On Hell and Forgiveness

[RoadRunner79]

What version are you taking that from (the Mark 14 reference). I assume that you are citing the word which means grief or sorrow to say fear.  A search for Jesus and fear pretty much only brings up Jesus telling prop,e not to fear.

[GrandizerII]

What version are you taking that from (the Mark 14 reference). I assume that you are citing the word which means grief or sorrow to say fear.  A search for Jesus and fear pretty much only brings up Jesus telling prop,e not to fear.

Read it. If it was just sorrow or grief, why would he beg God to take the cup away from him?

Anyway, this has always been used as an example by Christians for other Christians on how to overcome fear. Now because Steve made that blunder that God cannot experience fear, you refuse to see what the verse is saying?

[Amarok]

What version are you taking that from (the Mark 14 reference). I assume that you are citing the word which means grief or sorrow to say fear.  A search for Jesus and fear pretty much only brings up Jesus telling prop,e not to fear.

Read it. If it was just sorrow or grief, why would he beg God to take the cup away from him?

Anyway, this has always been used as an example by Christians for other Christians on how to overcome fear. Now because Steve made that blunder that God cannot experience fear, you refuse to see what the verse is saying?

Again it's pure arrogance on their part

[Haipule]

Why does god feel compelled to eternally punish only those folks who don’t love him back?  Why is that sin the only unforgivable one, and why isn’t it forgivable?  I have heard of hell described by Christians as a “self-imposed exile.”  If I were to die tomorrow and realize I was wrong, and I begged god for forgiveness but he refused, how could my exile be considered self-imposed?  It’s not self-imposed if god is actively preventing me from being with him.  

Does god love the folks in hell?  If he does, and they are in agony for being separated from him, what logical or moral reason is there for god to keep them ostracized?  That sounds like the opposite of a forgiving god. It sounds to me like someone who holds grudges.

Christians, would you do this to your own children?  If your child ran away, and came back a month later, filthy and in tears, saying, “mommy/daddy I miss you so much. I’m so alone and afraid. I’m sorry I left; I just want to come home and cuddle with you on the couch,” would you tell them it’s ‘too late’, and shut the door in their face for good?  Why or why not?

Why is being loved back the most important thing to god; even more important than how we treat each other during life?  Even more important than how his chosen priesthood treat their children?

Dear Lady, 

In spite of what Xtianity says, God does not "punish" anyone. God merely blesses the one's who are His. He also disciplines them in good measure. He does not even know the ones who are not His. He questions, "When did I know you?"(not, "I never"--as it is translated).

God does not reject anyone who goes to Him. He says, "I will in no ways cast out". He has no knowledge of anyone who does not go to Him. Why would He? Those people are subjected to nature(she HATES chaos and will deal with it and she is not God!), the world system, it's politics and it's hate. 


I did not tell you that God is omniscience and neither does the Scripture. That is just Xtianity bullshit! But, His intention is to glorify us as clearly stated in Romans 8. This glorification of us makes Him look good so we might be proper living witnesses and testimonies of God's glory. He promised us a zOE-life beyond measure.


Most unfortunately, the Xtians just don't get that so they superimpose a lifestyle on everyone and call it "holy", based on self and theology and believe that sacrifice and suffering is everything as that is all they know how to do. And that's all they can prove because they SUCK at God's promised zOE-life and that more abundant!. They DO NOT follow God because they are corrupted by an erroneous theological mindset of futility convinced that their sacrifice and suffering, somehow, glorify God--which is ridiculous! Whereas, the Scriptures teach of being a glorious gift to everyone because that is how God intends to build us. 


Sorry, there are not so many eyes that hear nor, ears that see.


Love is best when it is reciprocated--is it not? I LOVE you and I want some reciprocation DAMEIT!

[way1000]

my belief is that god was human and can react in human ways. god doesn't punish because god doesn't exist. god existed as the first human. the first human was the human that had the very first conscious thoughts about the earth, thus transitioning from animal to human. if you believe in the first human you'll be saved. it's belief in our species. the capacity of the first human is eternal on earth, it's the capacity of our species.

[Angrboda]

1. Love is a clear example of a moral virtue (if not the clearest). 
2. Killing babies for no reason constitutes a lack of love and therefore a lack of moral virtue.
3. Yahweh is considered all-loving and therefore defined as having the greatest possible moral virtue at all times.
4. Positive outcomes (harmony, structure, creation, trust, relationships) are better the Negative Outcomes (chaos, destruction, distrust, isolation) for conscious creatures
5. Greater moral virtue is better than lesser moral virtue because it regulates other attributes for more positive/less negative outcomes. 
6. More positive outcomes is better than more negative outcomes.
7. Therefore Yahweh is greater than a god that kills babies.

Just another quick reply, as I may not respond again tonight.

First, #1 is an example of begging the question. You're essentially assuming what you set out to prove, that killing babies is immoral, you're simply introducing an element of indirection. Whether you claim that baby killing violates a moral standard or that baby killing violates some other moral standard, you are claiming that a moral standard exists without showing it. (Craig makes the same basic mistake in his argument pro God based on the existence of objective morals. Given your fondness for Craig, perhaps you're following his example too well.)

Second, #4 is also begging the question, as whether any properties have valence at all is at issue. You're simply assuming that certain outcomes are "positive" and certain outcomes are "negative" (in an objective sense). That's not something you can simply assume, it's something you need to prove.

