Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HelenM · 04-13-2002, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
Hang around people who have dedicated their lives to hatred or lust or drugs or any other vice. They slowly lose their free will to their choices, they lose self-control. If the object of their hatred, or lust, or addiction is present to them, they give in to it with increasingly less resistance.

So a Christian cannot succumb to the temptation of drugs?

the sadism of the other people is where the torture in hell comes from. They are tormenting each other. How does that contradict anything else I've said?

This is so unbiblical!!!

Show me ONE Bible verse that says that in hell people will torture each other.

What are you thinking? Some people consigned to hell get that much power over others?

I don't generally plan my day around what fundamentalist Christians believe.

Based on what you said about hell I'm not sure you even know what they believe...

can you lay out systematically why Christians should not believe in free will? Is it because of scattered Biblical passages that seem to be indicative of God not allowing free will.

Scattered passages? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

The Bible is an interesting book...maybe you should read it sometime...

Hmmm...maybe that was a bit overly sarcastic. Oh well...do your worst in return

love
Helen

luvluv · 04-13-2002, 11:56 AM

"This is so unbiblical!!!"

Christians can believe things that are not in the Bible. The word Trinity is not in the Bible either, nor is the concept, but Christians believe it. Most Christians believe in free-will, though it is not explicitly explained in the Bible. The Bible does not represent the sum total of what Christians are allowed to bellieve. What part of "I am not a Biblical literalist" do you folks not understand? I believe more things than what the Bible explicitly tells me, partly because I feel I and others in the church are in contact with God all the time. Christian doctrine comes through personal and communal revelation, church history, AND the Bible. Not just the Bible alone. There are some doctrines which believe in the Bible only. I am not of that doctrine. Therefore, citing specific passages of the Bible won't generally dissuade me of my opinions. If some parts of the Bible don't connect with the God I know (personal revelation) or the God that has dealt with the church throughout it's history (church history) I am inclined to believe that it is a mistake. It's simply not relavent to this discussion to tell me what other Christians believe.

What good would it do if I told you that other atheists agree with hell as a natural consequence. What would that do to your argument? Nothing, right?

Riiiiggght.

zamboniavenger · 04-13-2002, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Hang around people who have dedicated their lives to hatred or lust or drugs or any other vice. They slowly lose their free will to their choices, they lose self-control. If the object of their hatred, or lust, or addiction is present to them, they give in to it with increasingly less resistance.

Luvluv, we're not talking about murder, lust, gluttony, etc. We're talking about not believing god. It's that simple. Full Stop. Period. The End. Do you seriously believe that we're all rapists and drug addicts? So, if our sin is simply being a little incredulous when presented with the ridiculous story in the bible, what happens? Do we go to a lake of fire and an eternity of torture or whatever, or do we become consumed by our disbelieve in god(which I think I could handle), or would you like rethink things and present a third option?

HelenM · 04-13-2002, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
"This is so unbiblical!!!"

Christians can believe things that are not in the Bible. The word Trinity is not in the Bible either, nor is the concept, but Christians believe it. Most Christians believe in free-will, though it is not explicitly explained in the Bible. The Bible does not represent the sum total of what Christians are allowed to bellieve. What part of "I am not a Biblical literalist" do you folks not understand? I believe more things than what the Bible explicitly tells me, partly because I feel I and others in the church are in contact with God all the time. Christian doctrine comes through personal and communal revelation, church history, AND the Bible. Not just the Bible alone. There are some doctrines which believe in the Bible only. I am not of that doctrine. Therefore, citing specific passages of the Bible won't generally dissuade me of my opinions. If some parts of the Bible don't connect with the God I know (personal revelation) or the God that has dealt with the church throughout it's history (church history) I am inclined to believe that it is a mistake. It's simply not relavent to this discussion to tell me what other Christians believe.

You are a 'go-it-alone' type of Christian then? "Don't try to confuse the issue by pointing out that most Christians disagree with me" - is that it?

Re: believing stuff that isn't in the Bible. Most (all?) conservative Christians say the Trinity is implicitly in the Bible. Oh, I forgot. Don't tell you what other Christians say

.

You evidently didn't understand what I meant by 'unbiblical'. I meant against the spirit of the teachings of the Bible, not simply not included in the Bible. You can speculate whatever you like but there's no hint in the Bible about people in hell torturing each other, there. Read Luke 16 - there's no mention of the Rich Man torturing anyone or being tortured by anyone. It's quite CS Lewis-ish to think of people torturing one another there but I'd say that's simply a projection of the worst of earthly relationships. There's really no basis whatsoever for saying hell is that way.

