Let's talk about Hell

[no-body]

In old books it was said that there was PINK unicorns? May I have that source?

Wait, what? Why do you care about the distinction "pink" from your line of reasoning, unicorns are possibly real.

Also hell is not like unicorns because there is evidence for hell. People who have had near death experiences and out of body experiences have experienced a place that is hell.

Actually scientist believe that near death experiences are a combination of hallucinations and DMT being released as to cope with the traumatic event of your own death. Those who actually die and are brought back see nothing, it's like being asleep.

Ok, I agree with you on astrology, but why not let the children decide if it’s based on coincidences and the law of averages or not? Why should we decide what is coincidences to them or not? That does not teach them critical thinking skills, that teaches them not to be critical.

If the parents want to go through the botheration of teaching them all sides fine, but in a class we have to go with what's solid and provable as there is a limited amount of time. It also helps enforce the lesson if you see it in action.

No, not proof, perhaps evidence you have for it, with assumptions and interpretations attached, but you don’t have proof for it.

This is false. There is lots of websites and books on intelligent design and they don’t take 5 seconds to explain it.

Maybe but it would be a waste of time to teach, the intelligent design argument is basically God "magicked" things into existence it doesn't matter what fancy philosophies and arguments that they've come up for it since the entire thing isn't provable.

If science approaches it to find out the ACTUAL explanation rather than LIMIT it to just a NATURAL explanation, then that is GOOD. If they don’t do that, that is not good.

If you think it’s good to limit it, may I ask why, if you think that?

Yes science should go in Carte Blanche when it is looking at things but there are also rules, principals and laws that have been discovered before that need to be followed when looking at things.

There is no 100% proof for intelligent design, but there is no proof for your view of Darwinian evolution either.

I'm no scientist but I believe the "flaws" in Darwinian evolution are just things we haven't found yet. It is far different to make logical leaps than magical ones.

Yes, he made the rules and the laws because he made everything else, literally made everything else. He is in the position to know what is best and therefore to implement it. So, why not him make the rules?

Wrong, that is stupid, Adams seed is a PART OF HIM. Likewise the egg in Eve is a part of Eve. Therefore the child is going to have a part of them in them. Plus the reason why God won’t separate the curse from the seed is because God set it up in such a way to where we HAVE RESPONSIBILITY in our relationship to GOD and TO OTHERS. Also God set it up to such a way that if you SIN, breaking his laws, it can damage your relationship to God and to OTHERS. Why does God do this? TO SHOW YOU how bad sin really is. If you don’t trust him that sin is REALLY that bad, then you will find out the HARD way that sin is REALLY that bad. If sin did not hurt, there would be no value to laws being in existence. If we had no responsibility, there would be no value to relationships, because nothing would hurt. What kind of magical world are you living in?

So yes God is just and WISE for setting it up this way. It would be a non cyclic world and magical world if he did not set it up this way. It would be a world where things we value, would no longer be valued. That is a weird and boring kind of world. I should make a thread titled “what would you do differently, if you were God and what would the implications be to your decision making”. Sounds catchy.

So it comes down to we cannot question or judge the creator, we must all fall on our knees and blindly obey. You'll excuse me if I see a problem with this, especially how it is easy for people to control others with this line of thinking.

Your twisting the story, God came down IN THE FLESH and died himself, gave his life willingly for us in the hands of the murderers. He did not do it to get more worshipers, he did it to save those who wanted to come back to him. He did it to show both his justice and mercy.

No that is my point of view of the story.

It was not an experiment, it was deliberate. He knew what COULD happen if they used free will to do bad, he knew that, but he gave it anyway because that is better than robots.

As an individual, why is pain and suffering important to stay away from? If you say because it feels bad to suffer, ok, why is that important?

Pain and grief will always be with us, what I mean is unneeded suffering. It is important to free ourselves from this suffering to see the world as it really is; the ultimate reality. Why? Because that is how we grow. As a species with higher consciousness we where given empathy and compassion and that allows us to feel what others feel. I'll grant you that none of this is scientific but at least it grounds us in this world and pushes us all to good right now for ourselves and others. I see the dharmic principles as superior to the Abrahamic ones because they allow for change instead of trying to stick us into a thousands year old values and traditions.

Why is growing society important?

If there is no God, if there is nothing supernatural then society and each other is all we have. That actually makes life the most important thing of all since there are no repeats, even a clone of something would have the greatest individual value.

