free will paradox

[fr0d0]

Are you really quoting the Jews here as the authority on god? They deny his one and only begotton son.

They wrote the OT right? Which is what is in question here? On the OT alone, the Jews concluded the attributes of God. The Abrahamic God which is the same God as the Christian God. Unlike Allah.

I know atheists quote the OT at Christians like the NT didn't also apply. I know right?

God won't force you to worship him, but nothing would make you happier than to do so.

Still don't get how you know what would make me happier?

It's that basic that everyone has to be made happier by it. Unless you are perfection, which I know, even though you might be close, you are not, sweet girl.

Even when I was a Christian, I just had to deal with the fact that athiests
were going to be happy and I wasn't, plain and simple.

Wow. lol

Seriously Cluckie, I don't recognise this. I don't want to call this non christian, but I see no evidence for the affirmative. If you feel comfortable with it perhaps you could tell us what exactly it was?

Since becoming aware of the fact that I need not be angry at god for my lifetime of bullshit, I've become happy for the first time <IN MY LIFE>
And my lifestyle has not changed one bit from before deconversion to now, so you can't say that I'm
happier cuz now I get to sin. I'm happier because a weight has been lifted off my shoulders, actually.

^^ this for example. Sin is the weight you carry on your shoulders. Guilt is sin. It doesn't make any sense if you're calling this Christianity. It's the opposite of that. Not that this isn't very common. There must be a vast majority of people the same. The uk has ~70% that believe in god, and ~80% that believe in ghosts. (rough figures based on facts somewhere, forgive me). So even though there are plenty that give it lip service, the vast majority just don't get it. Your situation sounds more intense though. Perhaps this is common in the US. I hear it's one crazy place of religious nutjobs.

I'm not superstitious

You should change your username then

[Esquilax]

Yeah. It's called justice. You think people should get away with bad stuff?

Oh, not at all. People should be punished for crimes. I just don't feel like there's any measure by which the bad things I'm responsible for are worth the infliction of pain, or require punishment at all. I've suffered the consequences of my actions in this life, atoned to the people I should atone to, and learned from them. Why on earth should there need to be more? Moreover, by what measure does god assume he has the right to impart such punishment? My father had a hand in creating me too, he has no right to raise a hand to me, even so.

"Hellfire" lol. Sounds scary doesn't it. Of course you're trying to say you're own slight disdemeanours don't warrant the same punishment as a serial murderer right? Well who said you did? If God is just, as I believe, how do you rationalise that? Because I cant. What I've been talking about here is hell on earth. this life where what comes around, goes around, You reap what you sow. Your own negativity, no matter how small, limits your own enjoyment of life. I'm sure you'd agree with that on a secular level.

I do agree, and if it stayed at that level, without a hell after death, then that'd be about right.

Here you're presented with an idea that you are given an opportunity to achieve perfection although you are not perfect. The only aim of which is to give you happiness. What would your response be to such a gift? A: "This benefactor must be forcing this crap life upon me because I'm not perfect like it is, therefore I'm not happy with it."

My position is more that there's no reason to punish anyone for living a normal life. That my life is my own, and that god shouldn't take any responsibility for either the good or bad things in my life; let me live and learn on my own, and don't think to punish me once it's over unless I've truly hurt somebody. Hands off, essentially; let me walk on my own.

Pardon me if it don't take the author nations' word over yours.

By all means, if you want. The problem is that every religion makes similar claims about the ultimate good of their own religious texts; do you believe them too? After all, they wrote it. Self reported virtues are by design somewhat biased, don't you think?

A lot of modern societies laws are built upon the moral guidelines found in this book. As we become further departed in our understanding of it, we become more primitive in our morals, that is, less moral.

A lot of our laws have advanced beyond the bible too; we have a prohibition on slavery now that the bible doesn't have. Would you argue that this is more primitive than the biblical ideals about that? We also don't make rape victims marry their rapist, isn't this a good thing? I would argue that we have a more nuanced legal system now because of its secular nature.