This is the primary failure of all your arguments on the matter so far, they are nothing more than assertions that certain things are positive or great making or whatever, and then providing a laundry list of the things you think qualify as such. Your assertions prove nothing other than, perhaps the poverty of your thinking on this topic. You need more than an assertion that something is objectively positive or great (very similar terms, btw), you need reasons why they are positive or great, and so far the only reason you've given is that a consciousness would find them so, and that doesn't take them out of the realm of the subjective; it actually undermines your argument. For the sake of clarity, I don't need to show that something is, in a phrase, "mere preference" to show that it is subjective. Just that it depends upon mental constructs or operations, as the question is not whether greatest is a preference as opposed to some other mental feature, but whether it is an arbitrary standard dependent upon the biases resulting from the development of mind, and not existing independent of any such biases. So far, nothing you've argued has been anything more than ipse dixit. In order for your belief that there is a greatest possible being to be rational, you need reasons for why certain things are or are not great that are not subjective, and not just assertions that they are. I'm sure that you can assert and provide me with laundry lists all day. That doesn't mean jack squat. You need more than that.

If you ever manage to provide that, then we can discuss the difficulties that Poly has introduced. Until you do, I'm not going to waste words on the matter. And I will remind you that you are making a positive case here. Your original argument was using the existence of God as the greatest possible being to justify his morality. If you can't justify his greatest possible being, that argument falls apart. So provide me with something more than a mere restatement of your beliefs in the form of bare assertions and laundry lists, please!

[RoadRunner79]

What version are you taking that from (the Mark 14 reference). I assume that you are citing the word which means grief or sorrow to say fear.  A search for Jesus and fear pretty much only brings up Jesus telling prop,e not to fear.

Read it. If it was just sorrow or grief, why would he beg God to take the cup away from him?

Anyway, this has always been used as an example by Christians for other Christians on how to overcome fear. Now because Steve made that blunder that God cannot experience fear, you refuse to see what the verse is saying?

Because of sorrow or grief.  And in any case, you are just discussing emotions.

[Amarok]

1. Love is a clear example of a moral virtue (if not the clearest). 
2. Killing babies for no reason constitutes a lack of love and therefore a lack of moral virtue.
3. Yahweh is considered all-loving and therefore defined as having the greatest possible moral virtue at all times.
4. Positive outcomes (harmony, structure, creation, trust, relationships) are better the Negative Outcomes (chaos, destruction, distrust, isolation) for conscious creatures
5. Greater moral virtue is better than lesser moral virtue because it regulates other attributes for more positive/less negative outcomes. 
6. More positive outcomes is better than more negative outcomes.
7. Therefore Yahweh is greater than a god that kills babies.

Just another quick reply, as I may not respond again tonight.

First, #1 is an example of begging the question.  You're essentially assuming what you set out to prove, that killing babies is immoral, you're simply introducing an element of indirection.  Whether you claim that baby killing violates a moral standard or that baby killing violates some other moral standard, you are claiming that a moral standard exists without showing it.  (Craig makes the same basic mistake in his argument pro God based on the existence of objective morals.  Given your fondness for Craig, perhaps you're following his example too well.)

Second, #4 is also begging the question, as whether any properties have valence at all is at issue.  You're simply assuming that certain outcomes are "positive" and certain outcomes are "negative" (in an objective sense).  That's not something you can simply assume, it's something you need to prove.

This is the primary failure of all your arguments on the matter so far, they are nothing more than assertions that certain things are positive or great making or whatever, and then providing a laundry list of the things you think qualify as such.  Your assertions prove nothing other than, perhaps the poverty of your thinking on this topic.  You need more than an assertion that something is objectively positive or great (very similar terms, btw), you need reasons why they are positive or great, and so far the only reason you've given is that a consciousness would find them so, and that doesn't take them out of the realm of the subjective; it actually undermines your argument.  For the sake of clarity, I don't need to show that something is, in a phrase, "mere preference" to show that it is subjective.  Just that it depends upon mental constructs or operations, as the question is not whether greatest is a preference as opposed to some other mental feature, but whether it is an arbitrary standard dependent upon the biases resulting from the development of mind, and not existing independent of any such biases.  So far, nothing you've argued has been anything more than ipse dixit.  In order for your belief that there is a greatest possible being to be rational, you need reasons for why certain things are or are not great that are not subjective, and not just assertions that they are.  I'm sure that you can assert and provide me with laundry lists all day.  That doesn't mean jack squat.  You need more than that.

If you ever manage to provide that, then we can discuss the difficulties that Poly has introduced.  Until you do, I'm not going to waste words on the matter.  And I will remind you that you are making a positive case here.  Your original argument was using the existence of God as the greatest possible being to justify his morality.  If you can't justify his greatest possible being, that argument falls apart.  So provide me with something more than a mere restatement of your beliefs in the form of bare assertions and laundry lists, please!

All Steve does is assert things

[Abaddon_ire]

Wow. Another god-botherer who has not read his holy book.

gunderscored's fear is right there from genesis onward. And in true biblical fashion, his/hers/its/housecats failings fell on his only son/bastard/product of rape.

[GrandizerII]

Read it. If it was just sorrow or grief, why would he beg God to take the cup away from him?

Anyway, this has always been used as an example by Christians for other Christians on how to overcome fear. Now because Steve made that blunder that God cannot experience fear, you refuse to see what the verse is saying?

Because of sorrow or grief.  And in any case, you are just discussing emotions.

Oh really? He didn't want that cup of suffering because it made him sorrowful?