|
Post by defectivegnome on Apr 29, 2006 10:58:01 GMT -8
Gravity is JUST a theory.
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Apr 29, 2006 11:26:50 GMT -8
My point. It's blind faith, just like Christianity. What's the difference? Gravity is JUST a theory. Exactly. www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htmThanks for proving my point. Chalupa
|
|
|
Post by defectivegnome on Apr 29, 2006 12:31:19 GMT -8
There have billions of these threads over the history of the internet and not a single person has changed their mind because of them, so I'm not sure why I'm even getting involved. Maybe everything we know from science is incorrect. Apparently Mr. Ellory Schempp thinks so... Ok, I've been reading that page while writing this and... ... ... Wow. I guess that means I can completely ignore everything he said and pretend he didn't raise anything resembling a rational thought? He made some points, but then it seemed to devolve into science contradicts my religion and I can't have that! I'm so confused, I can't even tell if he's serious or being facetious. Oh, thank you. My brain is now fine again. But it makes me giggle that you posted it. If you look around the wikipedia site of Mr. Schempp here (link) there is a quote from him from a yahoo group. That should clear up what the point of that article is. And I'll even keep my bewildered comments that I wrote before finding it because it amuses me. No Jesus pic this time, sorry. I did start to talk about something else up there, but maybe I'll get to that later.
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Apr 29, 2006 13:20:33 GMT -8
Gnome definitely has a point about all the threads and discussions around the world with little change over all.
To further clarify at least why I believe what I believe. I don't take the bible as a literal translation, moreso the old testament compared to the new. I also figure that since there were supposedly 300 Gospels written about Jesus and only 4 of them made it into the New Testament that a lot of stuff got left out about all the teachings of Jesus.
I'll now commence to restate what I said before but in a different way so that it seems like a new argument.
If we believe that God = Love
and Love = kindness, lack of judgement and forgiveness
then God = kindness, lack of judgement and forgiveness
If he doesn't judge but does forgive -> no Hell because there would be no one there, they'd all be in heaven.
As for what if someone doesn't want to go to heaven. Well that would be like being in grade 2 and not wanting to go to grade 3, which does happen.
So some people drop-out of life school(allegory to suicide or just giving up on heaven).
Thus reincarnation comes to save the day again. Because you can give up for a few lifetimes and eventually decide that you actually do want to have a better life. Even if someone does not want to go to heaven but does want to lead a better life I figure that would eventually lead them to living a life that would take them towards heaven.
I also don't see God as some hard-ass enforcer of unfair rules that would lead to judgement and sentencing of people to eternal hellfire.
"Oh you did 350 good things but you did 351 bad things, so go to hell." Or "You did many good things but at the last second before you died you said shit, you go to hell."
I'm not expecting to change any minds here, although mine was eventually changed through similar discussions over several years.
Peace.
|
|
|
Post by raen7 on Apr 29, 2006 17:45:43 GMT -8
Excuse the irony of this exclamation, but... holy freaking god. You seem to be confused about how God, a being of pure goodness, could create beings that are capable of evil. But let's not forget that God, and ONLY God, is purely perfect and infinitely powerful. Therefore, any beings he creates must be imperfect, however slight this imperfection; else they would be God himself. In the case of many angels, this imperfection simply means that they are slightly less beautiful/glorious than God. And they are also necessarily less poweful than God. Now, we must talk about free will. Free will itself is a form of perfection, not an imperfection. However, the will allows the being to see its imperfections, especially in comparison to a purely perfect God. Now this being also desires to be perfect, because such a desire is by definition good. Free will gives this being an option as to how to achieve that perfection: through God, or apart from God. Lucifer believed that he had to achieve this perfection apart from God, and that was his downfall. But if he was "good", why did he make this choice in the first place? Why would God not have created him with the innate desire to choose the correct path? Because, that would contradict the definition of free will. Lucifer became Satan, and tempted Man. Man, who had that same free will, believed similarly that perfection could be achieved apart from God instead of through Him. God, infinitely loving, desired to have his creations love Him again, and so He made it clear that the only way to become perfect was to give oneself over to His will, through faith in Christ. Christ, who is God's manifestation in our realm, is by definition perfect. Thus when a man chooses of his own will to become a child of Christ, Christ puts himself forth as a substitute for that man, saying "this man is perfect because I myself have washed him in my blood"--in effect "vouching" for the man's soul. Now for the issue of Hell. Hell is a very real place, as is Heaven. Hell is, plainly, a separation from God, just as Heaven is a unity with God. Fire and brimstone are just constructions of human imagination, but as Chalupa pointed out, there are some indications of what Hell is like in the scriptures. But even if you do not take those literally, you must sill accept that there is a state of being where you can be completely separated from God, just as you can be united with Him. But how? God is omnipresent (as well as omnipotent and omniscient). Does it not stand to reason that God, in his infinite power, could create a state of being where those who do not choose to be with Him can be separated from Him? Of course. But why? God, and by proxy anything united with God, must necessarily be perfect. But all creations are somehow imperfect, right? Yet those who choose Christ become perfect in God's eyes, as I said above, and thus they can in fact be united with God. However, those who do not choose Christ, cannot be in God's presence. But if God is all-loving, doesn't that mean that He won't send anyone to Hell? No; God has given you free will, and by definition, He cannot make the choice for you. However, once you make that choice, God is infinitely just; He does not go back on His promise. God loved man enough to give him free will, knowing that some would choose the wrong path to perfection. Yet it was worth it, because without free will, God would have a bunch of robots--a bunch of "yes-men". And loving someone because you are programmed to do so, in reality, cannot actually be defined as Love. Furthermore, you made a crucial mistake in your last post, which was this: God = Love and Love = kindness, lack of judgement and forgiveness then God = kindness, lack of judgement and forgiveness
If he doesn't judge but does forgive -> no Hell because there would be no one there, they'd all be in heaven.