If it's harmful to you, do you not want to deal with that? This is your personal hell.

Sure, but I want to deal with it myself. I don't want to be compelled toward it by an outside force, that robs me of agency in doing so. Let me rise or fall on my own.

Well the basis of Christianity is that assumption that people aren't born perfect. This is very clearly illustrated in the story of Adam and Eve. Man is fallible/ has the predisposition to fall. This seems to be the common zeitgiest too. People on here concur, when I've asked. What is your opinion then EsQ? Do you think that people are perfect and have no need of improving themselves?

Of course people aren't perfect, but it doesn't necessarily follow that this requires punishment upon their death. Certain actions require punishment yes, but I don't think in my ground state I deserve hell, nor that the moderate immorality that a normal life accumulates should do so either; these things are necessary for us to learn, and I'd prefer to atone to the people I've wronged in these small ways, rather than just suffering meaninglessly until I've fulfilled the metric of some heavenly father.

I didn't claim any exclusivity on goodness. I didn't even claim any exclusiveness on ultimate goodness. Morality, rooted in ultimate good always trumps morality rooted in the mediocre. Seems to me she's turned her back on some very worrying craziness that I don't recognise even slightly. What the hell was she? Where does she believe goodness comes from now then? From the good deeds of people? A secular realist fights against the mediocre.

Personally, I feel that good actions should be done for the fact that they're good, not because there's some reward on the other side of life. Whether or not a god exists, we should do good because it's the right thing to do, no? My sole point at the beginning of this portion of the response was that one can disbelieve in god, without doing the same to goodness.

Doing good stuff, like you say you are doing, is very similar to what I'm promoting. Somehow I'm involved in some deep rooted evil where I see you as nice people doing what I would want all people to do. Why are you attcking me?

I'm not attacking you, and I apologize if it's come across that way. This has been quite a measured and interesting exchange, so I wouldn't want to come across as hostile. I just disagree with you, is all.

You're using the english language innacurately. People post examples of people using the opposite in lazy speech thanking God that gets ridiculed. Rightly I guess you'd think?

Why? I wasn't invoking luck as a supernatural force, and beyond that, why should there just be a single definition for the term? "Fortunate" and "lucky" can just mean "having come to a positive outcome through negative circumstances." It often does.

[Angrboda]

Leave it to the Christians to define being normal as "a bad thing."


Having realized that the doctrine of sin originally conceived by Christendom doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of being real and proven to be such, Christians have proceeded to redefine sin in an attempt to reconcile their theology with common sense and the goal of saving their theological butts from the fire. (I'm told there was a Christian once who redefined sin as "a certain kind of French pastry" in order to get himself out of a jam.) And here we have Frodo falling in with a long line of disingenuous apologists and attempting to redefine sin as "that unpleasant feeling when your panties ride up your ass." It's a masterful stroke of equivocating, but when you redefine it to mean anything and everything from serial killing to a mild discomfort over have made a poor choice, it ceases to be meaningful as a concept, or valid as a yardstick for metering punishment, and your doing so becomes a complete and reprehensible misrepresentation of how sin has been described by Christians throughout the ages.

[fr0d0]

Oh, not at all. People should be punished for crimes. I just don't feel like there's any measure by which the bad things I'm responsible for are worth the infliction of pain, or require punishment at all. I've suffered the consequences of my actions in this life, atoned to the people I should atone to, and learned from them. Why on earth should there need to be more? Moreover, by what measure does god assume he has the right to impart such punishment? My father had a hand in creating me too, he has no right to raise a hand to me, even so.

Wow you're obstinate! lol Do you think that your obstinance might limit your fullfilment of life? THAT's what I'm talking about. Your punishment, self inflicted, is you stunting yourself.
Posthumous justice is another subject. Lets try and keep this separate. Posthumously God exacts justice, so that in this life, we can reason with justice fully realised. That's it. Story over.

