(June 16, 2015 at 2:03 pm)robvalue Wrote: He should be able to do better.

In the time is temporal thread, I saw no replies that refuted the argument.

I saw the following:

1) denying time is real
2) denying that an eternal material existence couldn't have caused time to come into being from nothing just because our concept of time doesn't apply to it.
3) denying the conclusion without addressing the argument (ie. denying time is temporal without addressing the argument).

What is odd, people, didn't even admit that this makes a Creator a highly plausible possibility and the most likely reality. They simply want to deny any proof of a Creator.

Are you sure you would accept evidence of a Creator were you to see it? I believe in the past, when presented with miracles, people attributed it to magic. Who knows perhaps you would think advanced aliens are using technology to fool you? Skepticism should be a guide to gain certainty. The first rule of doubting, know when to stop doubting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjhFlI6-ZBI

You are -entirely- consumed with your fantasies at the moment Mystic.  What is it with you people and trying to force other people to "admit" things?  You just can't get around the fact that we don't believe you, we don't find your arguments compelling?

........your every remark -relies- on your own misapprehensions of others.  It's no surprise that you've reached such a woefully inadequate conclusion...using this method.

(June 16, 2015 at 2:00 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 1:15 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Well first you have to understand that Hell is not a place you go to, kicking and screaming, where you will be burned and tortured by little men with horns. Hell is simply the only place where God is not present. And since God is goodness and love, Hell is a place where goodness and love are not present. That's why it is so bad.

The people who go to Hell are the people who reject goodness and love. For someone to avoid Hell, they don't necessarily have to believe in God. Maybe they were never taught about God. Maybe they just honestly could not bring themselves to believe He is real. This does not automatically mean they will go to Hell. What *does* automatically mean someone is going to Hell is that person's rejection of love and goodness, since God is love and goodness.


So the person who goes to Hell, a place where love and goodness are not present, is a person who *put themselves there* by choosing to reject love and goodness.

Oh, so not only are we condemning people to an eternity in pain with no way out, we're also telling them it is their choice? Please tell me you see how sick this idea is

Rejecting love and goodness? Can you explain more closely what does that mean and how does one go about doing that? Who really goes to hell?


Well, *WE* don't condemn anybody, first of all. 

I shouldn't give examples because we have no way of knowing a person's heart and so we have no way of knowing who went to Hell. But for argument's sake, let's take Hitler. I may be completely wrong, and cannot say for sure, but he was probably someone who rejected love and goodness. Look at the things he did and the way he lived his life... his actions are completely devoid of love and goodness. His actions seem to show that he rejected those ideals.  

And yes, it i chosen. By choosing to reject those things, you put yourself in the only place where those things do not exist. And like I said. It isn't any sort of physical pain and suffering. It's just a place where love/goodness is not present. That is what makes it a bad place, but if you hate love/goodness then it makes sense for you to be in a place where it is not present.

Quote:There is nothing immoral about Jesus being the messenger of this news.

As for your thing about thoughts... thoughts certainly can be immoral if they are intentionally indulged upon. For example, I am married. If I *choose* to sit around and day dream all day about having sex with another man, I am doing something immoral. I am not talking about involuntarily having a thought pop in my head and then brushing it away. I am talking about actively day dreaming and fantasizing about other men. A more obvious example would be a man who is attracted to children. If an inappropriate thought about children involuntarily pops into his head, and he pushes it away, he did not do anything wrong. But if he makes the conciese decision to sit there and start fantasisincg about rapping children, he is doing something immoral.

Jesus was simply reminding us that yes, thoughts *can* be immoral.

Jesus said that to look lustfully at a woman is to commit adultery. He did not make the distinction you did, between voluntary and involuntary thoughts, he condemned the very impulse which is an inseparable part of a human being

This is precisely why I despise catholicism so much....but I may have personal bias. Btw, do you consider homosexuality a sin?

See what we mean? You added the distinction between conscious and involuntary thoughts, which was never mentioned originally; you already have an idea of what is good and are applying it to the scripture

You are correct, but you have to understand that the Christian defenition of the sin of lust is not simply arousal. Arousal can be involuntary and thus cannot be immoral in and of itself. Lust is when you make the conscious decision to dehumanize someone into an object of gratification for yourself. Doing this requires some active thought and choice. 



Do I believe homosexuality is immoral? No. Homosexuality is not freely chosen. People don't *choose* to be attracted to people of the same sex any more than they choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex. And since attraction is not voluntary, it cannot be immoral in and of itself.



I DO, however, believe that any sexual activity outside the context of a husband and wife is immoral. This applies to people who are attracted to the opposite sex as well as those who are attracted to the same sex.

Steve and Bill get married then, problem solved...right? Don't be disingenuous......

(June 16, 2015 at 2:03 pm)robvalue Wrote: I'm not "rejecting love and goodness" or whatever, or rejecting god, I simply see no reason to see such a thing exists. If he exists, he's hiding from me, and if I'm to be punished for that then there's not much I can do about it.

I can't reject something I don't even believe exists. Like I said, all I have is people saying stuff about god, with no compelling arguments or evidence. He should be able to do better.

I completely believe you!

I have no idea what you're talking about Mystic, sorry. I've said before, I couldn't care less if there is a god because I'm not going to worship it. If it wants to come talk in a sensible manner, it is welcome. If it wants to play hide and seek, then he can have fun with that and I'll get on with real things.

CL: Thank you! You're about the first theist to ever have said that I like you a lot. Mostly I get people telling me I am deliberately ignoring things (it happened on this very page already, see above!)

Are you saying that gays having sex within wedlock is immoral? Or is that OK?

(June 16, 2015 at 2:16 pm)robvalue Wrote: Are you saying that gays having sex within wedlock is immoral? Or is that OK?

Note how I said "between husband and wife" and not "married according to the state."

I believe that marriage is definitive of a woman/man relationship. A gay couple aught to have all the same rights under the law, but it is not a marriage in the Catholic definition of the word, which is what I believe in. Therefore I do not believe it is moral for 2 men or 2 women to engage in sexual activity, even if they are married under state law.

I don't know why anyone would have expected something else............

(June 16, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 2:16 pm)robvalue Wrote: Are you saying that gays having sex within wedlock is immoral? Or is that OK?

Note how I said "between husband and wife" and not "married according to the state."

I believe that marriage is definitive of a woman/man relationship. A gay couple aught to have all the same rights under the law, but it is not a marriage in the Catholic definition of the word, which is what I believe in. Therefore I do not believe it is moral for 2 men or 2 women to engage in sexual activity, even if they are married under state law.

Why didn't God allow marriage between two men or two women and define it to include them?