How good is good enough to get to Heaven?

[Sha'irullah]

First of all I am not a follower of Gof.
God however could at any time smash us all into vapor. If he chooses not to act that does not imply that he can't. This is basic logic and philosophy 101 mistakes. I may allow my dog to bark does that mean I could not stop him from doing so. This is getting so bad it is not even a challenge and barely justifiable.

If you are resorting to grammatical errors based on typos then this is truly becoming petty. Lets keep this in the realm of debates and not rants.

Although Personally I do like the name Gof since I can imagine the Phrase "His excellency, The Exalted Lord Goff of Goffindale ". That is a whole other story though as my mind wanders often . Back to discussion.....

So god creates us imperfect human beings to obtain perfection in the hereafter through sending his son to die symbolically for us despite the fact there is no need for a symbolic gesture as a symbolic gesture is not physically useful.


I believe you are a poor person(unbeliever) so I shall symbolically give you some fake money(Jesus) representing my love(salvation) so you can live in an apartment(heaven).

I have proven my point clearly.

[/FONT][/COLOR]BTW would I have pointed all this out if I was in anyway avoiding your "devastating" claims. Trust me if you have made any claim beyond that last one that was in anyway a challenge I did not see it. This has been so easy it has become monotonous. It is the mark of insecurity when someone claims false victories.

You just do not accept to acknowledge it. I have proven to you that your own scriptures acknowledges god claims something then does the other. Although the verses are beautiful in context considering they came out of the Book of Psalms my favorite chapter as it is entirely poetry.

You claim I am insecure when I have nothing to prove hence my low post count yet you have literally obtained thousands of post in a very quick time. My debates and arguments are also very low as I do not debate.
You cannot argue without only accepting a passage and only knowing it as it is taught to be known. Meaning cannot be taught or there is no purpose in ready or understanding something.
I just said Psalms was beautiful yet I do not say so because I am a Christian and am forced to say it.
My questions are indeed challenges yet you do not answer them, you only acknowledge part of their clear message. You claim almost everything as absolute. You sincerely believe in what you say but for the wrong reasons as you cannot view something outside of its forced exoteric context and you know nil of the esoteric.

Just to point to you the error of thinking....
Please point where I claimed victory over you. Because I know for a fact I cannot win against something unwilling to change. I was ready to drop out of debate 2 paragraphs ago as I am finding it pointless. But most of your answers are indeed becoming proof of why I do not accept the Christianized form of salvation. As I said earlier, you do a lot of the talking for me but you are unaware of the meaning of your words. They make sense only to a Christian and that is no more than 30% of the world and technically around 30% since a majority are not that sincere.

 

[Sumit]

So the qualification that makes these wise men the sages of the ages is the death of their master.

No but they continue this tradition of Guru Shishya.

There should have been no need to begin with.

You know, so far I am the only one that has said anything about Hinduism's claims at all. The Hindu has given none.

In the second, or treta yuga, the Bull of Truth has only three feet on the ground; an element of untruth and injustice has entered the world. That evil must be counteracted, and so Vishnu incarnates as Ram to fight the demons of that era.
Hinduism

According to Hinduism, the idea of complete annihilation of the soul after death is inconsistent with the concept of a moral order in the universe. (No it is not) If everything ends with death, then there is no meaning to life. (If used properly tere would have been, not liking something has little to do with it's being tue anyway) Nor is the view that the soul is created at birth and then becomes eternal at death reasonable, for anything that has a beginning will also have an end. (That is absolutely false. Time had a beginning and no known end is predicted, the same with matter and space) Further, this view does not explain the obvious inequalities among people. Clearly, all are not born equal. Some are born with good tendencies, some with bad; some strong, and some weak; some fortunate, and some unfortunate. Moreover, all too often the virtuous suffer and the vicious prosper. (the Bible gives are far more comprehensive and rational explanation for this than Hinduism) One cannot attribute these injustices to the will of God or to some inscrutable providence, because such a concept belies any belief in God's love for His beings. (that is only if you have very good reasons to believe God is good. There could be an evil God) These glaring differences cannot be considered the mere results of chance happening; for if such were the case, there would be no incentive for moral or material improvement.
Hinduism: The Problem of Suffering and Rebirth and the Law of Karma
Red words are mine.

In the Hindu tradition the problem of evil is phrased as the Problem of Injustice. This problem can be considered in the following manner:
God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Just. Yet injustice is observed to persist in the world. How is this possible?
In the Advaita school of Vedanta, this problem is dealt with in detail by Sankara in his commentary on the Brahma Sutras, 2.1.34-36:
Brahma Sutra 2.1.34: "No partiality and cruelty (can be charged against God) because of (His) taking other factors into consideration."
Sankara's commentary explains that God cannot be charged with partiality or cruelty (i.e. injustice) on account of his taking the factors of virtuous and vicious actions (Karma) performed by an individual in previous lives. If an individual experiences pleasure or pain in this life, it is due to virtuous or vicious action (Karma) done by that individual in a past life.
Brahma Sutra 2.1.35: "If it be argued that it is not possible (to take Karma into consideration in the beginning), since the fruits of work remain still undifferentiated, then we say, no, since the trans migratory state has no beginning."
The opponent now argues that there could have been no "previous birth" at the very beginning of creation, before which Karma could not have existed. Sankara replies that it is not so, for the number of creation cycles is beginning less, vide the next verse:
Brahma Sutra 2.1.36: "Moreover, this is logical, and (so) it is met with (in the scriptures)."
Sankara provides references from the Vedas concerning the beginninglessness of Creation: "The Ordainer created the sun and moon like those of previous cycles" (Rig Veda 10.190.3). This shows the existence of earlier cycles of creation, and hence the number of creation cycles is beginningless.
Thus Sankara's resolution to the Problem
Problem of evil in Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Continued below for no apparent reason:

Atleast see my religious title before posting.

If you will not tell me where you stand on the main issues I will regard this as meaning you want to play games and are not interested in sincerely discussing anything.

If you stop copy pasting and start discussing than I will seriously discuss with you.

BTW I have posted infinitely more on Hinduism than the zero you have.