I do agree, and if it stayed at that level, without a hell after death, then that'd be about right.

Posthumous hel is about justice for everything. If you need to make up a bit to be perfect, then you don't go to perfect school. Christians have accepted the get out of jail card, that was freely offered. Likewise if they need stuff sorting out, they will spend some time in remand too. Only God knows this. Don't fret yourself about it. If you don't want the gift, then that's up to you.

By all means, if you want. The problem is that every religion makes similar claims about the ultimate good of their own religious texts; do you believe them too? After all, they wrote it. Self reported virtues are by design somewhat biased, don't you think?

If you read it it's more self reported put downs. Some say that is why it became so popular... because it matches the self depricating persona of modern man.
I look at every other religion. Essentially they all address the quest for meaning and purpose. None other, that I've found, take the last evolutionary step which is to make a way possible to solve humanities problem of fallability.

A lot of our laws have advanced beyond the bible too; we have a prohibition on slavery now that the bible doesn't have. Would you argue that this is more primitive than the biblical ideals about that? We also don't make rape victims marry their rapist, isn't this a good thing? I would argue that we have a more nuanced legal system now because of its secular nature.

The bible doesn't promote slavery. The bible shows God trying to change people into being fair with those in their charge. It's a historical document reflecting the practices of the times. To us it is foreign and hard to understand because we have a totally different setup now. I wouldn't like to say which one is best without fully appreciating their POV. I'd guess that there are strengths and weaknesses on both sides.
More adopted to the times than advanced I would suggest.

If it's harmful to you, do you not want to deal with that? This is your personal hell.

Sure, but I want to deal with it myself. I don't want to be compelled toward it by an outside force, that robs me of agency in doing so. Let me rise or fall on my own.

You are implored to deal with it yourself. The choice is entirely yours. Posthumously, when you as a non believer have no interest in it, god exactls justice. In this life, it rains on the just exactly the same as it rains in the unjust.

Of course people aren't perfect, but it doesn't necessarily follow that this requires punishment upon their death. Certain actions require punishment yes, but I don't think in my ground state I deserve hell, nor that the moderate immorality that a normal life accumulates should do so either; these things are necessary for us to learn, and I'd prefer to atone to the people I've wronged in these small ways, rather than just suffering meaninglessly until I've fulfilled the metric of some heavenly father.

The metric of this heavenly father is perfect justice. Why not use it? If you suggest an alternative would it be better? That would be illogical. you're objecting to a perfect judgement... I find it difficult to understand your logic there.
By who's standard are you judging yourself then? If you consider perfect judgement on yourself, then you are considering God. If you think you measure up to that, good for you. All anyone can do is try. Sometimes I find Christians quite immoral... they can fall back on the false idea that they can get away with immorality because of their get out of jail free card. That just doesn't work of course. Justice has to be served and will be. what's important to us now though is not limiting our potential. Those Christians don't mean well and limit themselves just the same as you might.

Personally, I feel that good actions should be done for the fact that they're good, not because there's some reward on the other side of life. Whether or not a god exists, we should do good because it's the right thing to do, no? My sole point at the beginning of this portion of the response was that one can disbelieve in god, without doing the same to goodness.

Like I've said, I think the point of posthumous judgement is for us to be abke to rationalise a just reality. When reality is unjust that becomes a problem, and one you have to address.
We do good because it bears reward. That's how good works. The reward can be unspoken, unknown to anyone but you, but still you gain.
So you can do good without belief in God, sure. But your rational universe doesn't support you. Hence Christianity/ the religious endeavour.

I just disagree with you, is all.

No problem with that.

why should there just be a single definition for the term? "Fortunate" and "lucky" can just mean "having come to a positive outcome through negative circumstances." It often does.

Yeah I know it's a difficult one. I pull myself up on it too.

