Too many religions

[1robin]

So God doesn’t make a distinction just in design between, say, elephants and ducks? [/qupte] In order to have elephants they had to be designed. Or the system that produced them had to be designed and set in motion. Without a cause there is no effect. That necessary fact has nothing to do with how important nature is verses the spiritual. The premise that started this topic is meaningless. There is no valid way to go from the eye color being determined and so salvation must be determined. The argument is just silly. The bible what is what I believe in is very clear that we have free will and why we have it. Outside what it claims I have no reason to put any stock.

It’s man-made compartmentalizing that helps us distinguish Christianity from Buddhism, or the book of Genesis from the book of Sirach. It’s useful, for sure.

As long as the compartments are consistent with either nature of God then they are fine. It is when we go sticking elephants in one arbitrary group and sticking bats in another does it cease to be meaningful.

A vast number of people appear to die in a state of what would appear to be depraved evil. Again, though, God is greater than that which we call evil, and whether He fashions it or not, it’s not irrevocably beyond His control, imo.

I did not say it was. I said everything we can see lines up with my view not yours. If the God you believe in did grant that person heaven then he is unjust and he also granted incentive to be evil as it all comes out the same anyway. Nothing known makes your system apparent. Everything know is consistent with mine. Why do we put people in jail if we can not help it? Why does everyone have an instictive moral system if actions are determined and not chosen? Nothing adds up to no free will. Not the bible, not life, not history, nothing.

I’m often amazed at how people drop these names as though these characters come as some sort of shock to God, and are beyond His ability to restore. The bible does speak of God softening and hardening peoples’ hearts, so I trust that this concept isn’t alien to Christianity. It also speaks of God sending an ‘evil spirit’ into people to enable them to do certain things. I can share those verses if you like.

I did not mention the name in conection with what God is capable of. I mentioned it because if God did God is immoral and his creation pointless. My God can and does rectify the situation with justice not by waving a hand at sin and dismissing it. Sin is so profound and diabolical that it produced death. It just can't be ignored by a just God. Of course an fantasy God that is unjust and taylor made to fit a preconception is capable of any fantasy action.

To repeat what I said in post #338:

I don’t think He’ll necessarily have to “force” people to love Him. I think it’ll pretty much be a no-brainer for each individual as their time comes. They’ll feel no more forced to love Him than they felt forced to love anyone else in their lives.

When does that time come? If in life it is unsupported by reality? If after death then what is the point of life? What is the point of creating robots any way? If your God values forced love then I do not want to ever associate with him and if not forced will reject him.

As it is, we are commanded to love one another, yet I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Christian complain that they were being “forced” to love others. So, why should they think “force” comes into the equation in the case of loving God? Especially if one is convinced that He’s the most radiant, beautiful, gorgeous, loving entity one has ever laid their eyes on. He’s not called the “Beatific Vision” for nothing.

God could force us to love and it would mean nothing. The fact that he instructs us to do so is only necessary if we could choose not to. He tells us to do what is best and our free will being exercised in obedience is pleasing. If no freewill he would not bother to instruct he would just force it. Once again reality bears witness to the choice. You may believe what you wish but trying to force fir into a logical mold is a hopeless task.

No, I don’t think people will be forced to love Him. When they see Him, they’ll probably wonder why they didn’t fall in love sooner and wonder why He didn’t “force” them to.

If they have no ultimate chance to not do something it is by definition FORCED. Compulsion exists where the outcome is determined. You just can't make this work. You may continue to believe it but it the irrational can't be forced to be rational.

However, “Love Me or Else” isn’t love either, so the element of force is still present in both the eternal-torment and the utter annihilation paradigms of Christianity. The only difference is that one is a "robot" scenario (or what the bible would call the "clay" scenario ), and the other is a captor-hostage/abused-wife situation.

There is no greater form of love than to allow choice. That is pure love. You keep assuming an unlikely version of Hell that allows you to appeal to injustice. There are very very good reasons to believe that Hell is seperation from the God you rejected. It might also eventually result in destruction which is a lot more merciful than the misery caused by the sin that are the consequinces of Godlessness. That is, the or else, I defend and it has much biblical support and in no way is unjust or an affront to free will.

