ask you. What is justice?

-Elliot
hehehe. That was a good one.*tips hat*
Not really sure, specially because I try to be a moral relativist, but I am pretty sure of what does not looks like. Such as dumping people in Hell for eternal punishment...

I'll try to use a parable:
I have a toddler. I love my toddler. My toddler crawls on the house's floor, he can reach the power outlets. What would a loving father do? Say "thou shall not stick thou fingers or any metal in the power sockets or thou shall be punished with pain" in a booming voice? The toddler can not figure why he should not do it, he has no idea on what electricity is, neither he can understand what it is. To him, it seems like a silly rule. He can stick his fingers in other holes, after all... . He can stick his fingers there if he wants, he has his limited free will. My guess is that a loving father would do as I did: Install protection caps at the power outlets, and when my child grown enough to understand, explain him why its dangerous (OK, maybe a small electrical shock could be used as a practical lesson:D ). The toddler stuck his fingers at the power outlet. Who's to blame? The toddler or the father? Where's the justice in condemning the toddler to suffering an electrical shock?

[RandFan]

I consider most religions to be different interpretations or revelations of the same spiritual source and entities. So there is no need to follow the bible or even Christ?

This can explain many people, not just those with a different version or interpretation of God.

In fact, it can even better be seen among those who deny the very existence of God. Ok, so then you are skeptical of me?

[RandFan]

What I tend to be skeptical about with regard to religion are people who claim that there is no God, or no spirituality. I don't claim that there is no god. I don't claim that there is no spirituality. I'm skeptical.

Thank you. You appear to be the first person I've interacted with on this forum willing to admit that. I have preached this since the day I came here. I have stood up for Christians and spirituality and I have pointed out that some of the finest critical thinkers have been religious. My personal favorites are Boole, Kant, Pascal and Aquinas.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I consider most religions to be different interpretations or revelations of the same spiritual source and entities.

So there is no need to follow the bible or even Christ?

God, including Christ, in the Catholic tradition works for me. If someone was raised religious in another faith, my opinion is that if they practice that religion devoutly, they will be on a better path toward God than if they reject Him altogether.

[RandFan]

God, including Christ, in the Catholic tradition works for me. If someone was raised religious in another faith, my opinion is that if they practice that religion devoutly, they will be on a better path toward God than if they reject Him altogether.So all paths lead to the same place?

[ImaginalDisc]

God, including Christ, in the Catholic tradition works for me. If someone was raised religious in another faith, my opinion is that if they practice that religion devoutly, they will be on a better path toward God than if they reject Him altogether.
So, Aztec blood cultists who waged war to aquire victims for slow, torturous human sacrifice were better people than any atheists?

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

You really didn't need to ask did you? :)

All of us disgusting Atheists are the lowest form of life - used-car salesmen probably included....

How many smileys does it take to prove this is meant to be a joke? :) ;)
YBW

[elliotfc]

So all paths lead to the same place?

No.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

So, Aztec blood cultists who waged war to aquire victims for slow, torturous human sacrifice were better people than any atheists?

He said they were on a better path. Not better people.

I'm not sure I agree. Maybe a little.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

You really didn't need to ask did you? :)

All of us disgusting Atheists are the lowest form of life - used-car salesmen probably included....

How many smileys does it take to prove this is meant to be a joke? :) ;)
YBW

You needed five. Damn atheists always ***** up.

Make me sick.

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

OK thanks!

Here's the extra two :) :) - or just to be sure here's the full five as replacements - ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Now I guess I'll be reported for spamming....

YBW

[elliotfc]

OK thanks!

Here's the extra two :) :) - or just to be sure here's the full five as replacements - ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Now I guess I'll be reported for spamming....

YBW

Done!

[ImaginalDisc]

He said they were on a better path. Not better people.

I'm not sure I agree. Maybe a little.

-Elliot

So people who commit attrocities in the name of imaginary entities are on a better path than all atheists? Are you saying the Son of Sam serial killer is a better person than Penn Jillette?

[elliotfc]

So people who commit attrocities in the name of imaginary entities are on a better path than all atheists? Are you saying the Son of Sam serial killer is a better person than Penn Jillette?

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Stop saying better person! Didn't you read what I just said? I'm not talking about better person! Not better person!

Let's say there's a grocery store. The best person in the world and the worst person in the world are both trying to get there. But the best person in the world is going in the wrong direction to get to the grocery store, and the worst person in the world is going the right direction.

The better path thing is determined by the final destination (I guess the route too), and not the "goodness" or "badness" of the person on the path.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Stop saying better person! Didn't you read what I just said? I'm not talking about better person! Not better person!

Let's say there's a grocery store. The best person in the world and the worst person in the world are both trying to get there. But the best person in the world is going in the wrong direction to get to the grocery store, and the worst person in the world is going the right direction.

The better path thing is determined by the final destination (I guess the route too), and not the "goodness" or "badness" of the person on the path.

-Elliot
This is all of life. Life isn't practice for an eternity of sunshine, picnics and puppies with a glowing patriarch in the sky. There is no path, and there is no destination. This is the universe, which (Sagan) is all that there ever was, is, and will be.

[I less than three logic]

So which grocery store is the correct one? It seems that no matter which road I take from my house, if followed long enough, it leads to one store or another. When I just want convenience I head south, the store that way is much closer. However, when I’m looking to spend my money a bit more wisely, I head northwest. The store is more than twice the distance, but the prices are better when buying in bulk. :)

[elliotfc]

This is all of life. Life isn't practice for an eternity of sunshine, picnics and puppies with a glowing patriarch in the sky. There is no path, and there is no destination. This is the universe, which (Sagan) is all that there ever was, is, and will be.

OK, but you should have said that before. And if this is the case, better/worse is just temporary morality that doesn't have to be, and may not be in the future. So no reason to get all cranky about is Penn a better person that Dahmer or whatever the comparison was. Who cares? That didn't matter 983 million years ago, did it? And it won't matter when our sun goes nova, or whatever is supposed to happen.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

So which grocery store is the correct one? It seems that no matter which road I take from my house, if followed long enough, it leads to one store or another. When I just want convenience I head south, the store that way is much closer. However, when I’m looking to spend my money a bit more wisely, I head northwest. The store is more than twice the distance, but the prices are better when buying in bulk. :)

Well that's a good point. It depends I guess.

If the grocery store is called *oblivion*, there is only one path to oblivion. Well, I mean, essentially one path. Do we agree?

Now...if it isn't oblivion...it does get tricky. If there's life after death, I agree that there is more than one destination. Let's say two! Which is the correct one? That depends on the individual. Satan probably thinks his location is a better grocery store than the other one. Is it? I dunno. Better is a matter of opinion.

Now...what if there are hundreds of grocery stores? I don't think I'm the one to consider that possibility, I haven't really thought about it. I'll think about it.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

OK, but you should have said that before. And if this is the case, better/worse is just temporary morality that doesn't have to be, and may not be in the future. So no reason to get all cranky about is Penn a better person that Dahmer or whatever the comparison was. Who cares? That didn't matter 983 million years ago, did it? And it won't matter when our sun goes nova, or whatever is supposed to happen.

-Elliot

If your morality and ethics hang on the existance of a magical happy city in the sky as a reward for your good deeds, I pity you. Good deeds have intrinsic value.

[elliotfc]

Yes, I am highly skeptical, and no, that isn't an unpleasant thought at all. In fact, I consider myself more skeptical than many on this forum who claim to be the skeptic's skeptic.

Is someone who is skeptical of skeptics, or skepticism, a skeptic?

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

Is someone who is skeptical of skeptics, or skepticism, a skeptic?

-Elliot

Is a person who engages in meaningless sophistry instead of addressing criticisms of their groundless assertions a weasel?

[Huntster]

So all paths lead to the same place?

I believe all spiritual paths lead to "heaven" or "hell", or various levels between the two.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
God, including Christ, in the Catholic tradition works for me. If someone was raised religious in another faith, my opinion is that if they practice that religion devoutly, they will be on a better path toward God than if they reject Him altogether.
So, Aztec blood cultists who waged war to aquire victims for slow, torturous human sacrifice were better people than any atheists?

Nope. They were evil people, but at least they weren't so ignorant as to ignore or reject human spirituality.

[Huntster]

So people who commit attrocities in the name of imaginary entities are on a better path than all atheists? Are you saying the Son of Sam serial killer is a better person than Penn Jillette?

You're either confusing or purposely mixing spirituality with mental illness or evil.

It's like the current thread regarding the man who lowered himself into the lion's den at the zoo while invoking the protection of God. The man was clearly mentally ill. Some on the thread are claiming that religious belief is a mental illness.

I don't know if that's confusion or propaganda, but whichever the case, it is incorrect.

[ImaginalDisc]

Nope. They were evil people, but at least they weren't so ignorant as to ignore or reject human spirituality.

So, deliberately murdering your fellow humans beings because of an evil and twisted religion is better than being an atheist?