[Esquilax]

Wow you're obstinate! lol Do you think that your obstinance might limit your fullfilment of life? THAT's what I'm talking about. Your punishment, self inflicted, is you stunting yourself.

Consider it passion. I actually enjoy argumentation, so this isn't some neurotic thing for me. I just find it enriching to have to format my ideas in response to someone else.

Posthumous justice is another subject. Lets try and keep this separate. Posthumously God exacts justice, so that in this life, we can reason with justice fully realised. That's it. Story over.

Well, this is where I have a problem with your worldview. I get uneasy around this concept of posthumous justice because I get the feeling I'm destined for some of it too, in your book, without ever having committed an act worthy of, well, hell. Would you mind explaining exactly what you mean when you talk of posthumous justice? I think I'd have an easier time explaining my position if I knew the method you had in mind by which this justice is meted out.

Posthumous hel is about justice for everything. If you need to make up a bit to be perfect, then you don't go to perfect school. Christians have accepted the get out of jail card, that was freely offered. Likewise if they need stuff sorting out, they will spend some time in remand too. Only God knows this. Don't fret yourself about it. If you don't want the gift, then that's up to you.

Well, I'll compliment you on not subscribing to the nasty and self righteous infinite hell school of thought. You do have the right idea in that this version of hell allows one to learn from his mistakes, and therefore it's infinitely wiser than the traditional brimstone version (Hell Classic, if you like ) I do still want to know if this hell is as fiery and demon filled as the one depicted biblically, though. Corrective actions are one thing, but I could never condone that hell.

The other important question I have relates to the criteria of entry: would I be sent there for, say, homosexuality? Working on the sabbath? Anything like that? Does my nonbelief and refusal to kowtow to the rules in the bible I find strange or bigoted or immoral contribute to the length of time I would spend there? Because it's one thing to mete out punishment for murdering someone, and quite another to do the same because I don't hate the correct people according to a holy book.

If you read it it's more self reported put downs. Some say that is why it became so popular... because it matches the self depricating persona of modern man.

Isn't there also a lot of terrible stuff in the bible that's lauded by the narrative voice there?

I look at every other religion. Essentially they all address the quest for meaning and purpose. None other, that I've found, take the last evolutionary step which is to make a way possible to solve humanities problem of fallability.

Probably gonna need a little more on that last thing. Are we still talking about hell, there?

The bible doesn't promote slavery. The bible shows God trying to change people into being fair with those in their charge. It's a historical document reflecting the practices of the times. To us it is foreign and hard to understand because we have a totally different setup now. I wouldn't like to say which one is best without fully appreciating their POV. I'd guess that there are strengths and weaknesses on both sides.
More adopted to the times than advanced I would suggest.

Okay, this one I do genuinely take exception to: is it a historical document, and hence reflective of the climate of the time, or is it god's word as to the life he would want his followers to lead? You have the ten commandments and such on one side, indicating the latter, but there's also instructions for owning slaves in there too, among other questionable acts. Are you saying that at one point it was moral to own slaves, but now it isn't? And to be clear, these are definitely instructions for slavery, detailing who you can take as a slave, and the criteria by which you can beat them; this is hardly just instructions for caring for people under you.

Besides which, wouldn't god, in his instructional passages to his flock, be able to set out exactly the kind of society he wanted to see? Why add those instructions at all, if this kind of slavery would be found immoral in time? Unless god actually advocates the owning of another human being?

You are implored to deal with it yourself. The choice is entirely yours. Posthumously, when you as a non believer have no interest in it, god exactls justice. In this life, it rains on the just exactly the same as it rains in the unjust.

The metric of this heavenly father is perfect justice. Why not use it? If you suggest an alternative would it be better? That would be illogical. you're objecting to a perfect judgement... I find it difficult to understand your logic there.
By who's standard are you judging yourself then? If you consider perfect judgement on yourself, then you are considering God. If you think you measure up to that, good for you. All anyone can do is try. Sometimes I find Christians quite immoral... they can fall back on the false idea that they can get away with immorality because of their get out of jail free card. That just doesn't work of course. Justice has to be served and will be. what's important to us now though is not limiting our potential. Those Christians don't mean well and limit themselves just the same as you might.

