Mageth

[QUOTE=Irishbrutha]I think we've covered this somewhere else Mageth, but maybe not. Prevention from heaven does not have anything to do with belief or lack of belief.

Yeah, yeah, I've heard it before, but if you'd note I was arguing against statements that Faith has made on this thread, including the statement that we will be judged, at least in part, for our beliefs. IOW, the statement you're criticizing was made in response to another poster's position on the subject, not the probably more "correct" theological stance you present.

Yup, heard it all before. Too bad the Christians can't get their story together on this, though. If the detectives on Homicide interviewed four or five Christians on this subject in different rooms, they'd have to come to the conclusion they were all lying, as none of them would tell the same story.

However, you said above that "prevention from heaven does not have anything to do with belief or lack of belief." Now, to pick a nit, if I don't believe, I assume you think that I won't go to Heaven. If I do believe, I guess you think I may or may not go to Heaven, right? So how, then, can it be true that belief has nothing to do with getting to Heaven, if not believing guarantees I won't get to heaven?

OK, but not climbing the ladder guarantees that I will be eaten by the shark.

And that's a cute analogy, but you left some things out: I'm in an ocean created by man in the boat; I was tossed there, without choice, by the man in the boat; and the man in the boat created the shark and sicced it on me. And the damn fool in the boat could hoist me out without the damn ladder, or shoot the friggin' shark, if he wanted to. Instead, he stands by and watches me be eaten, hollerin' "I love you, son" the whole time.

God, obviously.

Irishbrutha

Unfortunately you're right...the average christian doesn't probably have a good grasp on his theology. But the history of protestant theology is pretty clear on this issue. The Christian-on-the-street may not be aware of this clarity, but then why argue with the Christian-on-the-street. If you're seeking to disrupt the actual theology of a believer, attack that. You seem to know you're attacking a straw man. (not that I think you're doing it maliciously, it's an interesting discussion).


Mageth"And that's a cute analogy, but you left some things out"

Aww man come on, I liked the analogy! well here's the thing. I don't know what you're ultimate point is I guess, but I think you're trying to say that God's mean right? And what kinda bastard would make us in our sin while simultaneously comin' round the corner with His wrath.

My question is why doesn't free will or the fact that He's given us a way out of the water fix that problem? He didn't make us in our sin. We went there on our own, and regardless of original sin we stay in it now by committing sin and deciding to live without Him. We are given freedom from that captivity and all we have to do is say, hmmm, yep sounds legit. I'll do it. Forgive me God. Meanwhile we sit on the side raging at the fact that we're in the situation of being condemned rather than accepting that we have forgiveness available to us right now. If you have a cognitive dissonance with god's existence then fine you don't see forgiveness as being either available or necessary. But if you have a cognitive dissonance with his existence then why are you frustrated with our theology about Him? Because if you believed in His existence then the theology makes sense. But if you don't it doesn't matter.

-Shaun

P.S. You know that He can't just hoist us out. His holiness prevents Him from doing that. His mercy prompted His son to overcome that inability though.

Faith

The obvious answer is, it does. Faith in God and acceptance of His grace fixes the whole problem.


I believe the Bible, yes. It makes clear that faith in God is necessary for salvation. As to your claims of being confused about what I have written, I said I believe that more is involved than just proclaiming faith in God. You must live righteously according to that faith.

I don't know what standards God uses to judge depth of faith or righteous living, I only claim to believe His standards will be infinitely fair.

miata

"Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding."

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

Yoda; Star Wars, the prequel.

When and if we find out who is right about religion we may all be dead.

Mageth

No, I'm definitely not arguing maliciously. I wouldn't say I'm attacking at all, actually. Nor "attacking" a strawman; I haven't strawmanned Faith's position on this thread, at least not intentionally. If it appears I have, it comes from me trying to (get Faith to) reconcile what I see as contradictions in her arguments.

