My Escatological Vision

[dqualk]

Much better start than the last thread, by the way, to let us know where exactly you stand and be pleasant about it.

I think hate is the wrong word for some of us. We dislike the idea, because it seems illogical. I’m sure you’ve heard the arguments. Hate comes, for example, when my ex-boyfriend shouts invectives at his sister because she’s an atheist, telling her what a whore she is and exactly why according to god’s scriptures…then expects her to still want to come to church (mind you, she’s a bright, vivacious sweet little thing who is 100 times more forgiving and compassionate and charitable than him). Most of us, I’d be willing to stake money on, don’t hate god…especially as we don’t believe god even exists. We hate god’s followers.

Thank you, in truth I never intended to come off in such a negative way, however, I can see why I was taken the way I was.

Yeah I was careful to say the "idea of God." Especially when it is a God who is damning people for an eternity of stealing a hotdog or something.

Gentle suggestion: doing even a brief proofread before posting would help immensely in making sure we all understand your point. I think you meant “absence” instead of “presence”. Writing your posts out in Microsoft Word or a similar program would eliminate half of your problems.

Thank you for the kind suggestion lol I sometimes get a harsh suggestion lol anyway, I actually meant what I said. I believe people in hell are still in the presence of God's love. I believe God loves all men, even those in hell. An analogy I like to use is this, first hell is like a prison cell locked from the inside, and not the outside. Another analogy I like to use is God's love is like a fire, those who are in heaven have a proper relationship to the fire, they are at a safe distance where they are warmed on a cold winter's night and they use the light for reading a good book. Those in hell are inside of the fire, burning. However, they can walk out of the fire at any moment, they just hate the light so much that they refuse to go out into it.

Do you see why we have a problem with this? We are told god created all things, and yet a person was created who hates god…then is ‘punished’ for it? Do you see the disconnection there?

Absolutely I can see why you would have a problem with it, its a difficult concept to grasp. I personally can come to grips with it by believeing in the mystery of free will. Free will makes no sense when there is an omnipotent and omnibenevelont God. Therefore I believe that it is suprarational. For example, God is said to be outside of time, yet we are in time, this too makes no sense, I accept it as being suprarationale too. I believe if we were in God's realm we would understand how it all works, but we are not able to grasp those things of God, so instead we give them over to mystery. This is why free will is called a mystery.

1) Stop shouting ‘hate’ or acting as if there’s a conspiracy just because someone doesn’t agree with you. How about asking specifically WHY someone doesn’t share your same viewpoint? Even if it’s your personal opinion that someone is responding purely out of hate, you show no class or respect by continually slinging it around. More than likely there is a rational reason and the problem is communication error.

It probably is just a communication error. However Zen is the one who said she hates men of God. I felt like this was a hateful thing to say so I let her know. I doubt she actually hates men of God, its more like a figure of speech. Quote by Zenbadger:

What we do hate are the men who use the authority of god to justify their lust to control and dominate others.
In short, we hate the hypocritical bastards who call themselves "men of god"

2) The Pope lives in a palace filled with artworks and literature at his beck and call. He has the best care the church’s money can buy. He sleeps in a bed far more luxurious than most of us can ever dream. His clothes are made from fine materials, he rides in a bulletproof car, and wears gems whose worth most of us can’t even fathom. He is fed by chefs of superior order. The man has absolutely no reason to want…EVER. Or do you not see these things? Just because his name is not on their deeds or titles of ownership does not negate the fact that he is allowed to USE them.