I'll hold off on this one until I know exactly what you have in mind when you say posthumous justice, though I do think it's worthy of discussion.

Like I've said, I think the point of posthumous judgement is for us to be abke to rationalise a just reality. When reality is unjust that becomes a problem, and one you have to address.
We do good because it bears reward. That's how good works. The reward can be unspoken, unknown to anyone but you, but still you gain.
So you can do good without belief in God, sure. But your rational universe doesn't support you. Hence Christianity/ the religious endeavour.

Why do I need a rationalization beyond the idea that doing good things is the right thing to do, and that I feel happy when others are? This is one arena where I'm more than happy to appeal to emotions, because empathy is really important to being human.

Sometimes, the answer really can just be as simple as "it feels right."

[fr0d0]

Well, this is where I have a problem with your worldview. I get uneasy around this concept of posthumous justice because I get the feeling I'm destined for some of it too, in your book, without ever having committed an act worthy of, well, hell. Would you mind explaining exactly what you mean when you talk of posthumous justice?

Posthumously you will suffer in proportion to what you need to redress. You're still in a position to choose, so if you remain obstinate, that goes on longer. At some point in time, you work out the right answer.
I guess as a Christian, I don't consider myself any different to you, I mean, I bring non Christian me to it, which sounds to me less principled than you, although I can't be sure: I'm not a law breaker, but I sometimes think it's cool to be the bad guy, and well, I'm guilty of all the deadly sins. What I think makes me different, in this taboo lingo, is that I accept that I'm wrong and need forgiveness for that. For that small admission, I'm given access to perfection.
It's weird, because it's not a case of trying to be good. I know that Jehovah's witnesses try very hard to earn their way into heaven by doing what's right morally. It's the deal breaker for them. I have jw friends and they're way more moral, in that sense than I am, and they're way more respected as a result.
I should try to be good, but that shouldn't be under the threat of anything, but a product of inspiration. I'm good because God inspires me to be good. Me being good under my own steam is worthless if I'm not doing it for the right reason. Following laws is me being obedient to the law. Not God. Hope that makes some sense! :p

I do still want to know if this hell is as fiery and demon filled as the one depicted biblically, though. Corrective actions are one thing, but I could never condone that hell.

Living in present hell I could tell you all about that, but having never visited the afterlife... :p hehe
I understand God to be just. Depictions of hell are often the worst imaginable. How deep is your rebellion against good? The punishment has to match. I imagine you going in and choosing your level. There's a series of tags on the wall, ranging from tiny objections to the most extreme rebel. You chose your tag and on the reverse is the matching level of suffering. Meanwhile there's me smiling back at you in Christian love. Can there be any more extreme a torture!

The other important question I have relates to the criteria of entry: would I be sent there for, say, homosexuality? Working on the sabbath? Anything like that? Does my nonbelief and refusal to kowtow to the rules in the bible I find strange or bigoted or immoral contribute to the length of time I would spend there? Because it's one thing to mete out punishment for murdering someone, and quite another to do the same because I don't hate the correct people according to a holy book.

I work on the Sabbath no problem. Homosexuality... Do you believe that God made homosexuals that way? I do. The rules of the Bible are meaningless to me. What matters is what God inspired in me. That's the only way I know if something's right or not. In my taboo language, you have a God given gift within you, your moral sense.
You shouldn't hate anyone. I do, but that's not me being a healthy Christian.

Isn't there also a lot of terrible stuff in the bible that's lauded by the narrative voice there?

I don't believe there is, no.

the last evolutionary step which is to make a way possible to solve humanities problem of fallability.

Probably gonna need a little more on that last thing. Are we still talking about hell, there?

