What If You're Wrong

[stvdv]

maybe. This in itself doesn't prevent them from keeping polluting the earth, though.
In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing to back the hypothesis up that ocean polluters might get the hint when they die of pollution-related illnesses.
If you disagree: where are the thousands of accounts of former polluters who, in their final stages of cancer, say that it was wrong to treat the environment like that?
Educate me if you know of any.

I did not make a claim/hypothesis, I just said that they don't get away with it IMO. God's ways are mysterious, I have no doubt that God knows the perfect karma for ocean polluters. I would not be surprised IF tsunamis and other natural disasters are a reaction to ocean pollution. The whole Universe is about balance, and IF humans disturb the balance they get it back one day.

Concerning your experience #2, I personally don't believe in "don't ever say harsh words."-doctrines.
Human rights activists, for instance, speak a very clear language about Dow not cleaning up Bhopal, for instance. Is that wrong? no, it's not. (German companies are acting the same, I guess). Dow doesn't get the instantly created Karma back, it seems.

I did not say it is a doctrine, I just said that I made that resolve for my self. I am careful who I allow as friends.

 

[thomas t]

I did not make a claim/hypothesis, I just said that they don't get away with it IMO.

that's essentially what universalists tend to say also. Meaning "hey when everybody gets a due punishment then everyone should go to heaven!"
But then they might pollute again and who is there to clean the mess up... a mess in heaven is a terrible idea, in my opinion.

The universalist, at that point, might think, ok then another punishment. However, the punishment does not clean up the mess. Punishment is just that: punishment.

In common lay, when people destroy other people's property, they need to pay compensation, (AND the punishment)... but where should the compensation come from when they arrive in heaven with nothing in their pockets?
And even if they could pay for the pollution, why should God ever want to offer them the service of paid pollution in his heavenly oceans?

These are all questions the universalists cannot solve, in my opinion.

I am careful who I allow as friends.

that is reasonable I think, but so is God. This is at least my stance on the matter.

and now let me use your other quote..., thank you

I would not be surprised IF tsunamis and other natural disasters are a reaction to ocean pollution. The whole Universe is about balance, and IF humans disturb the balance they get it back one day.

@viole and @Wild Fox , can you read this please? This is also an approach to why God apparantly creates suffering. I'm not saying that that's the way it is. I'm merely saying that this is often the #1 explanation for suffering, as I see it.

 

[stvdv]

that's essentially what universalists tend to say also. Meaning "hey when everybody gets a due punishment then everyone should go to heaven!"
But then they might pollute again and who is there to clean the mess up... a mess in heaven is a terrible idea, in my opinion.

I don't know about Universalism, but that problem is solved in my view though. You only make it into Heaven IF you have totally transformed bad habits (transformed meaning that there is no trace left, no chance they do it again). So, you need not worry that they might pollute Heaven

and now let me use your other quote..., thank you

You're welcome
And when Viole starts debating my line, I will redirect her to you, okay?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jesus didn't treat people that way.

There's generally a pretty wide gap between what Jesus did and what Christians do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bible verses have a certain context. That verse doesn't mean that there won't be famine and sadness and hardship. People suffering from famine and weeping is part of life in a fallen world. Jesus didn't promise his followers a world free of those unpleasant experiences.

So you think there's famine and weeping in Heaven?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for your honest answer.
I hate universalism.
It teaches everyone goes to heaven regardless of how they might behave once they are there.
Ocean polluters? - get restored and a place in heaven.
Child abusers? restored.
Nazis? restored.
Everyone gets restored and a ticket to heaven, according to them, they say they will have served a limited punishment somewhere after death. And later they get the restauration, according to them. Once the polluters/abusers/ Nazis are nicely restored... they potentially go on polluting the heavenly ocean, raping people again turning heaven into a hell for the ones who already were their victims on earth and much more.
This is universalist teaching from my perspective.

From my experience, universalists often sweep these issues aside.
As can be seen here - (it's a typical exchange between universalist and myself, both of us repeated what was said on another message board already in quite the same exchange): The Restitution Of All Things
My "discussion" partner ended up posting 20 posts in a row without receiving but one answer.

This may also count as a reply to this argument here...

How does that counter my claim at all? In fact being for a just punishment, which is what you seem to want, would support me. If one believes in Hell then one believes in an evil and unjust God.

 

[thomas t]

You're welcome
And when Viole starts debating my line, I will redirect her to you, okay?

nono, I just started introducing your argument into the debate with her so that you get the work . These debates are certainly demanding and you seem to be very patient.

I don't know about Universalism, but that problem is solved in my view though. You only make it into Heaven IF you have totally transformed bad habits (transformed meaning that there is no trace left, no chance they do it again). So, you need not worry that they might pollute Heaven

the default argument from the universlists goes like this: the if-component in your sentence - and then at this very point they apply the best of rhetorics - is true for everyone at some point. In my opinion this is mere presumption.

In fact being for a just punishment, which is what you seem to want, would support me.

while I don't think that believeing in some sort of hell portrays an evil and unjust God... being in favor of a just punishment in no way supported your point.
The default argument universalists (I mean the believers that argue the way you do) put forward: how can a punishment for all eternities be just?

At this point I try this line of thought: how can you be sure that they stop sinning after death. Another sin would require another punishment.... and while they serve the sentence they might sin a bit more... leading to more punishment... meanwhile they accumulate more sin perhaps.... more punishment.... hell.

 

[stvdv]

These debates are certainly demanding and you seem to be very patient.

I do my utmost best to avoid debates. I only debate if I know 100% sure that my view is correct
We need not worry about Viole debating us
IF she addresses me, I tell her that my reply was not addressed to her
IF she addresses you, you can tell her, that you did not write it

is true for everyone at some point. In my opinion this is mere presumption.

Only when we really know, it is not presumption. When talking about God, there is not much that I know for sure, this I know for sure.

being in favor of a just punishment in no way supported your point.

I love just punishment ... although ... I do remember my Master said "IF God had to kill all the bad people, none would survive, nobody is without sin".

The default argument universalists (I mean the believers that argue the way you do) put forward: how can a punishment for all eternities be just?

Do I argue like Universalists argue?
My argument would be very simple in this case: whatever God decides must be right, Only God knows, whether it is punish for eternity or not.
Let Him figure it out. I need not even think about it. Thinking I know what God will do next, is very close to blasphemy even. I don't go there.

At this point I try this line of thought: how can you be sure that they stop sinning after death. Another sin would require another punishment.... and while they serve the sentence they might sin a bit more... leading to more punishment... meanwhile they accumulate more sin perhaps.... more punishment.... hell.

I go one step further ... Only God knows, I leave the thinking and punishing to Him. I have no clue about these things.

 

[Skywalker]

I define God as the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. I don't need to solve that mystery, or to pretend that I have.

I don't agree with AA using the term higher power. What about you?

 

[PureX]

I don't agree with AA using the term higher power. What about you?

It's fine with me. Not everyone there would agree on a more explicit name or term, so that seems generic enough to accommodate everyone yet still able to get the idea across.

 

[thomas t]

I go one step further ... Only God knows, I leave the thinking and punishing to Him. I have no clue about these things.

that's a great attitude, I think.
Normally my discussion ends there.
Me too, I'll leave judgement to him.

One point to add: the Universalists won't calm down at this point. On other boards they start 1000 posts threads and still don't calm down leaving judgement to God.
Either they argue: we know for 100% sure that all people MUST be restored in a way they won't ever commit one tiny little sin thing again.

Or: they just distract from that point making it clear that they don't care.

Their strongest argument, as it seems to me, is the following: they say, since everyone can be saved on earth - what should change afterwards when everyone really sees with their own eyes that Jesus Christ is Lord. ... but this argument goes way into the speculative realm and, that's my impression, they can't rule out that this simply doesn't work after death as it is supposed to be working before death on earth.

This is at least from my experience debating with them.

Thomas

edited to add last 2 paragraphs.

 

[Skywalker]

There's generally a pretty wide gap between what Jesus did and what Christians do.

By definition that doesn't mean that what Christians do has anything to do with the teachings and the message of Jesus.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By definition that doesn't mean that what Christians do has anything to do with the teachings and the message of Jesus.

Again: it's like you're not reading the posts you reply to.