[Huntster]

This is all of life. Life isn't practice for an eternity of sunshine, picnics and puppies with a glowing patriarch in the sky.......

Life may not be "practice", but it should be a learning experience.

And (clearly), just like the 2nd grade, some folks learn and others don't.

[Huntster]

If your morality and ethics hang on the existance of a magical happy city in the sky as a reward for your good deeds, I pity you......

My outlook on spirituality after physical death is not a magical, happy city in the sky. I don't like our current cities on the ground. That's why I live in the woods.

I hope to be one with goodness, and hope to be seperated from evil. That's what RCC doctrine and scripture promises, I hope it is so, and I hope I am found worthy to share in it.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yes, I am highly skeptical, and no, that isn't an unpleasant thought at all. In fact, I consider myself more skeptical than many on this forum who claim to be the skeptic's skeptic.
Is someone who is skeptical of skeptics, or skepticism, a skeptic?

I don't know, but I sure am skeptical of many of the arguments skeptics make about certain issues and questions.

[elliotfc]

Well, it all boils down to speculation...
Most religions state that spiritual links, bonds, etc. are stronger in the afterlife.

I think I agree. I definitely agree that they are pure, as opposed to now, where our physical nature makes it confusing.

It seems a bit weird to see the opposite speculation. To be always linked with God while surrounded by a material body and then to have this link cutted in the afterlife... Anyway, there many problems with the "link" idea, but its an OT digression, I guess.

But God gave us our bodies. I actually think that this is how we are *meant* to be...there is the dogma of "resurrection of the body"...my understanding of it differs from the typical Catholic understanding, shhh don't tell the Pope.

Would this be the single one? Juts "want to"?

There may be others, I don't know.

I guess one would also want to be submitted to a certain set of rules.

I'd phrase it as contentment with established order as established by the supreme being.

I can not speak about the supposed rules of the afterlife, but if they are similar to those in this life... They would be too restrict and arbitrary IMHO. All I am ask are reasons for the rules.

Why is God the way he is? I dunno. Could he be anything else? That's another one. Could he be a different way? The rules follow from God's nature. Since I understand that God is as he is, and since I have no idea why he is as he is, I guess I don't know the whys behind the rules either because I think the rules are an extension of God's nature.

Can the people who are suffering right now from the many problems that affect our world get out from their hells? I fail to see how...

Death! Like let's say you don't have any...sufferings...that would garner a lot of sympathy. You're depressed, you're rich and famous and pretty but everything's a problem and you can't stay in a relationship and your family is mean to you, I dunno. But that's suffering. Maybe such a person thinks life is hell. Then they OD on pills. They've escaped their hell, no?

Maye you could explain the person why a certain thing is good or not for him/her. This is one of my central points. "Why?"

I think that humans are, by and large, malcontent. Would you agree? Or, if you take the content humans...and eradicate the source of their contentment, they would be malcontent.

So. Is there an objective thing that *ought to* make us all content? I think that thing is God. Were we designed that way? Many theologians speculate and assert "yes", and I'm partial to that theory, though not to a dogmatic sense. If they are correct...is it all a set up? Maybe. I guess it is! If we're designed to have something "good for us"...and we can only be content if we get that something...

...and you want to know "why". I'm not the Designer, so I don't know. Just like a character in a book doesn't know why the author wrote the book in the way he/she did.

You mean angels, archangels, potencies, demons, etc.?
Well, shall we try to avoid another OT digression? Or at least start another thread on it?

I think I had a good reason for bringing that up...can't remember...I'll drop it.

I think there's a bit of oversimplification here...

OK...and you're working it through, and thanks for that...

If I fail to see that God is real...

If he *shows* you he is real, there goes your if. Unless you're obstinate. Meaning, if you walk me into a room and I see my wife getting it on with some guy, I can adamantly say "that's not real!" if I don't want to believe it.

How can God show you he is real? Well...do you think he can? Or, maybe it'll have to wait for the next one.

If I fail to grasp what would be this eternal communion with God...

Contentment with God. Yes, I agree that...you don't have to grasp that. Fail to grasp? I don't think so. You are content with God's plan, or you're not. If you're not, what can you be content with in its stead? That's a tricky one, at least from my point of view.

If I fail to see why I should follow His/Hers/Its rules...

They would have to speak to you, touch you, appear beautiful to you. If they don't, I probably wouldn't follow them either.

If I fail to see justice in God, as stated in Christian beliefs...

I think you kind of have to. If you lived in a dictatorship, you kind of have to see justice in the dictator. If there's a superior justice, where is it and how is it derived, or is it not derived?

Can you really say I deserve eternal suffering?

Me saying it doesn't matter much, does it? God can say anything he wants. So can I, for that matter, but I'm not the ultimate judge.

You, whose judgment is completely limited and lacking in authority, is *still* allowed to reject the ultimate judge. What else do you want? No strings attached? But that may not be part of the design. Do you deserve to have free will in a designed universe? That question won't do you in any good, will it? If you are what you are, and the universe is what it is, wondering about "deserve" is, in my opinion, too much navel-gazing. And the thing is you're allowed to do it. But then it's the suffering bit you're hung up on. But I think even Satan "suffered" more under God than apart from God. Sort of. God. Can't live with him, can't live without him.

Deserve is outside of my paygrade. I don't know what you people deserve. I don't know what I deserve. Deal with the objective reality. This, coming from a religious believer, arf arf arf. If you can't, then all you are left with is personal pride and angst, and those can be a real bitch. They will eat you up and make you suffer for an eternity if you let them. So in the end, it's your will over God's will. Yes, I agree, that will lead to suffering. By definition, according to my religion. The religion you reject. Is this one reason among many that you reject it? Maybe.

Can you call this "justice"?

I don't know, is justice contingent upon objective reality, or is it greater than objective reality? Outside of it? If so, who created it?

I would be satisfied by a logical answer.
Mr. X cheated his wife. He will spend 10 years in jail.
Mr. Y killed 15 persons. He will spend 10 years in jail.
The judge considers this as justice, since he followed the rules by the book.
But would you consider this as justice?

No.

Wouldn't you at least like to know why this is considered justice?

Yes.

And what if the answer you receive is "the judge and the laws are wise". Would this satisfy you?

No.

Do you want to extend this analogy to God? So far we're in agreement.

Yep. Including Heaven. in response to "anything could be labeled hell.

Exactly!

So, everyone is eligible to punishment...
And here ends the equity.
Because you may be condemned to an eternity of suffering by acts that have very distinct relative weights. Different sins, with different implications, all with thes same penalty.
Surely this is not with my notions of justice.

No, in the end, there is only the sin of pride. You don't go to hell because you are a murderer.

-Elliot

[RandFan]

No.

-ElliotThanks but the question was in response to Huntster. It's seems logic for some is that which can be bent to accommodate belief.

[RandFan]

I believe all spiritual paths lead to "heaven" or "hell", or various levels between the two. But the ones that lead to "hell" are still better than no religious beliefs at all, right?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I believe all spiritual paths lead to "heaven" or "hell", or various levels between the two.
But the ones that lead to "hell" are still better than no religious beliefs at all, right?

The ones that lead to Hell include no religious beliefs at all, if the RCC definition of Hell is accurate.

[ImaginalDisc]

So, deliberately murdering your fellow humans beings because of an evil and twisted religion is better than being an atheist?

It looks like you missed his one, Hunster. Please answer my question.

[Huntster]

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc :
So, deliberately murdering your fellow humans beings because of an evil and twisted religion is better than being an atheist?

It's the person who is evil and twisted.

In accordance with the RCC, God can forgive murder. He will not forgive rejection.

[ImaginalDisc]

[QUOTE=ImaginalDisc;1689357]

It's the person who is evil and twisted.

In accordance with the RCC, God can forgive murder. He will not forgive rejection.

So, you believe that a viscious murderer is more likely to recieve admittance to Care-A-Lot than an atheist?

[rocketdodger]

[QUOTE=ImaginalDisc;1689357]

It's the person who is evil and twisted.

In accordance with the RCC, God can forgive murder. He will not forgive rejection.

Has anyone asked huntster why he is such a bible bopper? It seems like his only defense is brute fact via bible citations. I would be interested in knowing why the brute fact put forth in the bible is the one he has chosen to buy.

[Huntster]

It's the person who is evil and twisted.

In accordance with the RCC, God can forgive murder. He will not forgive rejection.

So, you believe that a viscious murderer is more likely to recieve admittance to Care-A-Lot than an atheist?

No, I believe a vicious murderer is more likely to receive admittance to Heaven than an athiest if the murderer has successfully stopped his sinning, honestly sought and received penance, and accepts the redemption of Christ, and if the athiest rejects God and redemption.

[Huntster]

....I would be interested in knowing why the brute fact put forth in the bible is the one he has chosen to buy.

Because, in my experience and study, it beats the "brute fact" offered by other sources.

[Correa Neto]

I think I agree. I definitely agree that they are pure, as opposed to now, where our physical nature makes it confusing.
Thus any link -assuming it exists- would be stronger in the afterlife -assuming it exists. And one would be more prone to be away from God -assuming He/She/It exists- right here.