No, I was not saying they CAN’T keep their biases out of there thinking, I said government CAN’T do so, SOMETHING has to be enforced. Every decision is based on a value, and a value is based on belief.

By making a decision based on their personal belief some other people who don’t hold that belief will disagree with them. Therefore, it’s not neutral. Is it?

That is assumed. Why do you assume it’s good?

It is good because that is what is fair. No religion should have more importance than another.

How is it a conflict of interest? The mother and father USUALLY know better than the child does, so the child should trust them in most cases. In God’s case he definitely knows best, for two reasons, he created the universe and he came down INTO the universe as a man and suffered. Plus even if it is a conflict of interest, that does not mean God is UNTRUSTWORTHY. You assume he is bad with his motives.

I told you why God is fair, why do you think I am wrong? What is wrong with my sentence?

“At least that shows God to be a God of justice and Satan to be someone to be a who cares anything goes type of creature. But besides that, not EVERYTHING done in the name of God is truly done under God’s DIRECTION. People can USE God for their own selfish agenda, and yes, it happens. That’s why God said “do not use my name in vain”.”

Do you think God should do justice at all?

From my point of view that is not fair. Humans are diverse creatures and what you are asking for is akin to brainwashing to me. Because I don't see things how you see things I'm wrong. I've already said that to me that is not real justice, you are saying we aren't allowed to question God on these matters because he knows best. Well I disagree.

 

[Jollybear]

Danny_Heim

That’s good, so you think my view of hell is good then?

No, it is just that it can be ignored and it seems like to me that it does not have much effect on our evolving. But hey, that's a guess Jollybear, I don't really know.

Yes, it can be ignored, but why do you think my view is NOT good?

I don’t understand how we can’t LIKE each other even though we happen to believe different stuff?

We can, it is a matter of degree. The present degree is corrosive. That would be no big deal either, if we had time.

Well, take me and you for example, can’t we LIKE each other even though I have a view of hell? Do you think it’s corrosive in our case between me and you personally?

Well hey, what's keeping us? Let's get on with it.

Hey, I agree with you, we should all come together and help with a noble task, hands down, I’m with you. BUT (BUT) me agreeing with you will not make others agree with US. Plus you have to bring into this equation other factors. Some people will not come together for reasons already mentioned, which are selfish reasons, they don’t care to take the time or funds or energy to help, they are selfish. The other factors are some don’t KNOW that the earth needs saving. Other factors are that some do know, but they don’t have the funds to help. Other factors are some know, but they don’t know how to go about doing it. Other factors are that some folk don’t BELIEVE the scientists prediction that the earth is in trouble. And yes another factor is what you mentioned, SOME STUPID religious folk think it don’t matter since God is coming back and going to renew it all anyway, so no need to help. Still yet another factor could be that some will disagree with the METHOD used to help in this task.

So those are ALL the factors you have to bring into this as well, if you are going to have ANY hope of bringing or persuading others to come together to save the earth. Everyone has different reasons why they are not coming together. And those reasons are not just a belief in a hell.

 

[Jollybear]

No_body

Wait, what? Why do you care about the distinction "pink" from your line of reasoning, unicorns are possibly real.

You said that in old books pink unicorns were mentioned. I quote you “Hell is like unicorns, sure there are signs of them in old books and from men long gone but we have no real proof that they ever existed.” Did I misunderstand you? If so, clear it up for me please, if not, can I have the source for that? I care to have the source because I hear this pink unicorn thing being said too much, even though I refuted it numerous times, no one ever response to my refutation of it. But, may I have the source?

Also, are you saying that pink unicorns are possibly real? If that’s so, why not say that hell is possibly real then?

If the parents want to go through the botheration of teaching them all sides fine, but in a class we have to go with what's solid and provable as there is a limited amount of time. It also helps enforce the lesson if you see it in action.

Intelligent design view is just as solid as the Darwinian evolution view. So, why not teach both those in the limited of time class room?

Maybe but it would be a waste of time to teach, the intelligent design argument is basically God "magicked" things into existence it doesn't matter what fancy philosophies and arguments that they've come up for it since the entire thing isn't provable.

I don’t like how atheists CHERRY PICK evidence. I so don’t like it and I want an explanation for why they do it. It would not be a waste of time to teach intelligent design alongside Darwinian evolution. The reason why is because the evidence for design is just as strong as Darwinian evolution (I personally think it’s slightly more stronger, but to be fair, it is JUST as strong). What is the difference between believing God magically created the universe opposed to believing SOMETHING magically came from NOTHING? Are they not both magical? (not to mention God creating it is not magical, since he is building something from his own mind and power, but that is besides the point, even if I grant you that God magically did it, what’s the difference between that and something magically coming from nothing for no reason? Why do you want to cherry pick and then decide that gets taught in the school?)

