99Percent

Yeah, eternity is quite a long time.

David M. Payne

From luvluv we have this little gem:
So luv, where did this idea of “free will” come from? God? The church? (Insert your favorite denomination/sect/cult here.) Some drunk on the street who talked to God? I would think that for this concept to have any validity, it would have to be expressed by your God, wouldn’t it? And yet you are the first one I have seen that admits that the concept isn’t in the one book, the bible, it would have to be in to have any validity. Interesting, perhaps you will be able to enlighten us atheist/agnostic/free thinkers here on the origins of this “Free Will’ Argument. If so you will be the first theist who has been able to do so. I eagerly await your reply!

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Gurdur:
<strong>

* so well * not * so good *.</strong>

Those of us who know the rules are privileged to break them, especially to add emphasis.

<strong>I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I just couldn't resist, and I'm feeling very blue .</strong>

Well, so am I. Kansas is gelid. Blue hoo.

luvluv

Koya:

"I see. So, the phrase "afraid of the dark" has no justifiable or verifiable meaning to you? "

It has meaning, but it is entirely speculative as to whether a person will consider the dark more frightening than a snarling, raving, murderous monster. I'll take the dark, thank you very much.

"Regardless, you are consistently and obviously avoiding the point with this irrelevant discussion of what the hallucinatory "visions" of Revelation do or do not mean."

I don't really see any other way to explain this. If suffering is the natural result of choosing to disobey God, and the longer a person disobeys God the more He suffers, then for God to destroy that suffering may constitute a mercy.

You have yet to address my argument that suffering because of using free will incorrectly is a logical consequence of free will. You have countered that all of this is only the case because God made it this way. I have directly challenged this notion. I said that even God, were He to use his free will incorrectly, would suffer because of it. It is a natural, logical, consequence that God did not invent. It is inherent in possesing free will. IT IS NOT SOMETHING GOD IMPOSED. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO NOT SUFFER FROM OUR BAD CHOICES. The only possible way God could have avoided his creatures suffering this consequence that HE HIMSELF SUFFERS FROM, would be to deny them free will altogether.

THE ABOVE IS CENTRAL TO MY ARGUMENT AND YOU HAVE YET TO TOUCH IT.

"In fact, according to the book you are so diligently focusing upon, only 144,000 are saved, right, and they've already been written down in the great big book, right, so none of this stupidity matters."

I also find it somewhat intriguing that when the book of Revelation seems to support my case, it is "mindless hallucinations" that are irrelavent, but when it supports your case, it should be accepted at face value and given all importance.

"You're entire apologetics is the worst form of speculation since you have absolutely no basis for the tortured conclusions you are drawing."

I have admitted that everything I am saying is speculative. But it is not unsupportable, nor is it contradictory to the Bible.

""Destroyed" or "eternal torment" is entirely irrelevant to the fact that God casts you into hell and in hell you suffer an unimaginable fate involving "wailing and gnashing of teeth" and fire."

It is entirely relavent if the "torment" is the natural consequence of freedom, a consequence that GOD HIMSELF is subject to and DID NOT invent, and if being destroyed is more merciful than suffering.

"BECAUSE HE CREATED IT TO BEGIN WITH is the central omitted fact you continue to avoid like poison at all costs!"


Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

I've said at least twice that God did not create it that way to begin with. I have said that it is a natural, logical consequence of freedom. I do not believe that God created suffering as an incentive to get us to avoid doing certain things which He says are wrong. I think he says certain things are wrong BECAUSE they cause suffering.

"Incorrect. Your rationalization totally omits the fact that God uses hell to punish not just the sinners and the "wicked," but the non-believers, which in turn has been rationalized by your cherished cult leaders throughout history as being sin."

Not quite. The Christian notion is that only God through Jesus Christ is capable of redeeming mankind from the penalty of sin (death). In short, God is the only antidote for the disease of sin. If you don't take it, you will die. Again, belief does not mean a mental assent to God's existence, to not believe in God means not to TRUST Him enough to submit yourself to His hands to rid you of sin.