How so?

Because it is the universal reward of sin and the misery it breeds. You might not agree but it is hard to believe you needed to ask.

I’ve asked this question before, and never got an answer: Is God a robot?

You have actually asked this and no one answered? No he is no robot. By the way define robot please.

Do you understand the concept of what’s called an “analogy”? Or perhaps the more bibliocentric term, “parable”?

Yes it is the comparison of two or more things that are similar enough to make the comparison meaningfull. This Chef thing was not. You would save a lot of time if you just said that you prefer universalism and have constructed a concept of God that allows for it and do not care what that conflicts with. That is respectable if not logical and would save a lot of typing.

 

[Astravalon]

There is no valid way to go from the eye color being determined and so salvation must be determined. The argument is just silly. The bible what is what I believe in is very clear that we have free will and why we have it. Outside what it claims I have no reason to put any stock.

And that's your prerogative. No worries; like I said, it's a debate that's been going on forever. One has to believe what makes sense to them.

As long as the compartments are consistent with either nature of God then they are fine. It is when we go sticking elephants in one arbitrary group and sticking bats in another does it cease to be meaningful.

Right .... so, how does all this tie into my previous explanation of the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism again?

If the God you believe in did grant that person heaven then he is unjust and he also granted incentive to be evil as it all comes out the same anyway.

Well, that all depends on what you think the incentive for avoiding evil should be.

Nothing known makes your system apparent. Everything know is consistent with mine.

Sure... if you say so.

Why do we put people in jail if we can not help it? Why does everyone have an instictive moral system if actions are determined and not chosen? Nothing adds up to no free will. Not the bible, not life, not history, nothing.

As I said previously, I no longer feel the need to debate the ages-old mongeristm-vs-synergism angle, so you'll have to take that up with someone else.

My God can and does rectify the situation with justice not by waving a hand at sin and dismissing it. Sin is so profound and diabolical that it produced death. It just can't be ignored by a just God. Of course an fantasy God that is unjust and taylor made to fit a preconception is capable of any fantasy action.

Dismissing sin? He took it away through Jesus, remember? Your own bible says so. You call what Jesus allegedly went through merely God waving His hand to dismiss sin and/or just ignoring it? I never quite expected that a Christian would even suggest this.

When does that time come? If in life it is unsupported by reality? If after death then what is the point of life? What is the point of creating robots any way? If your God values forced love then I do not want to ever associate with him and if not forced will reject him.

The one you worship already does, so I don't see what the problem is. At any rate, you're saying all this in response to my having just said that I don't think God necessarily has to "force" one to love Him.

If they have no ultimate chance to not do something it is by definition FORCED. Compulsion exists where the outcome is determined. You just can't make this work. You may continue to believe it but it the irrational can't be forced to be rational.

So let me get this straight: In your world, a hostage being told "do this or die" is not in a situation where force is being utilized... at all? Really?

Because it is the universal reward of sin and the misery it breeds.

But Christians say that salvation is a gift, not a reward.

You have actually asked this and no one answered? No he is no robot. By the way define robot please.

"Robot" in the sense you keep bringing it up, naturally.

So if God, who is all good, is not considered a robot, why do Christians object to the idea of being conformed to His likeness for fear of becoming robots?

Yes it is the comparison of two or more things that are similar enough to make the comparison meaningfull. This Chef thing was not. You would save a lot of time if you just said that you prefer universalism and have constructed a concept of God that allows for it and do not care what that conflicts with. That is respectable if not logical and would save a lot of typing.

Petulance isn't necessary; if you're tiring of the discussion I can give you a break, it's not a problem.

 

[JustWondering]

First "Prophecy" on the site you gave is nonsense. They try to say Gen 3:15 is a prophecy of Jesus's virgin birth. However, I don't see how Gen 3:15 can be even be a prophecy of that in anyway. Regardless, if I remember correctly, the virgin birth is only mentioned in two gospels. Moving on.