Love is NOT defined as "lack of judgement", especially when we're talking about God's definition of Love. Don't even try to cite a dictionary on me. God is both infinitely loving and infinitely just. He can forgive someone for choosing the wrong path to perfection, IF that person chooses the RIGHT path later on. He CANNOT, as I explained earlier, allow a being who permanently chooses the wrong path, to be united with Him. It's not an issue of forgiveness so much as it is a consequence of His own nature. ------------------------- Granted, this was not entirely the point of this thread, but the misconceptions that I've seen so far had to be cleared up. Or at least argued against. Also note, this is purely philosophical. The only part of this argument that comes from the Bible is the proposition that God created everything. Even when I say "Christ", I don't necessarily have to be referring to Jesus the man; granted, most of you will take it that way, but it's not essential to link Jesus the man with Christ the manifestation of God.
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Apr 29, 2006 19:05:58 GMT -8
Geesh I feel like I'm getting some wrath, but that's to be expected.
As you may have guessed I'm no longer a christian. I don't follow a particular religion anymore. I just do my best to follow a doctrine of peace love and forgiveness, although it is a tough one.
Anyways I am fine with having others believe im misguided. I do not believe that you guys are in any way misguided.
You are on your path and I am on mine.
I do like raen7's point of hell being separation from God. I think that could be true, but more in the context of that is what earth is.
To acheive heaven would be to achieve perfect union with God. Until then we are not connected and our whole purpose in life is to connect to God in whatever path we choose. So until then we are separated.
Anyways I won't post anymore in here since I'm the only one with a differing opinion I feel this will just turn into a me vs you type of argument when it's supposed to be a discussion and not each of us trying to prove that "we" are right.
God Bless.
|
|
|
Post by raen7 on Apr 29, 2006 20:27:40 GMT -8
The only reason that everyone who's posted so far has disagreements with you is because they are the only types of people interested in this thread. Many members here are complete atheists, while others hold to your own view of "your path is right for you, my path is right for me".
There are some merits to universalism, but not many. It's mostly something that people use to make everyone feel better so that we can all get along with warm fuzzy feelings instead of tackling the tough issues.
And this is still a discussion. It's natural for people to want to prove their own point of view right; else what would be the point in the first place? "Your view is right for you, my view is right for me" gets us nowhere fast, and defeats the purpose of having a serious discussion to begin with.
So don't wimp out just because you feel outnumbered; sticking to your guns is a sign of strength (to an extent... meaning if you are actually proven wrong or convinced of something new you should admit it).
I should also point out that even though the posters of this thread have disagreed with you, they've also disagreed with pretty much everybody else. The whole purpose IS to get individual ideas across and debate their validity/rationale.
|
|
|
Post by defectivegnome on Apr 29, 2006 22:58:57 GMT -8
Hey, I'm an atheist, but I agreed with part of what you said, technohawk (More like the general idea, not all the little details). I'm just trying to avoid getting into the retarded "My definition of God is the right one" argument. Instead, I prefer to post Jesus pictures that seem to only amuse me.
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Apr 29, 2006 23:45:31 GMT -8
I think raen7 is making the most sense, but perhaps i'm biased towards his opinions. And I hope no one is feeling attacked- I saw it as an interesting debate which most likely won't change anyones mind about religion.
I have noticed that people tend to believe what works best for them. If one does not wish to follow what the Bible says, they dismiss it as false. This makes it alot easier to sleep at night rather than thinking you're going to hell someday. Ever wonder what happens if your wrong? Let me just ask the non-believers if they think there is any chance for there being a hell, or are the 100% convinced it does not exist? I would think that even with a 5% chance of believing it as true would be enough to sway some people to looking into it further.
I think the different opinions here are good though, so I hope everyone continue's to agree / disagree.
Chalupa
|
|
|
Post by grayfox7 on Apr 30, 2006 0:03:46 GMT -8
Many members here are complete atheists, while others hold to your own view of "your path is right for you, my path is right for me". I'm pretty sure the atheists here hold to that view too. I have noticed that people tend to believe what works best for them. If one does not wish to follow what the Bible says, they dismiss it as false. This makes it alot easier to sleep at night rather than thinking you're going to hell someday. Ever wonder what happens if your wrong? Let me just ask the non-believers if they think there is any chance for there being a hell, or are the 100% convinced it does not exist? I would think that even with a 5% chance of believing it as true would be enough to sway some people to looking into it further. I don't know if there is a hell or not. I'm not convinced that there is or isn't one and I'm skeptical that I will ever know for sure. Until I do know, which is, as I've said, probably never, I won't lose any sleep over it.
|
|
|
Post by raen7 on Apr 30, 2006 0:45:59 GMT -8
Thanks, Chalupa... But I have to point out that the Gravity article you linked to was massively flawed, as Gnome pointed out. It doesn't say much about the credibility of its writer, either.