And, if the detachment I "feel" from God -assuming He/She/It exists- is what's hell is all about, it may not be stronger here than in an afterlife -assuming it exists. Since I feel quite well...

But God gave us our bodies. I actually think that this is how we are *meant* to be...there is the dogma of "resurrection of the body"...my understanding of it differs from the typical Catholic understanding, shhh don't tell the Pope.
Don't worry, your secret is safe. Anyway, I would not worry, since these theological concepts or doctrines change with time.


I'd phrase it as contentment with established order as established by the supreme being.
Its a way to define it. But I still have my reservations regarding the estabilished order. Maybe you'll get a glimpse on why a few lines below.

Why is God the way he is? I dunno. Could he be anything else? That's another one. Could he be a different way? The rules follow from God's nature. Since I understand that God is as he is, and since I have no idea why he is as he is, I guess I don't know the whys behind the rules either because I think the rules are an extension of God's nature.
Well, that was one of my steps during the process of rejecting Abrahamic concepts of God. Initially I considered the rules unfair... Then I considered that they should be a consequence of the very nature of Gods concepts based in the Bible, what definitively did not seem OK. And then I saw the contradictions between this and the ever-loving being He/She/It is supposed to be (at certain parts of the Bible, of course)...

Death! Like let's say you don't have any...sufferings...that would garner a lot of sympathy. You're depressed, you're rich and famous and pretty but everything's a problem and you can't stay in a relationship and your family is mean to you, I dunno. But that's suffering. Maybe such a person thinks life is hell. Then they OD on pills. They've escaped their hell, no?
Well, I really don't think its an answer. Simply because there are many rich famous and pretty people who are very happy... At least happier than the persons who live at the slum nearby my apartment, under the sahdow of local druglords and their gang wars... It seems an oversimplification IMHO. Don't take the following as as a personal attack. I have a deep disdain for "sad rich people x happy poor people" lines of reasoning. They are easy to make when you always can afford your next meal. An oversimplification that I've seen used by defenders of the status quo. Rich people can be unhappy? Yep. But poor people are much more likely to be unhappy.

I think that humans are, by and large, malcontent. Would you agree? Or, if you take the content humans...and eradicate the source of their contentment, they would be malcontent.
What some would see as malcontent, others would see as desire to improve. That's how I see it. Kind of an "yes" as an answer, but on a positive side.

So. Is there an objective thing that *ought to* make us all content? I think that thing is God. Were we designed that way? Many theologians speculate and assert "yes", and I'm partial to that theory, though not to a dogmatic sense. If they are correct...is it all a set up? Maybe. I guess it is! If we're designed to have something "good for us"...and we can only be content if we get that something...
The problem is that you can not be sure God is that something... And eve if it is, what God?

...and you want to know "why". I'm not the Designer, so I don't know. Just like a character in a book doesn't know why the author wrote the book in the way he/she did.
Many books have characters that speculate on the "whys" and rebell against the the way things are, the stabilished order, etc. Not all of them are seen as "evil". Evil is relative. And quite often identified as something that can potentialliy change the status quo. But I am again risking a thred derail...

If he *shows* you he is real, there goes your if. Unless you're obstinate. Meaning, if you walk me into a room and I see my wife getting it on with some guy, I can adamantly say "that's not real!" if I don't want to believe it.

How can God show you he is real? Well...do you think he can? Or, maybe it'll have to wait for the next one.
Maybe. Since I've had some experiences that could be labelled as religious by some, but consider tham as due to some chemical inballance in my brain...

What would it take? Evidence. Something that would show me the Universe was designed, for example. Note that this would not be evidence for the Christian God.

Contentment with God. Yes, I agree that...you don't have to grasp that. Fail to grasp? I don't think so. You are content with God's plan, or you're not. If you're not, what can you be content with in its stead? That's a tricky one, at least from my point of view.
First I would have to be convinced that there is a God and He/She/It has a plan...

They would have to speak to you, touch you, appear beautiful to you. If they don't, I probably wouldn't follow them either.
So, you may start to understand why I reject the concepts of God based on the Bible.

I think you kind of have to. If you lived in a dictatorship, you kind of have to see justice in the dictator. If there's a superior justice, where is it and how is it derived, or is it not derived?
Elliot, I had to be very carefull on writing the following answer. If you weren't a polite person, I would be by now literally spewing wasps... And still, I will not be able to avoid being hard. Sorry, but I think this was a strawman. The strawman of all strawmen. The father of all strawmen. Why am I blowing gaskets?

Simple.

I lived under a dictatorship (no, you had no obligation to know about this). I lived my childhood and teenages under Brazil's right-wing millitary governments. Dictatorship actually, with arbitrary rules, no questioning allowed, arbitrary condemnations, abuse of power, fear, lies, etc. Let's just say I could have gotten my parents in to serious trouble because I dared to ask "whys" to certain people. Dictatorships are good only for those who are within the ruling elite or those who are too lazy to, afraid to or incapable of thinking bythemselves.

Its my personal opinion, based in my personal experience that eople who want to live under the shadow of tyrants or absolute rulers are not worthy of the honor of being humans. Either because they are too dumb, too lazy, too irresponsible or because they are honorless scum.

Me saying it doesn't matter much, does it? God can say anything he wants. So can I, for that matter, but I'm not the ultimate judge.
I have deep reservations regarding absolute rulers for the reasons I exposed above.

You, whose judgment is completely limited and lacking in authority, is *still* allowed to reject the ultimate judge. What else do you want? No strings attached? But that may not be part of the design. Do you deserve to have free will in a designed universe? That question won't do you in any good, will it? If you are what you are, and the universe is what it is, wondering about "deserve" is, in my opinion, too much navel-gazing. And the thing is you're allowed to do it. But then it's the suffering bit you're hung up on. But I think even Satan "suffered" more under God than apart from God. Sort of. God. Can't live with him, can't live without him.
You already know what I think about it.

Yeah I want no strings. Or the feeling of having none, since I don't think we do have free will.

I will restrain for further comments by now, since there's steam coming out of my nostrils, but I can't avoid making another (short) OT digression pointing out that Satan, the pharaoh as well as Judas do suffered because of God. If it weren't for them...

Deserve is outside of my paygrade. I don't know what you people deserve. I don't know what I deserve. Deal with the objective reality. This, coming from a religious believer, arf arf arf. If you can't, then all you are left with is personal pride and angst, and those can be a real bitch. They will eat you up and make you suffer for an eternity if you let them. So in the end, it's your will over God's will. Yes, I agree, that will lead to suffering. By definition, according to my religion. The religion you reject. Is this one reason among many that you reject it? Maybe.
I reject it because I can't withstand tyrannical rulers. I can't withstand static unchanging order. Pride? Depends on your approach. For most religious doctrines, yes, it can be considered as pride. But still, it drives me forward.

I don't know, is justice contingent upon objective reality, or is it greater than objective reality? Outside of it? If so, who created it?
My opinion?

Just as morals, justice is relative. Its a concept that depends on your cultural background.

Do you want to extend this analogy to God? So far we're in agreement.
Yep.
We've got to work with what we have.

in response to "anything could be labeled hell.

Exactly!
An eternity of submission and unchanged order seems pretty much as Hell for me...

No, in the end, there is only the sin of pride. You don't go to hell because you are a murderer.

-Elliot
So, I will go to Hell because of my pride...
Definitively does not fits within my views on what justice from an everloving überbeing would be... Maybe its my cultural relativism, but I don't think has any logic.

[ImaginalDisc]

No, I believe a vicious murderer is more likely to receive admittance to Heaven than an athiest if the murderer has successfully stopped his sinning, honestly sought and received penance, and accepts the redemption of Christ, and if the athiest rejects God and redemption.
So good and charitable atheist who refuses to belive a fairy tail doesn't get into Heaven, but a remoseful serial killer who makes a dead bed conversion to The God Father, the Illigitimate Son and Casper the Holy Ghost at the last momment gets an enternity of rainbows and sparkles?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
No, I believe a vicious murderer is more likely to receive admittance to Heaven than an athiest if the murderer has successfully stopped his sinning, honestly sought and received penance, and accepts the redemption of Christ, and if the athiest rejects God and redemption.
So good and charitable atheist who refuses to belive a fairy tail doesn't get into Heaven, but a remoseful serial killer who makes a dead bed conversion to The God Father, the Illigitimate Son and Casper the Holy Ghost at the last momment gets an enternity of rainbows and sparkles?

What didn't you understand in my first answer?

Did you ask again just to add the "Illigitimate Son and Casper the Holy Ghost" insults, or to feather your nest with the "good and charitible atheist" line of crap?

[rocketdodger]

Hunster, what is your opinion on the possibility of a spirit strong enough to never break being sent to hell?

[Huntster]

Hunster, what is your opinion on the possibility of a spirit strong enough to never break being sent to hell?

What do you mean by "strong enough to never break"?