So I’ll say along with you “it doesn’t matter what fancy philosophies and arguments that you have come up with, since the entire “something from nothing” isn’t provable.

So yes it would be VERY FAIR to teach both sides in the class room. Otherwise teaching critical thinking becomes then a double standard. Is that what you wish to promote?

If you say well the parents can teach the other sides at home. But what your missing is, a lot of parents won’t do that, so then the school raises kids to be hypocritical, think critically, yet don’t think that way, and so the kids will be taught this double standard and follow it, thus following hypocrisy.

Nice job school.

Yes science should go in Carte Blanche when it is looking at things but there are also rules, principals and laws that have been discovered before that need to be followed when looking at things.

Carte blanche, what’s that? Simple question I had, should science LIMIT itself to only seeking a natural explanation or should they keep it OPEN to the ACTUAL explanation? If you think it should be limited, then ……WHY?

I'm no scientist but I believe the "flaws" in Darwinian evolution are just things we haven't found yet. It is far different to make logical leaps than magical ones.

I know you probably aren’t doing this deliberately, but this statement ANGERS ME, and it’s not just you that makes this kind of argument, others do it too. Let me tell you why it angers me, Darwinian evolution ALSO is magical, it relies heavily on chance (which you can’t even prove that chance exists).

So it comes down to we cannot question or judge the creator, we must all fall on our knees and blindly obey. You'll excuse me if I see a problem with this, especially how it is easy for people to control others with this line of thinking.

First off, you did not attempt to refute what I actually said, that is a problem, here is what I actually said, please refute my argument here

“Wrong, that is stupid, Adams seed is a PART OF HIM. Likewise the egg in Eve is a part of Eve. Therefore the child is going to have a part of them in them. Plus the reason why God won’t separate the curse from the seed is because God set it up in such a way to where we HAVE RESPONSIBILITY in our relationship to GOD and TO OTHERS. Also God set it up to such a way that if you SIN, breaking his laws, it can damage your relationship to God and to OTHERS. Why does God do this? TO SHOW YOU how bad sin really is. If you don’t trust him that sin is REALLY that bad, then you will find out the HARD way that sin is REALLY that bad. If sin did not hurt, there would be no value to laws being in existence. If we had no responsibility, there would be no value to relationships, because nothing would hurt. What kind of magical world are you living in?

So yes God is just and WISE for setting it up this way. It would be a non cyclic world and magical world if he did not set it up this way. It would be a world where things we value, would no longer be valued. That is a weird and boring kind of world. I should make a thread titled “what would you do differently, if you were God and what would the implications be to your decision making”. Sounds catchy.”

Also if I may add, just because there is a counterfeit of people or demons trying to use power to control people out of a FALSE motive, does not mean that there is a REAL that exists, with a TRUE and LOVING motive in keeping people inline.

Your assuming the worst in God’s case, why?

 

[Jollybear]

No that is my point of view of the story.

Well your point of view of the story is a twist of the story, have you read all of the scriptures that contain the full story? If so, then you’re deliberately twisting the story, if you haven’t read them all, then your twisting it but not realizing it. I know the story, I can prove to you what it says, you want sources? I’ll give them to you if you don’t take my word for it. God came down in the flesh according to the story and he died on the cross according to the story (none of this is my point of view) to save us from sin and hell according to the story. He did this to bring us back to himself, according to the story. He WANTED us, but he also did it for those who WANTED HIM and to come back to him. IT was a two way streak, God wanted us, SOME wanted him, but those who did not want him, he still died for them.

That’s the story, get it strait.

If you’re going to refute it, refute it based on the merit of what the story actually IS and what the motives behind the story actually are.

Plus even if I granted you that God did not come in the flesh, but just sent his Son to do it, STILL your point of view does not work, because the SON came WILLINGLY. HE even said “no one takes my life from me I have AUTHORITY to lay down my life and authority to take it up”

And God had to do it this way to show both his justice and mercy at the same time. This is the BIG point right there, justice and mercy AT THE SAME TIME. God is both just AND merciful. But the cross of Christ demonstrates a consistency with justice and mercy. Because usually justice contradicts mercy and visa versa, but the cross does away with that contradiction because it brings sacrifice in order to save and satisfy justice.

