chapka

Here's the second batch, along with two questions for TomT:

If he were God, and could do anything, then he could rig the universe so that we could be saved for all eternity by doing one good deed sometime in our lives. Wouldn't that be a better system? Isn't the "perfect sacrifice" system pretty stupid unless your goal is to send anyone born in Africa, Asia, the Americas, and Australia before the nineteenth century to hell, and most of everyone else, too? Why does God hate Native Americans, aborigonal Australians, Asians and black people so much?

Begging the question.

Can't pull that one over on me; I've read it.

Again, this is unnecessary. If it's God we're talking about, he can avoid this whole issue. The only reason anyone needs to go to hell is because God wants them to be there.

I take it you're a Mormon, then? Lots of people went to their death for Joe Smith. Does that make their faith true?

Bullshit. This is the easiest to refute of all.

If you are wrong, and this life is all we have, then the consequence of wasting one hour out of the few hours we have to live groveling before an invisible being is enormous. If our time here is so short, the idea of someone living in a monestary and spending their entire life torturing themselves to avoid some punishment that will probably never happen is monstrous. If our human potential is our legacy to the universe, refusing to reach for it because some moldy old patriarch once said that it was sinful is unforgivable.

Here's a wager for you, TomT. Consider the thousands of different religions people have believed in over the years. Assume that one or another of them is true. You have no way of knowing which ones; all of them have miracles, and holy books, and prophecies they claim have been fulfilled. All of their believers have had the same ecstatic religious experiences you have, and most of them have had partisans who were willing to die for their faiths.

Which one would you choose, and why?

I'm sincerely interested in your answer, but of course in real life, the answer is simple: you'd choose whichever religion your parents belonged to, because if you didn't they'd yell at you. 99.99% of all people on earth who've ever lived have done this. If one religion is better than others, then why does God decide to let some people have Christian parents and other people Buddhist parents? Are the people born as Buddhists people God wanted to damn anyway, and the Christians the ones he likes? Because it seems to me that the kid with Buddhist parents has a raw deal. If he goes against his parent's wishes and gets himself saved by Jesus, your holy book says he deserves to be stoned to death. If he doesn't, he deserves eternal punishment in a lake of fire.

It's also worth noting that by this logic, God really, really hates native Americans, black people, Asians, and Australian aborigines, not to mention Italians, French people, Poles, Arabs, and of course Jews. Almost everyone born in one of those categories goes to hell. So that's your second question. What did a Chinese baby born in 1300 AD do to Jesus to piss him off so much that that baby wasn't born in Europe and therefore had a 100% chance of burning in hell?

Mythra

Good one..


Since God has always existed in the form of a trinity, we can assume that Jesus was also magically present during Yahweh's misadentures in the OT.

There's a fella named Achan in the book of Joshua that probably questions just how kind and loving Jesus was. Not to mention his wife, his little kids, his oxen, his sheep, his donkeys, his maideservants, his.. well... you get the picture.

gstafleu

Inconsistency is a virtue?

Gerard

Johnny Skeptic

Message to TomT: Pascal's Wager is illogical, and it is a fraud. Consider the following post that I made in another thread at this forum:

The point is that God deliberately withholds information from some people who would accept it if they were aware of it. If God clearly revealed himself to everyone, no man could complain that he did not have adequate information, in which case no man would have any excuses. As it is, on judgment day, any man who has never heard the Gospel message who Jesus chooses to send to hell can rightly say that the rules were not clearly disclosed. In addition, on judgment day, any man who has heard the Gospel message and rejected it, and would have accepted it if he had had more information, can rightly say that he was treated unfairly.

Regarding “a person can still be held accountable for his actions even if he does not know how to escape the punishment for those actions”, upon what evidence do you base this assertion, and what standards of judgment will God use? If good morals are the standards, many non-Christians have good morals. For instance, in the first century, a time when most Christians endorsed slavery, some Sophists and Stoics opposed it. In addition, Buddha gave the world a version of the Golden Rule centuries before Christ. The Bible does not teach that good morals can save anyone. Romans 5:12 says “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”.

