Okay, when I die: I do not want to go to heaven nor hell.. what do?
Printable View
Okay, when I die: I do not want to go to heaven nor hell.. what do?
You don't have to do anything because hell and heaven do not exist.
You can go to the shores of Acheron and chill out with the Uncommitted, following an illusion of your self-interest around while wasps chase you and plant maggots in your skin.
Or if you were a very virtuous thinker or leader but never got baptized, you can hang out in Limbo with a bunch of crying unbaptized babies and old people talking about really boring shit for all of eternity.
Don't die
Seeing as this thread is entitled "Question to Christians," I thought I should answer it because I am a Christian. I wonder why someone who is not a Christian would feel compelled to post a reply. Okay. Not wanting to go to hell, that's completely understandable. But as for the other half of your statement, I would suggest that perhaps you haven't really thought that out. I could be wrong. I'm curious. You didn't explain or elaborate. Maybe you have some misconstrued image of heaven where people dressed in white float around on clouds and listen to harps or just sing church songs for eternity at a family reunion that you'd rather skip out on. I'm sorry if that sounds like I'm being a smart-ass. I really would like to know where you're coming from. The Catechism tells us that "Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness." In heaven we will reach the culmination of our love. Those in hell will be left with their lack of love. That's what it's all about. It seems to me that if one believes in heaven, then necessarily that is where he or she wants to go. And based on your question, the idea of heaven as actually existing is present in your mind. Otherwise, you would not have created this thread. If on the other hand, you don't want to go to heaven because you think you don't deserve to be there, I respect that. If that is the case, don't be afraid or too proud to ask God for forgiveness and you can trust that He will give you enough time to be purified and prepared for heaven. You are not alone. More than 80 percent of the people in the world believe in a God of some sort. Over half of the people on Earth are monotheistic, thus believing in heaven. The others may call it something else, like nirvana for Hindus and Buddhists. Only 16 percent of the world's population is "nonreligious" (atheists, agnostics, etc.) A lot of these nonreligious folks don't believe in heaven because it cannot be verified by empirical evidence, yet most of them have no problem believing in other abstract notions that science can't seem to explain. Love, for instance. And if science won't let them believe in love either, well, that's awfully sad. All right. I hope I was helpful. Peace.
Either due to lack of evidence, or logical invalidity and absurdity.
Also, science doesn't "let" people do anything. It's the person's willingness to adhere to some degree of honesty and integrity that does or doesn't "let" them believe in something.
So I take this to mean I'll get to drink, smoke pot, have lots of sex, and play video games all the time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebenezer
Also, we believe in love because it can be observed and experienced.
It was not my intention to engage in a debate here, but it's probably my fault for provoking the two of you. I think you'd agree that no matter what I say, it's not going to change your minds; and no matter what you say, it's not going to change my mind. I would like to get back to learning about lucid dreaming, but I will respond briefly since you guys took the time to read what I said before and to address me. When I mentioned the possibility of science not "letting" someone believe in love, I was just being ironic. I apologize if that was not clear. I was trying to be witty by treating science as if it were an entity in the way that God is for believers. I guess I failed. Also, Blueline, it sounds like you are implying that nonreligious people (that 16 percent of the world's population) are the only ones who are honest and have integrity. Is that really what you want to say? If so, how's the view from that pedestal? Furthermore, why are honesty and integrity even important to you? And from whence do these noble virtues arise? The Christian belief is that we are all created in the image of God. Yes, that means you, and you, and you. You are all supernatural marvels. You are endowed with the capacity to love and also to think abstractly and reflect. You value honesty and integrity because there is a moral code embedded in your very being. The conscience of a person is not a mere convention and it is not a social construct. It is something very real and it has a source. This source we call God. Supernova, I'm glad if you can observe and experience love. I think that's wonderful. But I want you to prove it to me. See, you cannot. Likewise, I cannot prove to you that I have observed and experienced God. But since ancient times, there has always been a tradition of mystics who receive their knowledge of God and of heaven experientially, rather than strictly through texts. If you have not been granted such insight, it is because you have not asked for it. You do not seek it and you do not want it. Truth is no harlot who throws her arms around he who does not desire her. Concerning the drinking, smoking, sex, and video games: those are all fun things, brother, but there is a lot more to life than that. May the force be with you.