It’s like this, let me illustrate. This is a story I read, I can’t remember if it was fiction or not, but here it is. There was a judge, his son got caught for speeding, got a ticket, came to court, faced his father the judge in court. The son thought because that was his dad up there doing the judging that he would let him off the hook with a warning. The son was fooled, the dad DID NOT let him off, the dad said, you must pay the fine, I’m NOT waving it, JUSTICE must be done” the son was shocked, he said to his dad “but you KNOW I can’t afford this dad” and so the dad (the judge) gets up and comes down and reaches into his pocket and gives his son the money and says “there, NOW you can afford it IF you accept it”.

That’s what God did.

MERCY and JUSTICE AT THE SAME TIME!

Pain and grief will always be with us, what I mean is unneeded suffering. It is important to free ourselves from this suffering to see the world as it really is; the ultimate reality. Why? Because that is how we grow. As a species with higher consciousness we where given empathy and compassion and that allows us to feel what others feel. I'll grant you that none of this is scientific but at least it grounds us in this world and pushes us all to good right now for ourselves and others.

Why GROWING important?

I see the dharmic principles as superior to the Abrahamic ones because they allow for change instead of trying to stick us into a thousands year old values and traditions.

Why is CHANGE important? What if someone got it right or got the truth, why CHANGE from that into falsehood?

If there is no God, if there is nothing supernatural then society and each other is all we have. That actually makes life the most important thing of all since there are no repeats, even a clone of something would have the greatest individual value.

I hope you realize that you obviously did not answer my question. If there is no God or supernatural, yea, society would be all that we have, I already realized that part, but that is not what I asked. If society and this natural world is all we have, WHY does that make it important? Your saying it’s important because it’s all that we would have, that is circular, why is “all that we have” important? Because it’s all that we have? Ok, but why is all that we have important? Because there are no repeats? Ok, why is this ONE life important?

It is good because that is what is fair. No religion should have more importance than another.

I have two questions for you.
1: should truth have more importance then lies?
2: how does government make all religions or beliefs or values or views neutral when they make a decision based on a belief/value/ideology or view and enforce it?

From my point of view that is not fair. Humans are diverse creatures and what you are asking for is akin to brainwashing to me. Because I don't see things how you see things I'm wrong. I've already said that to me that is not real justice, you are saying we aren't allowed to question God on these matters because he knows best. Well I disagree.

Ok, I KNOW you disagree though, that part I already know, what I don’t know YET is WHY you disagree? Your saying it’s not fair, it’s not just, but you’re not telling me WHY you think that? Could you make an argument against what I said for God?

I did not say humans were not diverse, sure, they are, they all have different jobs, talents, gifts, preferences, yea, sure, but how does that have anything to do with TRUTH?

Also if you don’t see things how I see things, it’s not just that you are wrong, but I will tell you WHY I THINK your wrong and then ask you why you THINK I am wrong. So far, you are just disagreeing but not telling me WHY you think I am wrong. Tell me why, refute, make an argument.

Also I did not say you could not QUESTION God, I said he knows better than you since he is in the position to know better, is he not? Are you claiming you KNOW better? Think for a moment now, you’re not in the position to KNOW everything and therefore know what is BEST in every situation, are you? Why do you think God does NOT know better?

 

[Etritonakin]

It's not the body that you are, YOU are always there though.

That's my point -if we simply evolved, it is not inevitable that it would happen again -in fact, it would be extremely unlikely.

...but we didn't simply evolve -so we don't have to worry about being 8 legged, one-eyed sulfur-breathers. (I wonder if such would also develop the concept of the "hottie" -and what attributes might constitute a hottie among them)

 

[Danny Heim]

That's my point -if we simply evolved, it is not inevitable that it would happen again -in fact, it would be extremely unlikely.

...but we didn't simply evolve -so we don't have to worry about being 8 legged, one-eyed sulfur-breathers. (I wonder if such would also develop the concept of the "hottie" -and what attributes might constitute a hottie among them)

Let's assume you are correct. Does that mean we should give up on evolving now? Does that mean we accept that we should just let ourselves go down as the species that made life on earth uninhabitable?

As for hottie's, since you would have eight legs to choose from, the odds a girl would have one decent leg would rise, so therefore there would be more hotties.

 

[Danny Heim]

Why not just say it plainly that "your God is cruel" such that I can explain to you the contrary. All you can say here is that we differ in faith, that's it. Which I know. While you think that you didn't misunderstand Christianity which I have to disagree. It is because by reading through your own wordings that you don't seem to understand what Christianity is though you think you understand.