No I'm talking about Jesus lol.

Okay, this one I do genuinely take exception to: is it a historical document, and hence reflective of the climate of the time, or is it god's word as to the life he would want his followers to lead? You have the ten commandments and such on one side, indicating the latter, but there's also instructions for owning slaves in there too, among other questionable acts. Are you saying that at one point it was moral to own slaves, but now it isn't? And to be clear, these are definitely instructions for slavery, detailing who you can take as a slave, and the criteria by which you can beat them; this is hardly just instructions for caring for people under you.

Besides which, wouldn't god, in his instructional passages to his flock, be able to set out exactly the kind of society he wanted to see? Why add those instructions at all, if this kind of slavery would be found immoral in time? Unless god actually advocates the owning of another human being?

The ten commandments are the law, the majority of the rest is the Jews trying to implement it at the time. Lots of it they got wrong. Some of it would be sensible.
The instructions for owning slaves are their human regulations. The Good influence we see is to be fairer and to consider slaves as fellow human beings. While this is still abhorrent to us given our present view if slave owning, at the time it was quite a step in the right direction.

Why do I need a rationalization beyond the idea that doing good things is the right thing to do, and that I feel happy when others are? This is one arena where I'm more than happy to appeal to emotions, because empathy is really important to being human.

Sometimes, the answer really can just be as simple as "it feels right."

Like I said I think that ability in you is God given. What the Christian position does is move that from an emotional response to a rational one as well. Or perhaps a far more strongly supported rational position.

[Mystical]

Are you really quoting the Jews here as the authority on god? They deny his one and only begotton son.

They wrote the OT right? Which is what is in question here? On the OT alone, the Jews concluded the attributes of God. The Abrahamic God which is the same God as the Christian God. Unlike Allah.

I know atheists quote the OT at Christians like the NT didn't also apply. I know right?

Even to this day, this being the time of the NT, the Jews deny god's one and only. They're going to hell in your opinion yes? So why bother using them as a reference for your belief in the Bible? That's all I'm saying. Oh yeah and in the OT, I find it highly suspect that people who watch as god delivered them from Egypt through supernatural occurrences, were there as the Red Sea parted before their eyes and swallowed an army, witnessed manna from heaven appear daily, and heard for themselves the voice of god at Mt. Sinai--would lose faith in said god just because Moses was delayed returning from Mt. Sinai.

What's that game called again? Oh yeah. BS. I call BS.

Still don't get how you know what would make me happier?

It's that basic that everyone has to be made happier by it. Unless you are perfection, which I know, even though you might be close, you are not, sweet girl.

Projecting much I've already explained how believing in god made me unhappier..Thus that basic principle does not apply to me, hence your statement that everyone "has to be made happier" is innately false
Also, since you correlated the two: How is my perfection or non-perfection relevant to my happiness? No one's perfect, not even god, apparently. He's subject to the same emotions as humanity. Case in point: pride, jealousy, anger, oh and bitterness too. Just to name a few. Even Jesus got angry and took a barbed whip to the moneylenders at the temple. My happiness is not provisional to believing in him. It's within me and me alone.

There's positive and negative effects for actions in this world (some would say caused by evolutionary necessity), and certain actions have different effects on ones' "happiness". For instance, a sadistic homicidal maniac can get happiness from killing. I can get happiness from doing good. You can get happiness from doing good in the name of god. The degree of happiness is not subject to belief in god, it's based on the person and how they find it. Take an upstanding Buddhist for example: they find the extremes of happiness and peace, sans god.

I see you as limiting your scope on the subject, as I did. You're in the box, not me. You're the free bird that put yourself in a cage. Why, is what I wonder? I'm certainly not saying you're less happy, who am I to judge your level of happiness? I'm just a person, like you. And I disagree with your assertion that I can't be happier as a nonbeliever than a believer.
I've taken that conversion from god to no god, quite easily; happiness included. As I see you have done the opposite.

