What authority does God have over non-believers?

[psikeyhackr]

I assume that God has a lower opinion of religion than I do.

It would be nice if the Christians could get their translation of the Bible straight.

The Old Testament is in Hebrew and Aramaic, the New Testament is Greek.

The words which are translated as HELL are SHEOL, HADES and GEHENNA. The translations are wrong. SHEOL means "dwelling place of spirits" or "abode of the dead." HADES is from Greek mythology and the Greeks didn't have a heaven, everybody went to Hades. Our HELL came from Roman paganism.

Check HELL in Cruden's Concordance

Time ain't waht it used to be. Since Einstein came up with relativity eternity may not be what we thought it was. I thnk any God that can't come up with a better system than eternal suffering is pretty stupid. What is accomplished by suffering that never ends? I'd go th hell just to get away from a god that insane.

 

[water]

Then God would have to be a Golden Retriever.

Because we cannot conceive of there being another path other than redemption? We are human, limited in our perceptions. Why should inherent benevolence be baa baa? Because we have no concept of that?

Note that we do not know yet how the judgement will actually turn out for each and every person.

To say "I will go to heaven, but you will go to hell" is people taking God's law and work into their own hands.

I see no problem why God couldn't be benevolent.
You say it is because of the threat of hell fire that He isn't.
About a year ago, I had this same dilemma; I wish I could tell you how it got solved.
I think it is crucial to have more confidence in yourself, to be aware of

3. If you don't acknowledge God's authority over you, then you are not under God's law, and you have no reason to fear the consequences for rebellion as are given in the Bible.

4. If you do fear the consequences for rebellion as are given in the Bible, then this means that you are actually acknowledging God's authority over you.

Lets define hell. A place where there is: “A wailing and a gnashing of teeth”. OK, I’m a non-believer. Today I am not wailing and gnashing my teeth. Tomorrow I die and go to this “hell”. I wail and gnash my teeth and I am unaware?

In a way, yes -- in the sense that you are missing out the blessings God can give you.

In order to ensure free will, God made life on earth such that one can live (and live well) even if one doesn't believe in God. But the free will of one person may clash with the free will of another person -- one gets robbed, raped, murdered.
Without God, one simply has to "deal with" these things, somehow swallowing them, being left to the judicial system which may or may not do justice. What other people can do to you can break you, take a toll on you. The question is how you feel about yourself *after* the assault, how do you define yourself after the harm has been done. If this world is your only measure, then sin irrepairably diminishes you.

Where do you read hell is a separation from god? Give me the text.

Jenyar was faster.

It's the "you don't know what you're missing" argument, basically.

Not if you’re wailing.

I meant that you don't know how good it is to be on God's side, if you aren't on God's side.

This is what the world needs more of. Humanism is a visible process. God is an invisible process. Why choose pie in the sky when you can eat chocolate cake?

You could argue that love is an "invisible process" as well.
The values and rights that humanism preaches: Who ensures them, who gives them, who provides them? How strictly are the transgressors sanctioned?

Different people can live together. Period. I experience this on a daily basis.

Of course they can. But at what cost?
Respect for others nowadays in such mixed cultures comes at the cost of at least some self-respect.

Religion causes the greatest division mankind can muster. Period. Am I wrong?

You are wrong. People need excuses ("justifications") for their selfish, stupid, power-hungry, weak, evil etc. behaviour, and religion is an appropriate scape goat for that -- a scapegoat used both by those justifying their own actions with religious principles, as well as used by those blaming religion to "cause the greatest division mankind can muster".

Not so. Russell judges god by his character as portrayed in the Bible. God is conditionally benevolent. And extremely malevolent.

This needs an addition: the supposal that God is inherently whimsical.

Give me humanism anytime.

And when it is transgressed?

Russell is commenting on a so-called loving deity, committing extremely cruel and unforgiving acts on human beings. Flawed mortals, created in gods image. He is not commenting on consequences. What is your response to this cruelty? Would you do this to your kids?

Measuring by *human* standards, God's punishment is indeed dreadful.
To make a bold comparison: A mother setting her child straight that he has to clean his room, would equal God wiping out a tribe.

We must keep in mind that if God wants to operate justly, He has to operate so as to not interfere with people's free will: He either wipes out everyone, noone, or makes "special arrangements" (like with Noah). This is by all means cruel by human standards -- but it is the only way to be just. God is not a magician who could be commanded around.

Russell is forgetting the basic premise: Your life is not yours, it belongs to God. People tend to take their life (and much much more) for granted, as if they are entitled to it. This way, they feel cheated by God, feeling that God is their enemy trying to take away something that is rightfully theirs.

