Do you believe in God?

[TenEightyOne]

That's an accepted US spelling, yes. According to wiktionary at least.

Actually it seems more complicated. Americans use Capiche but that is not Italian. Capisce is how it should be spelled but has the wrong meaning in Italian.

Que? Capiche is an accepted American bastardisation of "capisci" from "capire" (to understand), no?

In the torrent of words that have been pouring out: In the context of the Bible, and I will add; in a belief (not always religious) based context in general, IMO these two statements are correct, make sense, and explain much.

Yes, it's hard not to agree that these things make overall sense. I think the problem is the way that @SuperCobraJet is presenting them and the argument that he's supporting with them.

Personally I've argued with him about whether or not Buddhism has a god (it doesn't), I pointed out to him that nirvana is not without but within. Interesting that he now seems to be leaning that way too.

 

[dylansan]

Que? Capiche is an accepted American bastardisation of "capisci" from "capire" (to understand), no?

I don't really know but from what I've read, no Italian would use capisci the way they do in movies. And there's like ten other ways to spell it. There's also surprisingly few resources which clearly explain the origin and use in Italian.

 

[Imari]

In the torrent of words that have been pouring out: In the context of the Bible, and I will add; in a belief (not always religious) based context in general, IMO these two statements are correct, make sense, and explain much.

edited to improve readability.

Meh.

If someone's argument is "the only way you'll be able to see if this is true is to believe that it is true", then I don't think that counts.

There are things that kind of work like this, placebos for example. Only really works if the patient believes that they're receiving actual treatment and not a placebo. Feeding cancer patients Tic Tacs doesn't work. However, this stuff can be verified by observations by people who hold their judgement in abeyance. The doctor doesn't need to believe in placebos in order to observe the responses of the patient to being given a placebo.

The claim that you can only experience religion personally by first choosing to believe is fine as far as hypotheses go, but that experience should also be observable to those external to the person. If Alice chooses to believe and have the experience then something is interacting with her sensory perceptions, whatever those may be and however they may work. Bob may not be able to sense whatever is causing Alice to have the experience, but it should be detectable, and at the very least the responses from Alice are detectable.

The claim that no one can witness a religious experience without belief is unfortunately bollocks. If it was true and someone wanted to do it, it could be done.

I'm not claiming that it can necessarily be done right now with current technology, but I'm probably safe in saying that someone could give it a red hot go if they wanted.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

If I didn't know better I would question if you were serious.

Really? Warning someone that I will personally send them to be tortured for eternity because they did something wrong, means I have their best interest at heart?

As with everything, that is a matter of perspective.

In reality, he is not calling that shot, you are.

Again, everything is by choice, otherwise there is no equity, or value.

It's no different than your Doctor giving you a diagnosis that you have some infectious disease and you need to take the prescribed treatment to cure it.

Do you blame the Doctor if that is the case?

You know I find it quite remarkable that the Bible is a supposed myth, but yet you respond in exactly the same vein as the first man Adam did.
"It was the woman you gave me, she gave me the fruit to eat".

Apparently you have no concept of the personal responsibility and consequences that come with Dominion and Autonomy.

But let me venture a guess, thats God's fault too?

... which also removes the individual from the forest.And you just answered the same question with both a flat no and a straight yes.

And coming as no surprise, you did not answer my question at all.

Depends upon who is producing the negative consequences.

If someone warns me that going into the ghetto at midnight wearing gold chains and flashing a giant stack of cash around could get me injured or killed, then they probably have my best interests at heart. They're not going to have anything to do with it, they're just providing information that I might not be aware of.

If someone warns me that if I don't agree with them then they're going to break my bones and send me to the hospital, I'm fairly confident that they do not have my best interests at heart. They're informing me of the action that they're going to take in response to what I do.

Unless you're willing to accept that there are things beyond God's power which he can warn me about but not change, then he's very much in the second category.

To you, God is the creator of all. That means that any negative consequences arise from Him. For him to warn of negative consequences is the same as him threatening negative consequences. The comparison to the Mafia is apt.

Part of what God did concerning the first man and woman was to warn them of a negative consequence.

Once again, you apparently you have no concept of the personal responsibility and consequences that come with Dominion and Autonomy.

But lets go one step further.