 

[JustWondering]

Second "Prophecy" on the site. Well, both verses mentioned really have nothing to do with each other. The site says it is a prophecy for satan's head being bruised. Of course, since satan is a fictional character it would be difficult for this "prophecy" to be proven.

"Prophecy" Gen 3:18 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

"Fullfillment" 1 John 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

 

[JustWondering]

"Prophecy" 72 on the site. A vague verse from psalms is supposed to be a prophecy of jesus's resurrection. I have to say that so far I find this "evidence" very weak and unconvincing.

 

[JustWondering]

When I asked for fullfilled prophecy I was hoping for something predicted in the bible that happened and was witnessed/recorded by sources outside the bible. Not really interested in prophecies that are fullfilled within the bible, so to speak. As those would prove nothing anyway.

 

[1robin]

And that's your prerogative. No worries; like I said, it's a debate that's been going on forever. One has to believe what makes sense to them.

Well there is to a certain extant to define how we may go logically from a premise to a conslusion. I do not think this one would pass. It seems an opinion derived for a purpose. I need to say that at times I grow impatient with what I think are bad arguments or resistance to clear data but that is my fault and in no way applies to you personally. You have been very civil and respectfull. That is enough blowing smoke, so let's roll on.

Right .... so, how does all this tie into my previous explanation of the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism again?

Armenianism and Calvanism (which by the way I hate and consider heretical and just stupid) are false compartments. They don't actually exist and can therefore serve very little function but can be destructive at times. For example a claim may be rejected because it is in the Calvin compartment when the claim is actually correct. No early Church father believed in anything like Calvanism. They were disciples of the actuall witnesses of Christ. Calvanism came out of no where far later.

Well, that all depends on what you think the incentive for avoiding evil should be.

Whatever the incentives to resist evil are far less in your system than mine. People do enough evil without a knowledge that God is going to give them heaven anyway. Without fear of accountability exactly why should I return the wallet I found in the woods with a million dollars in it. PLease do not say because it is right. We have enough trouble doing what is right with accountability.

Sure... if you say so.

You have it backwards. It is sure, and that is why I said so, not the other way around. In a world where every society in history has held members accountable it is quite obvious.

As I said previously, I no longer feel the need to debate the ages-old mongeristm-vs-synergism angle, so you'll have to take that up with someone else.

You have taken an obvious condition that deviates from your model thrown it into two arbitrary compartments, then thrown them in another arbitrary compartment that you then declare not worth discussion and throw it in the waste compartment. Nice compartmentilizing.

Dismissing sin? He took it away through Jesus, remember? Your own bible says so. You call what Jesus allegedly went through merely God waving His hand to dismiss sin and/or just ignoring it? I never quite expected that a Christian would even suggest this.

That is why I didn't. His retribution was exercised his absolute justice was satasfied. The application of that requires complete and utter admission of guilt and agreement with the conclusion we are un Godly. I admit that to a non believer that might not satasfy them but here is the thing. Whatever the complaint against it applies more so to any other system except works salvation and that is impossible and would be far more unjust if possible.

The one you worship already does, so I don't see what the problem is. At any rate, you're saying all this in response to my having just said that I don't think God necessarily has to "force" one to love Him.

What? I don't even see the false contention you are reffering to. Life in my system is a test or opportunity to choose allegience. You get exactly what you chose. Logical. In yours life is a meaningless waiting game until the mass murders and saints all go to heaven. There is no parallel.

So let me get this straight: In your world, a hostage being told "do this or die" is not in a situation where force is being utilized... at all? Really?

We all die. There is no force in freely choosing your allegience and recieving what you chose. Without brimstones and fire forever there is no injustice in this. I have heard many Atheists say they do not want to go to heaven so they get what they chose. For one they did not create themselves so they have no right to their lives apart from God. If they deny God then it is logical they loose what he gave them. My Dad always said that out time is all we own. If I tell a child that he can freely choose between running through the house or walking and I point out that if he runs he will eventually fall, in what way I have I taken away his free will. In what way are the results unjust.

But Christians say that salvation is a gift, not a reward.