"The only problem, of course, as I have been pointing out again and again and again and you have been doing everything in your power to avoid addressing is that, if we have "free will" then we cannot be punished in any way shape or form for exercising that free will or else it ceases to be either "free" or an exertion of "will.""

If Hell is the natural consequence of the abuse of free will, then it is not a punishment. There are consequences to sin on this planet. If you steal, you are put in jail.

"IF WE ARE PUNISHED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM FOR EXERCISING OUR FREE WILL THEN IT CEASES TO BE EITHER FREE OR AN EXERTION OF OUR WILL."

You seem to believe that freedom means never facing consequences to your actions. I disagree. Men and women are free to have unprotected sex. But if they do so, they are not free from the consequence of unwanted pregnancy, HIV, etc. Freedom to choose entails consequences. Many consequences are THE NATURAL RESULTS OF THE CHOICE. As such, the fact that our choices have consequences does not in anyway detract from our freedom to make choices.

Again, what you keep arguing to be irrelavent is, in fact, central. If Hell is the result of the suffering our own sin causes, then it is NOT a punishment. It is a natural consequence.

"Any "consequences" (aka, punishment) for my exercising my free will to not believe in God automatically and irrefutably negates post hoc my free will, rendering the entire event a sham and a dictatorial imposition by God upon me."

If God invented the consequences, which, I argue, He did not.

"It is entirely irrelevant what you believe or don't believe. The Bible is unquestionably clear on this issue; God created everything, which means he created hell."

DAVID PAYNE, please listen up too:

For the umpteenth time, Christians believe things that are not in the Bible. We have every right to do so. God never even INTENED to write a Bible, a bunch of guys from the middle ages sat around and decided to compile a random assortment of books. Much of what it contains is truthful, much is not. But you can't put the Bible on God's lap. He never commissioned the specific books in the Bible to be collected. It was a bunch of guys a few hundred years later who decided to compile these books. Much of what is contained is true, BUT IT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE SUM TOTAL OF WHAT CHRISTIANS ARE ALLOWED TO BELIEVE. I'm sorry if this is unfortunate to your argument, but it is the truth. Christian tradition says that PERSONAL REVELATION and CHURCH HISTORY are EVERY BIT AS VALID a means for knowing God as is the Bible. That is the religion of Christianity. If you think that any Christian belief outside of the Bible is somehow irrelavent, you are totally incorrect. You can't dictate to me, much less the entire history of Christendom, what we are allowed to believe or disbelieve. I don't know how else I can say it to you. If you insist on sticking to this arbitrary and erroneous concept, I suppose we have little to say to each other. But you are TOTALLY WRONG in this regard.

Beyond that, there are certain things the Bible expressly DOES NOT SAY. There are huge gaps in our knowledge about God. But I believe God is revealing Himself everyday. I am not about to believe that God has said everything that is relavent to man a couple of thousand years ago and hasn't said anything since. It is not clear that God invented everything, including the consequences of sin, in the Bible. If you can find me a Bible passage that expressly says that God invented and imposed the consequences of sin on human kind, then you might have the beginings of an argument.

QueenofSwords:

I have argued that the problem does not emerge from what you do, but from your ability to control what you do. If you have no control over what you do, then you are something less than human. Imagine a crack addict, and then multiply that by about a thousand. Is that person a human? And while it is obvious that crack has chemically addictive properties, some people are just as addicted to sex or food or having their own way.

I don't think you writing books about atheism has anything to do with anything. If you do not allow God to deliever you from the consequences of ALL of your sin, then eventually even your minor vices will overwhelm you. Eternity is, indeed, a long time.

And it is the Christian opinion that absence from God entails absence from ALL GOODNESS, since God is believed to be the place from which all goodness flows. Whatever kindness you have been able to exhibit on earth has flowed from Him, whether you believe in Him or not. Therefore, once you go to Hell and are seperated from Him, theoritically your "kindness" will not go there with you. You have cut yourself off from the source. You won't be that good when you get to Hell, and you'll rapidly get worse.