I think this question warrants debate beyond ironic jokes about Heaven. In Paradise, can one participate in pleasurable vices? You'd think so if it's the place of ultimate happiness and these vices make you happy. Many Christians may consider Heaven like some sort of epic retirement home but I would not. If I do consider Heaven, I prefer to consider the idea that existence is separated into nodes and the details of a near death experience are a transitional mechanism between nodes. Though the body is attached to the node, the psyche will begin to magnetize in one direction or another, causing the karmic value to change and thrusting the psyche once the body collapses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
Consider the psychological differences between pleasurable vices such as drinking, smoking, wasting time on videogames, sexing with people you don't love, etc... etc... and wholesome satisfaction such as exercising, cleaning, starting a family, owning a business, writing a novel or just putting in a hard day's work. The difference, psychologically, is that one doesn't come with much resistance. It's easy. The latter takes effort, you have to convince yourself it's worth it, you have to face your fear. You have to put in time to do something and you're not even sure if you'll be successful. Moreso, the latter is constructive, it builds something. It also allows you to learn as you do it so you can continue moving forward by increasing knowledge and awareness. The former requires no ability and causes no lasting positive change, it mostly just requires impatience and resistance to the moment. Video-games can promote learning, and many drugs can also promote learning. Experience is a powerful aid in life, but there comes a time when wrapping yourself up in these vices becomes a tool to hide from actions that would push you in the other direction, actions that cause resistance because of fear.
According to near death experiences, Hell is like a combination between Rehab and an Insane Asylum in the sense that everybody there is running from something and creating a fake world to hide in. If this were so, it may be that many people prefer Hell. I know there's plenty of things I'm still running from.
Well the view is wonderful, thank you for asking. But my point was this not that the only ones who are honest and have integrity are those who are nonreligious. Rather, saying science does or does not "let" someone do or believe something is wrong. It is the person's willingness to not make wild assumptions, or in other words to maintain a degree of integrity and honesty about what they know and what they support, that does or does not "let" them do or believe something. One can be a scientist while also be a bit of a wacko. Issac Newton comes to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebenezer
Just for purposes of clarification, morality is objective because we were created by God?Quote:
Furthermore, why are honesty and integrity even important to you? And from whence do these noble virtues arise? The Christian belief is that we are all created in the image of God. Yes, that means you, and you, and you. You are all supernatural marvels. You are endowed with the capacity to love and also to think abstractly and reflect. You value honesty and integrity because there is a moral code embedded in your very being. The conscience of a person is not a mere convention and it is not a social construct. It is something very real and it has a source. This source we call God.
Answer to OP: As per religion, your deeds decide where you end up. So if you're religious then it's like follow our code of conduct and let the lord judge you stuff.
Off-topic: Not wanted to divert the topic but just because 16% believe in something else doesn't mean 84% are right. That's like 1 million people eat at mcdonalds, that means it must be right.lol I don't know which fallacy is this but whatever.
How's the view from that pedestal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebenezer
Come on now, you must have at least chuckled. At the joke.
Really now, how much do you think you know about what I do and don't seek?
Blue, for purposes of clarification, yes.
Other guy, "Believe in nothing." That's what I know about you.
Ok. Why? What about being created by God makes morality objective?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebenezer
Yes, I do think people should be open-minded. Or do the words "believe in nothing" mean to you that I am a godless heathen with no morals? That text (which I did not write) is about a lot aside from belief in god.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebenezer
It's God's way or the highway.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
I would like to apologize to the both of you. Seriously. I was drawing conclusions preemptively or too easily. I was kind of a jerk and I realize this now. I'm not the best spokesman for Christ, but I definitely think that God is the best explanation for why we innately value things like honesty, integrity, and courage. I think the conscience is something that transcends culture and time. It also transcends the struggle to exist, for heroes often put themselves in harm's way on behalf of others. Being human is all about making choices; choosing between right and wrong. I can't imagine this moral law coming about of its own accord. If anyone has a better explanation, I would like to hear it. Why do we value integrity and why bother with it?
Also, Omnis Dei, you are on to something very important. You lost me at the part about the nodes, but the rest of it was brilliant. I don't think being lazy will be an option in heaven. I think there will be work of some sort for us to do. The work will be joyful and calm.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
...