Exactly but what is the point? We do not earn heaven it is given based on chosen allegance. It is unmerited but has conditions. The conditions do not merit it but allow it to be given.

"Robot" in the sense you keep bringing it up, naturally.

So if God, who is all good, is not considered a robot, why do Christians object to the idea of being conformed to His likeness for fear of becoming robots?

I have never heard a single one claim this but I understand the issue. Most pray for the ability to be more obedient. As un-fully perfected humans in this life we even as christians retain a self centeredness that opposes compliance. That is honestly understood and admitted and that is why a savior is necessary. When heaven is reached we will recieve body's free of the rebellion we learned and uncorruptable.

Petulance isn't necessary; if you're tiring of the discussion I can give you a break, it's not a problem.

See my first post. I do get tired when simple obvious concepts are resisted or IMO are. I don't care what the argument is just as long as it's challenging and rational. I apologise if I have become impatient.

 

[1robin]

First "Prophecy" on the site you gave is nonsense. They try to say Gen 3:15 is a prophecy of Jesus's virgin birth. However, I don't see how Gen 3:15 can be even be a prophecy of that in anyway. Regardless, if I remember correctly, the virgin birth is only mentioned in two gospels. Moving on.

Who are you talking to? If you do not know how to quote the statement you are addressing I will be glad to show you how.

 

[1robin]

Second "Prophecy" on the site. Well, both verses mentioned really have nothing to do with each other. The site says it is a prophecy for satan's head being bruised. Of course, since satan is a fictional character it would be difficult for this "prophecy" to be proven.

Again is it 1robin you are addressing? This is nonsence regardless. You can't assume something you can't possibly know to get around something you do not like. This is truly desperate.

"Prophecy" Gen 3:18 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

"Fullfillment" 1 John 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

What is this? This is a hard prophecy and this is a stupid full fillment. However as I have faith in God not in a website. I will let you use this one to decide the issue if you accept. I am familiar with this one and it is tough but has a sufficient explenation. That explenation is not what you posted. Are you sure you posted correctly. Either way do you accept the challenge?

 

[1robin]

"Prophecy" 72 on the site. A vague verse from psalms is supposed to be a prophecy of jesus's resurrection. I have to say that so far I find this "evidence" very weak and unconvincing.

So you made it through 70 others you couldn't contest and found one you couldn't understand and think this proves your point? I imagine any evidence for God no matter how certain you would say this about. However you will never prove it so. Pick a few and we will dig into it. This drive by opinion shotgun stuff is useless.

 

[1robin]

When I asked for fullfilled prophecy I was hoping for something predicted in the bible that happened and was witnessed/recorded by sources outside the bible. Not really interested in prophecies that are fullfilled within the bible, so to speak. As those would prove nothing anyway.

Two of the three fit that condition that I gave you in the first post. You have conveniently dropped them. There are many more, however claiming the bible is an unreliable historical book is like saying that Jordan can't play basket ball. It is used as a primary archeological source, it has a greater textual attestation by miles over every single other text in ancient history. You are really not rising to the challenge here.

 

[Astravalon]

Armenianism and Calvanism (which by the way I hate and consider heretical and just stupid) are false compartments. They don't actually exist and can therefore serve very little function but can be destructive at times.

The belief systems to which they refer do exist, though. You expressed one of them, along the lines of Arminianism, right here in this discussion. So yes, they do actually exist.

Whatever the incentives to resist evil are far less in your system than mine.

Interesting ... and what would the incentives to resist evil in my system be, according to you?

People do enough evil without a knowledge that God is going to give them heaven anyway.

People also do enough evil with the knowledge that God could annihilate them or chuck them into a fiery furnace too.

Without fear of accountability exactly why should I return the wallet I found in the woods with a million dollars in it. PLease do not say because it is right. We have enough trouble doing what is right with accountability.

So fear of punishment, rather than love for God, is the motive behind doing the right thing? Doesn't that sound just a tad shallow to you?

Does your bible say "Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die", or "Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we get to go to heaven hooray"? What is the motivation for "loose livin'" in that verse: Future despair, or future hope?

