the relativity of religion

[TheGreaterGame]

Yeah, flupke. As GreaterGame has pointed out, God condemns millions of evil, wicked, depraved newborns who die all over the world every day. Kind of makes you wonder how loving He is, doesn't it?

But, it's okay, because GreaterGame is saved and who else really matters?

The Greater Game blah, blah, blah, bablah, blah-blah . . . don't you know that God loves people-Katzpur

Come on Kat . . . surely you can do better then this

 

[Katzpur]

The Greater Game blah, blah, blah, bablah, blah-blah . . . don't you know that God loves people-Katzpur

Come on Kat . . . surely you can do better then this

Well, why don't you tell us what happens to all of the sinful babies who die, GG. If you believe they're going to go to hell, stand up for what you believe.

 

[TheGreaterGame]

Well, why don't you tell us what happens to all of the sinful babies who die, GG. If you believe they're going to go to hell, stand up for what you believe.

That is just not fair . . . I have adressed this in other posts Kat . . . stick to attacking my ideas from now on and not me, thanks.

 

[flupke]

there are some faulty arguments that you are making:

1. God doesn't condemn people because of the wrong faith . . . he condemns all because all are sinners. So all are condemned.

and, according to at least a subset of christians (NOT necessarily you), you won't go to heaven unless you accept god. Which means, if you have the wrong faith, you'll go to hell. Problem remains. I have heard self-acclaimed theologists (christian) tell me that you have to accept god (as well as other people in different threads on this forum). If YOU in particular don't think this is true, fair enough. I'm in PARTICULAR attacking the existence of 'perfect gods' that see belief in them as a necessary requirement to go to heaven (whether this is a christian god or any other doesn't matter)

2. God sets the standard . . . not you and not I. If God says that to enter into heaven you have to be born again, by faith, through Christ . . . then that is the standard. I doubt with certainty that when a person looks into the eyes of the perfect judge, God and King . . . that anyone will be critical of the way God sets the standard.

If god sets an unfairrequirement, it means that that god is not perfect. Therefore, discussing about it is crucial.

3. You cannot disprove the Christian God your principle above . . . it flies in face of history, the General Church World-Wide, the Bible, and common rationalism.

It seems to me people just don't like to hear that God has standards, why? Because people want to be accepted on their terms-not on God's terms. I wonder how you've been dissaponted with Christianity? I know that there are a lot of dishonest people who claim to be Christians . . . a lot of Christians who do stupid and sinful things . . . the Church of Christ is full of sinners, and for that I apologize . . . but I do not recind the above points . . . may God bless you.

It's not clear to me what your particular point is on salvation. Is, according to you, belief in your god before the hour of death a necessary requirement ?
- If you say yes, there is clearly a problem: people who never heard of God can't help that and to punish them is way less than to be expected from a perfect being.

- If you say no, the problem is still there. Saying "God will judge whoever will be saved and who not, regardless of whether they believe in him or not" is still problematic: as I posted earlier, we're all a product of our genes, education, and environment. EVERYBODY does what he/she thinks is best. NOBODY who is 100% sure of the existence of God will refute God (unless a very dumb lunatic). Therefore, NOBODY can be held accountable for not believing in God, because it's the nature of the interactions with other people that DETERMINES what they believe or not believe. If NOBODY can be held accountable, there should be no hell at all, which definitely goes in directly against your christian belief.

 

[flupke]

Again, neither my religion nor my beliefs make any such claim.

Well, then I guess I'm not attacking your particular religion. I'm attacking the ones that do have the requirement of 'belief' for going to heaven.

Out of curiosity: what is, according to your beliefs, the requirement to go to 'paradise' ?

 

[TheGreaterGame]

and, according to at least a subset of christians (NOT necessarily you), you won't go to heaven unless you accept god. Which means, if you have the wrong faith, you'll go to hell. Problem remains. I have heard self-acclaimed theologists (christian) tell me that you have to accept god (as well as other people in different threads on this forum). If YOU in particular don't think this is true, fair enough. I'm in PARTICULAR attacking the existence of 'perfect gods' that see belief in them as a necessary requirement to go to heaven (whether this is a christian god or any other doesn't matter)


If god sets an unfairrequirement, it means that that god is not perfect. Therefore, discussing about it is crucial.