Even if you believe you have been unfairly treated, victimized, whatever, at the hand of God's implementation of things, and I have to admit, from the carnal perspective it certainly appears that way.
But the problem still remains, and that does not change your situation one iota.
You must find a way to deal with the predicament regardless of that.
So what are your options concerning that?
And BTW, is that not "logical thinking"?

The only difference between Jesus and the Tooth Fairy is the time frame. Got it. My mum is Jesus.

Undoubtedly, he is much like a mum.

 

[Famine]

And coming as no surprise, you did not answer my question at all.

You asked the equivalent of "If a tree falls in the forest and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". I asked if that was what you were really asking and you said both yes and no... If you don't want to clarify your question, how is anyone to answer it?


The answer to the tree question is, of course, "Yes", because the production of sound is a physical process - in this case the conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy in both the falling tree and compression of the air around it to produce sound - that requires no witnessing.

For about the thousandth time, this is what "objective" means. The tree makes a sound due to physical processes, regardless of who or what is there to observe it or not. It is not a matter for opinion or belief, as it happens regardless of what your opinion of it is or whether you believe it. Your contention that "everything is a matter of belief or individual perspective" is thus utter bollocks.

Part of what God did concerning the first man and woman was to warn them of a negative consequence...

... of his own making.

He's a mobster, plain and simple.

 

[JKgo]

...Woooow. So it is our choice, eh. That's great. Except the game itself is rigged from the start, ain't it.

"Choose me and you go to Heaven, don't choose me and you go straight Hellbound. Oh, and BTW, yep, I set these rules. No arguing!! Then I send you to Hell!"

...Is that about right? Sigh. That's why to me religions make no sense. Talk about freedom of choice, but there can only be ONE choice to make. Where is freedom in that???

True spiritual freedom is when you are left to your own devices to find your inner calling.
No book or a person, real or imagined, should forcibly funnel me in a direction towards spiritual salvation. That's no freedom of choice. That's stuff of North Korea you are talking about right there.

You should read, watch, hear, debate and experience everything good and bad in this life as much as you can, before you decide whether you are going down the right path of spirituality or not.

Don't let a book be a be-all-end-all. That's not a freedom of choice.

 

[Imari]

Part of what God did concerning the first man and woman was to warn them of a negative consequence.

You didn't read anything I wrote, did you?

If someone is warning you of how they're going to mistreat you as a result of certain choices that you may make, that's blackmail, not compassion.

Once again, you apparently you have no concept of the personal responsibility and consequences that come with Dominion and Autonomy.

Nope.

Explain why having free will means that I need to be blackmailed into behaving a certain way.

Even if you believe you have been unfairly treated, victimized, whatever, at the hand of God's implementation of things, and I have to admit, from the carnal perspective it certainly appears that way.
But the problem still remains, and that does not change your situation one iota.
You must find a way to deal with the predicament regardless of that.
So what are your options concerning that?

Let's assume that everything you say is true, that I do what God tells me to or I suffer for eternity.

I don't trust someone who behaves in that way. If I do what he wants, he may let me into heaven. Or he may decide that there was some additional hoop that I didn't jump though. Maybe I didn't stone enough homos to death. Maybe I like bacon. Maybe I sometimes consider other Gods. Whatever.

Even completely as described, the dude sounds like an irrational lunatic, and I'd be insane to trust my eternity to him. As such, I'd rather take what I can get now and enjoy my life, and when we get to the afterlife I'll roll the dice then.

If I end up being judged by a psychopath, it hardly seems to matter what I do now.

That's logical thinking, that when faced with the choice of putting oneself at the mercy of lunatics or taking what little one can get in the here and now, I'll take the one that guarantees me at least some happiness. I am not willing to gamble everything on the chance that a madman will like me enough to let me into his special club.

 

[dylansan]

It's no different than your Doctor giving you a diagnosis that you have some infectious disease and you need to take the prescribed treatment to cure it.

Do you blame the Doctor if that is the case?

So hell is just a natural consequence of not believing in god? He had no say in that matter?

Let me ask this: Who created hell?

 

[sammy neuman]

Yes, it's hard not to agree that these things make overall sense. I think the problem is the way that @SuperCobraJet is presenting them and the argument that he's supporting with them.

Personally I've argued with him about whether or not Buddhism has a god (it doesn't), I pointed out to him that nirvana is not without but within. Interesting that he now seems to be leaning that way too.