While I said that you misunderstood Christianity, and you said that it's me who misunderstood?!!! Geez, misunderstood what?! Atheism as a religion?!

I am not an Atheist. I have a much different concept of God that you, but I have one. For the most part, we are only talking about one aspect of Christianity here and that is Hell. I do know that there is much to Christianity that is valid and wonderful at the same time. So maybe that is why you think I do not understand it. Is that possible? And it also is possible to understand something and not agree with it. Perhaps that is why you are saying I do not understand it, because I disagree with it, is that also possible?

 

[Etritonakin]

Let's assume you are correct. Does that mean we should give up on evolving now? Does that mean we accept that we should just let ourselves go down as the species that made life on earth uninhabitable?

As for hottie's, since you would have eigth legs to choose from, the odds a girl would have one decent leg would rise, so therefore there would be more hotties.

Give up "evolving" (making things better)? No -but that which threatens our existence and the earth (apart from natural/cosmic events) IS what we have considered to be our evolution thus far -science was sold in the 50's etc... as that which could bring about "utopia" -but without absolute moral law -not simply ever-changing "ethics" -it is simply a means to amplify both good and evil. Now we have the ability to actually destroy every one of us many times over -and make the earth uninhabitable for a very long time. No matter how you look at it, universal adherance to the absolute moral law (which would make tyranny impossible) which is derived from the nature of the creation (universe/environment/selves if you will) -physical and spiritual -is the single most important necessity to our "evolution". Unfortunately, those (not all) who believe we simply evolved have a tendency to reject the idea of absolute moral law.

Hmmmmm... Eight legs.... More hotties... Keep talkin'!

hehehehehehehehehe

 

[Danny Heim]

Danny_Heim


Yes, it can be ignored, but why do you think my view is NOT good?
Your view of hell is fine, that is, if there has to be one. What makes it wrong in my view, is it still put us in a tyrannical situation. We still are faced with a God who demands to be bowed down to or else.

Well, take me and you for example, can’t we LIKE each other even though I have a view of hell? Do you think it’s corrosive in our case between me and you personally?
No, I don't. It is the collective mind I am concerned about. You seem like a fine person.

Hey, I agree with you, we should all come together and help with a noble task, hands down, I’m with you. BUT (BUT) me agreeing with you will not make others agree with US. Plus you have to bring into this equation other factors. Some people will not come together for reasons already mentioned, which are selfish reasons, they don’t care to take the time or funds or energy to help, they are selfish. The other factors are some don’t KNOW that the earth needs saving. Other factors are that some do know, but they don’t have the funds to help. Other factors are some know, but they don’t know how to go about doing it. Other factors are that some folk don’t BELIEVE the scientists prediction that the earth is in trouble. And yes another factor is what you mentioned, SOME STUPID religious folk think it don’t matter since God is coming back and going to renew it all anyway, so no need to help. Still yet another factor could be that some will disagree with the METHOD used to help in this task.

So those are ALL the factors you have to bring into this as well, if you are going to have ANY hope of bringing or persuading others to come together to save the earth. Everyone has different reasons why they are not coming together. And those reasons are not just a belief in a hell.
That is all very true. And I'm working on that.
This discussion of Hell in this thread is actually just an example of the obstacles we face in bringing ourselves to a higher consciousness. We have tons of work to do, if we are going to succeed in time.

 

[Etritonakin]

Your view of hell is fine, that is, if there has to be one. What makes it wrong in my view, is it still put us in a tyrannical situation. We still are faced with a God who demands to be bowed down to or else.

I'm not defending anyone's view of hell, but to say that God saying 'bow down to me or else' is tyranny is like saying the invention of the wing prevents you from flying.
If you disobey the laws of physics/flight, you will die. This is the same as saying "the soul that sinneth, it shall die." What God says to do is the only way to produce universal freedom. To disobey leads to death, anyway -but God does expedite our deaths in some situations -knowing that we would only harm ourselves and others -and knowing he plans to resurrect all -enforce freedom -and teach us to be free -and if we still reject him, he will not allow a bunch of yahoos into etrnity to mess everything up for everyone else.