Well, every xyz is not Hinduism. :no:

Good acts can become evil under different circumstances.

:no:

2. Evil acts can become good under different circumstances.

:no:

3. What separates them many times is context and context is arbitrary.
4. Good things come from evil actions.
5. Evil things come from good actions.
6. There is even one about if all comes from God and God is good then all must be good.

 

[1robin]

No but they continue this tradition of Guru Shishya.

So we have two factors that make these men the only possibilities for being able to understand the same alphabet as everyone else does for everything but Hinduism. My teacher must die and I must belong to secret club (is there a hand shake?). This does nothing to explain why only they can comprehend words but that anyone who speaks the language and does not know the handshake cannot. I explained in undeniable detail and clear logic why scholars are more qualified than non-scholars, in general. Can you do what I did, for Gurus?

atleast see my religious title before posting.

Why did you say this? We are not discussion your particular sect among the thousands uin Hinduism. We have been discussing things common to Hinduism in general.

If you stop copy pasting and start discussing than I will seriously discuss with you.

If you can tell why the words of men far more knowledgeable than both of us put together are for some reason invalid in a debate I might do so. You might as well insist on something equally arbitrary like that I am only allowed to type in red or that I can't use any argument that starts with the letter A. Are you not the one who challenged Ravi's book?

Well, every xyz is not Hinduism.

Even if not I am still virtually the only one who even attempted to post anything on Hinduism. The Hindu has complained about sources used in every professional debate ever had.

You do realize those were not my claims, and these trivial responses are why I use so many scholars? They were statements from Hindu experts and are extremely universal beliefs in general within Hinduism. I think you have demonstrated far more ignorance of Hinduism than I have and I am getting close to not being able to justify a debate against icons used where arguments were supposed to be. This is just silly and the issues deserve better scholarship and more respect.

 

[1robin]

You do not know deism well.

It's the other way around. Deism is defined as: Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.
Your statement:

Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe

. Is absolutely inconsistent with the definition.

That is modern Deism and Deism has no doctrine. You saw me mention doctrine earlier so you look at a few articles to debate with me according to doctrine. VERY foolish attempt.

No I have not. Your assumptions are destroying your credibility. Deism has no doctrines. I do not remember you mentioning doctrine but if you did I would not have assumed you meant deistic doctrines because they do not exist. Doctrine requires revelation. Deism has none.

One of the creators of Deism believe god answers prayers. Edward Herbert was his name and he was a fervent deist and prayed, a lot. He accepted Divine inspiration like myself although rejected prophecy.

Then he is not talking about deism.

Deism comes from Deus (Latin). It only implies the belief in a deity and the rest is left to the individual but the primary factor for it is that most reject religion because of its stupendous claims which defy logic. I believe in the plausibility of jinn and yet I am still a deist.
I believe god creates because of his infinitive essence and he will create for eternity.
I believe worship is essential to the human essence because we are worshipful beings and god intended us to be that way so we should worship and adore something (doesn't have to be god). What you subtly worship, adore and submit to whether it be a religion, science, or another person(which is bad) immediately becomes god. Much like Ba'al it just implies that something is master over you but minus the negative connotations.
I am a deist meaning I can pick my master, my master is intelligence and with it comes reason, logic and individual experience. Being the slave to reason my duty is to sit back and learn.

It is not worth the time to examine the history of deism. IMO opinion your master is preference and you trade in revisionist history and misstating doctrine in words diametrically opposed to the context the verses exist within. I do not think a single claim you have made even began with an accurate interpretation of scripture and most were the exact opposite of well established exegesis.

I was a Muslim and studied Islam, that is not the Injil. The Injil differs from scholarly opinion but at the core it means the Gospels (the book you have in your Bible) but there was an Islamic attack on Christianity claiming Jesus may have "written the true gospel down" which is what you are referring to.
It is a hoax I can assure you and not a very well known one at that. Obviously such a thing would have been shot down before flight.

I was not being that specific. The Injil is the "true" gospel according to Islam. Forgetting the fact they do not know of a single verse that was in it, nor do they have a list of corrupt verses with any foundation for knowing they were corrupted. The only point I wished to make is it is not the Gospel as it exists and its self does not exist. All other details are irrelevant to my purpose. It is a non starter.

Do you speak Arabic? No. Do not debate a person who has studied it and can implement it.

History is history, murder is murder, borrowing stories from Arabic pagan myth is borrowing, self contradiction is self contradiction, and logical absurdity is still absurd in any language. We live in a world where people that speak Arabic as good as anyone in history and have examined the Quran extensively are available instantly. This is no longer an issue. Most Arabs can't speak the Arabic the Quran was written in perfectly anyway. Not to mention the texts themselves are highly suspicious. The Bible had no Uthman who erased all early history and controlled what came after wards.

Your attitude to this is proof of your own ignorance about matters. Allah is a genderless god, that is it. What you call Hubal is Al-Ilah which implies gender. They roughly mean the same thing but the alif was altered orally (take note of the hamza ء used to say ilah now). So obviously you know nothing. Attack Islam does not mean much as well although I do feel a need to stick up for Muslims
Please give me this evidence in another thread if you like but take note that any person who ACTUALLY knows Arabic and KNOWS the Qur'an will rip your argument apart.

I have been debating Muslims for quite a while and they are no more formidable in any language than any other. That does not go for Shabir Ali (he is very good but still wrong a lot). Atheists are by far better debaters. What is it I claimed you think is wrong? I made no specific claims. However I made quite a few about Muhammad’s mass murders, assassinations, and torture in the Muhammad (a good man) thread. I am also going to add a coup de grace there soon and you can challenge it or what I have already posted if you wish, no else has effectively so far.

You have no understanding of what I am saying I assume. If a Christian scholar says something it does not mean anything. A Christian will say what a Christian should say as is expected of their religion.

Well I am glad you pointed this out. Up until this point everyone in the scholarly world thought evolutionists knew about evolution, engineers knew about engineering, doctors knew about medicine, and pilots knew how to fly. I am sure glad you straightened the other 5,999,999 of us out. First claiming all Christians are biased is absurd and silly. Second it would not matter if they were because as I have said several times NT scholars on BOTH SIDES agree to the facts I mentioned plus many more.