Perhaps God could put people in seperate holding pens, but in the end, after a million, trillion years of absolute solitude, would that person be any less of a insane monster than those who have been in holding pens with sadists? Wouldn't it still be more merciful for God to destroy such a person than to allow Him to live in absolute solitude for millions of years?

As to whether or not less evil people can convert more evil people, I doubt it. Good converts evil. I don't think that the Klu Klux Klan is as bad as the Nazi's, but I don't think if you put them both in the same room you'll get a net benefit. The Christian belief is that you can only fight evil with good.

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

sandlewood

So you claim that God did not create everything? Then who created Hell? If God is omnipotent, why can’t he destroy Hell? Why can’t he destroy everything that exists, including Hell, and replace it with a better universe where no one goes to Hell?
But God is supposed to be omnipotent. You mean he is subject to something above himself?

Who decides that a person deserves to go to Hell or not? What’s all that about judgment? If God is the one who decides who goes to Heaven or Hell, why can’t he just bring everyone into Heaven? Why does he bring only those who think he exists? Why can’t he also bring those who don’t? And what is this mysterious process by which those who “sin” end up in Hell, but which God can somehow change? Who is the traffic cop there? How does God erase what we did?

We understand the process by which people who have sex contract HIV. We understand viruses enough to explain why it happens. And, even though we did not create the situation, we can control it so that people can have sex and not contract HIV. There are not always consequences. People can murder and get away with it. People can drink a lot and not get addicted. People can eat a lot and not get fat.

Unless I missed something above, according to you, we go to Hell because we submit to our desires, not because we don’t believe in God. So as long as we don’t submit to our desires, then we don’t need anyone to save us, right?
I would venture to say that almost all Christians disagree with this idea. I’d say that you have your own splinter religion going. Sometimes you say that the Bible is merely incomplete, but here you are saying that some of it is not true. So how do we determine which parts are true and which are not? What is our method? Personal revelation? Unfortunately that’s not a reliable method because different people have totally different conclusions.
What would be the point of finding Bible verses? You have already said that you do not believe the whole Bible is true. If there are verses that show that God imposes consequences on humans, you would simply say that they are not true because your personal revelation tells you they are not.

You have a very simplistic, black and white view of what good and bad is. How is being addicted to a drug bad, so bad that one needs to suffer eternal torment for it? What if one is addicted to caffeine through coffee? How much coffee do you have to drink before you are “bad” enough to go to Hell. Who decides that you are bad enough or sadistic enough to go to Hell?

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by luvluv:
<strong>

QueenofSwords:

I have argued that the problem does not emerge from what you do, but from your ability to control what you do. If you have no control over what you do, then you are something less than human.</strong>

Therefore, newborn babies, who don't even have control over their bodily functions, are "something less than human".

People who have mental disorders are also "something less than human".

What if you can control what you do at certain times, but at other times, you can't? Are you semi-human?

<strong>Imagine a crack addict, and then multiply that by about a thousand. Is that person a human?</strong>

Multiply what, exactly? And what's your definition of "human" to begin with?

<strong>And while it is obvious that crack has chemically addictive properties, some people are just as addicted to sex or food or having their own way.</strong>

LOL! Addicted to food? I'd say I'm addicted to it, because when I stop eating, I suffer certain "withdrawal symptoms", which I call "hunger". These symptoms fade after I get my next "fix", which I call breakfast, lunch or dinner. No doubt you will be unsurprised to hear that I am also addicted to oxygen and water. I just can't do without them. I suppose that this, according to your rather unique theology, makes me less than human?

luvluv, this is one of the most hilarious arguments I've ever heard.

<strong>I don't think you writing books about atheism has anything to do with anything. If you do not allow God to deliever you from the consequences of ALL of your sin, then eventually even your minor vices will overwhelm you.</strong>

What, exactly, are the "minor vices"? You mean, like drinking too much tea? How will they "overwhelm" me? Come on, give details.

