Why are we here?

[KevinM1]

Your perception is that Christianity is a house of cards and all you have to do is poke at a few of them and it all comes crashing down. You are wrong. If God exists, it is not a house of cards. Rather a well-defined system of doctrines that do not contradict each other--doctrines that have been hashed out for 2 millennium now. I don't know if your understanding of this system is so poor that you think it is weak or you are so sure God does not exist that it is all for naught.

The doctrine has been 'hashed out' primarily by people already believing in it.  The length of time it's been examined doesn't really mean anything if it's primarily based on baseless assertion.  That it is still up for debate after all this time really only highlights how spurious its claims really are.  If there were even a nugget of truth in them, one would think that Christianity would be gaining acceptance in the world rather than steadily losing it.  Instead, its only gains are in places with poor education, like Africa.  Why do you suppose that is?

I was trying to address one of these doctrines regarding hell and punishment and that God does not send people to hell. That is lost on you because you don't want to make such doctrinal distinctions when you are clearly comfortable with your one-liners. Because if you and many of your buddies here stick to mocking one-line arguments, it makes you feel superior to the poor stupid Christians.

It's a distinction without meaning, really.  According to most, I'm going to go to hell for simply not believing.  Does it really matter if your god sends me there directly or if it's part of some automated process based on me not entering a covenant with it?  The method is the same: unbelief = hell.  Moreover, it's based on pettiness.  

What does a supreme being need with worship?  Christians espouse god's forgiving and loving nature all the time, but at the end of the day salvation relies on not just belief that it exists (despite it not providing clear, verifiable evidence of itself), but that I accept it as my lord and master.  I cannot do that, even under threat of torment.  I would rather be free in hell than a slave in heaven.

Let's get back to sin for a moment.  You made a big stink (capital letters and everything) a few posts up about my sins.  I jokingly asked you to list them.  I'll simply do it for you:

1. Not believing in your god
2. I stole a couple of beef chalupa supremes from the UNH food court over a decade ago because I was running late for class

That is, honestly, all I can think of.  I never cheated on my girlfriend.  I abhor violence, except in self-defense.  I haven't made nor possess idols of anything.  I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs.  Do I deserve to be tortured, even temporarily?

Note also that I think Original Sin is idiotic and barbarous.  Children should not be held to account for the crimes of their ancestors.

[Spooky]

To propagate our DNA. Brb...

[Spooky]

More seriously, sometimes I think the answer to the great question of "Why??" is simply, Why not?

[SteveII]

Your perception is that Christianity is a house of cards and all you have to do is poke at a few of them and it all comes crashing down. You are wrong. If God exists, it is not a house of cards. Rather a well-defined system of doctrines that do not contradict each other--doctrines that have been hashed out for 2 millennium now. I don't know if your understanding of this system is so poor that you think it is weak or you are so sure God does not exist that it is all for naught.

The doctrine has been 'hashed out' primarily by people already believing in it.  The length of time it's been examined doesn't really mean anything if it's primarily based on baseless assertion.  That it is still up for debate after all this time really only highlights how spurious its claims really are.  If there were even a nugget of truth in them, one would think that Christianity would be gaining acceptance in the world rather than steadily losing it.  Instead, its only gains are in places with poor education, like Africa.  Why do you suppose that is?

Who else would hash out systematic theology but the people who believed in it? I am assuming you think that the existence of God is the "baseless assertion". That is your opinion. There are plenty of arguments and evidence of God--you chose to exclude or ignore them as a group while others find them, as a group, sufficient. You cannot disprove it, so the fact remains, if God exists, Christianity is the best framework to explain the data we have. 

Your conclusion that "if there were even a nugget of truth...Christianity would be gaining" will require an explanation why it has 70% penetration in the US and 33% of the world. One does not follow from the other.

[SteveII]

I was trying to address one of these doctrines regarding hell and punishment and that God does not send people to hell. That is lost on you because you don't want to make such doctrinal distinctions when you are clearly comfortable with your one-liners. Because if you and many of your buddies here stick to mocking one-line arguments, it makes you feel superior to the poor stupid Christians.

It's a distinction without meaning, really.  According to most, I'm going to go to hell for simply not believing.  Does it really matter if your god sends me there directly or if it's part of some automated process based on me not entering a covenant with it?  The method is the same: unbelief = hell.  Moreover, it's based on pettiness.  

What does a supreme being need with worship?  Christians espouse god's forgiving and loving nature all the time, but at the end of the day salvation relies on not just belief that it exists (despite it not providing clear, verifiable evidence of itself), but that I accept it as my lord and master.  I cannot do that, even under threat of torment.  I would rather be free in hell than a slave in heaven.