The ongoing hoot is almost purely about doctrine. Christian theologians have had 2000 years to overthink what the Bible says. The result is a tightly knit doctrine which has an answer for nearly every question, but like any knitted garment, if a thread is broken, the whole thing can unravel. When this happened with me, at first I thought "that's it, it's gone". Then it occurred to me that the garment may be coming apart, but now I have a lot of yarn. Which is to say; for subjective reasons I still believe strongly in YHWH and Y'shua, but I try to avoid doctrinal squabbles because doctrine can be a slippery fish. Because of this belief, it is difficult to reject the cross, even though I know that from outside it looks like highly developed nonsense.
I have long thought that the "Kingdom of God" is internal, not external, and knowing that the thread exists independent of the garment allows me to see that I am not the sole owner of Truth and probably not the only possessor of the key to Heaven.

Meh.

If someone's argument is "the only way you'll be able to see if this is true is to believe that it is true", then I don't think that counts.

There are things that kind of work like this, placebos for example. Only really works if the patient believes that they're receiving actual treatment and not a placebo. Feeding cancer patients Tic Tacs doesn't work. However, this stuff can be verified by observations by people who hold their judgement in abeyance. The doctor doesn't need to believe in placebos in order to observe the responses of the patient to being given a placebo.

The claim that you can only experience religion personally by first choosing to believe is fine as far as hypotheses go, but that experience should also be observable to those external to the person. If Alice chooses to believe and have the experience then something is interacting with her sensory perceptions, whatever those may be and however they may work. Bob may not be able to sense whatever is causing Alice to have the experience, but it should be detectable, and at the very least the responses from Alice are detectable.

The claim that no one can witness a religious experience without belief is unfortunately bollocks. If it was true and someone wanted to do it, it could be done.

I'm not claiming that it can necessarily be done right now with current technology, but I'm probably safe in saying that someone could give it a red hot go if they wanted.

I agree. "the only way..." is not a compelling argument, particularly if no distinction is made between faith and religion (perhaps it might be better to say 'doctrine', as I don't know the extent to which someone would decide to believe, and then go shopping for a religion). However, I have known non-believing individuals who for reasons unknown to me felt so compelled to believe that continued resistance was visibly very stressful. I suppose that could be considered a religious experience.
I am not able to conjure up a religious experience on demand, and indeed have only had a couple, but it would be interesting to wire up a holy-roller and see what actually happens, at least physically.

Edited to eliminate mixed metaphor.

 

[niky]

I have long thought that the "Kingdom of God" is internal, not external, and knowing that the thread exists independent of the garment allows me to see that I am not the sole owner of Truth and probably not the only possessor of the key to Heaven.

This is actually how most Christians nowadays live their lives, I suppose. But it's easy to go from that to thinking: "Why believe any of it?"

That's a phase I went through a long time ago, disillusioned with theological clashes and the way some Church leaders painted non-believers in a nasty light... even those who were Christian, but of the wrong flavor.

I am perfectly fine, nowadays, with not subscribing to any doctrine, but rather ascribing to humanist principles in general. The terror of death and damnation (to a child, even venial sins seem like a sure ticket to hell) subsided when I finally made that mental leap, decades ago.

Funny thing, the threat of corporal punishment doesn't always have the desired effect on children. They become neurotic, and often lash out and misbehave simply because of the stress that physical punishment causes. (That's why we tend to shy away from spanking, nowadays... it's often better to treat root causes than to apply simple behavioral conditioning on site)

The threat of eternal damnation can also have a similar effect on people who believe strongly in it. Though the jury seems out on which is the cause and which is the effect, in this case...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You asked the equivalent of "If a tree falls in the forest and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". I asked if that was what you were really asking and you said both yes and no... If you don't want to clarify your question, how is anyone to answer it?

No that's not the question I asked, but rather your question to my original question which was:

While I probably will regret asking you this.........ah what the heck.
If you remove the individual, whats left?

Then I clarified your question with:

No, that's removing the individual from the forest.

I'm asking about removing the individual entirely.

BTW if you remove the individual entirely, obviously that would include the forest.
Perhaps in hindsight I should have replied in a more detailed fashion to your question such as:

"No, that's removing the individual from the forest, only".

Perhaps as well this should be explained in more detail, so:

If you remove the individual from the forest only, which implies an individual still exists elsewhere,
then perception still exists, and therefore upon a tree falling with no individual present, the associated sounds can be attributed by way of individual perception, assuming, there is at least one individual having been in the forest prior to removal and that person not being deaf, had heard the associated sounds.
And further if so desired but not of necessity, assuming that same individual not being dumb, could relate such sounds to other individuals, assuming there are other indivduals to relate too, and as per establishment his testimony is believed.