Its hard to imagine that nothing at all could be so exciting, could be so much fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNdMc6wGtU
Taosaur how do you know nothing happens there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
The Talking Heads rock. There's no disputing that. But I bet that not even Taosaur himself is taking Byrne's lyrics seriously.
Hell is the place where nothing happens. Don't get it twisted.
Empathy. Ever hear of the Golden Rule? "Treat others as you wish to be treated?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebenezer
We value integrity because we understand the harm that can be done by being deceitful and dishonest. We know this because of how such negative traits affect us, ourselves. Not to say that there isn't some cosmic, alternative, 'supernatural' answer to it, but this would be the simplest and most logical.
If there is a God, he is not interested in virtue. This being either created or allows the existence of organisms which cause terrible suffering and death via disease, such as the smallpox bacterium, including to innocent children, on a mass scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebenezer
There are only two options; you can either stop believing in a kind God, or you can continue to live your life with large amounts of cognitive dissonance.
Virtue comes from within ourselves (and I think that's a much more positive message than something outside of ourselves being the source of all good). We are rational beings and so we realise that we are all like, and thus to cause another person pain is wrong. We also have an innate sense of empathy from our ancestry; being kind to your neighbours helps to spread your genes, and so that gene became common. Psychopaths lack these genes and have no innate sense of empathy, and God doesn't seem to want to step in to replace it.
It just struck me that the idea of something "happening" is contingent upon time. Eternity is outside of time. Pretty obvious, but I just thought of that. I guess that's what David Byrne was making the joke about. Oh, now I get it.
You're basically repeating the assertion you rejected earlier--that heaven as described sounds like hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebenezer
The truth about heaven(s) and hell(s) is the truth about what we are. It's terrifying and strange from a distance, but stop resisting and abide in it and it's both comfortable and amazing.
I never said that heaven sounds like hell. I don't know where you got that from. What I did was quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness." And you sound very certain about your rather vague sentiment. I think that's poetic of you. Nonetheless, I will continue to trust in the authority of the church instead of in your authority. Obviously none of us here have actually died so we can't really know.
In regards to the "cognitive dissonance," look, as soon as I say "There was a man two thousand years ago who was God walking around on Earth," I'm already defying logic. It's not like I don't realize this. If there were empirical evidence that God and heaven existed, faith would be a word with no meaning.
Also, I don't think that integrity should be reduced to being just self-interest or even interest of the human species in the abstract.
All right, folks, I came to this thread initially because it is plainly called "Question to Christians." The guy who started the thread has not come back at all and that was over two weeks ago. And so, I am respectfully bowing out. I will spare you any further efforts to liberate me from my charlatanism, noble though they may have been.
He chose cognitive dissonance.
but free will and stuffQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Free will would explain why a benevolent God would let us kill each other. It wouldn't explain why God himself actively causes pain and death, and allows pain and death to occur when humans have nothing to do with it and can't prevent it. It's a blatant contradiction of the concept of a benevolent God.
That's why whenever you bring it up, that type of religious person will ignore you and/or leave the conversation, without fail.
and here we go :facepalm:
God doesn't cause pain and death, for the umpteenth time :P
Okay, in which case God is neither omnipotent, and if he is a creator God then he isn't omniscient. So he's basically a bit rubbish.
Well at least you have that part right. God isn't omnipotent, at least not in the sense that He does everything but we've already went over this time and time again.
No, that isn't what omnipotent means, in any sense. Omnipotent means he has the power to do anything he wants, not that he has to actively do everything.
You've never completed this conversation with me.
I think we can all agree that Hell is Ne-yo and Xei "debating" in an inescapable R/S.
God does with Power all that power can possibly do, this does not in any way imply that God does essentially everything. How much power do you think it takes for 2 + 2 to equal 5?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I don't get it Ne-Yo, you're capable of intelligent conversation everywhere else on the forum, yet you go into a totally different mode in R/S.
The distinction between omnipotence and 'doing essentially everything' is exactly the one I just made. Why are you repeating what I just said as if I said the exact opposite?
Anyway, hopefully you understand what the original post meant now. It's clearly logically sound, so either move along and address the conclusion, or else I'm not interested in further discussion; I don't want to get into pointless tangents as always.