When I was a Muslim there were scholars trying to say how Islam was historically accurate and scientifically proven in numerous ways. Their scholars will give a lot of biased evidenced supporting Islam and it will look very convincing. They even tried confirming the moon was split by using a photo of the Rima Ariadaeus.
A Christian scholar means absolutely nothing to me.

I do not like Islam and think it very evil. I however am not delusional enough to suggest all Muslim scholars are insincere in their claims. Vast numbers of historians (secular) also agree that Jesus is historical. In fact over 40 extra biblical documents and records mention Christ, his followers, the early explosion of his religion, even a few miracles. Christ existed and those events happened. What they mean may be debatable that fact they happened isn't.
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Denying how the Bible copied local tradition and myths only backs up my beliefs.

I deny it because it is wrong. What do your beliefs have to do with this? Parallelism has been destroyed over and over and time and again by many scholars. If you will ever get specific, it is so easy that I will do it.

If 98% of humanity is post Jesus I am assuming you believe humanity has lived for over 200,000 years because of current calendar. I am just hoping you aren't a believer in the 6,000 year old theory.

I am ambiguous on Genesis interpretation. I do not know how long man has existed and I do not think anyone does. I do not even know exactly what Genesis is claiming about it. I generally avoid debating issues that have no historical corroboration possible (prehistorically). It is just an open issue to me in many aspects. 200,000 years is good enough for me at this time.

How can past faith in a future Messiah help if nobody else heard of this messiah? Hope in a Messiah did not occur in 200,000 years. So only jews are saved? Judaism did not exist then and the only old religion before that is Hinduism. I told you, the Bible is not a history book.

This is a very complex issue and I am no expert. I recommend William Lane Craig's book. The problem of the un-evangelized. It is acceptable to me if non-Jews were not saved. When Abraham was chosen God had looked for anyone who would believe and follow him. Only Abraham did, so the rest are out of luck I guess but I would read the book. My opinions are not solid in this specific case.

Again, a very small portion of people believe din a Messiah, the rest had no concept or even heard of it. This proves Perennialism with your own words or state to me where other "false religions" believe in a Messiah and how can a false religion match up with your own without being false.

You are assigning God an optimality he does not have a requirement for. At one time everyone on Earth had rejected God outside Noah's family. Is it to strange to think that everyone had done so except for many Jews and some outsiders at this time? How many is enough? If it was 100,000 per year is that, What about 200,000? Unless God saves everyone then some are going to be lost. Does the number that are lost make any difference. There are far more people aware of the Biblical God and Christ than were aware of Islam by vast numbers. No, Islam is not Biblical and Muhammad was never mentioned.

I do not label my claims as Christian because I am not a Christian.

Paint is paint even if I am not a painter. I however agree your claims are not Christian. I have no idea what they are and they do not have anything to do with my God.

If I believe Jesus was just a man then I am not Christian. What makes you think I am vain enough to consider my views the only correct ones yet alone "Christian". That makes no sense.

If you are condemning Christianity I would hope that at least you "believe" you understand it.

We are not the same religion, and I do not even have a religion to begin with. My views are from me, not out of the air or from a book. I cannot be any more clear. You are just faking insult to back out .

I understand your doctrine well, I just do not believe it. If I say this part of it is false then I am obviously not labeling or disguising it as Christian.

If not out of a book then you do not understand my claims. They all exist in a Book (the greatest book in human history). I really wish you would drop these false claims that you have proven anything, I am unable to respond to claims you made, or I am avoiding anything. They are false and almost embarrassing. I have tried to answer every one of the thousand questions you have asked. If I have missed a few it was because they made no sense or it was accidental. Believe me this has not been a challenge, beyond sheer size.

 

[1robin]

You can debate people of dogma but not those who don't have it is what I am saying. Very different case even for me. Very hard for me to debate atheists as oppose to Christians, Hindus, Muslims or Jews.

Yes and no. Thermodynamics illustrates the fact that it is far harder to build than tear apart. Since the absence of anything built (a doctrine) is easy and the attack of anything (a doctrine, faith, or text) is easy that explains it. However they do create arguments and that is where they go wrong. For instance the famous core argument Dawkins invented against God has been called the worst argument against God in the history of western theological thought. Dawkins should stay in the lab. Morality, cosmology, abiogenesis, and intentional states are areas where atheism self-destructs. As for you we have not discussed (or I have not attacked) your beliefs I have only pointed out that gaping flaws in your attacks on Christianity. This is unaffected by any doctrine you have or do not have.

it is not flawed, you just do not like it. What makes you think benevolence has anything to do with it? If god was intervened in our lives he would truly be malevolent considering what happens to us.

We caused what happens to us even the indirect stuff. If we did not rebel none of it would have ever happened. I did not like it because it was flawed. You are basically contending that teh Biblical God is a very evil entity. Why is it then that he, Christ, and the Bible are the most universally concepts associated with love and good in human history. Again even if you were right the complaints are even worse for your "God".
Calling what these scholars describe as evil is almost a debate ender.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish TheologianJames Stuart

My God in the form of Christ is the only morallly perfect being known, who forgave them men as they killed him, and healed and fed tens of thousands, and offered Eternal peace if only we believe. Yours could not care less and never sent anyone anywhere to fix anything and we die and are anihilated after a futile and meaningless life and yet you call mine evil. You are mad because my God did not save a number that you arbitrarily invented but yours never saved or helped anyone. You just can't make this stuff up. This is like saying Mother Theresa was a demon and Hitler a saint.

If god declared it to be so then he created the rules despite there no need for it. If he could have made the moon edible (which would be nice if it was cheese which I think is a bummer considering my fondness for it) then couldn't he have not set up such a system as Salvation?

God is bound voluntarily by his purpose. Your system of salvation which even you do not believe exists and his purpose cannot both exist. God can't create a logical impossibility like a round square.

I once believed the same as you did but I obviously do not now. I know everything about the core doctrine and the little.