The original palace was a donation by Constantine. And St. Peter's Basilica etc. was build by donations, people like beautiful art and so they pay for it willingly. This is the same reason taht we build a beautiful White House etc. The Pope himself did not build this stuff. They were gifts. The Pope doesn't wear gems. His crown used to have gems in it, which was a donation from Napoleon and the French people, however the Pope dontated all of the gems to charity, even though I feel like a beautiful piece of art which belonged to all of the Church was given away just because some people make baseless accusations. The fact is we Catholics want our Pope to have beautiful symbols of office, just like we want beautiful things for ourself. The fact is the Pope could be a millioaire but with all the books he sells, instead he gives ALL of the profits from his books to charity. The Pope drives a bulletproof car because a would-be murderer tried to kill him. The chefs that feed him do so for free, and they are religious, that is they give everythign they make away. It is true that he is loved by a billion faithful who insist that he not go hungry and that he is kept safe with good health care etc. but this is not himself. And the fact is the Pope does not use material things, except for excellent heathcare and ample food. Which he fasts frequently, and he clearly does not gorge himself on food. Its not as if the Pope has millionaire toys or something. He doesn't drive sports cars and owns giant home theater systems with all this junk. He also doesn't own flashy clothes. he wears the cassock personally and he wears the symbols of his office that are handed down from generation to generation and were originally gifts. The Church educates more children than any institution in the world, its has more hospitals, I mean I could go on and on about how charitable the Church is. Once more just call your local Catholic parish and you will see that they have many charities that they freely give to those in need.

Er…how? The only slavery from ancient times that I know of that was different from “modern” slavery belonged to the Greeks and Romans who allowed their slaves to earn their freedom.

Technically in Jewish law no man can be a slave for their entire life and one cannot be born into slavery, and slaves had rights in Jewish law. In Greece and Rome slaves had NO rights, and they were freed at their masters whim, only. They were property 100%. You could rape them, kill them whatever. Jews were not allowed to rape or kill their "indentured servants."

Did I misread something when it said god told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?

Well apparently you did, because God commanded Abraham not to slay his son, ultimately. He was testing him. Also, for Christians this was not only a test, but it was also a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice on behalf of man.

I cannot love that which I do not respect and I was quite in love with a Southern Baptist for a good portion of my life. Definitely a theist. I have friends who are theists who I love and respect. Do not dishonor my feelings, or the feelings of many other atheists who love people in all sorts of ways despite their theism.

I apologize if I made it sound like this was directed at you. It most certainyl was not. I find you to be a pleasant person. I was quoting what Dotard said, I think it was Dotard...

I honor you feelings and you seem to have shown me respect and I appreciate it, and I hope I can also show you respect.

---

@Dotard Sure thing man. Once again I said its very well possible that minimalist is intelligent but he hasnt shown it to me yet.

---

You may now proceed to add idioms to your ever-increasing list of things you don't know but should know. A cop out is avoidance or inadequate performance of a task or duty. I haven't chosen not to do something you insufferable twit.

You attempt to stop me from talking about a particular kind of atheism by saying that all atheism is defined by the way you define atheism, this is a way to avoid talking about the issue by making up a false problem, a cop out.

1. You don't get to have your very own definition of theism, atheism or anything else for that matter.
2. Materialism is a worldview.
3. Atheism is not a worldview.

I'll tell you what, I'll began calling it atheistic materialism. Just for you.

I implore you to get a fucking clue and a dictionary; you may hazard a guess that sane people don't typically make themselves out to be complete clowns for the sake of their arguments.

The fact is many people use atheist as a short for athesitic materialism, as one has not need to use the term atheist which only means a lack of God. People use the term Theism to mean various things as well. If you've read a book in your life you would know that.

So you're assuming that because a lot of people believe there's a god or gods, it must be true. That's an appeal to common belief fallacy.

You probably have not read a book, becasue you cannot read. As I have never once used the belief of masses as conclusive evidence to prove something. I do use it as a way to strengthen my arguement.

Logically, atheism has been around as long as theism, if not, longer, but I wouldn't expect you to appreciate that. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with you in this case. It will always fall heaviest on the party making the positive ontological claim e.g. "god exists".

lol prove it. However about those who make the positive claim that God does not exist? People have always in history believed in God this is a simple fact, as far as history can give us facts. Of course you could just prove to believe, against the evidence, that the first men who had the time to think and record their thoughts did not believe in God, but that would be contrary to the evidence we have.

You are shifting the burden of proof on to theists, so I'll say shifting the burden of proof gets us nowhere.