Do you mean one that God can't "break"?

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

If I might follow up on Huntster's comments that God can forgive murder, but not rejection?

So - He's insecure, and puts no value on human life?

It seems to me that a God - spoken of as loving - who apparently created mankind ought to feel some responsibility for His creation. However, the whole "worship me, or be forever condemned" thing suggests a God that's very self-centered, or maybe entirely self-centered.

Jesus is sometimes labelled as "Teacher" but He only taught religion, as far as I remember. Ok, so no real surprise there, but what about medicine, health, agriculture, and stuff like that? Stuff that would benefit humanity?

I suspect that the answer is that this life is basically irrrelevant, as it's just here to enable us to qualify for "eternal happiness".

YBW

[Huntster]

....So - He's insecure, and puts no value on human life?

The primary value is spiritual life, not so much on physical life, because God created us in His image and likeness; which is spiritual, not physical.

It seems to me that a God - spoken of as loving - who apparently created mankind ought to feel some responsibility for His creation. However, the whole "worship me, or be forever condemned" thing suggests a God that's very self-centered, or maybe entirely self-centered.

Or, focused on the life to come with (or without) Him, which is spiritual, not physical.

Jesus is sometimes labelled as "Teacher" but He only taught religion, as far as I remember.

Correct; spiritual teachings, not physical.

Ok, so no real surprise there, but what about medicine, health, agriculture, and stuff like that? Stuff that would benefit humanity?

Those are all physical sciences, not spiritual.

I suspect that the answer is that this life is basically irrrelevant, as it's just here to enable us to qualify for "eternal happiness".

Close.

Physical life, important as it is, is not as important as the spiritual life.

God is spiritual, not physical.

We are all guaranteed this, and even on this forum, it is not only indisputable, it isn't even debated:

We will all die physically; guaranteed, just like all other living creatures on this Earth with us.

Don't die spiritually as well.

[rocketdodger]

What do you mean by "strong enough to never break"?

Do you mean one that God can't "break"?

Err, kind of. I mean one that no other entity can break without denying it free-will. Of course, denying it free-will would be defeating the purpose of trying to break it in the first place, and so would be pointless.

[RandFan]

The ones that lead to Hell include no religious beliefs at all, if the RCC definition of Hell is accurate.You are not making sense. Your notions seem very vague and arbitrary. Aside from atheists how would one possible know if one is on the path to hell? What is the criteria?

1.) Buddhism
2.) Sikhism
3.) Taoism.
4.) RCC
5.) Anglican
6.) Pagan
7.) Shinto
8.) Protestant
9.) Islam
10.) Judaism
11.) Hinduism
12.) Animism

Which ones are paths to heaven?

[RandFan]

If I might follow up on Huntster's comments that God can forgive murder, but not rejection?

So - He's insecure, and puts no value on human life?

It seems to me that a God - spoken of as loving - who apparently created mankind ought to feel some responsibility for His creation. However, the whole "worship me, or be forever condemned" thing suggests a God that's very self-centered, or maybe entirely self-centered.

Jesus is sometimes labelled as "Teacher" but He only taught religion, as far as I remember. Ok, so no real surprise there, but what about medicine, health, agriculture, and stuff like that? Stuff that would benefit humanity?

I suspect that the answer is that this life is basically irrrelevant, as it's just here to enable us to qualify for "eternal happiness".

YBWExactly or be punished to eternal hell. A compassionate loving being who can't tolerate our "sin" must punish unrepentant sinners for ever because they were too stubborn or too stupid or too... whatever.

I'll ask again, if we, as humans, had an unlimited life span would we punish someone who committed a crime for eternity? I can see punishing Hitler for millions of years but at some point you must ask, what's the point?

Why eternal torment? Is that really fair? No.

[RandFan]

Physical life, important as it is, is not as important as the spiritual life.What does that even mean? I grew up thinking I had a pretty good handle on what "spiritual" means. Now I think it is a vague and fuzzy concept that few if any have any idea what it means. It's just rhetorical and not a logical concept that we can truly understand.

The physical life is all that we have. We can play pretend and believe that we will live in some utopia with some deity if we but accede to it's petulant demands of devotion and obedience but in the end it is just a fantasy, a Shangri La (the happiest place not on earth)

[Huntster]

Err, kind of. I mean one that no other entity can break without denying it free-will. Of course, denying it free-will would be defeating the purpose of trying to break it in the first place, and so would be pointless.

I think I'm getting you, but I'm not quite positive.

I believe, and the RCC definition of Hell, indicates that "the spirit that won't break" is precisely the one that goes to Hell:

The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

It seems to mean that you might have it really bad and painful now, but later everything will be absolutely wonderful with loads of virgins... OK, perhaps not with Christianity :)

A bit like "Kissing Hank's *****"!

BTW Randfan - you forgot the FSM - How could you!

YBW

[Huntster]

You are not making sense. Your notions seem very vague and arbitrary....

Yeah, okay.

Aside from atheists how would one possible know if one is on the path to hell? What is the criteria?

The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives

1.) Buddhism
2.) Sikhism
3.) Taoism.
4.) RCC
5.) Anglican
6.) Pagan
7.) Shinto
8.) Protestant
9.) Islam
10.) Judaism
11.) Hinduism
12.) Animism

Which ones are paths to heaven?

Perhaps all of them, perhaps some.

I'm not God or a theologian, so I cannot say definitively.

I can, however, say with clarity:

All twelve options you offered recognize man's spirituality, and athiesm does not.

Recognition of the spirit is the obvious first step on the journey to Heaven.

[Huntster]

Exactly or be punished to eternal hell. A compassionate loving being who can't tolerate our "sin" must punish unrepentant sinners for ever because they were too stubborn or too stupid or too... whatever.

The word is proud.

What part of this short sentence do you fail to understand?:

The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives

It is self-condemnation.

Why eternal torment? Is that really fair? No.

It is not only fair, it is just and the reciepient demands it.

AGAIN:

The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives

[rocketdodger]

I think I'm getting you, but I'm not quite positive.

I believe, and the RCC definition of Hell, indicates that "the spirit that won't break" is precisely the one that goes to Hell:

Well my point is that the notions of heaven and hell seem to fall apart in the face of such a spirit. Heaven might offer no rewards and hell would certainly offer no punishment, since the notion of punishment seems to imply that the one being punished breaks at some point.

[Huntster]

Well my point is that the notions of heaven and hell seem to fall apart in the face of such a spirit. Heaven might offer no rewards and hell would certainly offer no punishment, since the notion of punishment seems to imply that the one being punished breaks at some point.

Outstanding! Here's a man who's thinking!

Both sides are "rewarded" with their choice. The difference is that the choice of self-exclusion is based on anger, hatred, jealosy, pride, etc, and the choice of communion with God is based on love for God and the communion of the blessed.

So choose. Do you want to spend eternity with the spirits who are consumed in anger, hatred, jealosy, pride, etc?

There's plenty of that here on Earth, even aimed directly towards God, if not each other (plenty of evidence of that in this forum alone).

Physical death is the opportunity to leave that crap behind forever.

[rocketdodger]

So choose. Do you want to spend eternity with the spirits who are consumed in anger, hatred, jealosy, pride, etc?



Well part of my question also has to do with the possibility of a spirit that never gives up eventually finding a way into heaven on its terms.

[RandFan]

Perhaps all of them, perhaps some.

I'm not God or a theologian, so I cannot say definitively.

I can, however, say with clarity:

All twelve options you offered recognize man's spirituality, and athiesm does not.

Recognition of the spirit is the obvious first step on the journey to Heaven.What good is that? And how do you know? You are just making assumptions. Can you prove spirituality? No.

[RandFan]

It is self-condemnation. That's just a silly semantical game.

1.) I hold a loaded gun to your head.
2.) I tell you that you have free agency.
3.) I tell you that if you don't do as I say I will shoot you.
4.) If you die it is YOUR choice.
5.) If you don't do as I say then it is suicide.

It is not only fair, it is just and the reciepient demands it. No, it is not fair and it is not just. It makes no sense whatsoever for anyone to be punished for eternity simply because he or she doesn't believe. There is no basis for that. There is no reason for that.

Humans are smart enough to figure out fair and just punishment. Why can't God?

Answer: If there is a god he couldn't and wouldn't do that because it is inconsistent with the definition of God.

[RandFan]

Why can't God have a probationary period after death where people learn and grow and pay for their sins and then are let into heaven? Why does it have to be all or nothing? That is just so arbitrary and capricious. Why can't an omnipotent god come up with a plan that is compassionate and forgiving and not simply based on such arbitrary and capricious rules?

If God were omnipotent he could have such a plan. There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can and can't do. He doesn't need to make it all or nothing. Humans wouldn't do that so why would an omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate god do that?

You keep saying that people choose to leave god, they don't even know that their is a god. How can someone be punished for not believing in something that can't be pr oven?

Answer: An omniscient, omnipotent caring and compassionate being couldn't do that because it is illogical and irrational and by definition is not compassionate and caring anymore than my saying that so long as you do as I say I won't shoot you in the head.