I do not agree.

I do not accept it or its Christian meaning.
Muslims will tell you the Qur'an's meaning is truth yet you will say otherwise, this is no different. The fact that I have read the Bible and do not accept its common interpretation angers you some weird way. You are like a Muslim believing that if you read the sacred scripture you will be enlightened and somehow become an adherent to the faith. I read the Bible a lot, and no matter what the Bible calls love I view it as sadism. You can punch a person multiple times in the face and say "i love you, see how I am doing this, this is a sign I am loving you". It means nothing if the effect is outside of our social acceptance. If punching others in the face was a greeting of some sort then it would be acceptable but in the Bible it says god sent his son to die and we view that as cowardice in this day and age. How can god create a book that does not change yet have subjective thoughts interfere with its message.

yet again this bears no resemblance to Christianity and so I have no need to contend with it and punching yourself in the face and blaming God is absurd.

I said the salvation you believe in is a gimmick because that is how I view it.

And this is another example of what is wrong with everything you have said. What you think has nothing to do with it. The sun is not made of ice even if you think it is, Muhammad was a vicious and violent thug even if you think otherwise, and God's salvation model was believed in sincerely by those who recorded it as indicated by every scrap of evidence that exists. Your thinking is supposed to adjust to facts, facts do not adjust to your thinking despite the prodigious efforts expended in the attempt.

You believe in this loving god and what not and I understand yet if you are not indoctrinated into it then you are not going to be so accepting of it unless you can compartmentalize aspects about it and I can do this with every religion which is why I love them all so much but I will not treat them as fact.

You could not be more wrong. My mother was a nominal Christian and I hated and avoided Church and when she got cancer the sicker she became the more I hated the God I did not think existed in the first place. When she died I completely loathed God and spent much time challenging anyone who did. Those poor missionaries. It was stark and undeniable reality that brought me screaming and kicking to Christ. This is how out of whack what you think and assume is.

The argument is why I BELIEVE the Christian salvation is illogical and a myth. It is up to you to defend the faith because whatever I believe is only a viewpoint and not altogether a fact. I am not Richard Dawkins thankfully

your both just as badly wrong and his arguments come in more sophisticated wrappers. I have little debate interest in what you believe. I am defending and interested in what is. I have demonstrated that all the evidence that exists is consistent with the actual sincere belief in the men who recorded the salvation system in the Bible. I have shown that the Bible is not adopted from other sources and in fact it would have been virtually theoretically impossible in 1st century Israel. I also have shown that it is perfectly logical and an almost rational imperative given God's purpose. Since if denial forces you to "nu-uh" the last one then pick one of the first two and I will demonstrate history and evidence is overwhelmingly on my side. BTW why have you refused any attempt to get specific and actually resolve any of these historical issues?

 

[1robin]

If you are resorting to grammatical errors based on typos then this is truly becoming petty. Let’s keep this in the realm of debates and not rants.

I would love to if you could write in a way that I could understand. I am terrible in grammar and hate it but coherence is a necessity. BTW that was a joke, come off it, in the name of Gof.

So god creates us imperfect human beings to obtain perfection in the hereafter through sending his son to die symbolically for us despite the fact there is no need for a symbolic gesture as a symbolic gesture is not physically useful.

These emoticons will not rescue a point you should have made yourself.
No, God:
1. Made us perfect and put us in a perfect paradise. BTW Adam is a representative every man. If you want to understand why his sin caused all of us to fall then research this area. It takes too long for a forum.
2. He gave us free will because he desires love freely given.
3. Free will is not free if we can't rebel. (The tree represents the opportunity and cost of rebellion).
4. We in the form of Adam rebelled and were separated from God and paradise.
5. God being just could have washed his hands as your God did from the beginning.
6. He being loving made a way back to him at his expense.
I also meant to point this out.
The world is the same under your God and mine. The difference between my God and yours is that with my God a restoration for many is possible, evil has an explanation, remedy, and purpose. Under my God those that do not believe are annihilated, under you’re the same thing happens but for no reason. Not one thing is gained with your God but everything may be gained with faith in mine. Nothing is lost with my God but is with yours, for many everything is.

I believe you are a poor person(unbeliever) so I shall symbolically give you some fake money(Jesus) representing my love(salvation) so you can live in an apartment(heaven).

There is no reason to invent terrible analogies for salvation. It is what it is and only is distorted by these efforts.

I have proven my point clearly.

Well give me a link to it then.

You just do not accept to acknowledge it. I have proven to you that your own scriptures acknowledges god claims something then does the other. Although the verses are beautiful in context considering they came out of the Book of Psalms my favorite chapter as it is entirely poetry.

Do you know how bad claims to false victories look, I am almost embarrassed for you.

You claim I am insecure when I have nothing to prove hence my low post count yet you have literally obtained thousands of post in a very quick time. My debates and arguments are also very low as I do not debate.

I said you exhibit signs of insecurity (the previous statement above is a prime example). How many posts we have is irrelevant to me.

You cannot argue without only accepting a passage and only knowing it as it is taught to be known. Meaning cannot be taught or there is no purpose in ready or understanding something.
I just said Psalms was beautiful yet I do not say so because I am a Christian and am forced to say it.
My questions are indeed challenges yet you do not answer them, you only acknowledge part of their clear message. You claim almost everything as absolute. You sincerely believe in what you say but for the wrong reasons as you cannot view something outside of its forced exoteric context and you know nil of the esoteric.

This is getting very meaningless. Please pick a single issue (your best) that has historical evidence and we will resolve it and let that decide. This is rambling all over the place and settling nothing.

Just to point to you the error of thinking....
Please point where I claimed victory over you.

I think I said victories not victories over me. Anyway you say over and over about how I am avoiding this claim, or I am unable to respond to your (what you think is unique but I find quite common) lack of doctrine. You keep claiming to have proven this or that when you have also said over and over that you think and you believe. While I have almost exclusively done what is demanded in debate; give evidence, verses, rules of logic, historians conclusions, NT scholarly consensus on both sides, historical analysis of the Gospels authors, extra biblical texts, textual accuracy facts, statements from the two of the greatest experts on evidence in human history. There has not been but a single claim you have made that even required me to slow down my typing to answer, if it even applied and merited a reply.