You have it backwards. It is sure, and that is why I said so, not the other way around. In a world where every society in history has held members accountable it is quite obvious.

You have taken an obvious condition that deviates from your model thrown it into two arbitrary compartments, then thrown them in another arbitrary compartment that you then declare not worth discussion and throw it in the waste compartment. Nice compartmentilizing.

Eh... what?

His retribution was exercised his absolute justice was satasfied.

That's what Christianity says, but in practice and in belief it's not so, for reasons we've already been over ad nauseam.

What? I don't even see the false contention you are reffering to. Life in my system is a test or opportunity to choose allegience. You get exactly what you chose. Logical. In yours life is a meaningless waiting game until the mass murders and saints all go to heaven. There is no parallel.

It would appear you haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention to anything I've said.

And I'm sensing in your statement a bit of that indignation that the prodigal son's righteous brother experienced when their father threw a party for the prodigal, the latter who didn't put in nearly as much time being all righteous and worthy as the brother did. This appears to be quite common with Christians when faced with the possibility that those they don't particularly care for might be in heaven with them some day.

We all die. There is no force in freely choosing your allegience and recieving what you chose. Without brimstones and fire forever there is no injustice in this. I have heard many Atheists say they do not want to go to heaven so they get what they chose. For one they did not create themselves so they have no right to their lives apart from God. If they deny God then it is logical they loose what he gave them. My Dad always said that out time is all we own. If I tell a child that he can freely choose between running through the house or walking and I point out that if he runs he will eventually fall, in what way I have I taken away his free will. In what way are the results unjust.

Again, how is it just, and how is it not force, when a captor tells his hostage to do thus-and-so or suffer the consequences? There's no freely choosing allegiance in a hostage situation. That's why they're called "hostage" situations.

Exactly but what is the point? We do not earn heaven it is given based on chosen allegance.

Then it's earned by choosing the right allegiance.

It is unmerited but has conditions.

1robin, this doesn't even make sense! You're contradicting yourself. Obviously it comes by merit if it has conditions which need to be met.

The conditions do not merit it but allow it to be given.

Now it looks like a word-game. I cannot believe what I'm reading. It's like the poem about the barefoot boy with shoes on who stood sitting on the hill. :yes:

Most pray for the ability to be more obedient. As un-fully perfected humans in this life we even as christians retain a self centeredness that opposes compliance.

That would explain how worried about retaining their free will they get when God's sovereignty is brought up.

That is honestly understood and admitted and that is why a savior is necessary. When heaven is reached we will recieve body's free of the rebellion we learned and uncorruptable.

Hopefully they'll be happy up there without that free will, though. It'll be interesting to see.

 

[1robin]

The belief systems to which they refer do exist, though. You expressed one of them, along the lines of Arminianism, right here in this discussion. So yes, they do actually exist.

Interesting ... and what would the incentives to resist evil in my system be, according to you?

If they do exist as actual compartments and contain everything germain to them then how can I get what is in them without knowledge of what is in them. The compartment has overlaping magesteria. Which means there is no defining limit to them and so no category. To stick something in a category with no definable limits is meaningless. I do not know where that came from but I actually think it is correct. Sometimes I make more sence by accident than on purpose.

People also do enough evil with the knowledge that God could annihilate them or chuck them into a fiery furnace too.

So fear of punishment, rather than love for God, is the motive behind doing the right thing? Doesn't that sound just a tad shallow to you?

Actually a Christian should not have a fear of Hell any more and so his actions have only the motivation of love. That is mostly true see if you can find the slight error. That is why fear is called the beginning of knowledge.

Does your bible say "Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die", or "Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we get to go to heaven hooray"? What is the motivation for "loose livin'" in that verse: Future despair, or future hope?

You are assuming eat drink and be merry applies to some sinful action. Why? I think your bias is involuntary. I do not think you realise it exists. That is sort of a compliment or at least not an insult. Actually I will find out what that verse means because I do not know.
New International Version(©1984)
If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/15-32.htm
Here is what the commentators say it means:
What advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? - I believe the common method of pointing this verse is erroneous; I propose to read it thus: If, after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it advantage me? If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.
This is so far from your contention that I will wait for you to adjust to respond.