[elliotfc]

Why can't God have a probationary period after death where people learn and grow and pay for their sins and then are let into heaven?

You mean purgatory?

[elliotfc]

If your morality and ethics hang on the existance of a magical happy city in the sky as a reward for your good deeds, I pity you. Good deeds have intrinsic value.

Of course I agree.

Why are they intrinsic? Or, they just are, like the sun just is? How do you measure intrinsic value, or, can only human opinion measure it? Is there a scientific apparatus that detects it? What if human opinion is variable about the intrinsic value of good deeds? Is there a person, a book, or an entity that is a final arbiter when conflict about what is intrinsically good, and what isn't, arises? Or is it just a theoretical intrinsic value that *has* to exist (if you say why is irrelevant) and life is just about trying to match that intrinsic value that we can never truly define?

Anyhow, the important thing is that I agree that good deeds have intrinsic value. We share this view.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

What didn't you understand in my first answer?

Did you ask again just to add the "Illigitimate Son and Casper the Holy Ghost" insults, or to feather your nest with the "good and charitible atheist" line of crap?
I included it because according to Jesus, it is only through faith in him that you get into heaven. You don't even need tobe a good person. All that's important is belief. I'm illiustrating how absurd that is.

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

Didn't the Catholic Church say that there was no purgatory recently?

Do other Christian Churches accept purgatory?

YBW

[elliotfc]

Its my personal opinion, based in my personal experience that eople who want to live under the shadow of tyrants or absolute rulers are not worthy of the honor of being humans. Either because they are too dumb, too lazy, too irresponsible or because they are honorless scum.

You can tell me which I am then, and I won't get hissy about your conclusion.

I don't think that God is a tyrant. We have a difference of opinion regarding a label that you'd like to apply to God.

I know my God through the person of Christ. When you say God is a tyrant, I imagine you are speaking about God outside of the person of Jesus Christ, and whatever you base your notion on makes your tyranny charge completely valid. If I don't base my notions of God on yours, or share them, maybe you see why I'm not very sympathetic to your charge of God as tyrant.

Am I sympathetic that you lived under a real tyrrany? Sure. But I won't extend that to my theology. In the tyranny you lived under, did most others share your theology? Just curious. Meaning, your experiences, though valuable and interesting, do not speak to theology by any means.

If you want to talk about the nature of tyranny...I agree that if there is a supreme ruler of the universe, it is totally possible for individuals with free will to consider the supreme ruler to be a tyrant. That is an opinion that holds no power over either God, or those who don't share the opinion.

Or...if you were to visit a state, a state that you considered to be tyrannical, but you couldn't find ANYBODY who lived in that state who shared your opinion, all the indignations and labelling and name-calling in the world won't mean all that much. It's up to each individual to decide what is tyranny. And I'm not about to try to tell you what to consider is tyrannical, or not. All I can do is tell you about the kind of God I worship, and if supply notions of God that I reject, I can tell you that as well.

So we have heaven. Run by a supreme autocrat. Must be tyranny? From the outside looking in? Sure, why not. Call it whatever you want. I don't think you'd find a single soul in hell to disagree with that sentiment.

As for the tyranny in your native country, I don't know what to say. This too shall pass. It doesn't mean anything to those who live there. Maybe I shouldn't say anything? I don't know. It is a limited tyranny with a shelf life. Many people who hate it are themselves religious, I'm sure, there are several immigrants from Brazil in my church, maybe I'll talk to them this weekend. One of my students is Brazillian and the mom is trying to get me to teach him some religious folk songs. Surely tyranny in Brazil does not necessarily extend to God. Are the Brazillians I know dumb, lazy, or scum? Why the need for name-calling? Does your suffering mean you can call people who disagree with you names? The inviolability of suffering?

-Elliot

[Suzan]

I included it because according to Jesus, it is only through faith in him that you get into heaven. You don't even need tobe a good person. All that's important is belief. I'm illiustrating how absurd that is.

I left this topic and have not joined in, but I have been reading what you all are talking about.

I would like to clarify something in our Christian faith: There are some that will stand before Jesus and claim to have known him..and will be sent away as not truly knowing him. We do not just get into heaven by believing.. its not that easy. We are judged on our works. How we treat others, and by our fruits, and the intent of our hearts. You do truly have to be a good person, not harm others, and do good things for the right reasons. The evil spirits believe....in him, and are doomed, so it is not just merely believing... its being a good person, with good works....and the proper mind and heart set.
Just wanted to give you my two cents worth... since some of you on here are not of faith..... I would hate for you to judge "me" and my faith with out knowing "what we believe in, In it's entirety" :)

[RandFan]

You mean purgatory?Sure. Sounds good to me as far as beliefs go. But in my purgatory I would have relative punishment. The more you sinned the more you would be punished. Simply not accepting Christ wouldn't be grounds for extreme pain. I would reserve that for the Hitlers of the world. Length of stay would also be based on the types and degree of sin committed. And there would be training and rehabilitation, you know, like we do in modern societies.

Do you ever notice that Christian punishment looks a lot like ancient civilization punishment and not modern punishment? There was a time when people were "cast" into a dungeon (a dark and terrifying place underground and people were often tortured suffering excruciating pain.) This was the time when humans started writing about God's punishment. Is it mere coincidence that God's punishment mirrored those archaic and barbaric methods?

[RandFan]

I left this topic and have not joined in, but I have been reading what you all are talking about.

I would like to clarify something in our Christian faith: There are some that will stand before Jesus and claim to have known him..and will be sent away as not truly knowing him. We do not just get into heaven by believing.. its not that easy. We are judged on our works. How we treat others, and by our fruits, and the intent of our hearts. You do truly have to be a good person, not harm others, and do good things for the right reasons. The evil spirits believe....in him, and are doomed, so it is not just merely believing... its being a good person, with good works....and the proper mind and heart set.
Just wanted to give you my two cents worth... since some of you on here are not of faith..... I would hate for you to judge "me" and my faith with out knowing "what we believe in, In it's entirety" :)Thanks Susan, it's important to point out that your view is somewhat controversial. It's a long standing debate between grace and works.

[elliotfc]

Sure. Sounds good to me as far as beliefs go. But in my purgatory I would have relative punishment.

Errr...please, stick to the euphemisms. Re-educative cleansing. A time for appreciation of past transgressions.

And there would be training and rehabilitation, you know, like we do in modern societies.

That's the ticket!

Do you ever notice that Christian punishment looks a lot like ancient civilization punishment and not modern punishment? There was a time when people were "cast" into a dungeon (a dark and terrifying place underground and people were often tortured suffering excruciating pain.) This was the time when humans started writing about God's punishment. Is it mere coincidence that God's punishment mirrored those archaic and barbaric methods?

No, of course not. Excellent point. -Elliot

[Huntster]

Well part of my question also has to do with the possibility of a spirit that never gives up eventually finding a way into heaven on its terms.

If Heaven is "communion with God and the blessed", than individualism doesn't work.

[Huntster]

What good is that? And how do you know?

I don't know. I cannot know. That's how it works outside of the physical world.

I believe.

You are just making assumptions. Can you prove spirituality? No.

Correct. It cannot be proven. It requires spirituality. The physical is a hindrance to spiritual life:

The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

[elliotfc]

Perhaps by now we should consider the very notion of sin... What is a sin?
Are all sins equally capital? Why certain acts are considered as "sins" in one culture and normal in others? Why should I consider Christian culture as the standard that will define what is or not a sin?

Some sins are more serious than others.

How many cultures *believe* in sin? You don't have to accept the Christian culture standard of sin...but do you believe in sin? If you don't believe in sin, you don't have to worry about accepting *any* cultures standard of sin. If you do...what cultures are we talking about?

Now there is secular sin. Would we call that breaking the law? Or is secular sin different from the legal system? I'm not sure.

As for the variability of sin...it's all dependent on the standards being used, right? That's why sin is variable. Something is greater than it. What is that something? That depends on a lot of things...the people...the time...the beliefs...all that.

Why should sin be considerd a consequence of free will?
A sin can be commited by sheer ignorance of the rules.

I agree that sin can be committed by sheer ignorance of the rules. That, of itself, may or may not be a consequence of free will.

What I mean is...if there is no free will, there would be no sin. Free will means moral choices, be they informed or not. No free will means no moral choices, and therefore no sin. Without free will...you wouldn't say an asteroid sinned by slamming into a planet and killing life. The asteroid doesn't choose to do that. If a human kills another human but didn't choose to do that, there is no sin.

But I also think that in diversity lies the key to progress and sucess.

Unless you're in a science classroom, arf arf.

Well, my experience with Christian doctrines (be it Catholic or Protestant )indicates questioning does not seem to be well received. You can question, but up to certain point. Certain questions are not well seen.

I've had teachers in I don't know how many classes in high school and university say the same thing to me, basically.

I'm not responding to everything you are saying Correa...what I don't respond to I think is a.o.k., alright?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

If Heaven is "communion with God and the blessed", than individualism doesn't work.