What good would it do if I told you that other atheists agree with hell as a natural consequence. What would that do to your argument? Nothing, right?

My argument? Do I have an argument?

Since atheists don't believe in hell then I find it odd that they would discuss it as a consequence of anything. Unless you are talking about earthly painful situations that we bring on ourselves. That's not what the Bible refers to as 'hell'. If you're doing to redefine what 'hell' even is then that would change the parameters of the discussion, obviously...

Riiiiggght.

Oh come on, is that as sarcastic as you can get?

At least do a few of these

love
Helen

ex-preacher · 04-13-2002, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:

Christians can believe things that are not in the Bible.

No kidding!

Quote:

The word Trinity is not in the Bible either, nor is the concept, but Christians believe it.

Translation: Other people make stuff up so I can too!

Quote:

Most Christians believe in free-will, though it is not explicitly explained in the Bible.

So are you admitting that the concept isn't there either? If you agree, then that ruins some of your other arguments. If you disagree, your point here falls apart.

Quote:

The Bible does not represent the sum total of what Christians are allowed to bellieve. What part of "I am not a Biblical literalist" do you folks not understand? I believe more things than what the Bible explicitly tells me, partly because I feel I and others in the church are in contact with God all the time.

Nurse Kally, we have a live one!

Quote:

Christian doctrine comes through personal and communal revelation, church history, AND the Bible. Not just the Bible alone. There are some doctrines which believe in the Bible only. I am not of that doctrine. Therefore, citing specific passages of the Bible won't generally dissuade me of my opinions.

What a great relief this must be for you. You can just keep on holding your opinions no matter what that ol Bible says. How liberating! You're starting to sound like one of us.

Quote:

If some parts of the Bible don't connect with the God I know (personal revelation) or the God that has dealt with the church throughout it's history (church history) I am inclined to believe that it is a mistake. It's simply not relavent to this discussion to tell me what other Christians believe.

I can believe what I want for whatever reason I want. It's that simple. Plus God tells me what to believe. Sometimes I agree with him.

Quote:

What good would it do if I told you that other atheists agree with hell as a natural consequence. What would that do to your argument? Nothing, right?

Are you on medication by any chance?

Enough jocularity. Here's my gripe with cafeteria Christians such as yourself. The fundies at least have the consistency and honesty to stick by what is supposed to be the word of god. You pick and choose types just cling to the parts you like, making it as difficult to pin you down as it is to nail jello to the wall.

What are your exact criteria for deciding which parts of the BIble you will accept?

If you use rationality, then you are no different from any of us.

What about other Christians who claim to be led by God but end up with radically different doctrines? Who is right?

What kind of a lame god would give his followers a book which is full of mistakes? And which many think is without mistake? And which others think has mistakes, but they can't agree on what the mistakes are?

Pomp · 04-13-2002, 04:43 PM

luvluv,

Maybe you could be more specific Pompous.

Certainly. Here is but one example. You said:

Quote:

Are you suggesting that God should have created a world in which hatred is not harmful to the person who does the hating? I don't think that is possible within the boundaries of free will.

No one here but you seems to think that there is any logical contradiction in a world where what might be called "free will" coexists with hatred that does not harm the hater. Why do think that such a contradiction exists?

nixon · 04-13-2002, 09:16 PM

Quote:

luvluv:

I am not a Biblical literalist, so I think Paul on this point was mistaken.

Nixon can you lay out systematically why Christians should not believe in free will? Is it because of scattered Biblical passages that seem to be indicative of God not allowing free will. I would really like for you to lay it out as an argument, not as anectdotes, so that we can discuss it.

Well we have a problem here then. Christians should not believe in free will because their holy babble says not to in soooo many words. However, me not being a Christian have no problem with free will.

So to summarize (speaking really slowly): I am not a Christian. I am not bound by the rules of Christianity, most of which involve believing whatever is written in the bible. This means I am allowed to believe in free will...or not...or whatever the hell I want. You are (So you say). This means you are supposed believe whatever it says in the bible. The bible says free will ain't so. Only God gets free willy

If you do believe in free will, then you ain't a Christian. You're a "luvluv-ian"

Automaton · 04-14-2002, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Not true. Hang around people who have dedicated their lives to hatred or lust or drugs or any other vice. They slowly lose their free will to their choices, they lose self-control.

I know many the pothead, and they seem alright to me. If hell is merely sitting around all day getting stoned, then count me in!

Quote:

If the object of their hatred, or lust, or addiction is present to them, they give in to it with increasingly less resistance. Now, it being that Christianity teaches us that the human spirit is eternal, extrapolate that tendecny out for a thousand or two thousand years. After millenia of submitting to their desires, what is left of that person?