It's not clear to me what your particular point is on salvation. Is, according to you, belief in your god before the hour of death a necessary requirement ?
- If you say yes, there is clearly a problem: people who never heard of God can't help that and to punish them is way less than to be expected from a perfect being.

- If you say no, the problem is still there. Saying "God will judge whoever will be saved and who not, regardless of whether they believe in him or not" is still problematic: as I posted earlier, we're all a product of our genes, education, and environment. EVERYBODY does what he/she thinks is best. NOBODY who is 100% sure of the existence of God will refute God (unless a very dumb lunatic). Therefore, NOBODY can be held accountable for not believing in God, because it's the nature of the interactions with other people that DETERMINES what they believe or not believe. If NOBODY can be held accountable, there should be no hell at all, which definitely goes in directly against your christian belief.

How can mortal men place their finite ideas onto a God who trancends our little brains by untold eons . . . its like frog telling a king how he should run his kingdom, it just doesn't work . . . ones a frog and ones a King. How can anyone place a subjective argument on a completly objective God who sees all and who knows all? You can't . . . we just continue thinking we are smart, but the truth is we only know what God has decided to reveal.

 

[flupke]

How can mortal men place their finite ideas onto a God who trancends our little brains by untold eons . . . its like frog telling a king how he should run his kingdom, it just doesn't work . . . ones a frog and ones a King. How can anyone place a subjective argument on a completly objective God who sees all and who knows all? You can't . . .

How could we finite mortals be expected to comprehend how god makes a square circle. Only god has the capability of doing that.

God can't do what is unlogical, greatergame, so therefore we are allowed to discuss it. Any religion that claims god can do something unlogical cannot be right.

we just continue thinking we are smart, but the truth is we only know what God has decided to reveal.

maybe the people writing the bible were smarter than the people believing in it...

 

[TheGreaterGame]

How could we finite mortals be expected to comprehend how god makes a square circle. Only god has the capability of doing that.

God can't do what is unlogical, greatergame, so therefore we are allowed to discuss it. Any religion that claims god can do something unlogical cannot be right.


maybe the people writing the bible were smarter than the people believing in it...

Who is saying that God does anything illogical? I didn't.

 

[flupke]

Who is saying that God does anything illogical? I didn't.

No, but I'm stating that perfection and unfairness are incompatible. Saying that they are compatible is an unlogical statement (unless you have a funny definition of perfection).

I'm dissecting why it is inherently unfair, and all you do is say that god is far more intelligent and can solve it in a way we cannot understand. If you want to debate, then go in against the specifics of why it's not unfair, but don't expect any sympathy for a statement similar to "god can do to it anyway, end of discussion". It is at that stage a lot of believers start getting completely irrational and are amazed rational people don't share their views...

 

[Katzpur]

That is just not fair . . . I have adressed this in other posts Kat . . . stick to attacking my ideas from now on and not me, thanks.

Yes, you certainly have, but I wouldn't want to make flupke have to plow through them all to see your thoughts on the subject.

Flupke, after having asked TheGreaterGame four times in a row what sin a newborn baby has committed, I finally got this answer:

The child was born . . . that is the answer . . . you don't have to like it

Needless to say, I don't share his point of view. GreaterGame's God may use babies for firewood, but mine doesn't. I make this point just so that you will be aware that not all of us come from the same warped mold.

 

[TheGreaterGame]

Yes, you certainly have, but I wouldn't want to make flupke have to plow through them all to see your thoughts on the subject.

Flupke, after having asked TheGreaterGame four times in a row what sin a newborn baby has committed, I finally got this answer:



Needless to say, I don't share his point of view. GreaterGame's God may use babies for firewood, but mine doesn't. I make this point just so that you will be aware that not all of us come from the same warped mold.