Even when I was a Christian, I just had to deal with the fact that athiests
were going to be happy and I wasn't, plain and simple.

Wow. lol

Seriously Cluckie, I don't recognise this. I don't want to call this non christian, but I see no evidence for the affirmative. If you feel comfortable with it perhaps you could tell us what exactly it was?

Whose mocking who, on this the King's Highway just past Wicker's Gate, dear Christian?

Oh and BS card again. Please explain how you don't recognize that you see athiests as being contently happy in their limited "box"? That by not believing in your gods limitations on how to live, athiests aren't more happy than you? There's those classics like Ebekenezer Scrooge who have everything because they're unscrupulous yet unhappy through and through, but then there's those that are able to live their lives completely god free and happy too. Their happiness is unlimited, despite the comfy blanket you like to throw out there saying they can't have their cake and eat it too.
You don't feel jealousy that they get to live life in their limited little box as you call it, accountable to nobody and nothing for their actions whether they're good or bad? Really?

Side note: If you don't want hostility in your answers, don't ask for it by calling people names. Or rather, ask for it and call me what you want, but don't go complaining about it afterwards, that's rather childish.

Since becoming aware of the fact that I need not be angry at god for my lifetime of bullshit, I've become happy for the first time <IN MY LIFE>
And my lifestyle has not changed one bit from before deconversion to now, so you can't say that I'm happier cuz now I get to sin. I'm happier because a weight has been lifted off my shoulders, actually.

^^ this for example. Sin is the weight you carry on your shoulders. Guilt is sin. It doesn't make any sense if you're calling this Christianity. It's the opposite of that. Not that this isn't very common. There must be a vast majority of people the same. The uk has ~70% that believe in god, and ~80% that believe in ghosts. (rough figures based on facts somewhere, forgive me). So even though there are plenty that give it lip service, the vast majority just don't get it. Your situation sounds more intense though. Perhaps this is common in the US. I hear it's one crazy place of religious nutjobs.

Taking nutjob comment and throwing it in the bin* on grounds of hypocrisy.

What exactly are you saying here then? Are you saying that you don't bear any weight of sin on your shoulders, thus having no sin and no guilt? That's not what I've read in your last posts. You're a sinner like the "rest of us", you're just covered in the blood of Christ. You and I both know you're going to sin, regularly. And feel bad for it till you ask for forgiveness in your next prayer, feel bad for the sins you committed as they teach you on your future path.
I thought Christianity was the enacting force of guilt (Jesus died on the cross for you), hence the need for repentance through Jesus Christ because you were born into sin. Mankind delved itself into sin, God sent his sinless son as intercession for those sins. Wrong? Yes? No? Fill me in here on your beliefs, please.
Also, almost every christian I know believes in ghosts. Most of them think they're demons though. I guess they're not christians because they don't believe in what you a self-proclaimed 'true christian' believe? How do you know they're wrong?

I'm not superstitious

You should change your username then

BS again? Good gravy mister. Are you saying that if someone at church says they were lucky to be alive, that you'd call them out right then and there as worshiping luck? First of all, Lucky is an adjective, not a noun. Hence I can't be worshiping a descriptor. I'm lucky. Honestly, I can't believe I'm having this conversation with you in the first place, but..

Am I not fortunate, blessed, of advantage, getting a break, prosperous, favored, providential for being here despite the infinite odds against my survival? Certainly you can't say that an athiest would believe in such nonsense as luck--which, by the way, you do by default, believe in. God can change the cards for you, that would be lucky wouldn't it? Satan balances the weights against you, that makes your odds of advantage less, doesn't it? What's your point?

Luck
Noun
Success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.

Chance
/CHans/
Noun
A possibility of something happening.
Adjective
Fortuitous; accidental.
Verb
Do something by accident or without design

Seeing as how my name holds luckie as a description of miss: it's an adjective.