This all speaks for itself. In your opinion the non-believer leads a hellish existence. Why? On what is your opinion based?

He lives without God's help. But like I said above, life on earth is such that one can live it without believing in God.

The biggest tool for the enslavement of mankind and the golden retriever syndrome, going back into the mists of history, has been that a “god” will unleash dire “consequences” on man, if he commits acts regarded as “sin” by that god. We find it uncomfortable to think outside of that box because of centuries of indoctrination. Generation indoctrinating generation.

Where is the problem? See:

3. If you don't acknowledge God's authority over you, then you are not under God's law, and you have no reason to fear the consequences for rebellion as are given in the Bible.

4. If you do fear the consequences for rebellion as are given in the Bible, then this means that you are actually acknowledging God's authority over you.

Your own conscience on the other hand, derived from your life experience, retains legitimate claim to engendering certain discomfort when committing harmful acts upon others.

I'm afraid you are taking this conscience for granted.


* * *

A convenient explanation, and believable, but the fact remains that the experience of hell is described as such: "wailing and a gnashing of teeth". What exact place it alludes to is inconsequential. The punishment is "everlasting". This is cruel. Disagree?

Why cruel? Do you feel like you are under God's law?

You did say:

If one doesn't have to acknowledge God's authority over oneself, what authority does God have over one?

None.

So why worry?
If you think you are exempt from God's authority, then all this should not bother you -- as it has nothing to do with you.

If you think that it is cruel for those who do acknowledge God's authority, but have sinned and not repented, and will thus go to hell -- it is *their* problem for having acknowledged such authority.

If a judge is corrupted -- why deliberately go and be judged by such a judge? It is not the judge who is to blame, but the one who decided to go and be judged by such a judge.

 

[stretched]

Hi water,

Sorry for the delay. You are right in so many ways. But your basic standpoint is, "Man cannot exist without god". Man, left to his own devices will inevitably come to a point where he needs help from a higher authority. As you say yourself, we don

 

[SnakeLord]

The whole argument is null and void. There are no gods.

 

[stretched]

Hi water,

Sorry for the delay. You are right in so many ways. But your basic standpoint is, "Man cannot exist without god". Man, left to his own devices will inevitably come to a point where he needs help from a higher authority. As you say yourself, we don’t know how god thinks, due to our limited human nature. Yet, you insist that we need gods redemption. How do we know for sure?

Some points:

Quote water;
"Without God, one simply has to "deal with" these things, somehow swallowing them, being left to the judicial system which may or may not do justice. What other people can do to you can break you, take a toll on you. The question is how you feel about yourself *after* the assault, how do you define yourself after the harm has been done. If this world is your only measure, then sin irrepairably diminishes you.”

This thought process I understand. We all go through difficult events where we feel extremely and sometimes mortally, vulnerable. We react by trying to find a deeper meaning or power to help us overcome this feeling of helplessness. I am all for it, but with the understanding that you must still deal and confront whatever events occurred, and find healing within your own psyche. Religion should not be a "hotfix". It should be a guide only.

Quote water:
“You are wrong. People need excuses ("justifications") for their selfish, stupid, power-hungry, weak, evil etc. behaviour, and religion is an appropriate scape goat for that -- a scapegoat used both by those justifying their own actions with religious principles, as well as used by those blaming religion to "cause the greatest division mankind can muster".

But the fact remains that religion has caused and does cause division, and suffering. Research on the topic clearly shows this to be true, the frailties of human nature notwithstanding.

Quote stretched:
“Give me humanism anytime.”

Quote water:
“And when it is transgressed?”

Humanism is an honest attempt at improving mans lot, by man, for man. I can respond with “and when the boundaries of religion is transgressed?” Examples being plentiful in this instance, but can you give me an example of the transgression of humanism?

Quote water:
"Measuring by *human* standards, God's punishment is indeed dreadful."

What other standards do we have to measure by?

Quote water:
“To make a bold comparison: A mother setting her child straight that he has to clean his room, would equal God wiping out a tribe.”

That is a very bold comparison indeed. But I can in no way agree to that level of simplicity. This god remains very questionable.

Quote water:
“We must keep in mind that if God wants to operate justly, He has to operate so as to not interfere with people's free will: He either wipes out everyone, noone, or makes "special arrangements" (like with Noah). This is by all means cruel by human standards -- but it is the only way to be just. God is not a magician who could be commanded around.”