However, if you remove the individual entirely, you also remove all capacity for perception, wherein as well, all means of determination being an unqualified perequisite for the establishment of anything, is removed.
Hence there is nothing.

It sounds almost mobster like, doesn't it?

Nice soul. Be a shame if something... happened to it.

I guess there's a reason they call lead mafiosi "God"fathers...

Granted there are similarities. But the establishment of "God" fathers" are to exclusively carnal, authoritative purposes, and are dimensionally void in other aspects.
For instance it maybe deemed necessary that one be sacrificed under the rules of a Godfather organization.
Under God instead of that scenario, he sacrificed his son who was also willing to do so, to prevent us from being eternally damned.

Jesus clearly said: "I have come to save that which was lost".

Perhaps you would have rather been made an Android, Robot or some such thing?

And I have another question as well.(Big surprise)
What is the one thing that all of us seek universally?

You didn't read anything I wrote, did you?

Oh I can assure you I did.
And I did not miss your point of concern.
Providing another perspective does not mean I did not read it or understand it.

If someone is warning you of how they're going to mistreat you as a result of certain choices that you may make, that's blackmail, not compassion.

Again Imari, that is a matter of individual interpretation of intent.
Of course you can interpret it that way, but there is also another way.

When I was a boy or even a young man living at home, my Dad on a few occasions would tell me in no uncertain terms the way this deal is going to work. And that would be with or without my cooperation.
Now it would definitely be better with my cooperation and he would prefer it be that way, but it was going to work the same, one way or the other.
Now at the time, I thought that he was just being dictatorial, unfair, unequitable, overbearing, and a bully.
Some years later I realized that wasn't the case at all.
He did those things for two reasons.
The first was because he loved me and had my best interest at heart.
And secondly, a open challenge to his authority could only be negotiated to a point.
Otherwise when that was exceeded, enforcement was the only available remedy left to sustain that authority.

Similarly is God's position with us.
And he has proceeded as per the same two reasons.

Nope.
Explain why having free will means that I need to be blackmailed into behaving a certain way.

I'm in hopes that I already have.
His offer is one of appeal, not blackmail.
That is precisely why it is provided the way it is, void of conclusive evidence.
He wants you to choose him, because you want to, not because you have too.
Otherwise there is no value in it for him or you.
Thats the same thing my Dad wanted.

Let's assume that everything you say is true, that I do what God tells me to or I suffer for eternity.

Just a note here.
God did not create hell for you.
It was created for the Devil and his angels.
Thats why you do not want to go there or even should go there.
Better yet, you do not have to go there.
But if you insist, God will permit it.

I don't trust someone who behaves in that way. If I do what he wants, he may let me into heaven. Or he may decide that there was some additional hoop that I didn't jump though. Maybe I didn't stone enough homos to death. Maybe I like bacon. Maybe I sometimes consider other Gods. Whatever.

Don't forget about Danoff's polyester, that could be unforgivable, sure enough.
In reality you do not have to worry about any of that.
Jesus already paid the price for all of it.

Even completely as described, the dude sounds like an irrational lunatic, and I'd be insane to trust my eternity to him. As such, I'd rather take what I can get now and enjoy my life, and when we get to the afterlife I'll roll the dice then.

If I end up being judged by a psychopath, it hardly seems to matter what I do now.

A roll of the dice then, is a pretty big assumption considering.

That's logical thinking, that when faced with the choice of putting oneself at the mercy of lunatics or taking what little one can get in the here and now, I'll take the one that guarantees me at least some happiness. I am not willing to gamble everything on the chance that a madman will like me enough to let me into his special club.

Why are you worried about gambling something away?
If you are worried about being good enough, thats the whole point, you aren't and neither is anyone else.
He is, and thats all you need to know. He will work with you on any issues in due time.
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
In my interaction with him thus far, he is anything but a lunatic or madman.

 

[Famine]

If you remove the individual from the forest only, which implies an individual still exists elsewhere

No it doesn't.

then perception still exists, and therefore upon a tree falling with no individual present, the associated sounds can be attributed by way of individual perception, assuming, there is at least one individual having been in the forest prior to removal and that person not being deaf, had heard the associated sounds.