Because I know for a fact I cannot win against something unwilling to change. I was ready to drop out of debate 2 paragraphs ago as I am finding it pointless. But most of your answers are indeed becoming proof of why I do not accept the Christianized form of salvation. As I said earlier, you do a lot of the talking for me but you are unaware of the meaning of your words. They make sense only to a Christian and that is no more than 30% of the world and technically around 30% since a majority are not that sincere.

Once again it is all in how you state it. Your views are shared by only 12% in the US and far less worldwide. Theists make up approx. 75%. You ought to be an artist, you are a master at coloring things until they look as you wish. Drop out if you wish, if you won’t get specific and lets facts decide I am unclear what else can be done. So far we have parallelism, mythology, historicity of Christ, textual integrity, and even comparative religion. Pick you best aspect of any one of those issues you raised and we can resolve it or call it quits if you wish. I believe your argumentation ridiculous and preference driven (and all your arguments can be summed up as, you simply hate Christianity and then went looking for reasons why, even if they must be invented or made up by warping well understood doctrine) but you do seem to be a civil and fairly nice person. Your call.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It's the other way around. Deism is defined as: Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Then you do not know deism. Deism does not require anything else but a belief in god without religion.It is just a common held thought amongst modern deist that god is not interested. So please know what youre talking before talking. Read the works of Francois Voltaire and Edward Hebert to understand what deism is. They are only small notes or pamphlets and would not waste any of your time. You will understand because deism has no actual one definition and you are only describing Modern Deism. So if you do not understand what deism is without using a dictionary then we cannot continue this debate.

No I have not. Your assumptions are destroying your credibility. Deism has no doctrines. I do not remember you mentioning doctrine but if you did I would not have assumed you meant deistic doctrines because they do not exist. Doctrine requires revelation. Deism has none.

You are now trying to discredit me by declaring I do not know my own theology. You claim that I said Deism has doctrine yet I never did.

my quote...

That is modern Deism and Deism has no doctrine. You saw me mention doctrine earlier so you look at a few articles to debate with me according to doctrine. VERY foolish attempt.

Ironically in this comment I claimed deism has doctrine? Very funny.
You are again dodging answers by trying to make me look as if I am incapable of discussion due to major error.
I stated dogma from the Qur'an earlier so you assumed I was a Muslim and abided by the Qur'an but later on you realized I did not know you are trying to twist this statement into saying I claimed deism has doctrine when the doctrine I am referring to is the Qur'an. very immature.

Back on topic I am going to end this argument with this statement since you are not good at holding a logical discussion without speaking in absolute over something you do not know of.

to be continued...

 

[Sha'irullah]

.....
In Islam even a Muslim can go to hell temporarily so you see this concept of the good outweighs the bad is far more logical. Just because you accept a symbolic sacrifice does not mean your sins are pardoned because you can continuously sin and it will not matter.
Whipping boys take the punishment on behalf of their prince and yet unlike a prince we are not befriended to Jesus. So we have learned nothing from it. Jesus died for us and somehow we are free of sin by acknowledging it? What have we learned? Nothing.
Symbology does not make one pure of sin and prepared to enter paradise. In Islam a Muslim who accepts salvation is capable of going to hell temporarily until he has atoned for his sins. THAT IS FAIR and just. Accepting a whipping boys action doesn't benefit a person spiritually.
How can you see equality in just accepting the son of god dying for us. Many become Christian and sin all the time yet they are pure because of Jesus somehow. That IS ILLOGICAL ON EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE. There is no debate on this since if we ourselves do not atone for our sins have gained nothing. We are not truly in atonement and we are not pure by this. Do you thinks criminals get off by saying they are sorry? This is no different and one must atone for their sins like any other sinner....in hell. No sin is worth all of eternity in torment and surely it is not worth it for not believing something that doesn't make any sense to an individual.
Christianity was spread by the sword all throughout Europe and entire civilizations rebelled against it and all of Germania was hostile towards it as the Germanic tribes were Christianized and forced to convert. There are so many accounts in history it is ludicrous for you to believe people actually love the Bible and converted thinking it was the word of god. People were forced to convert for safety simply. How can have the audacity to say the Bible is the most cherished book on earth yet it was the creator of violence. Everyone in europe has been subjugated to believe in the Bible from centuries ago. You do not even know your own history so how can you claim moral superiority when your very own book supports slavery and war.

As for me I accept a theoretical conclusion of heaven and hell though I have never found a reason to accept it and my personal opinion is that if a heaven and hell do exist....
God is a perfect all powerful being and I do not believe such a being would allow imperfect into a perfection (paradise). Paradise is solely capable only unless there is 100% perfection. So sin will have to be atoned for but the issue is sin is subjective and it is not clear of what is entirely right or wrong. Many small trivial things are highly subjective. So the only conclusion is that to enjoy a paradise we would have to be void of imperfections...which would be individuality. Our differences are the creation of chaos and imperfection so we must be unified to 1 understanding of things. So Paradise itself could not even be enjoyed since none of us are perfect. And accepting another man’s symbolic atonement does nothing since it doesn't make you perfect and fit for heaven if you claim that is frees you of sins and imperfections from those sins.

 

[1robin]

Then you do not know deism. Deism does not require anything else but a belief in god without religion. It is just a common held thought amongst modern deist that god is not interested. So please know what you’re talking before talking.

Your are a real trip, you know that? The definition I gave is the official definition. If you disagree call Webster and Britannica and tell them you are right and they and most of humanity is wrong.

Read the works of Francois Voltaire and Edward Hebert to understand what deism is.

I am not reading anything from the man who said that Christianity would be dead in fifty years. When in reality he was dead in fifty years and his house was used to publish Bible's out of. God has a sense of Irony.

They are only small notes or pamphlets and would not waste any of your time. You will understand because deism has no actual one definition and you are only describing Modern Deism. So if you do not understand what deism is without using a dictionary then we cannot continue this debate.