I know what you're saying Hunster...but...it can work. I think it does work. Like in a musical score. You've got thousands of individual musical notes, played at different dynamics and speeds. But they're all designed to be in communion with each other. Well...ideally...I dunno about some songs.

-Elliot

[Suzan]

Thanks Susan, it's important to point out that your view is somewhat controversial. It's a long standing debate between grace and works.

Yes, I believe....:) by grace we are saved, but by our works we are judged.

[RandFan]

I believe. How do you know what to believe?

Correct. It cannot be proven. It requires spirituality. The physical is a hindrance to spiritual life: Then one belief is no different than anyother. Just believe.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
It is self-condemnation.

That's just a silly semantical game.

1.) I hold a loaded gun to your head.
2.) I tell you that you have free agency.
3.) I tell you that if you don't do as I say I will shoot you.
4.) If you die it is YOUR choice.
5.) If you don't do as I say then it is suicide.

That's your interpretation, and I think it is false. I believe it's more like this:

1.) I tell you that you have free agency.
2.) When you physically die, you have your choice to join God and the blessed, or join Satan and those who hate God
3.) Period

Because Hell is:

The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives

[elliotfc]

Everybody is subject to the same penalty. Yep, at a first glance this is just. But the same penalty comes for acts that have different weights. What does not seem to be just to me.

Here I'd raise that Christ's death nullifies this. It *is* true that some sins are worse than others...at the same time...*no sin is unforgiveable*...or, maybe there's one sin that is unforgiveable (wink wink). But seriously, acts that have different weights can all be equally forgiven. Like the prodigal son. The father can show joy and mercy for a great sinner, which a small sinner may feel to be unfair. Meaning...looking at it the other way...even the worst acts can be forgiven. Now *that* may or may not be unfair...but Love, when it comes to things like forgiveness, doesn't care about that.

But with justice...if you don't accept Christ as the key to forgiveness, yes, it doesn't matter if you robbed a bank or stole a Bazooka gum. You've rejected Christ. That becomes the only sin that matters. The other sins only matter to a certain extent, until they are nullified by Christ. But that one sin...rejecting Christ...well maybe that's the unforgiveable sin?

And we have not even touched (at this thread) in some issues such as if the individual had or not the opportunity to commit a sin, if the individual restrains him/herself from commiting it just because he is afraid of punishment or because he/she actually considers it as wrong...

Is there something wrong with fear of punishment? Are there more "enlightened" motivators? Sure, I guess so. But if someone says...well, I really want to kill someone...but, I guess I'm afraid of jail...surely you'd settle for that.

It's your opinion as to how fear of punishment competes with "actually considers it as wrong" in Christianity. I think you can find both. And what's wrong with that? If some people just aren't good at really grasping how, or why, something is actually wrong (which if you think about is a pretty tricky theological/philosophical point), punishment is OK too. Nothing is wrong with punishment! What society has ever not practiced punishment?

-Elliot

[Suzan]

How do you know what to believe?

Then one belief is no different than anyother. Just believe.


:eek: he he....

I had made a comment based on "believing"... in Christ does not get you a ticket in. And I threw in my two cents saying...no, no... we are judged on our "works". Then you...said there is a debate on between grace and works, I then said... I believe, I didn't make a faith based assumption. I was saying.. in the context of what a Christian believe's... so that you do not misunderstand what ''we" Christians....believe in. Is that... by Grace we are saved, and by our works we are judged. Yes, of course the whole " I am saved " is a person that is faith based. but, where by the rules of the Christian faith..are based on, being held responsible for each rule when broken. wow....that's hard to explain...:boggled:

[Huntster]

Why can't God have a probationary period after death where people learn and grow and pay for their sins and then are let into heaven? Why does it have to be all or nothing?

Purgatory: (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#p)

A state of final purification after death and before entrance into heaven for those who died in God's friendship, but were only imperfectly purified; a final cleansing of human imperfection before one is able to enter the joy of heaven

That is just so arbitrary and capricious. Why can't an omnipotent god come up with a plan that is compassionate and forgiving and not simply based on such arbitrary and capricious rules?

If God were omnipotent he could have such a plan. There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can and can't do. He doesn't need to make it all or nothing. Humans wouldn't do that so why would an omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate god do that?

He can, and has. All you need to do is open your heart, which will allow your mind to open, and learn.

[elliotfc]

Back on the topic, yes, there's some questioning, but there's little on why the rules and the judge are fair. What exists is a surrendering (not totally unlike to what is found in Islam IMHO) to god's will.

First...are the rules fair...and is the judge fair? Facts before the whys...we don't even agree on those...
Second...how can we really understand *why* that would be? In order to do so, we'd need to *judge* God ourselves...apply rules to God...and why should created/contingent and imperfect persons think that we can judge God, or find rules to judge God that prove *anything*? This understanding makes me not get to hung about the why.

What I am asking is for the logic behind the rules. Yep, its an open door for you to say I will not find it in reason. But I can counter this...

I have faith that God loves us. I guess that's what it comes down to. Can any logic that we whip up defend the rules of Christianity? I dunno. Let's just say no, OK? If so, so what? Fine. Call me illogical then, call Christianity illogical. We've been told to expect this. And if you established yourself as the judge of logic, you have no real power. But I guess you like that, it sure beats tyranny. I'm not cranky...but I just re-read it and it sounds cranky. Oh well.

-Elliot

[Huntster]

I included it because according to Jesus, it is only through faith in him that you get into heaven. You don't even need tobe a good person. All that's important is belief. I'm illiustrating how absurd that is.

He is goodness, and goodness is Him. Faith in Him is faith in His teachings, and faith in His teachings is faith in Him.

...John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us." Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us....

Mark 9:38-40

It is only absurd if you insist in interpreting His word in your own way.

[Huntster]

Didn't the Catholic Church say that there was no purgatory recently?...

No.

[Huntster]

....But in my purgatory I would have relative punishment. The more you sinned the more you would be punished. Simply not accepting Christ wouldn't be grounds for extreme pain. I would reserve that for the Hitlers of the world. Length of stay would also be based on the types and degree of sin committed. And there would be training and rehabilitation, you know, like we do in modern societies.....

When you become God, you will be able to set up the system just as you please.

Since I will never be able to do so, I'll accept the one God has set up, because I think He's pretty smart, and way cool.

[Huntster]

I know what you're saying Hunster...but...it can work. I think it does work. Like in a musical score. You've got thousands of individual musical notes, played at different dynamics and speeds. But they're all designed to be in communion with each other. Well...ideally...I dunno about some songs.

-Elliot

Like the Trinity. Three in One.

In the physical, like marriage. "And the two become one flesh".

I agree.

[Huntster]

Yes, I believe....:) by grace we are saved, but by our works we are judged.

Well said.

[Correa Neto]

You can tell me which I am then, and I won't get hissy about your conclusion.
Its up for you to decide if you really want to fall in to any of these classes.
But first, let me ask you:
Do you really want to live under a dictatorship?
Take your time and think a lot about it before answering. And note the question can be applied to this very world we live in.

I know my God through the person of Christ. When you say God is a tyrant, I imagine you are speaking about God outside of the person of Jesus Christ, and whatever you base your notion on makes your tyranny charge completely valid. If I don't base my notions of God on yours, or share them, maybe you see why I'm not very sympathetic to your charge of God as tyrant.
Well, my notion of God is of something that most likely is not real, and IF it is, it should be very different from concepts derived from the Bible.

Elliot, my considerations are taken from Earthly analogies. You may as well say they are not valid when it comes to God, but that’s all we have to work with and make our thought experiments.

Take a look at what you wrote:
I think you kind of have to. If you lived in a dictatorship, you kind of have to see justice in the dictator. If there's a superior justice, where is it and how is it derived, or is it not derived?

You are stating that those who live under a dictatorship “kind of have to see justice in the dictator”. This is completely absurd IMHO! Dictators kill, torture, lie, supress liberty and rights while posing as benevolents fathers or guides of the people. That’s what dictatorships and “strong” regimens are all about, regadless of being right- or left- handed. Several people consider these regimes as “the lesser of the evils”. Some opinions I heard in my childhood and teens:
“Yeah, they are killing people, but they are just killing the communists, and they deserve it.”
“Yeah, they are corrupt, but if it weren’t for them we would be speaking Russian by now!”
“Yeah, its a dictatorship, but if it weren’t for them, we would be living in anarchy by now.”
“It is needed to avoid the end of family, country and property.”
You can guess what I think of it. And you can also see some analogies with punishment doctrines.

I remember seeing (censored and controlled by the state) TV news back in the late 70s. Riots, crimes, terrorism, etc. in Europe, while in Brazil, everything was running OK. And the millitary ruler making declarations comparing how peacefull and simple were things in our contry while the world was so complicated and problematic.

You can not possibly want to live within the shadow of such a ruler.