A very, very stoned individual? Your twisted world of corruption and decay doesn't exist, in fact, the majority of marijuana smokers give up their habit later in life. Does this sound like they have lost all free will?
And what exactly is "the human spirit"? You speak about it as if it is an actual entity, and not just a concept to describe certain value systems such as justice and compassion.

Quote:

It is not entirely a matter of how bad your desires are, its a matter of whether or not you are in control of them. If you are so addicted to food you have no ability to deny yourself a meal, then you have lost free-will to food. It is the loss of free will that constitutes hell, it doesn't really matter what you lose your free will to.

I've lost my free will to the internet. I can't live without it. I'm also addicted to the quest for knowledge. Do you really think this is the Biblical "hellfire"?

Quote:

What is the contradiction? I said that the sadism of the other people is where the torture in hell comes from. They are tormenting each other. How does that contradict anything else I've said?

So all I have to do is become a hermit and my internet problem's solved? You contadicted yourself by saying hell is not an imposed state, then later claiming it was a state imposed by other people with a similar fate.

Quote:

I don't generally plan my day around what fundamentalist Christians believe.

Good thing you don't live in the bible belt then.

A side note to luvluv: Do you think Hitler will be in your idea of hell?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 04-15-2002, 11:22 AM

Pompous,

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompous Bastard:

No one here but you seems to think that there is any logical contradiction in a world where what might be called "free will" coexists with hatred that does not harm the hater. Why do think that such a contradiction exists?

I do.

This seems like a 'God can make square circles' position.

You are implying there is nothing implicitly wrong with A-square circles, B-Married bachelors, C-colorless color and D-hateless hate.

In fact these are all implicitly contradictory.

Saying 'hateless hate' could exist is similar to saying 'white colored black' could exist. If we
'limit' Gods omnipotence only to 'that which is logically possible' (as most do) then we cannot hold God responsible for not creating hateless hate.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Pomp · 04-15-2002, 11:51 AM

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas,

Saying 'hateless hate' could exist is similar to saying 'white colored black' could exist.

I have made no claim that "hateless hate" could exist. Luvluv is making the claim that the act of hating inevitably harms the hater (presumably in some fashion other than by inviting retribution from the hated) and that this could not have been any other way. I maintain that there is nothing logically contradictory about a person (or soul, or spirit, if you prefer) who is immune to this supposed property of hate. This is not claiming that "hateless hate" could exist any more than suggesting that certian materials are fire-retardant is claiming that "fireless fire" could exist.

If we 'limit' Gods omnipotence only to 'that which is logically possible' (as most do) then we cannot hold God responsible for not creating hateless hate.

No, but we can hold Yahweh responsible for creating "hateful hate," or for fashioning us so as to be vulnerable to it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-13-2002, 11:56 AM	#32
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	"This is so unbiblical!!!" Christians can believe things that are not in the Bible. The word Trinity is not in the Bible either, nor is the concept, but Christians believe it. Most Christians believe in free-will, though it is not explicitly explained in the Bible. The Bible does not represent the sum total of what Christians are allowed to bellieve. What part of "I am not a Biblical literalist" do you folks not understand? I believe more things than what the Bible explicitly tells me, partly because I feel I and others in the church are in contact with God all the time. Christian doctrine comes through personal and communal revelation, church history, AND the Bible. Not just the Bible alone. There are some doctrines which believe in the Bible only. I am not of that doctrine. Therefore, citing specific passages of the Bible won't generally dissuade me of my opinions. If some parts of the Bible don't connect with the God I know (personal revelation) or the God that has dealt with the church throughout it's history (church history) I am inclined to believe that it is a mistake. It's simply not relavent to this discussion to tell me what other Christians believe. What good would it do if I told you that other atheists agree with hell as a natural consequence. What would that do to your argument? Nothing, right? Riiiiggght.

04-15-2002, 11:51 AM	#40
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas, Saying 'hateless hate' could exist is similar to saying 'white colored black' could exist. I have made no claim that "hateless hate" could exist. Luvluv is making the claim that the act of hating inevitably harms the hater (presumably in some fashion other than by inviting retribution from the hated) and that this could not have been any other way. I maintain that there is nothing logically contradictory about a person (or soul, or spirit, if you prefer) who is immune to this supposed property of hate. This is not claiming that "hateless hate" could exist any more than suggesting that certian materials are fire-retardant is claiming that "fireless fire" could exist. If we 'limit' Gods omnipotence only to 'that which is logically possible' (as most do) then we cannot hold God responsible for not creating hateless hate. No, but we can hold Yahweh responsible for creating "hateful hate," or for fashioning us so as to be vulnerable to it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.