No. The question is "If a tree falls in the forest and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?", not "If a tree falls in the forest and one person isn't around to hear it but some other people without hearing impairment are, can they hear it?".

If there is no-one around to hear it - in the forest, in the country, on the planet, in the universe - it still makes a sound because sound generation is a physical process that is not dependent on anyone or anything witnessing it.

This is what objectivity is.

However, if you remove the individual entirely, you also remove all capacity for perception, wherein as well, all means of determination being an unqualified perequisite for the establishment of anything, is removed.
Hence there is nothing.

Perception and determination isn't required. It's an objective physical process - sound is made whether there's anything to hear it (or feel it - sound is a compression wave) or not.

People were not around to witness anything but the last 140,000 years of the universe's 13.8 billion year history, but it all still happened - if it didn't, we wouldn't have been around to witness the last 140,000 years. We can, thanks to the universe's speed limit, actually directly observe some things that happened billions of years ago despite us not being around to see it - but because it depends where we're looking at the time, we miss an awful lot of stuff. It still happened, as did all of the stuff outside the visible universe.


Stuff still happens, whether there's anyone to see it, experience it or believe in it or not.

 

[photonrider]

Stuff still happens, whether there's anyone to see it, experience it or believe in it or not.

Sounds a lot like the 'god' being discussed here.

 

[Famine]

Sounds a lot like the 'god' being discussed here.

Given that our colleagues here are suggesting that you have to experience and believe in their God, in what way does the concept of objectivity sound like God?

 

[Imari]

Jesus already paid the price for all of it.

So what you're saying is I can butcher as many prostitutes as I like and still get into heaven? Sounds like sweet deal.

A roll of the dice then, is a pretty big assumption considering.

Not really.

That there's even a roll of the dice anyway is questionable. And even if I do end up standing in front of the Pearly Gates, I'll take my chances that God isn't the :censored:hole you claim him to be.

Why are you worried about gambling something away?

Because I quite like my life, and I enjoy it. I'm not selling it to some dude in the sky just so that he can 🤬 me around.

In my interaction with him thus far, he is anything but a lunatic or madman.

Yeah, well, we've established that your perceptions aren't exactly like most people's.

I hear that some people really like eating feces, but I'm pretty sure it's not for me.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In my interaction with him thus far, he is anything but a lunatic or madman.

I don't think lying is allowed at this forum. You have never interacted with god, I'm sure.

 

[DQuaN]

I don't think lying is allowed at this forum. You have never interacted with god, I'm sure.

I wonder if he has any golden tickets to heaven for sale...

 

[Brett]

So what you're saying is I can butcher as many prostitutes as I like and still get into heaven? Sounds like sweet deal.

That is one thing that has always gotten me. I have never really understood how such a heinous act could be so easily forgiven. I have not been able to wrap my head around the reasoning.

 

[Touring Mars]

It's a deplorable view, so it's probably just as well you can't rationalize it to yourself anyway.

 

[Imari]

That is one thing that has always gotten me. I have never really understood how such a heinous act could be so easily forgiven. I have not been able to wrap my head around the reasoning.

That's the thing, it's not forgiven.

People like SCJ are quick to parrot the "Jesus died so that all your sins are forgiven" line, but they're just as quick to point out the murder and all the rest of them are still sins. The usual explanation is "you're only forgiven if you truly repent", which strikes me as bollocks.

It means that people who are unable to comprehend what they're doing until they've done it are treated exactly the same as people who are smart and kind enough to know that murdering is bad without trying it out first. For me, the whole point is to encourage people not to try it out first, as opposed to saying "well, if you kill somebody and you really feel bad about it afterwards then that's OK, you'll still get your eternal happiness".

If all that "all your sins are forgiven" stuff is true, I don't see why when the time comes I'm not forgiven the really rather trivial sin of not believing in the Sky Daddy.

If the rapists and murderers get in for feeling bad about what they did, but I don't get in for living a good life but declining to worship something for which there is no objective evidence, then I stick with my opinion that God is an :censored:hole and I don't want in. I'd rather spend eternity in hell than with someone like that.

But more likely I'll be dead, and worms will be munching on my squishy bits and I won't care at all. Somehow this idea seems to scare a lot of people, but it's never really bothered me. Maybe it will when I'm old and frail and actually facing death in the near future with significant probability, but I sort of doubt it. I'll likely be pissed off about all the things I haven't done and pretty women I haven't met, but whatever.