 

[Skywalker]

So you think there's famine and weeping in Heaven?

No. That doesn't mean that in earth there won't be famine and weeping. Jesus said here on earth you will have many trials and sorrows.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. That doesn't mean that in earth there won't be famine and weeping. Jesus said here on earth you will have many trials and sorrows.

So your point was irrelevant. Good to know.

This still leaves me thinking that your statement at the beginning of this tangent was self-centered and lacked compassion.

 

[Skywalker]

So your point was irrelevant. Good to know.

This still leaves me thinking that your statement at the beginning of this tangent was self-centered and lacked compassion.

How is what I'm saying lacking compassion? Isn't responsibility and hardship a part of life? Some people live in abject poverty.

 

[halbhh]

I am not sure what your point is.
Thomas said: look at those cool things, are they not evidence of God?

to which I replied: look at those ugly things, are they not counter evidence of God?

My point being: makes no sense to use evidence of the cool things to prove God, while having a priori explanation for the bad things. Especially if those explanation involve a theology mapped around the very being intended to be proved.

basically, everybody could prove anything using that sort of reasoning.

so?

what atheists like me disbelieve is quite simple. And does not deserve further complicated philosophy. We do not believe your God, because we do not believe Mother Goose. And that is because both your god and Mother goose share the same evidence, and therefore the same ontological status.

ciao

- viole

I think I didn't make it clear enough what I was referring to.

I was address one narrow key assumption which you used earlier, and not other parts of your post.

The key assumption used in this reasonable point:

i could equally prove (an evil) God because of kids cancer and such

Only this, and nothing else.

If death of this mortal body were a final death, then definitely you'd be correct then to say that God is evil. It's very straightforward.

But the assumption is incorrect, and that invalidates the conclusion.

That's the only topic of post #197, which I'll copy for convenience, just below in a new post.

 

[halbhh]

One of the assumptions non believers naturally bring (can't help it) to thinking about God is to quite reasonably just assume (most everyone has) that death is real -- that the death of this mortal body is a final end, a real death.

But that's only a form of just assuming God does not exist.

The assumption about death though is so basic and so natural that it takes some real thought to discover how one incorporates the assumption into various topics around talking about God, such as above in the thread where a person wrote: "i could equally prove (an evil) God because of kids cancer and such".

That'd be correct, if the underlying assumption were correct.

If 'God' existed and then just let everyone die a final real death without saving at minimum the innocents, then such a 'God' would be evil.

Even before one addresses how he might redeem and change and save the guilty, such a God that let everyone just die, including innocents, would indeed be extremely evil (at least by any normal human point of view), in that imagined scenario.

But it's just an imagined scenario -- an imagined new version of 'God' unlike the one being referenced by believers -- since by definition God is, from the start, one Who makes death an illusion, and so on.

Just from the start, by definition. That's part of what/who God is.

To avoid talking about some new invented version of "God" which is trivially wrong, and then try to use it to think about a possible transcendent God, a key first thing is to realize God existing means death is merely a transition, like being "asleep" and then waking up (God awakening the person).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How is what I'm saying lacking compassion?

We've been through this. Because you said that if Christianity was false, it would be "no loss" to you.

Isn't responsibility and hardship a part of life? Some people live in abject poverty.

Thank you for providing an example of lack of compassion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

while I don't think that believeing in some sort of hell portrays an evil and unjust God... being in favor of a just punishment in no way supported your point.
The default argument universalists (I mean the believers that argue the way you do) put forward: how can a punishment for all eternities be just?

At this point I try this line of thought: how can you be sure that they stop sinning after death. Another sin would require another punishment.... and while they serve the sentence they might sin a bit more... leading to more punishment... meanwhile they accumulate more sin perhaps.... more punishment.... hell.

If one believes in a hell that is eternal one believes in an unjust god. Any "sin" is by its own nature of limited harm. Excessive punishments are always immoral and you may believe in an eternal hell which would make your version of god immoral.

And yes, a person may sin again in heaven. Possibly. I do not know how one could harm another in heaven so it seems unlikely. It of course depends upon one's version of heaven. If such an event occurs the correct action would be to punish it. In fact this version of heaven of yours guarantees that everyone will be in hell. You did not think this through to well.