Right, and I just told you God doesn't do essentially everything, how is this repeating what you're stating? You're making the claim that if God is Omnipotent then this means God does essentially everything. This being the case, God is not Omnipotent in that particular sense. However, God does essentially everything that doesn't self-contradict His nature, whats so hard to understand about that? If someone has the ability to do anything and everything that justifies their self-will then that person is Omnipotent. God is Omnipotent because he does everything that He wills to do, it's just that simple. I know very well you understand this Xei, so I assume you must be bored or something :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I never said that. In case you got the impression that I did mean to say that, let me be clear: I didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
By omnipotence I meant what I just said and you just said, which is the power to do anything one wills.
If that is what you meant then yes, God is surely Omnipotent.
So he has the ability to destroy bacteria which cause pain and death to innocents, and prevent natural disasters which indiscriminately do the same to thousands. Not preventing these things when it takes no trouble is patently a moral failing and rules out benevolence. In a court of law you'd be sent to prison for mass manslaughter.
Additionally if you believe in a creator God who at least some vague competence and idea what he was doing, it follows that he created the bacteria whose functions were to cause the disease, and he created a planet with frequent earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes. In a court of law you'd be sent away for eternity for mass murder.
Why does it always have to be all or nothing with you Xei? Why do you feel that if a creator does indeed exist then that creator's ultimate responsibility is to hold our hand every step of the way throughout our lives? Is it not more beneficial to the species to do things for themselves in hopes of progress and acquired knowledge?
Did we not make great strides in science, medicine and technology throughout history as a result of these things that you've mentioned here? Do we not reside on a planet which constantly produces a slew of natural resources and natural remedies to help fight pathogens not to mention the good ones that dwell within us, which keeps most of the bad ones out. What would really constitute as mass manslaughter is not giving us the ability or resources to do anything at all. As a race of people on this planet we have fought and beaten every disease that has come to surface. There is currently no threat of global extinction (on any level) with regards to human-beings. I'd say someone's obviously looking out for us as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Hurricanes and Earthquakes are very beneficial to the survival of the human-race (as a whole) we actually need those.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
How?
And yes you're right, we have been able to overcome some of the ghastly things which God created. He created specific curses and we had to come up with solutions to them. Praise be. Under what moral code is mass murder justified by a greater good anyway? The people of Europe ultimately overcame the German fascists, and we learned a lot from that too. That makes the Nazis benevolent? Even if their actions were just a giant ploy to teach us some lessons about fanaticism, that would make them a moral bunch?
noQuote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
If you're talking about logic, I would tend to believe that religious beliefs are independent from it. I actually have a family member that completed a PhD and Masters degree in Chemical Engineering in 3 years from a "Ivy League" Canadian university (Queen's) however she believes in some absurd religious beliefs such as Creationism that have absolutely no logical explanation at all. So clearly she's somewhat intelligent however, I guess she just chooses to make religion separate from logical explanation I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Also I have a somewhat unrelated question for you Ne-Yo: Do you you believe in Creationism and if 'yes', why? Just out of curiosity.
Well for starters Hurricanes regulates the Earth's temperature and brings about a kind of counter-balance to the oceans predilection of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. If it wasn't for Hurricanes popping up yearly the planet will undergo a cataclysmic cooling resulting in extremely unfavorable conditions for human life globally. On the other hand Hurricanes bring an abundance of rainfall for many regions that usually lacks a significant amount of rainfall yearly. Regions typically like Japan where typhoons are a direct result of over half of Japan's rainfall on a yearly basis. Hurricanes also make conditions favorable for regions like the tropics. If there were no formations of Hurricanes to consume heat and deflect that heat away from the Earth's equator, the tropics would be far too hot. Hurricanes also prevents the ocean from trapping too much heat and dispersing that heart out globally to help circulate the Earth's greenhouse gases. As for Earthquakes, without them the essential nutrients we need to survive, would erode off the continent and accumulate in the oceans. The result of something like that, would be rapid starvation of ALL advanced species.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
So if you can discredit God then why can't you give credit to God for giving humans the ability to come up with solutions, enabling us with the ability to entertain abstract thought processes, in-which those direct thoughts are manifested into something physical? If all of this bad stuff, as you say came from God, then you have to equally accept every good deed, every solution, every achievement and every obstacle overcame as a direct result of God's grace upon his creatures globally. Also there was nothing remotely moral about the holocaust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Quote:
Originally Posted by ♥Mark
Yes I do believe in the creationism and my belief's are based off faith. Why do you believe in the molecules-to-man theory?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantiq
So why didn't God design it differently?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Which is no more moral than building a concentration camp and then giving spades or rifles to some of the prisoners.Quote:
So if you can discredit God then why can't you give credit to God for giving humans the ability to come up with solutions, enabling us with the ability to entertain abstract thought processes, in-which those direct thoughts are manifested into something physical?