If God is not willing that any of as you say “the elect” will perish, if the elect all know the risks if they reject Christianity, if God will accept some people who do not know the risks based upon their morals, doesn’t that mean that he is not willing that some people other than the elect will perish?

Even if everyone knew the risks, it is not possible for decent people to accept the God of the Bible. God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, with no apparent of stated benefits to himself or anyone else. God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, with no apparent of stated benefits to himself or anyone else. God injures and kills people with hurricanes, with no apparent of stated benefits to himself or anyone else. During the U.S. Civil War, God stood idly by and allowed Christian to kill Christian, and brother to kill brother, with no apparent of stated benefits to himself or anyone else. James says that if a man refuses to feed hungry people that he is vain, and that his faith is dead. During the Irish Potato Famine alone, one million people die of starvation because God refused to provide them with food, with no apparent of stated benefits to himself or anyone else. Most of those people were Christians. If feeding hungry people is a worthy goal, it is a worthy goal for mankind and for God.

If you believed that God told lies, you would not be able to love him, and yet you ask people to accept a God who has committed numerous atrocities against humanity that are much worse than lying is. I have used this argument many times at this forum, and at the EofG forum, but you have always conveniently refused to reply to it.

Paul says that it is not surprising that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, but there is no credible evidence that Paul could have known whether or not Satan masquerades an angel of light, or whether or not God masquerades an angel of light. The odds are no better than even that God is who the Bible says he is. Jesus said in order for a man to become saved, he must love God with all of his heart, soul, and mind. Logically, a commitment like that is not possible based upon no better than even odds.

You said that you have evidence that today, all tangible benefits are not distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics. Where is your evidence?

gstafleu

Well, at least I can answer that. It's almost weekend, so it will be a tough choice between

and


Gerard

Mythra

You have another problem, TomT. And you don't even have to worry about a different religion.

I KNOW you think you are amongst the group of TRUE christians. But -

Within YOUR religion there are other people. People who are more devoted to Christ than you. People who see you as lukewarm. And Jesus will soon spit you out of his mouth. There are christians who believe that YOU are on the wrong side of Pascal's Wager.

You need to shun the world. (which you obviously haven't done, since you have a computer). You need to get rid of all your wordly goods. You need to chop off your right hand. (unless you've never masturbated).

You yourself are in extreme danger of eternal torment.

Get right with Jesus, dude. Get thee to a nunnery to save your soul.

Weltall

If you thought to come and spread the word to us unsaved heathens, you're in for a little surprise. We've heard all your arguments before, we probably know your holy book better than you do and we're not going to 'see the light' because you quote some scripture at us or tell us about your alleged savior's alleged miracles. If you want to actually discuss religion with us, feel free. If you're just here to preach I suggest that you hie yourself somewhere else where your beliefs won't be challenged.

EverLastingGodStopper

Sorry, but according to the Holy Roman Catholic Church, Mary,_the_mother_of_Jesus was sinless from conception. This is why Catholics celebrate the Immaculate_Conception. Since Catholicism predates Protestantism, isn't it more likely that the Catholic faith is the correct religion to adhere to? After all, the Roman_Catholic_Church "traces its origins to the original Christian community founded by Jesus, with its traditions first established by the Twelve Apostles and maintained through unbroken Apostolic Succession."

So why should I believe your assertion that "Jesus was the only sinless person" when there are centuries-old teachings describing Mary as being without sin?

You can read plenty about Pascal's Wager on the Secular Web:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ism/wager.html

But Homer Simpson summed it up for me: "Suppose we've chosen the wrong god? Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder."

EarlOfLade

Your god is not worth a rotten herring.

He is a cruel and barbaric figure that the old goat herders made up during lonely nights herding the goats. luckily we know better today, that is if you are not totally brainwashed as you seems to be.

And do you have any evidence besides the bible of these disciples? Where they real? From the occupations, only one is it reasonable to believe was able to read and write, the tax collector. The other were farmers and fishermen, those people did not know how to read and write.

aa5874

Are you going to wait until you die to find out whether you are wrong or right? Because if you are wrong about what happens if you are wrong, then you may end up in a place that you never realized existed, under the wrath and punishment of another God.