 

[Danny Heim]

Give up "evolving" (making things better)? No -but that which threatens our existence and the earth (apart from natural/cosmic events) IS what we have considered to be our evolution thus far -science was sold in the 50's etc... as that which could bring about "utopia" -but without absolute moral law -not simply ever-changing "ethics" -it is simply a means to amplify both good and evil. Now we have the ability to actually destroy every one of us many times over -and make the earth uninhabitable for a very long time. No matter how you look at it, universal adherance to the absolute moral law (which would make tyranny impossible) which is derived from the nature of the creation (universe/environment/selves if you will) -physical and spiritual -is the single most important necessity to our "evolution". Unfortunately, those (not all) who believe we simply evolved have a tendency to reject the idea of absolute moral law.


Hmmmmm... Eight legs.... More hotties... Keep talkin'!

hehehehehehehehehe

There are absolute moral laws with us right now. Even for those who reject them, they suffer their own demise. There is probably, in their totality anyway, as mush to deal with in regards to evolutionists as there are with creationist. I ain't even gotten on to that one yet. Yes, we need morals to evolve, for sure. What are you referring to as absolute moral law?

 

[Eliot Wild]

WHAT THE HELL????????

Are you guys still on this subject? I mean, come on, I've certainly seen longer threads, but how much could there be to talk about when it comes to hell?

Just kidding. I actually like the long debates . . . maybe it means you guys are actually having some valid back-and-forth rather than just talking AT one another.

I only stopped in to see where the debate has gone at this point . . . Oh, and I also wanted to let you know, if you make it through five more pages, I am copying this thread and sending it to a publisher. If it sells, we can split the royalties, okay?

 

[Danny Heim]

WHAT THE HELL????????

Are you guys still on this subject? I mean, come on, I've certainly seen longer threads, but how much could there be to talk about when it comes to hell?

Just kidding. I actually like the long debates . . . maybe it means you guys are actually having some valid back-and-forth rather than just talking AT one another.

I only stopped in to see where the debate has gone at this point . . . Oh, and I also wanted to let you know, if you make it through five more pages, I am copying this thread and sending it to a publisher. If it sells, we can split the royalties, okay?

that'd be groovy

 

[no-body]

No_body



You said that in old books pink unicorns were mentioned. I quote you “Hell is like unicorns, sure there are signs of them in old books and from men long gone but we have no real proof that they ever existed.” Did I misunderstand you? If so, clear it up for me please, if not, can I have the source for that? I care to have the source because I hear this pink unicorn thing being said too much, even though I refuted it numerous times, no one ever response to my refutation of it. But, may I have the source?

Also, are you saying that pink unicorns are possibly real? If that’s so, why not say that hell is possibly real then?

I don't remember typing pink unicorns, you must be thinking of someone else using unicorns as an example. I'm saying to compare the two ideas. Hell is just as valid as the idea of unicorns from the info we have.

Intelligent design view is just as solid as the Darwinian evolution view. So, why not teach both those in the limited of time class room?

Using empirical theory, no they aren't equal.

I don’t like how atheists CHERRY PICK evidence. I so don’t like it and I want an explanation for why they do it. It would not be a waste of time to teach intelligent design alongside Darwinian evolution. The reason why is because the evidence for design is just as strong as Darwinian evolution (I personally think it’s slightly more stronger, but to be fair, it is JUST as strong). What is the difference between believing God magically created the universe opposed to believing SOMETHING magically came from NOTHING? Are they not both magical? (not to mention God creating it is not magical, since he is building something from his own mind and power, but that is besides the point, even if I grant you that God magically did it, what’s the difference between that and something magically coming from nothing for no reason? Why do you want to cherry pick and then decide that gets taught in the school?)

So I’ll say along with you “it doesn’t matter what fancy philosophies and arguments that you have come up with, since the entire “something from nothing” isn’t provable.

So yes it would be VERY FAIR to teach both sides in the class room. Otherwise teaching critical thinking becomes then a double standard. Is that what you wish to promote?

You misunderstand it's not that "atheist" i.e. science cherry picks it's that it only goes with things that are provable and have evidence to them. If there was some valid proof that God actually created the world, science would accept it and start teaching it. But there isn't so until then it must remain silent.

If you say well the parents can teach the other sides at home. But what your missing is, a lot of parents won’t do that, so then the school raises kids to be hypocritical, think critically, yet don’t think that way, and so the kids will be taught this double standard and follow it, thus following hypocrisy.

Nice job school.

You don't teach the round earth and the flat earth theory for instance and let them decide. You teach critical thinking skills and what's provable.

Carte blanche, what’s that? Simple question I had, should science LIMIT itself to only seeking a natural explanation or should they keep it OPEN to the ACTUAL explanation? If you think it should be limited, then ……WHY?

