I Love You Enough to Burn You

[Ace Otana]

Where does neutrality lie in this?

Interesting point really. If you're not on either side (god or satan) simply because you have opted out of the whole religious thing altogether, what would god have against that? Neutral ground. Want nothing to do with it.
What harm could possibly come from that? In fact what harm comes from not believing in god? I've love for someone to name one.

On a plus note, believing in god and following such a thing does not make you good. It just makes you a believer, that's all.

[Nimzo]

... exactly how? By quoting the bible.

Quoting generally involves presenting what your source says.

[fr0d0]

@ Moros: No I said "you" punish yourself ... you choose to rebel against good and receive your just deserts.

What if you don't service either good or evil, hmm? Where does neutrality lie in this?

"If you are not for me, then you are against me"

Neutrality is a no vote. You can't abstain.

---

---

Yours is a construct with no justice Chuck. If you don't have consequences for wrongdoing then you don't care if your child does wrong/ you're happy for them to be in pain without any hope from yourself for their happiness. How can you reason that to be preferable?

The consequences for right and wrong don't have to be determined by a god. We as human beings should have our own moral feelings and be able to determine this ourselves.

Sure some people don't, some people are arseholes, but that's just the way it is. Sometimes people commit crimes and they get away with it. Thats just the way it is.
Sure its not fair, but just because it's not fair doesnt mean that we have to believe some god is going to bring down divine justice after people die.

---

God doesn't determine them... the rights and wrongs are clearly set out. We take our position on the side of good or bad. Our moral feelings are subject to change/ re-evaluation depending on our circumstances, for example.

Unless a person is mad, doing bad stuff is it's own reward, in this life.

Because you don't believe there is justice, you have to accept that life isn't fair. That's a burden you are giving yourself. I can celebrate that life is fair. The whole point of Xtianity is to enable you to live as full a life as is possible. This is an example of how that is achieved.

[Napoléon]

Because you don't believe there is justice, you have to accept that life isn't fair. That's a burden you are giving yourself. I can celebrate that life is fair. The whole point of Xtianity is to enable you to live as full a life as is possible. This is an example of how that is achieved.

I never said that life wasn't fair because there is not justice. WE can employ justice, if we are able to do so. That is why the country you live in has laws.
The point which you are missing is that it is not necessary for a god to create these laws at all. Moral beliefs are subjective to the individual, yet by human nature we all have similar moral codes (do not kill, do not steal etc). I am merely saying it is not necessary for a god to give us these emotions or to command us himself what is right and wrong.

I'll try and give an example. We don't believe killing is wrong because god tells us it is wrong. We believe killing is wrong because it ends a persons life, it ends a persons ability to live, and will more than likely inflict them great pain, or prevent them from having positive experiences.
Why do we believe this? because we wouldn't want it to happen to ourselves, right? so if we can say that we don't want it to happen to us, then we can reason that it would be bad for others to experience it too. This is how someone decides upon morality, by asking 'would i like it if it happened to me'.
WOULD I LIKE TO BE STOLEN FROM
WOULD I LIKE TO BE KILLED
WOULD I LIKE TO BE RAPED
etc
This is where we say 'NO', and as a result we all can determine that these things are wrong.

We do not need a bible to tell us this. THAT is my point.

[Watson]

I'll try and give an example. We don't believe killing is wrong because god tells us it is wrong. We believe killing is wrong because it ends a persons life, it ends a persons ability to live, and will more than likely inflict them great pain, or prevent them from having positive experiences.

By what standard do we say an experience is 'positive'? Or even painful? There are plenty of people out there, whether they be whiny about it or not, who would argue that death may in itself be a positive experience. Not believers, mind you, but people who believe death would be preferable to living. What say you to them, Bonaparte?

Why do we believe this? because we wouldn't want it to happen to ourselves, right?

Depends upon the person you ask.

[Napoléon]

I'll try and give an example. We don't believe killing is wrong because god tells us it is wrong. We believe killing is wrong because it ends a persons life, it ends a persons ability to live, and will more than likely inflict them great pain, or prevent them from having positive experiences.

By what standard do we say an experience is 'positive'? Or even painful? There are plenty of people out there, whether they be whiny about it or not, who would argue that death may in itself be a positive experience. Not believers, mind you, but people who believe death would be preferable to living. What say you to them, Bonaparte?

Why do we believe this? because we wouldn't want it to happen to ourselves, right?

Depends upon the person you ask.

Ofcourse there are exceptions, just like there are exceptions where you say it is okay for mentally ill people to commit these crimes.
Fact is the vast majority of people believe these experiences to be negative. this is how we can come up with our own moral systems. Certain people probably don't think death is bad, they are more than likely murderers, or suicidal. Either way their minds are not operating the same way as the vast majority.

Like i said moral beliefs are subjective to the individual, but collectively there are human impulses which we all share. Therefore by assessing what not only we as humans percieve as positive, but by assessing what others percieve as well, we can assess our own moral codes, and come to a rational conclusion.

My point stands, we don't need a god to do this. Prove otherwise.

[Violet]

More interesting than 'where does his neutrality lie in this' is precisely who's understanding of good we are talking about. It is good if the entire population of North Korea dies off tomorrow. It is also bad. Some of us don't care enough to have a positive or negative value over it.

Collectively, the human impulses I share with most are that I get hungry and eat. Get thirsty and drink. Want sex and attempt to get it. I consider unnecessary brutality to be a waste of energy and a questionable placed on the brutalizer's sanity. Immoral? Far from it.

Try not to tell me that every human has 'x' the same that is not necessarily true of the definition 'human'. Sociopathic humans are as human as the goddamn hippies. Turns out that some humans are also dead humans.

[Rev. Rye]

Xtian view: God gets angry hurt when you deny his existence.
My son has told me that he doesn't like me and he doesn't want to play with me. Admittedly, it hurts.

Xtian views: God, in his hurt and anger prepares a place of does everything to prevent self imposed eternal torment for his child.

Xtian views: God will some day never ever turn his back on you if you don't tell him you love him.

Xtian views: God You will burn you in a place of ultimate terror - as he will for do all his children who didn't show love for him.

There you go CC... now try again with something that actually resembles what is actually said.

And yet, here's the problem: Why would God allow a place of eternal torment to exist? He is all powerful and at least somewhat loving. And, why, if he doesn't turn his back on you, and still loves you, would he allow eternal torment?

As I mentioned before, for all the pain and torment that things like the Holocaust and the Cultural Revolution caused, even that was finite. The people responsible for allowing it to exist are usually considered complete monsters, and if a powerful entity, which is opposed to its existence, does nothing to stop it despite being powerful enough to be able to do so, people tend to lose their confidence in it. If Boutros-Boutros Gali can lose a second term as Secretary-General for failing to prevent the Rwandan Genocide, how do you think an omnipotent being who allows the existence of a place of eternal torment would fare?

Come to think of it, how would he be any better than the collaborators at Vichy?

[tackattack]

Being eternally tormented in hell presumes a lot but a key presumption is that a soul would survive the fires of hell for an eternity. That is not scripturally sound Christian doctrine.

[Minimalist]

scripturally sound Christian doctrine.

Oxymoron.