Let's get back to sin for a moment.  You made a big stink (capital letters and everything) a few posts up about my sins.  I jokingly asked you to list them.  I'll simply do it for you:

1. Not believing in your god
2. I stole a couple of beef chalupa supremes from the UNH food court over a decade ago because I was running late for class

That is, honestly, all I can think of.  I never cheated on my girlfriend.  I abhor violence, except in self-defense.  I haven't made nor possess idols of anything.  I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs.  Do I deserve to be tortured, even temporarily?

Note also that I think Original Sin is idiotic and barbarous.  Children should not be held to account for the crimes of their ancestors.

Pettiness? The morally perfect, eternal, creator of the universe says he cannot (as in not possible) have sin in his presence. And not just that, he desires to have us in his presence so much as to have provided a bridge to get us back to him. You, one of a few billion ants that exist for a time that is so insignificantly short compared to eternity past, deem this petty. 

Do you think that a little sin or a big sin matters to a morally perfect God who cannot have sin in his presence? To think so is to miss the point and/or engage in faulty reasoning.

[abaris]

So, Steve, how old do you think the world is? The sun? The universe?

You see, your assertions only work in a geocentric universe with humans being somehow special. But as far as science goes, the earth is here for at least 4 billion years and we haven't even clocked off ten percent of the time the dinosaurs were around.

Sorry, but the one and only god cropping up in the desert a measly 3000 years ago doesn't sit well with what is undisputed. At least among people who know their stuff.

[Cato]

A point of clarification, I will always be arguing from a Protestant point of view. I am not well-versed in the intricacies of Catholic doctrine.

I guess this pretty much pulls the rug from under your 'well defined system of doctrines'.

[KevinM1]

The doctrine has been 'hashed out' primarily by people already believing in it.  The length of time it's been examined doesn't really mean anything if it's primarily based on baseless assertion.  That it is still up for debate after all this time really only highlights how spurious its claims really are.  If there were even a nugget of truth in them, one would think that Christianity would be gaining acceptance in the world rather than steadily losing it.  Instead, its only gains are in places with poor education, like Africa.  Why do you suppose that is?

Who else would hash out systematic theology but the people who believed in it? I am assuming you think that the existence of God is the "baseless assertion". That is your opinion. There are plenty of arguments and evidence of God--you chose to exclude or ignore them as a group while others find them, as a group, sufficient. You cannot disprove it, so the fact remains, if God exists, Christianity is the best framework to explain the data we have. 

This is nothing more than "I believe in it, so take my word for it.  There are mounds of evidence I'm not going to point to, many arguments I'm not going to reference that back me up."  You'll have to do better than that.

And no, I cannot disprove the existence of a god.  I never claimed that I could.  I certainly find your god to be wanting, however.  I have yet to find a reason to believe in it, and you're certainly not helping your cause.  Lots of hand waving, assertions, lame implied insults, and vague threats, but nothing compelling in the least.  If I'm so wrong about everything, you should be able to succinctly explain why.

Your conclusion that "if there were even a nugget of truth...Christianity would be gaining" will require an explanation why it has 70% penetration in the US and 33% of the world. One does not follow from the other.

I'm going to change gears here because we're both engaging in appeals to popularity with this part, which is fallacious.  It's just going to devolve into a dick waving contest that doesn't actually address the truthiness of your religion's claims.  Much like Britney Spears' album sales mean nothing about the quality of her music either way, similarly, the number of believers mean nothing about the veracity of your religion's claims either way.

It was a dumb tangent, and for that I apologize.

[SteveII]

So, Steve, how old do you think the world is? The sun? The universe?

You see, your assertions only work in a geocentric universe with humans being somehow special. But as far as science goes, the earth is here for at least 4 billion years and we haven't even clocked off ten percent of the time the dinosaurs were around.

Sorry, but the one and only god cropping up in the desert a measly 3000 years ago doesn't sit well with what is undisputed. At least among people who know their stuff.

What does any of that have to do with heaven, hell, and purpose?

You are assuming I am a literal creationist. Stop making assumptions.

[SteveII]

A point of clarification, I will always be arguing from a Protestant point of view. I am not well-versed in the intricacies of Catholic doctrine.

I guess this pretty much pulls the rug from under your 'well defined system of doctrines'.

How so? Protestant theology is a lot more simple than Catholic. Are you suggesting that the different protestant groups somehow make the system of doctrines less thought out. It actually keeps the discussion going. There is room for different views on some issues. Other issues are well agreed upon.