Carte Blanche means blank slate. What you are asking for science to do is exactly what it does. Sure there are arrogant scientist out there who won't even deign to take the question of the supernatural seriously but that isn't science fault.

I know you probably aren’t doing this deliberately, but this statement ANGERS ME, and it’s not just you that makes this kind of argument, others do it too. Let me tell you why it angers me, Darwinian evolution ALSO is magical, it relies heavily on chance (which you can’t even prove that chance exists).

No it isn't, it's based on observable facts and evidence. Scientist can duplicate evolution with controlled experiments in a lab. You can't duplicate an experiment with God creating the universe.

First off, you did not attempt to refute what I actually said, that is a problem, here is what I actually said, please refute my argument here

“Wrong, that is stupid, Adams seed is a PART OF HIM. Likewise the egg in Eve is a part of Eve. Therefore the child is going to have a part of them in them. Plus the reason why God won’t separate the curse from the seed is because God set it up in such a way to where we HAVE RESPONSIBILITY in our relationship to GOD and TO OTHERS. Also God set it up to such a way that if you SIN, breaking his laws, it can damage your relationship to God and to OTHERS. Why does God do this? TO SHOW YOU how bad sin really is. If you don’t trust him that sin is REALLY that bad, then you will find out the HARD way that sin is REALLY that bad. If sin did not hurt, there would be no value to laws being in existence. If we had no responsibility, there would be no value to relationships, because nothing would hurt. What kind of magical world are you living in?

So yes God is just and WISE for setting it up this way. It would be a non cyclic world and magical world if he did not set it up this way. It would be a world where things we value, would no longer be valued. That is a weird and boring kind of world. I should make a thread titled “what would you do differently, if you were God and what would the implications be to your decision making”. Sounds catchy.”

I don't try to refute it because I have a problem with the entire premise. I've already stated multiple times that I see this as selfish, evil, and tyrannically not befitting a so called "just perfect God" my point of view differs from yours, there is nothing else to debate.

Also if I may add, just because there is a counterfeit of people or demons trying to use power to control people out of a FALSE motive, does not mean that there is a REAL that exists, with a TRUE and LOVING motive in keeping people inline.

Your assuming the worst in God’s case, why?

Because that's just how I see things? Your point of view allows for God to do anything since it involves never questioning him and simply stating the little you do question as the only way to look at the matter and as the definite proof. There is no arguing with that logic.

I hope you realize that you obviously did not answer my question. If there is no God or supernatural, yea, society would be all that we have, I already realized that part, but that is not what I asked. If society and this natural world is all we have, WHY does that make it important? Your saying it’s important because it’s all that we would have, that is circular, why is “all that we have” important? Because it’s all that we have? Ok, but why is all that we have important? Because there are no repeats? Ok, why is this ONE life important?

I have two questions for you.
1: should truth have more importance then lies?
2: how does government make all religions or beliefs or values or views neutral when they make a decision based on a belief/value/id

Why? Because we give it importance. In a more broad sense because evolutionary wise we are meant to increase ourselves and this is best done by regarding all of humanity as a tribe and bettering ourselves. That is why I granted that religion has been good as a starting crutch but we are coming to a point where we can simply drop the superstitions.

1: What is truth?
2: By basing that decision on a neutral humanist value that treats all beliefs equal

Change is important because it's how we continue to survive and grow. The need for a God is rooted in things wanting to stay the same forever, fear of death, the want of immortality and power. To me the biblical God is dangerous because it stagnates us culturally and gives people the surety that their truth is forever the only one true truth, and that is everything that science is not about, which is about humbling yourself to the mysteries and laws of the universe.

As for the rest of your argument I just disagree because once again that is the way I see it from my perspective. I've read the bible, just because I don't get out of it what you do doesn't make my opinion of it wrong. Why is yours supposedly the objective "truth" especially when there is no real evidence for it other than a feeling you get and share with others?

 

[Danny Heim]

I'm not defending anyone's view of hell, but to say that God saying 'bow down to me or else' is tyranny is like saying the invention of the wing prevents you from flying.
If you disobey the laws of physics/flight, you will die. This is the same as saying "the soul that sinneth, it shall die." What God says to do is the only way to produce universal freedom. To disobey leads to death, anyway -but God does expedite our deaths in some situations -knowing that we would only harm ourselves and others -and knowing he plans to resurrect all -enforce freedom -and teach us to be free -and if we still reject him, he will not allow a bunch of yahoos into etrnity to mess everything up for everyone else.