So if I gave enough money to charity, that would eventually neutralise the negative moral standing I had built up from mass murder? Again, nobody finds this idea remotely acceptable for a human, let alone God.Quote:
If all of this bad stuff, as you say came from God, then you have to equally accept every good deed, every solution, every achievement and every obstacle overcame as a direct result of God's grace upon his creatures globally. Also there was nothing remotely moral about the holocaust.
The proposition is that God is benevolent. This is contradicted by a single evil deed. It is not proven by any number of good deeds. In the same way that 'swans are white' is disproved if you see a single black swan, no matter how many white ones you've seen.
And what you said isn't even true. You yourself just said that God's omnipotence doesn't necessitate him being behind every action. Humans have free will to contradict God's intentions.
Ah, you mean evolution right? Well at the moment I believe evolution is probably the most accurate model we have currently as to how the universe has actually begun scientifically. However, to consider evolution as the only model and consider it 100% accurate I would believe to be a bit ignorant so I'm open to different opinions and beliefs. However, because evolution is the most widely accepted model we have currently, I accept evolution as fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
I don't need any convincing either by the way. I've heard all of the creationist arguments from the 'limited carbon dating' argument to the 'half an eyeball' argument. But I guess you have heard all of the pro-evolutionist arguments as well so I won't try to convince you either. However, I'm actually quite surprised that your beliefs on 'creationism' are faith based. Most creationists I would tend to believe try to push scientific fallacies with evolution to give credibility to creationist arguments. Faith based arguments for creationism I believe are much more credible than scientific fallacies. :)
Anyway, I guess you could call it the molecules to man theory but I like to emphasize the fact that it is a 'model' which doesn't mean it is 100% accurate either, but possibly still the best model we have to this day.
You're assuming the mainstream view of theism. Apparently, 'God' is a tangible man in the sky with a long beard that sits on a cloud and watches humanity through a telescope. This scenario is extremely improbable. If 'God' does exist, I would argue that it is a metaphysical intangible being at a level which the human cannot perceive due to limits in human knowledge and brain capacity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Just for the record I'm an agnostic, obviously.
I stated the types of God I was talking about at the very beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantiq
Differently like how? You think God should have placed an entirely different set of natural laws to govern our physical universe? Perhaps maybe he should have excluded gravity as one of the fundamental forces that governs the universe. This way, when earthquakes occur things wouldn't fall on people resulting in death. Maybe perhaps the covalent bonding of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom would produce more of a rubbery substance instead of liquid. This way, people wouldn't drown when consumed by an abundance of it, they'll just simply bounce off of it. To me it appears the laws that were set in place to govern this universe are apparently good for the continuance of life because tweaking them will only result in a universe unstable for advanced life chemistry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Then by definition this particular scenario you gave would not be the considered a concentration camp now would it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Funny it appears everyone including yourself finds the idea of automobiles, airplanes and boats acceptable modes of transportation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I haven't seen any evil deeds done by God, so what do you have for me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I don't understand your point here. I never said humans could not disregards God's intentions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
No, I don't mean evolution. I meant exactly what I stated. Why do you believe random chemical reactions over millions of years suddenly kick-started life, resulting in the diversity of life we have on the planet today? If you're claiming this is the best model, in support of your belief's then, what evidence is there which confirms this process as the best model?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantiq
Neither do I, but you came to me, did you not? So you're obviously looking for something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantiq
If you're agnostic then your views are completely inconsistent with your 'so-called' agnostic position and you may need to re-evaluate what your real views are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantiq
So you're saying God is unable to. Again, see the very beginning where I specifically specified omnipotence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
If you don't think creating organisms designed to cause suffering and death is evil then fine, your God can still be benevolent in your eyes. In the eyes of what I regard as any moral person, he is not.Quote:
I haven't seen any evil deeds done by God, so what do you have for me?