As I do not care what it is and you seem to think you know better than the official dictionaries and encyclopedias why don't you just tell me exactly what you think it is and we will use that as it won't help your position any.

You are now trying to discredit me by declaring I do not know my own theology. You claim that I said Deism has doctrine yet I never did.

I have never thought deist have any doctrine. If I suggested they did it was a typing mistake. However I would bet you are getting something mixed up somewhere and I did not get any of the rest of this so I deleted it for length. BTW it is proper and easy to make absolute statements about what a Book clearly teaches. 2 + 2 absolutely = 4 and God sent Christ to die for pure love.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Your are a real trip, you know that? The definition I gave is the official definition. If you disagree call Webster and Britannica and tell them you are right and they and most of humanity is wrong.

You are making a blunder for thinking a dictionary can describe something with over 20 meanings. You just recited the most popular definition for Deism which is the Modern Deistic movement

I am not reading anything from the man who said that Christianity would be dead in fifty years. When in reality he was dead in fifty years and his house was used to publish Bible's out of. God has a sense of Irony.

Of course you won't read it because you would hate to be proven wrong.
Francois was told to renounce satan and make peace with the church, nothing ironic about him being insulted in death. The Church hated him as do you.

As I do not care what it is and you seem to think you know better than the official dictionaries and encyclopedias why don't you just tell me exactly what you think it is and we will use that as it won't help your position any.

I know the definition, you do not. Deism is just lack of doctrine and organized religion simply with the except that your opinions come from yourself.
The common opinion amongst deist is that god does not intervene in his creation which is something most deists accept. Also Voltaire was technically the first to classify deism as he was the first to do so that means his opinion is more valid to the definition. So by stating this modern deist are not deist by technicality as he believe in heaven and hell.
So much goes for the dictionary. The dictionary is just popular opinion and nothing more and it is almost never abundantly specific on a name with vast meanings and deism is a theology. Like all theologies you can't form a definition for it. It is like defining Christianity.
no wonder you are at error since you are expecting a compressed format to be universally intuitive.
So please study something and stop using a dictionary in hopes it can give a 5 word explanation on Marxism. You are going to have to read a lot more in order to debate.

I have never thought deist have any doctrine. If I suggested they did it was a typing mistake. However I would bet you are getting something mixed up somewhere and I did not get any of the rest of this so I deleted it for length. BTW it is proper and easy to make absolute statements about what a Book clearly teaches. 2 + 2 absolutely = 4 and God sent Christ to die for pure love.

Of course you can make absolute statements about what a book teaches. The Bible teaches that something was down out of love or that man came from Adam and Eve but it does not change the fact someone else can interpret it differently when it is not as clear as 2 + 2. You are trying to simplify a 900 page book to the addition of two deca-unit numbers.

 

[1robin]

You are making a blunder for thinking a dictionary can describe something with over 20 meanings. You just recited the most popular definition for Deism which is the Modern Deistic movement

All debates take place on common ground if at all possible. If discussing Deism then the accepted definitions must be used or the issue dropped. My own views of deism are identical to the definitions I provided. However I said for the purposes of this discussion I do not care. If you have another concept of deism then simply lay it out in detail and we will assume that is it if possible. If you posit a self contradictory concept that is not an option.

Of course you won't read it because you would hate to be proven wrong.
Francois was told to renounce Satan and make peace with the church, nothing ironic about him being insulted in death. The Church hated him as do you.

1. You would not know if I hated being proven wrong even if true in the few posts we have had.
2. I was pointing out the ironic stupidity of Voltaire's logic not actually suggesting I would not read his stuff. I actually have and find it intelligent but wrong.
3. Quit claiming stuff I never said and things you can't possibly know even if true, for me. I do not hate Voltaire, I never met him. He was simply ironically wrong.
4. In fact virtually every single "great work" claimed to finally undue the Bible has been lost to history and the Bible is as relevant or even more so than ever before. The career of a Bible critic is an embarrassing and futile one.
5. If you wish post what Voltaire said about deism (or the parts you have adopted) and we will use that.

I know the definition, you do not. Deism is just lack of doctrine and organized religion simply with the except that your opinions come from yourself.

No doctrine is derivative not determinative. The big difference between theism and deism is that the theists God cares about humans and yours is indifferent. In fact that is the only definition I need. Everything else flows from that.

The common opinion amongst deist is that god does not intervene in his creation which is something most deists accept. Also Voltaire was technically the first to classify deism as he was the first to do so that means his opinion is more valid to the definition. So by stating this modern deist are not deist by technicality as he believe in heaven and hell.

No God who does not intervene, can possibly intervene and place anyone in a hell or heaven and still be a deistic God. That is self-contradictory. No God who is indifferent would bother with us, good, evil, punishment, or glory. How would be indifferent.

So much goes for the dictionary. The dictionary is just popular opinion and nothing more and it is almost never abundantly specific on a name with vast meanings and deism is a theology. Like all theologies you can't form a definition for it. It is like defining Christianity.

At least the dictionary description is not self-contradictory.

no wonder you are at error since you are expecting a compressed format to be universally intuitive.
So please study something and stop using a dictionary in hopes it can give a 5 word explanation on Marxism. You are going to have to read a lot more in order to debate.

The primary thing that makes a deistic entity deistic is indifference. That is all I was interested in. If you believe in an indifferent God who interferes then you need a new name for it and also some new logical laws that make the self-contradictory excusable.

Of course you can make absolute statements about what a book teaches. The Bible teaches that something was down out of love or that man came from Adam and Eve but it does not change the fact someone else can interpret it differently when it is not as clear as 2 + 2. You are trying to simplify a 900 page book to the addition of two deca-unit numbers.