AD HOM is weak

 

[Katzpur]

AD HOM is weak

Still can't support your premise, huh?

 

[TheGreaterGame]

Still can't support your premise, huh?

Still can't accept consistent biblical theology, huh?

 

[Katzpur]

Still can't accept consistent biblical theology, huh?

Consistent biblical theology? :biglaugh:

If condemning babies to Hell for having had the audacity to be born is consistent with something a God of love would do, I wonder what He would do if He were truly without mercy and compassion. The problem with your theology, GG, is that it's full of holes. When you're missing half the puzzle pieces, it's no wonder you come up with such an ugly picture.

 

[TheGreaterGame]

Consistent biblical theology? :biglaugh:

If condemning babies to Hell for having had the audacity to be born is consistent with something a God of love would do, I wonder what He would do if He were truly without mercy and compassion. The problem with your theology, GG, is that it's full of holes. When you're missing half the puzzle pieces, it's no wonder you come up with such an ugly picture.

Is not God equally a God of Justice? How just would it be that there is no punishment for sin?

 

[Katzpur]

Is not God equally a God of Justice? How just would it be that there is no punishment for sin?

He absolutely is a God of Justice. That's why He punishes us for the sins we actually commit and not for having been born. Jesus Christ atoned for my sins and for yours. He also atoned for Adam's. At least that's what my Bible says.

 

[flupke]

He absolutely is a God of Justice. That's why He punishes us for the sins we actually commit and not for having been born. Jesus Christ atoned for my sins and for yours. He also atoned for Adam's. At least that's what my Bible says.

I'm consciously mixing this one up with the spirit thread; if you're saying conscious spirits were already there before you were ever conceived, then could your spirits already have committed any crimes ? Is that why the 'innocent babies', who are actually 'eternally old' are being condemned ?

 

[flupke]

Is not God equally a God of Justice? How just would it be that there is no punishment for sin?

What exactly is your definition of "sin" if you're stating that "being born is a sin" ?
I thought "sin" was doing something "wrong" in a conscious way. Since the babies lack any kind of conscious conception of what right or wrong is, you must have a very interesting definition of "sin".

"sitting at a table is a sin, therefore all people sitting at a table will go to hell unless saved"

 

[Popeyesays]

"Alas! that humanity is completely submerged in imitations and unrealities notwithstanding the truth of divine religion has ever remained the same. Superstitions have obscured the fundamental reality, the world is darkened and the light of religion is not apparent. This darkness is conducive to differences and dissensions; rites and dogmas are many and various; therefore discord has arisen among the religious systems whereas religion is for the unification of mankind. True religion is the source of love and agreement amongst men, the cause of the development of praiseworthy qualities; but the people are holding to the counterfeit and imitation, negligent of the reality which unifies; so they are bereft and deprived of the radiance of religion. They follow superstitions inherited from their fathers and ancestors. To such an extent has this prevailed that they have taken away the heavenly light of divine truth and sit in the darkness of imitations and imaginations. That which was meant to be conducive to life has become the cause of death; that which should have been an evidence of knowledge is now a proof of ignorance; that which was a factor in the sublimity of human nature has proved to be its degradation. Therefore the realm of the religionist has gradually narrowed and darkened and the sphere of the materialist has widened and advanced; for the religionist has held to imitation and counterfeit, neglecting and discarding holiness and the sacred reality of religion. When the sun sets it is the time for bats to fly. They come forth because they are creatures of the night. When the lights of religion become darkened the materialists appear. They are the bats of night. The decline of religion is their time of activity; they seek the shadows when the world is darkened and clouds have spread over it."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 237)

 

[Katzpur]

I'm consciously mixing this one up with the spirit thread; if you're saying conscious spirits were already there before you were ever conceived, then could your spirits already have committed any crimes ? Is that why the 'innocent babies', who are actually 'eternally old' are being condemned ?

I'm sorry, but I didn't quite follow what you were asking me. Could you maybe explain yourself just a little differently.