You said that if God was behind the creation of, for instance, smallpox, then it follows necessarily that God is also behind people finding a solution to smallpox. This is not true, because overcoming smallpox was a human action, and you already specified that the actions of people can be of their own free will, and not God directly "doing essentially everything".Quote:
I don't understand your point here. I never said humans could not disregards God's intentions.
Not that this would be relevant anyway because God still created smallpox.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Bangladesh.jpg
What I said was this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
God deemed His works and the completion of our physical universe as good. Meaning, the natural laws that govern our universe needs nothing more added nor anything taken away. To redo or redesign the fundamental laws which govern's our survival, would ultimately contradict the very nature of His work as good and complete.Quote:
However, God does essentially everything that doesn't self-contradict His nature,
Well let me ask you something Xei. Would it be more feasible to you if God created humans to be immune to any organisms that would cause suffering and death to species? Would a benevolent God do something like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Everything within our being is a product of God indirectly. The ability to actually reason, process and determine an appropriate counter-action or solution to unfortunate circumstances by the use of advance complex cognitive skills is because God created his creatures to have these particular abilities. It's not because man created these abilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
What wil you do...Quote:
Originally Posted by moskowfreak1111
When that body dies....
And YOU are still "seeing" ..
But without that body/person to process the "seeing"?
If that which judges the surroundings is no more..
Will Heaven or Hell be of any real relavance?
If you are to have any choice at all..
You must look past your "self"
This person/persona
See without its coloring of everything seen
OK Confucius.
So Xei, what's up we're done here or something? Because I see you posting everywhere else when you should be forming a response to my last post. If you know whats good for you.
I got bored because as per usual it turned into a futile mix of utter nonsense and prevarication. Nowhere have you dealt with the simple argument at the start, you just create layers of nonsense going nowhere. But as you actually seem keen for a specific response,
This is absolute nonsense; there's no cogent logical argument here. Again, it's a refusal to accept or address the simple argument at the start, instead opting to write some unintelligible pseudo philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
If God is an omniscient (1) omnipotent (2) creator (3), then he knowingly (1) and unnecessarily (2) created (3) an environment susceptible natural disasters which causes suffering and pain to innocents, and is thus not benevolent.
Your relevant response was that God couldn't have designed a functional universe without Earthquakes. To which I replied fine, but that contradicts my premise of omnipotence and is thus irrelevant to the original argument.
You then responded with the above piece of rhetorical tosh with multiple glaring issues and non sequiturs. You talk about the impossibility of 'redesigning' when the issue was the original design. You say 'God deemed his work Good' as some kind of nonsensical incontrovertible assertion when the entire point is that we are able to reason that it is not. Etcetera etcetera etcetera.
I am terminating this line of discussion because it is not even necessary to the argument in the first place and thus a diversion and a waste of my time. Firstly for the aforementioned reason that omnipotence was propositioned. Secondly, because things like the smallpox virus are clearly not necessary for the universe to function consistently anyway; just don't create them. No problem.
Again, misdirection, utterly irrelevant and not concerned with addressing the original argument (but rather delaying it interminably). A benevolent God would not create such organisms in the first place, end of. Creating diseases and then making humans immune to them would presumably be morally neutral although a bit pointless, but of course it is irrelevant because God did not do this and we are not immune. Additionally such a scenario does not even make any coherent sense because universal immunity would preclude the survival of said diseases. Line of discussion terminated.Quote:
Well let me ask you something Xei. Would it be more feasible to you if God created humans to be immune to any organisms that would cause suffering and death to species? Would a benevolent God do something like that?
So our tendency to murder is an indirect product of God too. Anyway, this may or may not be your belief; again, it's so far an irrelevant tangent to the original point that God caused the superfluous 'unfortunate circumstances' of suffering to innocents.Quote:
Everything within our being is a product of God indirectly. The ability to actually reason, process and determine an appropriate counter-action or solution to unfortunate circumstances by the use of advance complex cognitive skills is because God created his creatures to have these particular abilities. It's not because man created these abilities.
To recapitulate the as yet unaddressed point,
With regards to a God who was (a) a creator with understanding of his creations, or (b) an omnipotent being who understands reality,
the observation of pointless pain and death to millions of innocents (such as children in Africa who die of dysentery due to the cholera bacterium) precludes benevolence, and shows that such a God is
(a) malevolent, intentionally causing the above, or (b) at best apathetic, intentionally allowing the above to occur.