 

[JKgo]

I wonder if he has any golden tickets to heaven for sale...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

So hell is just a natural consequence of not believing in god? He had no say in that matter?

Basically yes.
From a value oriented position, yes he has no say in the matter.
The say is reserved unto us.
Again that is the consequence of Dominion and autonomy.
You cannot have the value aspects of it apart from the consequences.
Thats precisely what produces the value.

What God is going to do is the same thing we endeavor to do.
Eradicate the infection and produce a disease free populace.
The only difference is, it is on a spiritual level and not physical level.
The only way that can be done is for each individual to take the cure, so to speak.
Now since that is an elective process, once the time frame, or season of grace is expired,
he will have no choice but to isolate those who have refused to take the cure from those who have.
So then everyone has had an opportunity to choose their own fate with regard to eternity.
Now one can blame God for that situation if you decide too.
But there was no other way to sustain a mutually value oriented condition.
BTW you can't make someone love you. That's a choice and it only has value in choice.
And again, regardless of interpretation of intent, if that is the situation then it still has to be addressed
as per each individual.

Let me ask this: Who created hell?

God says he did.

No it doesn't.No. The question is "If a tree falls in the forest and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?", not "If a tree falls in the forest and one person isn't around to hear it but some other people without hearing impairment are, can they hear it?".

If there is no-one around to hear it - in the forest, in the country, on the planet, in the universe - it still makes a sound because sound generation is a physical process that is not dependent on anyone or anything witnessing it.

This is what objectivity is.

The only way you can declare that it makes a sound is from individual perception, or in other words you can declare it now, before we all disappear.
So now, you do not exist, or anyone else exists.
How then do you know it makes any sound?

You are confusing what may exist with what can be established to exist.
It is certainly possible for any number of things to exist whether we do or not.
But there is no way to know about it, if we do not exist.

This is what objectivity is.Perception and determination isn't required. It's an objective physical process - sound is made whether there's anything to hear it (or feel it - sound is a compression wave) or not.

For the physical process to exist, yes it does not need us.
But to discover, establish or know about it, yes we are needed.
Or at least some form of being with the required perceptable capacity.

Stuff still happens, whether there's anyone to see it, experience it or believe in it or not.

Again you can only know and declare that from your individual existence.
If no one exists, it may exist, but there is no way to know about it.

 

[Famine]

The only way you can declare that it makes a sound is from individual perception

*sigh* NO. It makes a sound regardless of perception. Sound is only a compression wave travelling through a medium and that's created when anything transfers energy to that medium. Sound isn't a noise or a note or whatever Taylor Swift's latest whine is. It's just a compression wave.

If a tree falls in a forest it makes sound regardless of whether there's any other life on the planet or not.

How then do you know it makes any sound?

It's an objective physical process.

You are confusing what may exist with what can be established to exist.

Uhh... no.

It is certainly possible for any number of things to exist whether we do or not.
But there is no way to know about it, if we do not exist.

You stated that everything is a matter of belief or perception. That's an absolute. Now you're saying that things exist whether people exist to perceive or believe it.

Which is it? Quick clue: It's the second one.

For the physical process to exist, yes it does not need us.

Which is literally what I've been telling you.

But to discover, establish or know about it, yes we are needed.

Not us. Any sentient life would do. But I don't care about knowing about it because that's not what my objection to your absolute was. My objection is that you said everything was a matter of belief and perception and that is simply not true. All sorts of physical processes occur regardless of whether we see them - you can't make a nuclear explosion disappear by closing your eyes really tightly.

 

[Exorcet]

Now since that is an elective process, once the time frame, or season of grace is expired,
he will have no choice but to isolate those who have refused to take the cure from those who have.

Why? Why is there is even a deadline at all?

So then everyone has had an opportunity to choose their own fate with regard to eternity.

There is no reason to make choices over something that doesn't exist, so no matter how much God might want something it's not going to have any effect on or value for rational people if he does not approach the situation in a rational way. It's basically as if the whole plan is designed to punish people who are honest and cautious.

Now one can blame God for that situation if you decide too.

He is at fault automatically if all powerful. He is also at fault if he does not openly tell people what will happen instead of hiding easter eggs for people to maybe find.

But there was no other way to sustain a mutually value oriented condition.