Main Entry:
lucky  [luhk-ee]
Part of Speech: Adjective (DESCRIPTIVE)
1: having good luck
2: happening by chance : fortuitous
3: producing or resulting in good by chance : favorable
4: seeming to bring good luck

Thus I'm miss(fortuitous, happening by accident/without design, favorable)26
....................................................... ^ luckie^

[Ryantology]

I understand God to be just. Depictions of hell are often the worst imaginable. How deep is your rebellion against good? The punishment has to match.

This is the major problem I have with your faith. Why should there be any punishment at all? If we atheists are wrong about God, what difference does it make to him? Even the most virulent antitheist could never harm God in any way. He is not threatened. His religions command most people in the world to one degree or other.

So, why the need to punish?

That betrays the artificial nature of the entire nonsense. An all-powerful God would require nothing from humanity by need, not even recognition. That your God does make such demands means that either he is the pettiest, most insecure fucker imaginable, far more so than any person ever, or the entire punishment-for-not-believing is human invention. It is an admission of defeat in a sense, for if God was so awesome and his gifts so amazing, there would be no non-believers. There would be no need for apologetics or debates. Belief in God would be as obvious as needing air to breathe (and it would not contradict so-called 'free will').

That threats of any kind are necessary at all is powerful evidence that the entire thing is a lie. Nobody has to threaten me with eternal suffering to get me to accept evolution or the Big Bang theory.

[fr0d0]

If you ever found a cause Ryan I'm sure you'd make a cute rebel.

The difference between the Abrahamic God and the rest is that he doesn't demand anything, just like in your perfect scenario. So thank you from him for that promo.

If you'd been paying attention, you would have noticed me say that good and bad are their own rewards. Just like you can see nature as evidence of God, or not, depending on your POV, so you can get PUNISHED (there, I made that scary for you) for doing bad stuff, by yourself in the form of guilt. What is so bad about justice any way? Do you have a problem with fairness? I'd be interested to hear your world view where injustice is desirable. Seems crazy to me right now.

[Angrboda]

What is so bad about justice any way? Do you have a problem with fairness? I'd be interested to hear your world view where injustice is desirable. Seems crazy to me right now.

Whether a world in which there is no ultimate justice is desirable or not is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is true that we live in a world without ultimate justice. What you want to believe to be true is immaterial; wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. That's just wishful thinking. Whether you find the prospect that there is no justice unpleasant or not, your desires in the matter are not evidence one way or the other as to whether there is ultimate justice or not. So until you either demonstrate the actual existence of this daddy who's gonna make everything all right, or show that we do not live in a world in which there is no ultimate justice, all your mewling about what is desirable is just so much pointless fantasizing.

To be sure, I believe there are strong biological reasons why humans yearn for some form of ultimate retributive justice (whether Karma, divine punishment, or this modern theology of reactivity to the love of, and distancing from, God [which itself is strikingly similar to certain conceptions of Karma]). The fact that people interpret reality in terms of fairness has deep roots in our nature as a social species, so I can forgive it's flowering in terms of wishful thinking. I'm not going to go any deeper into the biology and psychology of this phenomena other than to point out that the existence of explanations for your "felt need" for there to be ultimate justice, explanations which pan out in evolutionary terms, means that your "God explains it" isn't the only horse in the running, and so you need to demonstrate that your god hypothesis explains the facts themselves, not simply that god "could" explain it, that god "seems like a plausible explanation," or even that there doesn't appear to be any other explanation. (The latter an argument from ignorance.)

So, without assuming the existence of God:
a) what is your evidence that we don't live in a world (afterlife included) that is ultimately unfair and lacking in ultimate justice?
b) why do you feel there needs to be ultimate justice, or even that it would be desirable? (This ties back into the biology; the biology explains why we feel there is a need for fairness and ultimate justice; the question is, what facts independent of that feeling suggest that there "should be" ultimate justice?)