Yes, I know people who miss those times. Why? Because they live under the illusion those were better and simpler times. They forgot –or were not affected, or did not care about- the “do you know whom you are talking to?” issues. They forget about the times you could be arrested because you had the wrong book at your shelves. They like it because they rather have someone else to make decisions for them. If things go wrong, someone else is to blame. Not my fault. I have not voted on that guy. People have the illusion that a strong authoritary ruler will make tings easier. It will not, unless you are part of the ruling elite (and the ruler is not a paranoid Stalinesque figure, an unlikely possibility). Not to mention that these rulers always find someone else to blame for the problems their countries are driven in to. Communists, capitalists, Jews, some other country, saboteurs, they are to blame. Not us. THEM.

This is what you are comparing your God with. I am just pointing you what dictatorships are truly like. No benevolent sovereigns.

In the tyranny you lived under, did most others share your theology? Just curious. Meaning, your experiences, though valuable and interesting, do not speak to theology by any means.

Funny you stated that. I must inform you a considerable part of the Church supported the millitary rulers (at least at the beggining of the “Lead Years”), since they were supposed to be fighting against the evil atheistic communists... Similar things happened in Argentina and Chile. I have no statistics on the relationships between beliefs (or lack of) support of the millitary government. I suspect the greatest relative number of atheists would be in the against the millitary group. But that would be because several people who opposed the millitary were ideologically left-winged when it comes to politics. The most conservative religious people (the dominant part of the population) do supported the millitary. Pro-millitary propaganda was aimed at them.

What speaks for theology, anyway? Plenty of Earthly analogies and comparsions are used. I hope you are not dismissing the case in question because it does not fits with yout view.

Are the Brazillians I know dumb, lazy, or scum? Why the need for name-calling? Does your suffering mean you can call people who disagree with you names? The inviolability of suffering?

Whoever wants to live under a ruler that takes all decisions, whoever has no will of taking decisions and bear the responsability for his/hers decisions, whoever would like to live in the shadow of tyrants, knowing the evil such governments make, is worthy of such titles, regardless of nationality. Am I being too rude on this issue? Perhaps yes. But in times where people start longing for “stronger governments”, its how I think we should act to warn people of the real nature of such regimes. OK, this was an OT derail better suited for the politics frum...

[RandFan]

He can, and has. Not quite and that isn't even accepted by many Christians.

All you need to do is open your heart, which will allow your mind to open, and learn. You forget that I was a true believer for 20 years, that I spent 3 years in seminary and 2 years on a full time mission that I paid for myself. I gave up 2 years of my life and lived a monastic lifestyle without TV, radio, newspapers, movies, etc. because I fervently believed in god and I would have happily given my life for him at that time, that is how much I believed.

You are being patronizing and condescending not to mention arrogant. You don't know me and you certainly don't know what is in my heart.

[RandFan]

When you become God, you will be able to set up the system just as you please. You are missing the point. If I can do it then why can't God do it?

Since I will never be able to do so, I'll accept the one God has set up, because I think He's pretty smart, and way cool. This is just rhetoric and doesn't address the logical problem that I present. Thinking that the system of punishment that mirrors ancient punishment is cool doesn't solve the problems inherent in it.

You seem to lack an ability to express yourself using logic and reason. Claims and declarations are not proof. You tend to focus more on rhetoric and emotion. That is fine for a discussion at church but it doesn't really contribute to the discussion here.

[Correa Neto]

Some sins are more serious than others.

How many cultures *believe* in sin? You don't have to accept the Christian culture standard of sin...but do you believe in sin? If you don't believe in sin, you don't have to worry about accepting *any* cultures standard of sin. If you do...what cultures are we talking about?

Now there is secular sin. Would we call that breaking the law? Or is secular sin different from the legal system? I'm not sure.
All cultures have notions that can be correlated to "sins", "taboos" or "crimes". However, ancient cultures had little or no separation between state and religion. Thus religious law was the law of state, and in a sense, sins were roughly equal to crimes. Religious codexes and constitutions, are at their very basis, the same thing: man-made constructs to allow the society to self-regulate and try to avoid collapsing.

I think some acts are prejudicial to the continuity of our social group, civilization and species. These acts must thus be avoided. Want to call them sins? OK. Want to call them crimes? OK also.


As for the variability of sin...it's all dependent on the standards being used, right? That's why sin is variable. Something is greater than it. What is that something? That depends on a lot of things...the people...the time...the beliefs...all that.
Thus, not believing in Christ as savior and son of God is not a sin, right?

What I mean is...if there is no free will, there would be no sin. Free will means moral choices, be they informed or not. No free will means no moral choices, and therefore no sin. Without free will...you wouldn't say an asteroid sinned by slamming into a planet and killing life. The asteroid doesn't choose to do that. If a human kills another human but didn't choose to do that, there is no sin.
Depends on your concept of free will and sin.

Unless you're in a science classroom, arf arf.
Wrong. In science is where you will find diversity. In religion, you will only find people who think they own the absolute immutable truth, arf arf. Don't let the prejudice of some cloud your sight...

[ImaginalDisc]

Of course I agree.

Why are they intrinsic? Or, they just are, like the sun just is? How do you measure intrinsic value, or, can only human opinion measure it? Is there a scientific apparatus that detects it? What if human opinion is variable about the intrinsic value of good deeds? Is there a person, a book, or an entity that is a final arbiter when conflict about what is intrinsically good, and what isn't, arises?

There is no such book. You can't possibly be alluding the bible in any case, because the god depicted therein orders people to murder disobedient children, rape women, burn cities and take slaves. This is a clearly amoral god.

Good consists of benefit to one's self and others. Against that rubric, we can clearly see that the god in the bible is not good.

[Correa Neto]

Here I'd raise that Christ's death nullifies this. It *is* true that some sins are worse than others...at the same time...*no sin is unforgiveable*...or, maybe there's one sin that is unforgiveable (wink wink). But seriously, acts that have different weights can all be equally forgiven. Like the prodigal son. The father can show joy and mercy for a great sinner, which a small sinner may feel to be unfair. Meaning...looking at it the other way...even the worst acts can be forgiven. Now *that* may or may not be unfair...but Love, when it comes to things like forgiveness, doesn't care about that.

But with justice...if you don't accept Christ as the key to forgiveness, yes, it doesn't matter if you robbed a bank or stole a Bazooka gum. You've rejected Christ. That becomes the only sin that matters. The other sins only matter to a certain extent, until they are nullified by Christ. But that one sin...rejecting Christ...well maybe that's the unforgiveable sin?
Why?


Is there something wrong with fear of punishment? Are there more "enlightened" motivators? Sure, I guess so. But if someone says...well, I really want to kill someone...but, I guess I'm afraid of jail...surely you'd settle for that.

It's your opinion as to how fear of punishment competes with "actually considers it as wrong" in Christianity. I think you can find both. And what's wrong with that? If some people just aren't good at really grasping how, or why, something is actually wrong (which if you think about is a pretty tricky theological/philosophical point), punishment is OK too. Nothing is wrong with punishment! What society has ever not practiced punishment?

-Elliot
If you are talking about society, down here on Earth, the problem is smaller.
Why? Because only education and enlightening can truly improve mankind. To rely solely or majorly on punishment will not solve any issues. In the case of heaven & hell, its even worse, given the distortions that would arise...

[Huntster]

....You forget that I was a true believer for 20 years, that I spent 3 years in seminary and 2 years on a full time mission that I paid for myself. I gave up 2 years of my life and lived a monastic lifestyle without TV, radio, newspapers, movies, etc. because I fervently believed in god and I would have happily given my life for him at that time, that is how much I believed....

Then what is your purpose asking me questions regarding RCC doctrine? You should be much more familiar with these things than I.

I am referring to RCC doctrine as I understand and interpret it (which is really all any of us can do).

You are being patronizing and condescending not to mention arrogant.

Yeah, yeah. Whatever you believe is whatever you believe, whether it's about me or God.

You don't know me and you certainly don't know what is in my heart.

Looks like that is to my benefit.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
When you become God, you will be able to set up the system just as you please.

You are missing the point. If I can do it then why can't God do it?

You are missing the point:

He set it up as He wanted, not as you want.

He's God, you're not.

You seem to lack an ability to express yourself using logic and reason. Claims and declarations are not proof.

When are you gonna get it?:

There will be no proof of God, and if you insist on it, you will continue to flounder spiritually.

Logic and reason may or may not work in a spiritual world.

[I less than three logic]

When are you gonna get it?:

There will be no proof of God, and if you insist on it, you will continue to flounder spiritually.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
In the first place, divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty & singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, and the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand, shake off all the fears & servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
This is what I have done, and as you said there is no proof of God. I’d say there isn’t even any credible evidence supporting His existence. The logical conclusion is that God does not exist. I acknowledge that I may be wrong, but I will not believe contrary to what reason suggests. Perhaps I shall be quite surprised when I die. Should God decide to cast me out for my beliefs in this life, I suppose I’ll have no choice but to accept this, as I doubt I’ll be in any position to object.