This evaluation of value makes no sense at all. There is no value gained from choosing God for no reason, in fact such a choice has no value. This entire part of your argument is backwards.

BTW you can't make someone love you. That's a choice and it only has value in choice.

You make someone love you by giving the person a reason to love you, not by pretending to not exist and hoping they decide you do exist for no reason and come looking for you.

 

[dylansan]

Let's tackle this step by step, why don't we.

Basically yes.
From a value oriented position, yes he has no say in the matter.

What is a value oriented position? Are you saying that from some perspectives it was God's decision and from others it was not? How can something like that be open to interpretation?

The say is reserved unto us.

Well I know I never decided hell should be a consequence of anything. In fact I wasn't aware that from any position, "value oriented" or otherwise, people were cabable of deciding what things would be a consequence of other things.

So please explain that.

Again that is the consequence of Dominion and autonomy.
You cannot have the value aspects of it apart from the consequences.
Thats precisely what produces the value.

I can't decipher this.

What God is going to do is the same thing we endeavor to do.
Eradicate the infection and produce a disease free populace.

If I understand correctly, you think all humans are born with a disease, original sin.

The only difference is, it is on a spiritual level and not physical level.
The only way that can be done is for each individual to take the cure, so to speak.

Okay, so the cure to my original sin is belief in God and humbling myself to him yada yada.

Now since that is an elective process

This is already a mistake. I cannot choose to humble myself to God because I don't believe god exists. And I can't choose to believe god exists because (as has been explained) belief is not a choice. It is a consequence of being convinced by things like observing evidence or hearing a logical argument which is based on other facts I know to be true. None of which you have provided.

, once the time frame, or season of grace is expired,
he will have no choice but to isolate those who have refused to take the cure from those who have.

Ignoring the above flaw, you have missed the important thing here. God does not simply isolate the two. He sends all the diseased ones to be tortured for all eternity so they can live in pain and agony for longer than any being could possibly fathom.

Now tell me, what purpose does torture serve to god?

So then everyone has had an opportunity to choose their own fate with regard to eternity.
Now one can blame God for that situation if you decide too.

I wouldn't blame my doctor if, for example, I got sick and refused to take the medicine that my doctor prescribed.

I would however, blame my doctor if I got sick, and some strangers tried to tell me that the doctor can cure me if I tell him I love him, and also the doctor has no phone number and other strangers tell me a different doctor actually has the real cure and I can't contact him either, and then, because I decided these people were insane, didn't try to get help from any of those doctors, the first doctor who turned out to be real drove up to my house and abducted me and threw me in a dungeon where people set me on fire and jabbed pitchforks into me and forcefed me acid, all because I didn't ask for his help................ yes, I think I would blame him.

But there was no other way to sustain a mutually value oriented condition.

Ah torture, of course it's the only way.

BTW you can't make someone love you. That's a choice and it only has value in choice.

Right, which is why when someone tells you bad things will happen if you don't love them, you can't really assume anyone actually loves them.

And again, regardless of interpretation of intent, if that is the situation then it still has to be addressed
as per each individual.

If that is the situation, god really hasn't thought any of this through.

 

[sammy neuman]

This is actually how most Christians nowadays live their lives, I suppose. But it's easy to go from that to thinking: "Why believe any of it?"

That's a phase I went through a long time ago, disillusioned with theological clashes and the way some Church leaders painted non-believers in a nasty light... even those who were Christian, but of the wrong flavor.

I am perfectly fine, nowadays, with not subscribing to any doctrine, but rather ascribing to humanist principles in general. The terror of death and damnation (to a child, even venial sins seem like a sure ticket to hell) subsided when I finally made that mental leap, decades ago.

Funny thing, the threat of corporal punishment doesn't always have the desired effect on children. They become neurotic, and often lash out and misbehave simply because of the stress that physical punishment causes. (That's why we tend to shy away from spanking, nowadays... it's often better to treat root causes than to apply simple behavioral conditioning on site)

The threat of eternal damnation can also have a similar effect on people who believe strongly in it. Though the jury seems out on which is the cause and which is the effect, in this case...

It would indeed be easy, but I haven't found reason to take that step. I guess that's why it's faith. Subjective it is. I wouldn't say that I am without doctrine, I do have a way of looking at things, but the word 'doctrine' implies more systemization. As for my thoughts on eternal damnation, see below.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

As this is probably the most quoted foundational verse ( it's in all those little tracts) concerning salvation, let's take it at face value. It says: If I believe, I will live forever. If I do not believe, I will not live forever.