Well, that wasn't really my point, but you do kinda have a point there. Ultimately, everything falls back on God, right? He allegedly created everything with full knowledge.

"Free will" is probably a discussion for a different thread, don't you think? As if there hasn't been enough threads on it already. In any case, the "problem" is traceable to God as the "direct and efficient cause".

I find that rather hard to do, impossible actually, since I completely and totally lack belief in said God. I don't "decide to live without God"; how can I "decide to live without" something I lack belief in?

And he not only hasn't thrown me a ladder, he hasn't even shown up in his boat yet, that I can see. Fortunately, I can't see any sharks about, either.

That's Christianity for you, though. It invents a shark (sin, and God's resultant wrath) and a guy in a boat trying to toss you a ladder.

Speak for yourself. I in no way consider myself condemned, so I definitely don't rage about it. Any discussion on this thread on my part is purely in the hypothetical, debating against a worldview that both pronounces us as condemned and claims to have the only solution.

I have no "cognitive dissonance" with God's existence. I got rid of that when I became an atheist, thank not-God. And yes, I don't see forgiveness as either available or necessary.

I have no cognitive dissonace with God's existence. I lack belief in God's existence. Only believers can have cognitive dissonance with God's existence.

But a theology that pronounces us condemned and then claims to have the only solution for that condemnation (God sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself) is, well, rather sickening, IMO. We'd all be better off without it. Theists make out like it's us condemning ourselves, or God judging us and not them judging us, but in reality it's just humans condemning other humans. That's really all it is.

Well, actually, the theology doesn't make much sense to a lot of people that believe in (a) god's existence. I know, because I once was such a person, and have met many others who would say the same. What you're really saying is if I believed in the God you believe in, including the theology around that God, then it would make sense. And I'm not even sure that's correct.

Well, yeah, there's one of those nonsensical things, esp. if you start adding in some of god's other supposed attributes.

Mageth

That's a problem, though, as I see no problem to be fixed.

Yes, I got that the first time.

I asked you earlier to define "fair"; now I'll ask you to define "infinitely fair". Fair to who, for example? Will I find it fair, or will only God find it fair?

Starboy

Well of course. At that time mankind will stop concocting supernatural nonsense.

Starboy

Faith

But if my beliefs work for me, and I feel no cognitive dissonance, and you don't have faith anyway, why do you seek to reconcile my statements? Certainly not so you will come to have faith? Perhaps so I will follow in your footsteps and begin to question my own?



If you want to enter Paradise, yet you choose not to have faith in God, I imagine you wouldn't find His judgment to your satisfaction.

miata

Good point.

Jinto

Because if he was at all intelligent he wouldn't have put us in the water in the first place. It's like the guy who (to use an analogy) rips out someone's intestines and then offers to reattach them if his victim accepts his offer to perform surgery on them. Far better not to rip out their intestines in the first place, and really, who would trust him? And yet you would say it's the gutless (pun intended) man who refused his help that is reponsible for his own death. Fortunately, our courts have more sense than to accept that defense.

Oh, and there is no such thing as free will.

No, but he made us with the intent of us "sinning." Lesson 1: when you're omnipotent, anything you don't intend to happen doesn't happen.

Problem: that's impossible because we can't seriously address a nonexistent being.

No, actually I'm sitting on the side wondering where this God you're talking about is, because I can't see one. He sounds like a jerk though, so perhaps we should be grateful that he doesn't exist.

I hate this argument: if we're right, then it's okay for us to prostelyze, but if you're right, it doesn't matter, so you can't advocate your beliefs. The hypocrisy stinks. And FYI, when billions of people are being decieved by a lie, it DOES matter, it matters a great deal, and I am offended that you don't find the persuit of truth important enough to do even when there is no material gain for it.

Having a character flaw that prevents him from doing the obvious thing is no excuse. BTW, you may be interested in something that I posted on another thread, it's one of my better monologues and quite relevant here: