On Hell and Forgiveness

[robvalue]

Theism is just belief in God.

Again, that would be deism.  

Theism is a belief in a personal and interceding deity which actively participates in the world and our lives.  It is a comment on a type of god and what god means  defined by further beliefs, additional to and from deism.

That would mean you could be a deist and an atheist.

I'm not sure where your definition comes from, but I've not seen it before. Anyhow, if you define it that way, then sure. Deism isn't theism

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, that would be deism.  

Theism is a belief in a personal and interceding deity which actively participates in the world and our lives.  It is a comment on a type of god and what god means  defined by further beliefs, additional to and from deism.

That would mean you could be a deist and an atheist.

Not really, it's just that the term atheism arose as a response primarily to theism.  Historical tick of semantics (greek, specifically). If people were primarily deists when theism was articulated, we might have called it adeism....which would also rule out theism by default. If you don't believe in gods, deities - not theities.....you don't believe in personal actively participating gods, their attendant theosophy.

I'm not sure where your definition comes from, but I've not seen it before. Anyhow, if you define it that way, then sure. Deism isn't theism

It comes from the difference between a deistic concept of god and a theistic concept, comparative religion/myth.

[Crossless2.0]

That would mean you could be a deist and an atheist.

Not really, it's just that the term atheism arose as a response primarily to theism.  Historical tick of semantics.

I'm not sure where your definition comes from, but I've not seen it before. Anyhow, if you define it that way, then sure. Deism isn't theism

It comes from the difference between a deistic concept of god and a theistic concept, comparative religion/myth.

I like the deist god, and it doesn't give a shit. 


Those cold, uncaring unmoved movers . . . 

[polymath257]

Well, my garden grows and the gnomes and unicorns are what makes my garden grow, so they must exist, right?

It isn't the simple invisibility that produces the problem. It is the undetectability by any means that is the problem.

So your argument is that the garden grows, therefore gnomes and unicorns. With the secondary argument that since you can not detect them, they must be invisible.

This just seems like bad logic as is. There is no connection between the premise and the conclusion. Are you saying that bad reasoning; means that one is delusional?  Because I find this to be bad reasoning.

This also seems to be a rather naive and childlike understanding of the arguments as an analogy. It seems more of a charicature than analogous to Christianity or religious arguments.  Perhaps you should try stating your reasoning more directly without the analogy.

No, I really think there is no connection between the arguments and 'evidence' of most religions and the actual claims they make.

And yes, in this case, the person believing in gnomes and unicorns is delusional, not just mistaken.

[RoadRunner79]

So your argument is that the garden grows, therefore gnomes and unicorns. With the secondary argument that since you can not detect them, they must be invisible.

This just seems like bad logic as is. There is no connection between the premise and the conclusion. Are you saying that bad reasoning; means that one is delusional?  Because I find this to be bad reasoning.

This also seems to be a rather naive and childlike understanding of the arguments as an analogy. It seems more of a charicature than analogous to Christianity or religious arguments.  Perhaps you should try stating your reasoning more directly without the analogy.

No, I really think there is no connection between the arguments and 'evidence' of most religions and the actual claims they make.

And yes, in this case, the person believing in gnomes and unicorns is delusional, not just mistaken.

Ok, I disagree. And you still haven’t seemed to given a reason for the claim, other than you personal opinion.

And as I said, you seem to have a naive and childlike understanding of the arguments so this doesn’t really bother me. I really think you should give your reasoning more directly.

[SteveII]

How can it be useful for understanding if it is not accurate?  

our relationships are not a mirror to God's relationship with us.

Then your own analogy is false, and should be tossed out.  You don’t get to call on it at times when the biblical narrative fits that of a loving father-god and his children, but then call it a false analogy when it’s pointed out that god behaves in ways they are not consistent with a loving parent.

What are you talking about? I used the relationship analogy in another thread to show that relationships have value. God desires relationships. We desire relationships. The exact nature does not have to be identical. 

Desiring to be merciful can not in any way 'water down' the justice and holiness characteristics. Rather it generates effects like offering the atonement that would otherwise be impossible.

Again, you seem to be saying that god’s justice places limits on his mercy and forgiveness.  What rationale does god use to prioritize his essential attributes? 

Mercy and forgiveness are not essential attributes of God. They are expressions of Love. Justice and Holiness seem to be inviolable standards. 

Your objection is that God is not evident enough. But do the facts really support that? If that were the case, then there would be less people believing in God every year--not more. So the real problem is that God is not evident to you in a way you are satisfied with. What is the reason you do not believe the billions of people who believe in God?

It’s not so much an objection as a point. My point is that on the one hand, god’s message in life is absolutely, undeniably crystal clear, and yet on the other hand, there does seem to be some potential other, clearer mechanism he could use to reveal himself to us. My follow up question to this point is, why?  For what reason did god design levels of clarity? Why doesn’t he reveal himself in the clearest way possible to everyone on the planet right now?  What is his rationale?

Because a choice to choose God is a process that needs to have sincere roots. There are verses that explain that God will prepare your heart for belief it you are receptive. Like I said before, it could be an experience, another person, circumstances in your life, etc. that get you to that point.  An advertisement in the sky would seem to undercut that part of the process/purpose. 

Because we started our existence here, we developed and because the people we are here, we are uniquely designed for physical/relational/loving/moral/purposeful/hopeful existence here AND most importantly, this is where we sinned and fallen short and therefore need the atonement for those sins for phase 2.  God's forgiveness is actually infinite. I don't think there is anything at all puzzling/inconsistent/illogical about a post-death judgement/account for how you lived you life.

If we are uniquely designed for a physical existence, why is that physical existence finite? What is the reason for first, a finite existence, and then an infinite one? What logical reason is there for the construction of phases of life, and why such a disparity in their lengths? The whole thing reeks of a massive contrivance for the purposes of getting people to behave.

People have to be created. A certain amount of people will choose evil over good, themselves over God. Do you think that this earthly existence is not sufficient to choose God (some their whole lives)? Not to do many wonderful things for his glory? Not to live and experience a huge range of human experiences that shape who we are?  

To your second point, God’s forgiveness is obviously finite. Our opportunity for salvation has a clear time limit. Why?

What is the reason for finite opportunity for an infinite soul created by an infinite god?

God's forgiveness is not the point at all. He can forgive a sin. He cannot make it so it never happened. Please understand the difference between atonement and forgiveness. They are not the same thing. 

A choice to choose God is necessarily finite because our entire universe is finite (and will die some day).  Our bodies break down and die. You seem to think that the relative brevity of life should have been longer. Why? 

A point of clarification. God forgiving you is not the same as Jesus atoning for your sins. Anyone can forgive. It is possible for me to forgive a drunk driver who hit me. That does nothing to remove the consequences or penalties of the action. Jesus' atonement wipes the slate clean like it never happened. With that understanding, post-death "forgiveness" would have no effect. Due to God's holiness/justice the consequences are set that you 1) cannot be in the presence of God in an unholy state and 2) that universally, sin demands a payment that you cannot pay.

Why can’t god wipe the slate clean? We are his after all. Isn’t he omnipotent? Why can’t jesus atone me for my sins after I’ve died? What is perfect justice anyway, Steve? What does that even mean? This whole narrative seems nothing more than a long series of non-sequiturs and arbitrary assumptions.

Jesus' atonement is what wipes the slate clean. Are you saying the people should be forced to allow Jesus to take their place to pay for their sins? You would totally remove any sense of contrition, desire to stop, consequences, even awareness of our condition.  THAT does not make sense.

[RoadRunner79]

So your argument is that the garden grows, therefore gnomes and unicorns. With the secondary argument that since you can not detect them, they must be invisible.

This just seems like bad logic as is. There is no connection between the premise and the conclusion. Are you saying that bad reasoning; means that one is delusional?  Because I find this to be bad reasoning.

This also seems to be a rather naive and childlike understanding of the arguments as an analogy. It seems more of a charicature than analogous to Christianity or religious arguments.  Perhaps you should try stating your reasoning more directly without the analogy.

No, I really think there is no connection between the arguments and 'evidence' of most religions and the actual claims they make.

And yes, in this case, the person believing in gnomes and unicorns is delusional, not just mistaken.

I also do not think that someone being convinced or not convinced by evidence or reason, the same as you, is a correct usage of the word delusional.

[Amarok]

Road and Steve a triple crown of wordy excuse weaving

[The Grand Nudger]

Lol, gee, lets try a multiple choice question.

What is the correct term for a state of mind between wrong and sick?

A. Delusional
B. A State of Apostolic Grace and Living
C. Certainly right about god, life, the universe, and everything else.

[polymath257]

Well, my garden grows and the gnomes and unicorns are what makes my garden grow, so they must exist, right?

It isn't the simple invisibility that produces the problem. It is the undetectability by any means that is the problem.

So your argument is that the garden grows, therefore gnomes and unicorns. With the secondary argument that since you can not detect them, they must be invisible.

This just seems like bad logic as is. There is no connection between the premise and the conclusion. Are you saying that bad reasoning; means that one is delusional?  Because I find this to be bad reasoning.

This also seems to be a rather naive and childlike understanding of the arguments as an analogy. It seems more of a charicature than analogous to Christianity or religious arguments.  Perhaps you should try stating your reasoning more directly without the analogy.

Well, I consider most of the arguments for religion to be at this level of childishness. It really isn't a caricature. There is a claim that everything needs a cause (incorrectly, by the way) and immediately claims that some ultimate cause is God. How is that any different than someone claiming their garden grows because of gnomes and unicorns?

I think maybe *you* should state your reasoning concerning God in a way that doesn't immediately apply to gnomes and unicorns.

---

No, I really think there is no connection between the arguments and 'evidence' of most religions and the actual claims they make.

And yes, in this case, the person believing in gnomes and unicorns is delusional, not just mistaken.

I also do not think that someone being convinced or not convinced by evidence or reason, the same as you, is a correct usage of the word delusional.

But believing that undetectable things that cannot be measured are causing everything all around us *is* delusional.

Maybe we should ask this: what would it take for you to say that belief in gnomes in my garden is delusional?