(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote:I just tried to!fr0d0 Wrote:What I was saying but you read differently.. was not the 'Christianity' was anything - more that the perfect model people aspire to would be another way of thinking about it. You failed to look at that in an unprejudiced way.
Please explain to me how it is I read what you wrote differently.
I was wanting you to substitute Christianity with the aspiration to do healthy stuff - forget Christianity.
(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote:fr0d0 Wrote:What??? God is precisely decisive and this is exactly what you're condemning him for. If you choose not to believe in him, to do bad stuff, you are choosing hell for yourself - no one is imposing that on you - you are completely free to choose that. Explain to me why you are not.
Why is it you automatically associate "not believing in him" with "doing bad things"? Right from the very start, I only refer to him condemning me for not believing in him but you suddenly throw in morals and "choosing hell for myself". This is the christian mindset, that life without god is evil and hellish. Is this not prejudice thinking? I merely ask a simple question "Why condemn me if you give me free will in the first place?".
Because that is all Christianity is about - being a healthy positive fulfilled person. Nothing else. 'Choosing him' is precisely 'choosing life'. I can do nothing else but equate God with life (in that context).
Christians happen to think there is no better way. We've tried doing it alone and know how that is limited. Personally (because I couldn't recall the bible verse) I know that it is possible to achieve the same state on your own; but it's incredibly hard to do. That is why I think there is value in atheist investigation scraping away to the root of the questions posed.
So the condemnation is, in secular terms: the result of unhealthy choices over healthy choices. Exactly the same as with a choice to steal for greed.. you choose the 'condemnatory' attachment of that choice.
(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote:fr0d0 Wrote:If I give you the option to eat an apple or an orange and I say eating the orange is something I want you to do but you have the free will to choose either fruit, and you choose to eat the apple anyway. If I condemn you for that, does that still mean you had free will to begin with?Retorth Wrote:If I smoke weed and take other assorted drugs and end up a drug addict on the verge of death then yes I have condemned myself.. However, here it is god who condemns us for not following him while still claiming to give us free will that confuses me.How does God giving you free will and you choosing to not believe (which then makes you anti God/ lost) then not equate to you having free will??? This is completely illogical to me. Again... Please explain.
I think I've just covered this.. You are suggesting here that God/ not God means nothing. You suppose not sin/ sin to be two equal states. It is only when you see that not sin = health and sin = ill health that the choice becomes clear. I'm not adding anything to the choice here. I'm merely defining it precisely for you.
(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote: If he does give us free will, why does he condemn us for not believing in him? Free will means being free to choose as you desire.
With that said, yes my choosing not to believe does equate to free will. Obviously this doesn't apply to god. He has his own version of "free will" it appears.
How does the result of the choice limit the choice? If you desire heroin you can have it. You know it'll screw you up but that doesn't stop you choosing it. So you're saying you have no free will when it comes to buying heroin?
(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote:fr0d0 Wrote:Retorth Wrote:If choice equals morality as you say then god isn't moral since he does not give you a choice anyway. Whats more he still condemns you for making what he perceives to be the wrong choice. That is being plain indecisive.
There can be no morality without choice. Choice ≠ morality.
Which is it? Choice = morality or choice ≠ morality?
Earlier you stated the following:
fr0d0 Wrote:Without the choice, there is no morality.
This means choice = morality. Now you tell me choice ≠ morality. :S
Every quote of mine above states that choice ≠ morality.
1. There can be no morality without choice - ie: choice enables morality. Choice is not morality.
2. Without the choice, there is no morality - the above statement rephrased. ie: choice enables morality
To explain further... Morality is only possible if an individual has a choice. Without a choice you don't get to decide anything...
Heresy translates to choice. the 4th Century Christian church in making a pact with Rome decreed that it would be heretical to believe anything but Christianity. You would be put to death for believing anything else. They took away the right to choose. An Irish monk pointed out to them that without the choice to believe, there couldn't be either virtue or evil - because both of those things required a choice to achieve. The monk was declared a heretic.
(October 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm)Retorth Wrote: If I do not believe in god, he isn't "life" then as you claim. I choose to lead my life away from religion, away from god, but he did give me free will, did he not? If so, why condemn me?God is always 'life'. You are seeking life elsewhere. If you are denying 'life' you are also denying God. Geddit? You can remove God from the equation if you like. Either way we're talking about your health here.