Eh... what?

Come on that was good satire. Or I am getting tired enough I thought it was.

That's what Christianity says, but in practice and in belief it's not so, for reasons we've already been over ad nauseam.

Well Im nausius as well so I will drop it but have no idea what you meant here.

It would appear you haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention to anything I've said.

And I'm sensing in your statement a bit of that indignation that the prodigal son's righteous brother experienced when their father threw a party for the prodigal, the latter who didn't put in nearly as much time being all righteous and worthy as the brother did. This appears to be quite common with Christians when faced with the possibility that those they don't particularly care for might be in heaven with them some day.

The prodigal doesn't apply because my system has the same issue and I am fine with it. The problem I have is your system renders reality a farse. This life has no purpose, there is no incentive to right action, justice is not served in any capacity, God is putting us through this misery and confusion for no reason, apparently every human inclination towards accountability is pointless and means nothing, on and on.
My system resolves all those issue and all the ones I am too lazy to list.

Again, how is it just, and how is it not force, when a captor tells his hostage to do thus-and-so or suffer the consequences? There's no freely choosing allegiance in a hostage situation. That's why they're called "hostage" situations.

If I tell you the consequences how have I in any way forced you to choose. If by listing consequences no longer allowed choice then yes. The fact that people still choose to reject God is proof that he isn't forcing anything. In fact that last statement is so obvious I hope I don't see this point again. This is an example of the stuff I said frustrates me. Many people do not want to go to heaven. Is your God going to force it anyway.

Then it's earned by choosing the right allegiance.

The concept of earning is this: earn earned, earn·ing, earns
1. To gain especially for the performance of service, labor, or work: earned money by mowing lawns. We don't.
2. To acquire or deserve as a result of effort or action: She earned a reputation as a hard worker. We don't.
3. To yield as return or profit: a savings account that earns interest on deposited funds. We don't.
Earning involves merit, we do not merit heaven. Since I do not see this ending here let me get more technical. God initiates an act of convincing you of a truth when he decides. You can resist or you can accept. If you need to call accepting earning even though it makes no sence that is fine with me because semantics are not interesting enough to debate.


1robin, this doesn't even make sense! You're contradicting yourself.

That would explain how worried about retaining their free will they get when God's sovereignty is brought up.

Hopefully they'll be happy up there without that free will, though. It'll be interesting to see.

There is not enough known about heaven to meaningfully discuss it. By the way I would point out that even if we do not have free will in heaven at least we did at some point, something you system denies. What is that determines whether you respond to a post or not? If it is random chance why does it repeat the same result from random factors over and over? I have a degree in math so watch you step here, probability is in the house.

 

[JustWondering]

Who are you talking to? If you do not know how to quote the statement you are addressing I will be glad to show you how.

We both know who I was talking to, or else why the response.

 

[JustWondering]

This is nonsence regardless. You can't assume something you can't possibly know to get around something you do not like. This is truly desperate.

Why do you assume I must humor the idea that your religions mythical beings exist? There is zero evidence that these beings exist. There is not even a good argument to support their existance. Therefore I do not believe they exist. How is that nonsense?

What is this? This is a hard prophecy and this is a stupid full fillment. However as I have faith in God not in a website. I will let you use this one to decide the issue if you accept. I am familiar with this one and it is tough but has a sufficient explenation. That explenation is not what you posted. Are you sure you posted correctly. Either way do you accept the challenge?

You were the one who told me to check this site out in the first place.

 

[JustWondering]

So you made it through 70 others you couldn't contest and found one you couldn't understand and think this proves your point? I imagine any evidence for God no matter how certain you would say this about. However you will never prove it so. Pick a few and we will dig into it. This drive by opinion shotgun stuff is useless.