Trotsky (yes, I don't remember your real name anymore, that's how confused the shot box has made me), I meant that some atheists believe that anyone who is religious is a fool, while others like you said just don't think it's right for them, but are fine with other people's faiths.
|
|
|
Post by grayfox7 on Apr 30, 2006 0:57:26 GMT -8
Trotsky (yes, I don't remember your real name anymore, that's how confused the shot box has made me), I meant that some atheists believe that anyone who is religious is a fool, while others like you said just don't think it's right for them, but are fine with other people's faiths. GrayFox. Yes, I've seen both of those kinds of atheists. I vastly prefer the latter kind.
|
|
|
Post by defectivegnome on Apr 30, 2006 11:23:09 GMT -8
*gasp!*
You missed the part where the writer wrote it as a rebuttle to all the "Evolution is JUST a theory" essays that people write. I wouldn't worry about his credibility as long as you know the punchline.
|
|
PhoenixFlare500
Diamond Membership
I like chocolate[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 896
|
Post by PhoenixFlare500 on Apr 30, 2006 12:27:38 GMT -8
About the whole hell thing, I think there does have to be a hell. First off, Satan will definitely not be going to heaven. He's gotta belong somewhere, and that's what hell's for.
I think that the person who shot the pope did ask for his forgiveness. Now I don't know for sure, but I'm just saying. If it was me in jail, I probably would have asked him to forgive me. As for the platform of vengeance, it does say in the Bible that God is a jealous God. He did destroy cities like Sodom and Gomorrah, and he did bring down empires, because they sinned against him. Daniel 11:40-45 tells of how Alexander the Great would conquer many countries and would rise in power, taking over Egypt.
I'll make a point about why people would go to hell. Heaven is supposed to be a pure and holy place. God would not allow his home to be "dirty" or impure, and so the impurities (sin) must be flushed out. Any sinful person cannot go to heaven, and so we are all destined to go to hell. What Jesus did was take these sins upon himself so that we could go to heaven. (And there's another debate about whether Jesus actually went down to hell or Abraham's bosom during the three days he was dead). If we don't accept Jesus as our only savior, we would not be able to go to hell. And the Bible does mention one unforgivable sin: blasphemy against the holy spirit. You could take this a lot of ways and make your own interpretations of it. My interpretation is this: basically, if you reject God's mercy, you're going to hell.
I just have a small point about the billions of threads about this. Gnome you said that not a single person has changed their mind. How can you know this? If there have been billions of threads, and there's probably 10s of millions of people reading these threads, then even statistically there's gotta be some people that change their minds over these threads. That's what these discussions are for, to test your faith, whether it be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist. Also I'm pretty sure some agnostics sway one way or another over these threads.
Techno I don't think this is turning into an "us vs you" thing. This is a discussion, it's not an argument. You've been really active in this discussion, and I do hope some people will read this thread and really, really think about what everybody is saying. I agree with Raen, stick to your guns. Consider all the opinions of people, and if your guns really do fail, then maybe it's time for a change in lifestyle.
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Apr 30, 2006 14:22:05 GMT -8
Believe me, my guns won't fail =) they just might not hit anything.
There are 3 views in this thread
1) Christian -- believe in hell and angry hateful or vengeful God that likes hurting others if they hurt anyone else etc.... 2) Atheist -- Don't believe in God and therefore probably don't believe in Hell either
3) Me =) which is probably classified as a mixture of buddist/hindu/christian/new age all wrapped into one.
If you can imagine a God that is mean enough to destroy and torture people just for shits and giggles, that's fine. I'm not trying to convert, just to show people there is another view of God besides the Fear Filled Dogma that has become christianity(and yes its a generalization and some of u might be in a faith that isn't full of fear mongering)
For the most part I dislike christianity but not christians. I'm all for believing that Christ is the miracle worker that the bible says he is. Other than that I really don't have a lot of "faith" in the bible written by MAN and for the new testament 200-300 years after the fact.
There were books written right after Jesus' death and resurection but the Roman Emperor who commisioned the creation of the bible conveniently left those ones out.
I guess my main point is I don't see how people can or would want to worship someone who tortures kills and doesn't seem to show all that much love in doing it.
I prefer to believe in a loving God/Universe/Spirit/
And like before if you believe God created the Devil and thus evil then we're all screwed. =)
And considering I changed my view of 20 years that was christianity, I doubt I'll ever go back to that. But I probably will change again into a view that is more peaceful and less concerned about confrontation and defense of my beliefs.
There we, let the discussion continue.
On a side note, I hope none of this sounds too condesending. That was the main point of raen7's post that pissed me off.
|
|