You appear to be distraught which doesn't make a bit of sense because Christmas is right around the corner, so wtf Xei? You would think that in 2011 an Atheist and a Theist can just sit back and get a rap. You know, shoot the breeze.
Seems as though you're making the assertion that God is surely responsible for natural phenomena like lighting. Whats funny is that you 'use' to argue that the origins of natural phenomena could be explained by science. Now here, you're saying God is responsible for it. I thought this was a primitive mode of thinking what happened to you, why the change all of a sudden?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yoGod deemed His works and the completion of our physical universe as good. Meaning, the natural laws that govern our universe needs nothing more added nor anything taken away. To redo or redesign the fundamental laws which govern's our survival, would ultimately contradict the very nature of His work as good and complete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
It doesn't contradict anything because you and I came to an agreement, regarding Omnipotence in reference to God remember? Omnipotence factors all things done with regards to God will that doesn't self-contradict His nature. The Universe could function without Earthquakes but there would be no advance-life chemistry, in which the existence of sentient beings was part of God's ultimate design and His will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Right and I already explained to you that the original laws that govern's life in the Universe are fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
And repeating myself- It's obviously good as there are no current threats on a global scale for the mass extinction of human beings. Life goes on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Yea, Xei do what you do best, when things get too hot in the kitchen for you, you always take the high road. When are you going to stop running from things you don't quite understand and face your concerns like a man for once in your life?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Illnesses such as smallpox, pneumonia, influenza etc.. had no such harm to humans before the fall of man but now they are harmful to us and as a result of germ adaptation, they have adapted to a point where they became "enemies" of humans. So no, God didn't directly create these illnesses they harm us now also as one in part of the fall of man whereas before they would have posed no particular threat.
Once again God didn't create the diseases. The creation of bacteria appears to have a significant role to help moderate human functionality and even through some sort of adaption process they would have never posed a threat to our immunity like they do now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Our tendency to know right from wrong is an indirect product of God. Killing someone is considered wrong, hence the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Ok so you agree that God causes lighting right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Xei I take it you don't have children. Let me explain something to you and I want you to hear me and hear me good because this is going to be a long spill. I have two very beautiful daughters who are my absolute world and I love them and will love them until my very last breath on this planet. But as all children normally do, they tend to get out of line and it's my responsibility as a loving father to make sure that their safety and well-being is of the utmost importance. Meaning, if I tell them not to do something and they defy me, my oldest daughter gets grounded and my youngest daughter gets put in time-out. Do I like punishing my little girls? No, but if I didn't love them I wouldn't care what they do and I'll let them do whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
The problems with suffering is that we as human beings tend to screw each other over all the time. Believe it or not this world is actually filled with far more good than suffering. Case in point, this thread regarding the boy who has died choosing-prayer-over-medicine get's a lot of attention, why? Because stuff like this is not a normal part of everyone's experience in life. Think about it, if things like this happened all the time we wouldn't entertain such news because it would be normal. Another case in point, Why are children in Africa who die of dysentery due to the cholera bacterium a big deal to you? Does something like this captivate your attention to the point where it concerns you (which it obviously does or else you wouldn't speak on it) because it's not a normal part of your experience in life? Suffering is minuscule on this planet and when we hear about such things we focus completely in on it because it's not normal to the "MAJORITY" of humans.
To assume that God's highest priority is the prevention of suffering through His creatures life's experience is without warrant whatsoever. God not wanting His creatures to suffer as a blanket statement is simply not true when taken by itself. God is goal specific and He has a number of goals for the creature ("God requires God's creatures to enjoy eating", "God requires God's creatures to experience conspecific interactions of give/take", "God requires the higher animals to experience community by sharing", etc...), and any attempts to prioritize a specific goal (i.e., absence of suffering) to an absolute is exceptionally difficult to defend. We know, for example, that physical pain is constructive for creatures as an 'early warning' mechanism, in the vast majority of cases, and the health of the creature is far more important (in that particular case) than the suffering associated with the pain/suffering. Anyway, I believe your definition of what constitutes as 'suffering' is different than mine.
I read this terrible piece of trolling and didn't read any further. Please remove this and anything else like it before I read your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
How about I don't remove it and say that I did?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