<strong>Eternity is, indeed, a long time.</strong>

Hence my... apprehension, shall we say... at spending it with people like you.

<strong>And it is the Christian opinion that absence from God entails absence from ALL GOODNESS, since God is believed to be the place from which all goodness flows. Whatever kindness you have been able to exhibit on earth has flowed from Him, whether you believe in Him or not.</strong>

Evidence. Is there even a bible quote to back this up, or are you just spouting what you fantasize?

<strong>Therefore, once you go to Hell and are seperated from Him, theoritically your "kindness" will not go there with you.</strong>

What about my creativity? Will that go with me? Oh, and my sense of humor. Does that "flow" from your god as well?

Since you know so much about hell, could you tell me exactly what emotional baggage we are allowed to carry on, and which is "returned to sender", so to speak?

<strong>You have cut yourself off from the source. You won't be that good when you get to Hell, and you'll rapidly get worse.</strong>

But will I care? Maybe when I go to hell, the personality change will be so radical that I'll be actually happy. Think about it. No, better still, pray for revelation.

<strong>Perhaps God could put people in seperate holding pens, but in the end, after a million, trillion years of absolute solitude, would that person be any less of a insane monster than those who have been in holding pens with sadists?</strong>

Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but I think I would be less of an insane monster. Put it this way : I prefer not being raped to being raped, so I think yes, I'd like a solitary cell. Since your god appears not to have thought about this option, perhaps you could mention it to him.

<strong>Good converts evil. </strong>

Again, is there any evidence to suggest that less-evil cannot sway more-evil, or is this just your personal opinion?

Besides, if good converts evil, why are we all still atheists after dealing with you? Perhaps you're not so good after all.

luvluv

"There are not always consequences. People can murder and get away with it. People can drink a lot and not get addicted. People can eat a lot and not get fat."

Every act has consequences. We both know this, why belabor the point? The person who was murdered ceases to exist. I would say that's a pretty fair-sized consequence to the guy who got murdered. Can you conceive of a universe in which we are free to murder, but murder has no negative consequences even to him who is murdered. And just because you "get away with it" by which I assume you mean do not deal with any kind of physical recriminations for the act does not mean there are no consequences. There are consequences to the world at large.

"Unless I missed something above, according to you, we go to Hell because we submit to our desires, not because we don’t believe in God. So as long as we don’t submit to our desires, then we don’t need anyone to save us, right?"

Theoritically true, but according to Christian philosophy no one can do this without God's help.

QoS:

By addiction to food, I meant things like eating disorders. Ever heard of Overeaters Anounymous? Not to say that your joke wasn't very funny, because it wasn't.

"What, exactly, are the "minor vices"? You mean, like drinking too much tea? How will they "overwhelm" me? Come on, give details."

Lying, jealousy, anger, lust, a desire to control others, a desire for vengeance, unforgiveness, etc.

"Evidence. Is there even a bible quote to back this up, or are you just spouting what you fantasize?"

It's more or less the opinion of church history. Can you quote me anything from the atheist Bible to back up your positions? If not, I guess it's impossible for you to have them, correct?

"Oh, and my sense of humor. Does that "flow" from your god as well?"

I assume yours doesn't, since God never fails.

"Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but I think I would be less of an insane monster. Put it this way : I prefer not being raped to being raped, so I think yes, I'd like a solitary cell."

In the end, it probably wouldn't matter. Most people would probably rather perish than face an eternity of absolute solitude.

"Again, is there any evidence to suggest that less-evil cannot sway more-evil, or is this just your personal opinion?"

Romans 12:20
"BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK.....

Romans 12:21
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Off the top of my head. But it was also the opinion of guys like Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and a few others.

"Besides, if good converts evil, why are we all still atheists after dealing with you? Perhaps you're not so good after all."

And perhaps you're not so evil.