Do not tell me that 'perish' does not mean 'cease to exist' in this context. Unarguably, I would have to be self-aware to know that I am being punished, and therefore eternal punishment is a form of eternal life, however unpleasant it may be. Going from that, it appears that the worst thing that can happen is that I cease to exist, which is what I gather many of our colleagues expect to happen anyway.

Yes, I know I'm cherry picking, but this is one of the big cherries.

 

[dylansan]

As this is probably the most quoted foundational verse ( it's in all those little tracts) concerning salvation, let's take it at face value. It says: If I believe, I will live forever. If I do not believe, I will not live forever.

Do not tell me that 'perish' does not mean 'cease to exist' in this context. Unarguably, I would have to be self-aware to know that I am being punished, and therefore eternal punishment is a form of eternal life, however unpleasant it may be. Going from that, it appears that the worst thing that can happen is that I cease to exist, which is what I gather many of our colleagues expect to happen anyway.

Yes, I know I'm cherry picking, but this is one of the big cherries.

That seems quite a leap of logic from a single verse. Especially when it contradicts many other, much more specific verses, some of which are listed here.

 

[Imari]

Going from that, it appears that the worst thing that can happen is that I cease to exist...

How is ceasing to exist worse than eternal punishment? I'd imagine after a few days of 24 hour punishment most people would gladly cease to exist rather than continue. Hence people begging for death when they're being tortured in real life, they'll take anything to make it stop.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

So what you're saying is I can butcher as many prostitutes as I like and still get into heaven? Sounds like sweet deal.

It may sound like it and in a way it is.
But concerning the infection I spoke of, some have a very advanced case while others a very mild case.
Those with the advanced case are already bound in their own hell to a great degree and actually are extremely ravaged by it.

Not really.

That there's even a roll of the dice anyway is questionable. And even if I do end up standing in front of the Pearly Gates, I'll take my chances that God isn't the :censored:hole you claim him to be.

I claim him to be?
Quite the opposite.

Because I quite like my life, and I enjoy it. I'm not selling it to some dude in the sky just so that he can 🤬 me around.

You know you strike me as being really mad at God for some reason?

Yeah, well, we've established that your perceptions aren't exactly like most people's.

Obviously, now they aren't.

I don't think lying is allowed at this forum. You have never interacted with god, I'm sure.

Well I can assure you that your confident assumption is highly overrated.
I most certainly have, and it's no secret that millions of others have as well.
Not only that but you as well as anyone else who desires it, can do the same.

*sigh* NO. It makes a sound regardless of perception. Sound is only a compression wave travelling through a medium and that's created when anything transfers energy to that medium. Sound isn't a noise or a note or whatever Taylor Swift's latest whine is. It's just a compression wave.

If a tree falls in a forest it makes sound regardless of whether there's any other life on the planet or not.It's an objective physical process.Uhh... no.You stated that everything is a matter of belief or perception. That's an absolute. Now you're saying that things exist whether people exist to perceive or believe it.

Which is it? Quick clue: It's the second one.Which is literally what I've been telling you.Not us. Any sentient life would do. But I don't care about knowing about it because that's not what my objection to your absolute was. My objection is that you said everything was a matter of belief and perception and that is simply not true. All sorts of physical processes occur regardless of whether we see them - you can't make a nuclear explosion disappear by closing your eyes really tightly.

I see your point, but I don't see where it makes any difference.
The possibility that something apart from the individual can exist, does not mean if it does, that there is any meaning, relevance, or matters in anyway. Neither is it even perceivable apart from the individual.
That renders any existence of whatever may exist as nothing, since it cannot be percieved, known or established.
And as such has no meaning, relevance, or matters in anyway even if it does exist.
At least from the individual perspective, since we do not exist.

BTW there are no eyes to close, since they do not exist, nor any perception to know, establish or percieve that a nuclear explosion exists.

Lastly all of your statements about the existence of something have been established through personal or individual perspective.
Once that is removed, you know nothing, hence there is nothing.

 

[Famine]

I see your point, but I don't see where it makes any difference.

I know you don't - and that's the problem. You cannot distinguish between the objective (stuff that is fact) and the subjective (stuff that is opinion). For you there's no difference between what someone's favourite colour is and what the wavelength of light required to produce that effect is.