All that is fine and good, but I think "God" has that built in already in our evolution. He need not interfere, in fact, in my version of God that would be the last thing he/she/it would do. That is were the love comes in, free will is the ultimate love of God.

Heading out for the day, you all be good.

 

[logician]

All that is fine and good, but I think "God" has that built in already in our evolution. He need not interfere, in fact, in my version of God that would be the last thing he/she/it would do. That is were the love comes in, free will is the ultimate love of God.

So you're "benevolent" god allows unnecessary suffering?:sleep:

 

[Etritonakin]

There are absolute moral laws with us right now. Even for those who reject them, they suffer their own demise. There is probably, in their totality anyway, as mush to deal with in regards to evolutionists as there are with creationist. I ain't even gotten on to that one yet. Yes, we need morals to evolve, for sure. What are you referring to as absolute moral law?

The laws are with us at all times -but some don't know them or obey them -true.

Some are apparent -others not so much.

When I say absolute moral law, I mean every word that proceeds from the mouth of God -but if God did not exist (which he does), the latter of the ten commandments would still be the core of absolute moral law. They may seem simple, out-dated, lacking understanding -whatever, but study them one by one -and think how the world might be affected if everyone kept them.

If we did not covet, corporations wouldn't be making it illegal to collect rainwater or seeds, so people have to pay for their water and suicide-gene seeds. If we did not kill, war would end (some don't see "official" war as going against that commandment, but this is not actually the case -I'll explain that later if you like),
etc... etc....

I think the most contested of the latter commandments today would be the one concerning adultery. It essentially means that we are to refrain from sex until we are married -that we should marry one of the opposite sex (yes the bible is quite specific about it) -that we should remain married until one or the other dies -that we should not have sex with any but the one to whom we are married -and that we should not even entertain thoughts of any such infractions.

When I have considered it, the "grayest" area I have seen is the trans-gender issue -physically and mentally. Some have both male and female sex organs -how would such a one keep the commandment (assuming they even considered it)? I also believe that -just as organs can be mixed -so can minds. The male and female brains have obvious physical differences -and (as much as I understand it) functional differences -so it is just as possible that a man could be within a female body -so to speak -and vice-versa. This is not to say the commandment is irrelevant -but that the natural, intended, processes have been confused. The commandment seems irrelevant to one who considers it so, but to those who consider the commandment sincerely... one's willingness to obey God is far more important than any confusion in how to do so. If God says he requires A or B -and all you have is C... whatcha gonna do?
I started working the problem from the end. The commandment concerning adultery WILL be irrelevant to those "born again" as immortals -as they will not have gender -just as marriage is binding only until death (though some lucky few find one true love in their life quite enough).
The commandment is also irrelevant to those in this life who choose not to marry (except the spiritual aspect -which can be a bit more difficult -because God did a reeeeaaaalllllllyyyyy good job when he created woman!!!!!!![women may think this about men -but I just don't get it ]).

.........anyway... this will take more space than allowed in one post -so I'll continue it later.....

 

[Etritonakin]

All that is fine and good, but I think "God" has that built in already in our evolution. He need not interfere, in fact, in my version of God that would be the last thing he/she/it would do. That is were the love comes in, free will is the ultimate love of God.

Heading out for the day, you all be good.

Read the newspaper -that's free will. God sorting this mess out because we can not -that's love.

.....and if I see you about to do an "EPIC FAIL" -and do nothing? Is that love?

To quote BFBC2.... "Don't go over there unless you wanna get lit the **** up!!!!!!"

Jud 1:22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
Jud 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

 

[Danny Heim]

Read the newspaper -that's free will. God sorting this mess out because we can not -that's love.

.....and if I see you about to do an "EPIC FAIL" -and do nothing? Is that love?

To quote BFBC2.... "Don't go over there unless you wanna get lit the **** up!!!!!!"

Jud 1:22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
Jud 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

Well, I see it like this. If I were going to make something that I could really love and that love last a long time. Then I would have made humans with free will do as they choose and let them grow as far as they wish to, that or die off, whichever comes first. That way I could watch and be fascinated with what they come up with. It might take billions of years, but eventually they might would see the light and grow. That would be fun to watch. And there is nothing the matter with God entertaining him/her/it self.

You have to remember, it's a big universe, God has plenty to get off on besides us.

 

[Danny Heim]

So you're "benevolent" god allows unnecessary suffering?:sleep:

Why wouldn't it? If it were going to interfere at some point, what fun would that be? For God or us.