It is quite absurd to claim the statement "For God so loved the world" can be validly interpreted as God is a coward and a diabolical monster. The former is Biblical the letter is made up for a purpose. Me or you neither one knows for a fact what God is or has done. However we can reliably say the Biblical God within the context of the only information we have about him is virtually identical to the God I and most Christian's describe. You can claim God is a monster but only if the Bible is negated and we are discussing another deity. Most of the verse used for my claims are not controversial or vague and are more universally associated with love and goodness than any other words in human history. Claiming that "oh no, The biblical God is a tyrannical monster" is ridiculous. Maybe some God somewhere is but not the Biblical concept of God. You spending a lot of needless time on this issue. If you post a non contradictory definition of deism then we will use it as it won't make any difference. BTW how do you devolope faith in an entity who's very description renders evidence unavailable? If someone asked me to look for evidence of a creature who lives in a forest but does not interfere with the forest I would call them nuts.

 

[Sha'irullah]

All debates take place on common ground if at all possible. If discussing Deism then the accepted definitions must be used or the issue dropped. My own views of deism are identical to the definitions I provided. However I said for the purposes of this discussion I do not care. If you have another concept of deism then simply lay it out in detail and we will assume that is it if possible. If you posit a self contradictory concept that is not an option.

Deism is a philosophical method of approaching god so it cannot be placed in a dictionary. I have tried look Marxism in a dictionary and it comes up very vague.
Deism has about 4 main branches and I adhere to the earliest definitive one not the most popular one which is what you found in the dictionary.

1. You would not know if I hated being proven wrong even if true in the few posts we have had.
2. I was pointing out the ironic stupidity of Voltaire's logic not actually suggesting I would not read his stuff. I actually have and find it intelligent but wrong.
3. Quit claiming stuff I never said and things you can't possibly know even if true, for me. I do not hate Voltaire, I never met him. He was simply ironically wrong.
4. In fact virtually every single "great work" claimed to finally undue the Bible has been lost to history and the Bible is as relevant or even more so than ever before. The career of a Bible critic is an embarrassing and futile one.
5. If you wish post what Voltaire said about deism (or the parts you have adopted) and we will use that.

No doctrine is derivative not determinative. The big difference between theism and deism is that the theists God cares about humans and yours is indifferent. In fact that is the only definition I need. Everything else flows from that.

This is obviously true although the reasons are different.

No God who does not intervene, can possibly intervene and place anyone in a hell or heaven and still be a deistic God. That is self-contradictory. No God who is indifferent would bother with us, good, evil, punishment, or glory. How would be indifferent.

Then you never read Voltaire so you did not tell the truth earlier .
God does not intervene because he hates us. God does not intervene because this world is perfect as it is and the physical outcomes of us are pointless when we are bound by spirit. So a deist can believe in heaven or hell and god can even intervene. Deism just implies lack of religion. It literally means God-ism.
So again you do not know deism but would like to give the impression you do.

At least the dictionary description is not self-contradictory.

sure it is

The primary thing that makes a deistic entity deistic is indifference. That is all I was interested in. If you believe in an indifferent God who interferes then you need a new name for it and also some new logical laws that make the self-contradictory excusable.

Not true but I know lots of people who believe they know what they are talking about.

It is quite absurd to claim the statement "For God so loved the world" can be validly interpreted as God is a coward and a diabolical monster. The former is Biblical the letter is made up for a purpose. Me or you neither one knows for a fact what God is or has done. However we can reliably say the Biblical God within the context of the only information we have about him is virtually identical to the God I and most Christian's describe. You can claim God is a monster but only if the Bible is negated and we are discussing another deity. Most of the verse used for my claims are not controversial or vague and are more universally associated with love and goodness than any other words in human history. Claiming that "oh no, The biblical God is a tyrannical monster" is ridiculous. Maybe some God somewhere is but not the Biblical concept of God. You spending a lot of needless time on this issue. If you post a non contradictory definition of deism then we will use it as it won't make any difference. BTW how do you devolope faith in an entity who's very description renders evidence unavailable? If someone asked me to look for evidence of a creature who lives in a forest but does not interfere with the forest I would call them nuts

[/QUOTE]

I so loved my family I killed my own son and slaughtered my wife out of love.

I just told you I loved them before I killed them so I did the greatest act of love equivalent to the way hitler loved the Jews so much he tortured and slaughtered them to death.
You can call anything love but it does not mean it is love.

You need a book to tell you what is love and your book needs to tell the reader that god loved the world for you to see the positive aspect of a man sending his own son to die on the cross.
Why can you not quote the Bible in order to prove something?
Wait I will answer my own question for once.

It is because you cannot call it love without Scriptural authority. So that means it defies logic and human emotion, which have been.....given by god.

Well I will not be responding to these post anymore so no need to answer this one unless you like having the last word. Which is quite petty honestly.
But your views are your views and I am a deist so I do not care about them as they gold no validity unto me.
You could be Christian, Buddhist, Sikh, Muslim,. Hindu or Shinto and it makes no difference. I love them all but it does not mean I love what their religion has to offer even if I find good aspects about it. A religion does not define a person, a person defines a religion.
You are using a book to define natural emotions such as love when you already have such thing. I do not need a book for that. I do not need a book to describe mankind's creation either especially if the book last out the gap describing evolution.

Salaam

 

[1robin]

Deism is a philosophical method of approaching god so it cannot be placed in a dictionary. I have tried look Marxism in a dictionary and it comes up very vague.

Deism has about 4 main branches and I adhere to the earliest definitive one not the most popular one which is what you found in the dictionary.

This can all be over if you simply pick one that is not contradictory and then we use it. I do not care, as I regard deism as ridiculous. One absurdity is as good as another.

This is obviously true although the reasons are different.

So we can finally claim that deisms God does not care about us and does not interfere or are we (you) still equivocating on the definition.

Then you never read Voltaire so you did not tell the truth earlier .

Neither. I read Voltaire before I knew of his self-prophecy, however not that much (it did not merit it).

God does not intervene because he hates us. God does not intervene because this world is perfect as it is and the physical outcomes of us are pointless when we are bound by spirit.

How can we be bound by a spirit from a God who does not intervene. The quickest way to have people give up on your theology is to suggest anything so absurd and so against our intuitive moral instincts, as this world is perfect.

So a deist can believe in heaven or hell and god can even intervene. Deism just implies lack of religion. It literally means God-ism.
So again you do not know deism but would like to give the impression you do.