I have multiple demands on my time. I looked at the descriptions of the "prophecies" and the references and from the looks of it all of them are convienently made and fullfilled in the bible. You've made numerous claims that the bible is historically sound (which is nonsense) and I asked for evidence to support your claims regarding your religion. To be honest, I would not rely on your bible too much if you want to get into it with unbelievers. Christianity is the religion I am most familiar with but I am sure that most other religions being practiced today has believers that have/will make the same exact claims about their religion that you have made about yours. None of you have any evidence of any kind whatsoever to back your claims of the supernatural. There is nothing about christianity that makes it anymore credible than any other religion, nothing.

 

[Astravalon]

Actually a Christian should not have a fear of Hell any more and so his actions have only the motivation of love. That is mostly true see if you can find the slight error. That is why fear is called the beginning of knowledge.

Well yeah, it makes little sense to fear something that doesn't exist.

I agree that perfect love casts out fear, since fear has to do with punishment. We (ideally) love God because He first loved us, not because He threatened to annihilate us or cast us into hell forever.

You are assuming eat drink and be merry applies to some sinful action. Why?

Where did I say anything about sinful actions?

New International Version(©1984)
If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/15-32.htm
Here is what the commentators say it means:
What advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? - I believe the common method of pointing this verse is erroneous; I propose to read it thus: If, after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it advantage me? If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.
This is so far from your contention that I will wait for you to adjust to respond.

The commentary solidifies my stance. If there's no future hope, the pressure to live however one wants to is placed squarely on one's mortal lifespan. Therefore, the threat of either postmortem torment or annihilation can actually backfire.

The problem I have is your system renders reality a farse. This life has no purpose, there is no incentive to right action, justice is not served in any capacity, God is putting us through this misery and confusion for no reason, apparently every human inclination towards accountability is pointless and means nothing, on and on.

It's only pointless if one requires the threat of hell or annihilation to live right. It says more about the individual than it does about God's justice (which, again, Christians say was satisfied on the cross, so I don't see what the problem is).

Life comes with enough consequences built into wrong action already. God was quite clever with the way He designed things in that regard.

If I tell you the consequences how have I in any way forced you to choose.

In the hostage situation, a person is being held against their -- wait for it.... "free will" -- and given a limited range of choices (like maybe two?), neither which are desirable. Careful, now, if you continue where you seem to be going on this point, it'll seem as though you don't have a problem with the taking of hostages.

If by listing consequences no longer allowed choice then yes. The fact that people still choose to reject God is proof that he isn't forcing anything. In fact that last statement is so obvious I hope I don't see this point again. This is an example of the stuff I said frustrates me. Many people do not want to go to heaven. Is your God going to force it anyway.

Your god is forcing folks to believe a certain way in order to go to one place -- and avoid another -- both places which they've never even seen before that they could even make a fully educated choice in the matter.

The fact that I'm having difficulty getting this across this is equally frustrating, so welcome to the club.

The concept of earning is this: earn earned, earn·ing, earns
1. To gain especially for the performance of service, labor, or work: earned money by mowing lawns. We don't.
2. To acquire or deserve as a result of effort or action: She earned a reputation as a hard worker. We don't.
3. To yield as return or profit: a savings account that earns interest on deposited funds. We don't.
Earning involves merit, we do not merit heaven. Since I do not see this ending here let me get more technical. God initiates an act of convincing you of a truth when he decides. You can resist or you can accept. If you need to call accepting earning even though it makes no sence that is fine with me because semantics are not interesting enough to debate.

I know what earning means. This doesn't change the fact that your religion says we must do something to get to heaven. Belief is (according to those who would keep human "free will" in the equation) is something the individual must contribute to make the salvation happen. Those who believe God works the belief in a person, however, can honestly say that there is absolutely nothing, even at the mental/heart level, that one must do to activate their salvation.

Remember, Jesus said you must be "born" again. Birth isn't something initiated -- or even believed in -- by the one being born before it happens.

Anyone who objects to the idea of God making someone born again against their free-will must also resent the idea of God making them born the first time against their free will. In both cases, human free will was not consulted beforehand. From what I gather, this would be seen by the Free-Willies as a huge crime committed against them.

There is not enough known about heaven to meaningfully discuss it.

Ah hah! So if there's not enough known about heaven to meaningfully discuss it, how can there be enough known about heaven to meaningfully choose it, hmmm?