Queen of Swords

Were you going to address the points about people with mental disorders or babies who do not have the ability to control their actions?

Originally posted by luvluv:
<strong>
By addiction to food, I meant things like eating disorders. Ever heard of Overeaters Anounymous? Not to say that your joke wasn't very funny, because it wasn't.</strong>

So a normal need for food, which people generally have little to no control over, is not sinful?

<strong>"What, exactly, are the "minor vices"? You mean, like drinking too much tea? How will they "overwhelm" me? Come on, give details."

Lying, jealousy, anger, lust, a desire to control others, a desire for vengeance, unforgiveness, etc.</strong>

Could you show how these all stem from atheism? Also, you did not say how these were supposed to "overwhelm" me. Please go into extra-specific details for the "lust" part, would you?

<strong>"Evidence. Is there even a bible quote to back this up, or are you just spouting what you fantasize?"

It's more or less the opinion of church history. </strong>

In other words, you don't have a written source?

<strong>Can you quote me anything from the atheist Bible to back up your positions? If not, I guess it's impossible for you to have them, correct?</strong>

Damn, you mean to say that after all this time, you didn't realize that there was no "atheist bible"?

Poor, poor luvluv.

<strong>"Oh, and my sense of humor. Does that "flow" from your god as well?"

I assume yours doesn't, since God never fails.</strong>

Unless there are "chariots of iron" involved, and I have a car. Hmmm.

And were you actually planning on answering the question, or did your own imagination fail you?

<strong>"Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but I think I would be less of an insane monster. Put it this way : I prefer not being raped to being raped, so I think yes, I'd like a solitary cell."

In the end, it probably wouldn't matter. Most people would probably rather perish than face an eternity of absolute solitude.</strong>

Your evasion of the point is quite understandable.

<strong>"Again, is there any evidence to suggest that less-evil cannot sway more-evil, or is this just your personal opinion?"

Romans 12:20
"BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK.....

Romans 12:21
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.</strong>

This does not say that less-evil cannot overcome more-evil. Try again.

<strong>Off the top of my head. But it was also the opinion of guys like Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and a few others.</strong>

Evidence, such as quotes actually made by them?

<strong>"Besides, if good converts evil, why are we all still atheists after dealing with you? Perhaps you're not so good after all."

And perhaps you're not so evil.</strong>

And perhaps you're simply wrong.

Gurdur

*theoretically*
Bah, just which Christian philosophy, many of which are diametrically opposed ?

Your criticizing others' jokes as not being funny is on a par with George Bush criticizing Richard Dawkins for not being intelligent.

These are minor vices ?

Oh Gawwwwd, which church history ?
The Greek Orthodox see history quite differently from the Catholics, who despise the Prodos, and all sensible Prodos despise the American fundies.

Let's have a big drum-roll for empiricism and heavily scrutinized research !
Far better than appeals to mistaken and irrelevent authority !

Since your sense of humour is far from evident here, you must be pretty damned far removed from God and a resupply !

D'oh. So we don't need your God not to be evil ?

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

luvluv

"Bah, just which Christian philosophy, many of which are diametrically opposed ?"

I think on this particular point, they nearly all agree.

"Your criticizing others' jokes as not being funny is on a par with George Bush criticizing Richard Dawkins for not being intelligent."

Now THAT is funny.

"These are minor vices ?"

Minor as in everyone has them. QoS often refers to things like tea drinking and writing atheists books as if these were the worst parts of her personality. My argument is that everyone has some pretty heinous evil in them.

"Oh Gawwwwd, which church history ?"

Again, in terms of all goodness flowing from God, all of them that I am aware of.

"Since your sense of humour is far from evident here, you must be pretty damned far removed from God and a resupply !"

Well, at least you could tell I was trying to be funny....

"D'oh. So we don't need your God not to be evil ?"

No, I was just saying that I am not of the opinion that I am so very good and you guys are so very evil. I don't think it takes being evil, so to speak, to be lost or even, unfortunately, to go to H-E double hockey sticks.