This is bordering on intellectual dishonesty and past intellectual insanity long ago. My definition matches exactly, the definitions found in most excepted places where things are defined. At worst you could claim I do not understand the self-contradictory version of deism you have adopted without evidence but my understanding of classical deism is perfect.

sure it is

This is going from silly to ridiculous.

Not true but I know lots of people who believe they know what they are talking about.

Instead of merely assertion a truth contradictory to reason and accepted definitions try instead posting evidence for your "version" of deism.

I so loved my family I killed my own son and slaughtered my wife out of love

Then without further evidence I must conclude you did. You may be crazy, you may be confused, you may have knowledge I do not and I can't claim you did not love them and think you were acting out of love. Maybe you were in a POW camp and they would have both been raped and enslaved, maybe they were going to be used by the Nazi's as medical experiments, not to mention that if by killing your family you could manage saving a billion others you would be given parades, medals, and declared a hero and this is far closer to a parallel than what you contrived for convenience. I will list the inequalities with this absurd comparison and then leave it there.

1. God has an infinite amount of knowledge we do not. He may know what he did and why he did it even if all of us in our infinitely insufficient knowledge all determine was evil.
2. In fact in this case God has potentially saved billions by his and his son's sacrifice. That was conveniently missing from what you contrived.
3. Christ's act was voluntary. The one you gave was conveniently not.
4. God raised Christ back to life, in your example that was impossible.
5. God is God, we are not.
7. We send off sons and wives to risk death for the sake of others every day. They are called heros by men of understanding. We build them museums. We give them medals. However when God does it on a much larger scale, for much purer reasons, and for a far greater good it is deplorable to people with certain agendas.

I can keep going but that is plenty. In many areas where clarity is not so great I am inclined to think folks are sincere even if wrong. However when you contrive something this absolutely invalid to validate something convenient it wrecks any credibility you had in other areas. This example is symptomatic of most non theists. You contrive false dichotomies and think it allows for dismissal of actual concepts that are almost wholly unrelated to the reasons you invent for rejection. This example is typical and atrocious. Equating two completely unequal concepts is meaningless.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

If God exists

You speak with such a condesending tone on the strength of an "if".
So on this basis we can only say "If" the bible is the word of God.
Can not claim to have its word if we doubt existance.
Then to expand on the "if" and claim he had a son , well now we are speculating.
"If"God exists we can only look at evidence to suggest what it might or might not be .
Mother Nature as we call it , is a very messy dirty painful affair driven by the crudest of forces , survival. Mother Nature is part of the creation .
Therefore God created the animals and the food chain.
Eating each other to death is far from perfection imho moreso when the one being eaten has the ability to feel a " ouch ".
This is not some theory that ive pulled from thin air , but a simple fact of life.Whoever created lions gave them big teeth designed for tearing flesh from bone.

As a baptized and confirmed christian living in the 21st century i try to follow the example set by jesus but in todays world of modern media i witness a scale of suffering that completely shatters my faith in an all seeing all knowing God that loves us.
The Godless realm you speak of is earth ? Life is much older than earth .
My God would not tolorate one day of what goes on here.
I agree the human race can be evil but its not all red numbers however i think this was taken care of by the fact we are stranded on a spec of dust in a universe that is expanding faster than we can ever travel and has many years head start. Our evil will never leave this galaxy at least not until we have evolved as a species if at all.
I see you dismiss islam and many other beliefs often condesending in voice id just like to suggest its possible that the very same God if he exists sent mohammed just 600 years after Jesus .
Maybe you are here just to fight the corner of christianity and the doctorine , myself i prefare truth to belief .

 

[1robin]

You speak with such a condescending tone on the strength of an "if".

Not hardly "if" carries no tone. For me God is a proven reality but in a debate I acknowledge that he is a theory to most and we must debate on that common ground.

So on this basis we can only say "If" the bible is the word of God.

True, but both have convincing evidence.

Can not claim to have its word if we doubt existance.

I claim if because it is an unproven conclusion to those I speak with.

Then to expand on the "if" and claim he had a son , well now we are speculating.

Of course we are speculating, The same thing happens in most of science, almost all of history, and is true of any aspect of life. We simply admit it. I wish the rest were as honest.

"If"God exists we can only look at evidence to suggest what it might or might not be .
Mother Nature as we call it , is a very messy dirty painful affair driven by the crudest of forces , survival. Mother Nature is part of the creation .
Therefore God created the animals and the food chain.
Eating each other to death is far from perfection imho moreso when the one being eaten has the ability to feel a " ouch ".
This is not some theory that ive pulled from thin air , but a simple fact of life.Whoever created lions gave them big teeth designed for tearing flesh from bone.

I agree that pain exists. What relevance is there in that?

As a baptized and confirmed Christian living in the 21st century i try to follow the example set by jesus but in today’s world of modern media i witness a scale of suffering that completely shatters my faith in an all seeing all knowing God that loves us.

There is nothing inconsistent with God and suffering. IN fact only with God is suffering explained, predicted, and even wrong at all.

The Godless realm you speak of is earth ? Life is much older than earth .

Talk about speculating. What evidence do you have life is older than Earth. Every scientists who ever lived would be interested in that.

My God would not tolerate one day of what goes on here.

Then he is either impotent or non-existent. MY God has moral justification to allow evil to exist but will put an end to it in his own not “mine or your” time.

I agree the human race can be evil but its not all red numbers however i think this was taken care of by the fact we are stranded on a spec of dust in a universe that is expanding faster than we can ever travel and has many years head start. Our evil will never leave this galaxy at least not until we have evolved as a species if at all.
I see you dismiss islam and many other beliefs often condesending in voice id just like to suggest its possible that the very same God if he exists sent mohammed just 600 years after Jesus .

Then that God is self-contradictory, inconsistent, unworthy of worship, and brutal.

Maybe you are here just to fight the corner of Christianity and the doctrine , myself I prepare truth to belief .

I will take your word for it as I can't tell what you are doing and you seem to contradict yourself. You simply seem mad at reality and everything else is derivative of that. I myself found Christianity true inspite of my former wishes, and defend as truth.