By the way I would point out that even if we do not have free will in heaven at least we did at some point, something you system denies.

But if not having free will is unthinkable, how could those who value it so highly be happy in heaven without it? Especially if they believe that God is being more loving by letting them have their free will?

What is that determines whether you respond to a post or not? If it is random chance why does it repeat the same result from random factors over and over? I have a degree in math so watch you step here, probability is in the house.

Why are you calling the workings of God in His creation "random chance"? You're not an atheist now, are you?

"Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" is "random chance"?

This isn't math you're dealing with, it's the power of the most high God, who was, is, and always will be in the house (and everywhere else), even if (professed) members of His own fan club resent that fact. :meditate:

 

[1robin]

We both know who I was talking to, or else why the response.

I thought I knew, but I would not want to answer someone else's post. Calm down.

 

[1robin]

Why do you assume I must humor the idea that your religions mythical beings exist? There is zero evidence that these beings exist. There is not even a good argument to support their existance. Therefore I do not believe they exist. How is that nonsense?

I did not say you had to believe, your percommitments make that impossible. I said you can't prove they do not and so claiming that they do not exist is intellectually dishonest besides being meaningless. There are extremely good arguments to support God exists. There are some that seem to be prove that some supernatural force exists and are inescapable. You would benefit with more familiarity with the subject.

You were the one who told me to check this site out in the first place.

I gave you two prophecies that met the conditions you complained about before you complained about them. I also gave you a site and said you could pick any single one you wished. You instead ignored the other two went to the site and read I guess 72 or more found two things you didn't like and gave up. I do not bother with debating many generalities, nothing is ever resolved. I debate a few specifics very deeply so I know it is resolved even when the critic arbitrarily refuses to see it or dissapears. So again the two I gave which are more easily attacked than many and pick another one (even the one you complained about) and we can resolve this unless the value you place on the contention is so high as to not allow resolution at all.

 

[1robin]

I have multiple demands on my time.

I post while in between working in a military avionics lab.

I looked at the descriptions of the "prophecies" and the references and from the looks of it all of them are convienently made and fullfilled in the bible. You've made numerous claims that the bible is historically sound (which is nonsense) and I asked for evidence to support your claims regarding your religion.

No you asked for prophecy. Historical accuracy isn't even usually challenged it's so solid. You do know that just because your preference forces you to say things that are true are not, does not make them so. I supplied two prophecies of the three that are historically verifiable. Either step up or give up.

The bible has shown over and over that it is far more accurate than archeologists. They used to swear that the bible was wrong when it mentioned several unknown near eastern tribes. Now there are museums devoted to them. Not long ago a cash of scroll seals were found thousands of years old, the signet rings used to make the seals had over 50 personal names that are found in the bible. There is no known historical fact that contradicts the bible and there are 25,000 that confirm it. I do not know where you are getting this stuff but it isn't accurate. Many prominent Christians became that specifically because they were honest athiests who decided to prove the bible wrong could not do so in any capacity and so became Christians. C. S. Lewis, G. k. Chesterton etc......

To be honest, I would not rely on your bible too much if you want to get into it with unbelievers.

You have not exhibited a level of competance that allows this conclusion. You have yet to actually show a single thing. You just assert it and avoid any attempt to resolve the issues. You are suggesting that the bible can't be used to defend Christianity with out a single justified reason to assert such an illogical claim.

Christianity is the religion I am most familiar with but I am sure that most other religions being practiced today has believers that have/will make the same exact claims about their religion that you have made about yours.

Even if true which it isn't that has nothing to do with whether what I said is true or not. It requires study, apparently something you are going to continue to avoid.

None of you have any evidence of any kind whatsoever to back your claims of the supernatural. There is nothing about christianity that makes it anymore credible than any other religion, nothing.

If that were even remotely true then why was the message given to a small insignificant, most illiterate tribe concerning the most fantastic and improbable events in human history now believed in by 1 out of 3 people on earth. I do not wish to listen to why you do not like religion and the inaccurate reasons given to maintain a comfort zone. Let's either get to the bottom of some of these incorrect assertions or I am done.