Logic and reason may or may not work in a spiritual world.
I sure hope not. A world without logic and reason is one I have no desire to inhabit.

[Huntster]

Logic and reason may or may not work in a spiritual world.....A world without logic and reason is one I have no desire to inhabit.

You may get your wish.

My understanding is that God is love and goodness.

I'll take that any day over logic and reasoning, but to each his own.

[rocketdodger]

My understanding is that God is love and goodness.



How did you come to this conclusion?

[RandFan]

Then what is your purpose asking me questions regarding RCC doctrine? You should be much more familiar with these things than I. My questions are generic and I'm not educated on RCC doctrine.

I am referring to RCC doctrine as I understand and interpret it (which is really all any of us can do). Then it's not much good is it?

Yeah, yeah. Whatever you believe is whatever you believe, whether it's about me or God. More arrogance and that snide Christian humility.

Looks like that is to my benefit. If you don't know then how can you say that? Your not well versed on Christian philosophy.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :

My understanding is that God is love and goodness.


How did you come to this conclusion?

Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but handed him over for us all, how will he not also give us everything else along with him? Who will bring a charge against God's chosen ones? It is God who acquits us. Who will condemn? It is Christ (Jesus) who died, rather, was raised, who also is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. What will separate us from the love of Christ? Will anguish, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword? As it is written: "For your sake we are being slain all the day; we are looked upon as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we conquer overwhelmingly through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 8:31-39

This has all been confirmed to me to my satisfaction through prayer and experience in life.

[RandFan]

You are missing the point:

He set it up as He wanted, not as you want.

He's God, you're not. No, you are missing the point. I'm asking a logically valid question that you can't seem to muster the ability to answer. Why can't God do a better job than a mere mortal? "Because he is God" is not an answer.

Logic and reason may or may not work in a spiritual world. (emphasis mine) :D It "may not" at that.

[RandFan]

This has all been confirmed to me to my satisfaction through prayer and experience in life.And the prayer and experience of those who practice ___________ confirm a different thing.

Islam
Hinduism
Sikhism
Animism
Judaism


Why does prayer and experience lead so many people in so many directions?

[RandFan]

:eek: he he....

I had made a comment based on "believing"... in Christ does not get you a ticket in. And I threw in my two cents saying...no, no... we are judged on our "works". Then you...said there is a debate on between grace and works, I then said... I believe, I didn't make a faith based assumption. I was saying.. in the context of what a Christian believe's... so that you do not misunderstand what ''we" Christians....believe in. Is that... by Grace we are saved, and by our works we are judged. Yes, of course the whole " I am saved " is a person that is faith based. but, where by the rules of the Christian faith..are based on, being held responsible for each rule when broken. wow....that's hard to explain...:boggled:Not a clue Suzan. My post you quote was directed to Huntster.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Then what is your purpose asking me questions regarding RCC doctrine? You should be much more familiar with these things than I.

My questions are generic and I'm not educated on RCC doctrine.

Yet:

You forget that I was a true believer for 20 years, that I spent 3 years in seminary and 2 years on a full time mission that I paid for myself. I gave up 2 years of my life and lived a monastic lifestyle without TV, radio, newspapers, movies, etc. because I fervently believed in god and I would have happily given my life for him at that time, that is how much I believed.

In what faith were you trained in the seminary?

I am referring to RCC doctrine as I understand and interpret it (which is really all any of us can do).

Then it's not much good is it?

It's good for me.

Yeah, yeah. Whatever you believe is whatever you believe, whether it's about me or God.

More arrogance and that snide Christian humility.

In reply to this:

You are being patronizing and condescending not to mention arrogant.

I don't have to answer your questions, then tolerate statements like that. You snap at me and I'll snap back.

Get used to it, or put me on ignore.

[RandFan]

In what faith were you trained in the seminary? The Church Of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (Mormon).

In reply to this: So,

1.) You act rude.
2.) I tell you that you are being rude.
3.) You use that statement to justify further rudeness.

I don't have to answer your questions, then tolerate statements like that. You snap at me and I'll snap back.

Get used to it, or put me on ignore.No, get used to me pointing out the fact that you are arrogant and condescending or put me on ignore.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
You are missing the point:

He set it up as He wanted, not as you want.

He's God, you're not.

No, you are missing the point. I'm asking a logically valid question that you can't seem to muster the ability to answer. Why can't God do a better job than a mere mortal?

So, you (a "mere mortal") can do a better job of creation?

Than you can fix what God "screwed up".

If you don't like it, fix it to your divine pleasure.

[RandFan]

So, you (a "mere mortal") can do a better job of creation?

Than you can fix what God "screwed up".

If you don't like it, fix it to your divine pleasure. Strawman. I didn't say I could create a better world, universe, or create anything for that matter.

I said I could conceive of a far better system of reward and punishment.

The bolding is unnecessary.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
So, you (a "mere mortal") can do a better job of creation?

Than you can fix what God "screwed up".

If you don't like it, fix it to your divine pleasure.
Strawman. I didn't say I could create a better world, universe, or create anything for that matter. I said I could conceive of a far better system of reward and punishment.....

Again, that's your opinion. God set it up as He wished.

Frankly, as I understand RCC, it's pretty much as you described you would set it up. I'm not sure why you fail to understand that, but I think it might be because you're too busy criticizing Christianity and you're not actually looking into a different doctrine than LDS.

[Elind]

I reference the Christian Unforgivable Sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, featured several places in the Bible, possibly the Gospels per se.

Given the human propensity for loose thinking it seems probable to me that piles of people, including Christians, have already committed the unforgivable sin. Atheists, especially.

Cpl Ferro
Obviously you are not an atheist, or you would recognize the contradiction in damning something that you don't believe exists. Seem to me the true atheists are the least blasphemous of all since by definition they are incapable of doing so. Gonna go to heaven! Yeah!

[RandFan]

Again, that's your opinion. God set it up as He wished.

Frankly, as I understand RCC, it's pretty much as you described you would set it up. I'm not sure why you fail to understand that, but I think it might be because you're too busy criticizing Christianity and you're not actually looking into a different doctrine than LDS. Why should I look into a different doctrine? The LDS church believes precisely what I said. That there will be a probationary period following death. They don't believe everyone will be able to take advantage of that opportunity but certainly many if not most will.

As to criticizing Christianity, In truth I come to the defense of believers quite often and I'm not too busy doing anything to take counter positions when I feel it appropriate. I'm perfectly happy to live and let live.

I like to debate and discuss philosophical issues. Religion happens to be something that I'm well versed in, literally, and I feel that I have something to contribute and since I have opinion I think it perfectly appropriate for me to share them. It's true I have my criticisms of religion. Thankfully I live in a free society and thankfully JREF is an open forum where folks like myself can express sincere critisism.

[Huntster]

....The LDS church believes precisely what I said. That there will be a probationary period following death. They don't believe everyone will be able to take advantage of that opportunity but certainly many if not most will.....

Did you recognize a similarity with RCC doctrine with my quotes and links to the RCC definitions of "Hell" and "Purgatory"?

There are more aspects (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm) that deal with levels of judgement after physical life:

HEAVEN: Eternal life with God; communion of life and love with the Trinity and all the blessed. Heaven is the state of supreme and definitive happiness, the goal of the deepest longings of humanity (1023).

HELL: The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives (1033).

PUNISHMENT, ETERNAL: The penalty for unrepented mortal sin, separating the sinner from communion with God for all eternity; the condemnation of the unrepentant sinner to hell (1035).

PUNISHMENT, TEMPORAL: Purification of the unhealthy attachment to creatures, which is a consequence of sin that perdures even after death. We must be purified either during our earthly life through prayer and a conversion which comes from fervent charity, or after death in purgatory (1472).

PURGATORY: A state of final purification after death and before entrance into heaven for those who died in God's friendship, but were only imperfectly purified; a final cleansing of human imperfection before one is able to enter the joy of heaven (1031; cf. 1472).

[rocketdodger]

This has all been confirmed to me to my satisfaction through prayer and experience in life.

Hypothesis -- fifty thousand years ago there was a pink elephant hovering over where my back yard is now, with jet engines for legs, a trunk with a flower on the end, and it was dropping pebbles out of its mouth.

Observation -- my back yard contains pebbles.

Conclusion -- the presence of pebbles is satisfying proof that the hypothesis is correct.



Welcome to the world of organized religion...

[Huntster]

Hypothesis -- fifty thousand years ago there was a pink elephant hovering over where my back yard is now, with jet engines for legs, a trunk with a flower on the end, and it was dropping pebbles out of its mouth.

Observation -- my back yard contains pebbles.

Conclusion -- the presence of pebbles is satisfying proof that the hypothesis is correct.



Welcome to the world of organized religion...

I don't even see pink elephants when drunk on my ass.

What are you drinking?

[rocketdodger]

I don't even see pink elephants when drunk on my ass.

What are you drinking?

Certainly nothing near as strong as the dudes who came up with christianity. Now THAT is some messed up crazy sh--, lemme tell ya!