God is omnipotent. He created justice. No? He can change the parameters for the sake of compassion. No?

Quote water:
“Russell is forgetting the basic premise: Your life is not yours, it belongs to God. People tend to take their life (and much much more) for granted, as if they are entitled to it. This way, they feel cheated by God, feeling that God is their enemy trying to take away something that is rightfully theirs.”

Russell, is an atheist. He is observing god’s morals from the only perspective he, and all the rest of us have. The human perspective. Of course life is to be appreciated and respected. God showed total disrespect for human life. Want examples?

Quote water:
“I'm afraid you are taking this conscience for granted.”

I recognise it in myself, and in 99% of people I interact with.

Quote water:
“So why worry?
If you think you are exempt from God's authority, then all this should not bother you -- as it has nothing to do with you.
If you think that it is cruel for those who do acknowledge God's authority, but have sinned and not repented, and will thus go to hell -- it is *their* problem for having acknowledged such authority.
If a judge is corrupted -- why deliberately go and be judged by such a judge? It is not the judge who is to blame, but the one who decided to go and be judged by such a judge.”

I have no worries, I have my opinions derived from my experience. I believe that the only judge that I could ever have of any value, is myself. I am interacting on this topic, because I have plenty firsthand experience of damaged humans, and the damage being quadrupled by religion and its tenets. I believe in mental freedom.

Allcare.

 

[stretched]

Hi SnakeLord,

In a sense yes, but I am reading between the lines here. I like to believe there is always more than meets the eye. Is the value of human interaction in the "intent" or in the "outcome"?

Allcare.

 

[water]

But your basic standpoint is, "Man cannot exist without god". Man, left to his own devices will inevitably come to a point where he needs help from a higher authority.

No, I do not say that. Man can exist without God.
Man might *want* help from a higher authority though.

As you say yourself, we don’t know how god thinks, due to our limited human nature. Yet, you insist that we need gods redemption. How do we know for sure?

I don't insist we need redemption. Some might want it.

This thought process I understand. We all go through difficult events where we feel extremely and sometimes mortally, vulnerable. We react by trying to find a deeper meaning or power to help us overcome this feeling of helplessness. I am all for it, but with the understanding that you must still deal and confront whatever events occurred, and find healing within your own psyche. Religion should not be a "hotfix". It should be a guide only.

Of course. Religion itself cannot prevent itself from being abused.

You are wrong. People need excuses ("justifications") for their selfish, stupid, power-hungry, weak, evil etc. behaviour, and religion is an appropriate scape goat for that -- a scapegoat used both by those justifying their own actions with religious principles, as well as used by those blaming religion to "cause the greatest division mankind can muster".

But the fact remains that religion has caused and does cause division, and suffering. Research on the topic clearly shows this to be true, the frailties of human nature notwithstanding.

To say that religion causes division and suffering, is the same like saying alcohol causes car accidents.

It is the drunk person who gets behind the wheel that causes the acident, not the alcohol.

To blame alcohol for the car accident, or to blame religion for division and suffering is to say that humans are not responsible for their actions.


And don't forget: Some wars may be fought in the name of god, but all wars are fought for survival.

Humanism is an honest attempt at improving mans lot, by man, for man. I can respond with “and when the boundaries of religion is transgressed?” Examples being plentiful in this instance, but can you give me an example of the transgression of humanism?

For example, humanism says everyone has the right to work. Considering the numbers of the unemployed, I'd say this is a harsh transgression of humanism.
All human life is worthy, right? And yet people get killed every day, babies aborted -- humanism, yes.

Measuring by *human* standards, God's punishment is indeed dreadful.

What other standards do we have to measure by?

We have no other standards. But it makes a great difference what absoluteness we attribute to these standards. Should we consider the human standards, which keep on changing, to be absolute? Should we say that there can be no greater power than that of man?

God is omnipotent. He created justice. No? He can change the parameters for the sake of compassion. No?

Change the parameters for the sake of compassion? You mean God should act on connivance?

Tell me: In a situation where one has suffered a loss, and compassion is needed -- what is the compassion-receiver to do, and what is the compassion-giver to do?

If you try to ease the suffering of a friend who has lost a loved one -- no matter what you do, if this person is not willing to accept your compassion, then you can't do anything, and their suffering remains.
Compassion is ultimately up to the compassion-receiver, not the compassion-giver.

Russell, is an atheist. He is observing god’s morals from the only perspective he, and all the rest of us have. The human perspective. Of course life is to be appreciated and respected. God showed total disrespect for human life. Want examples?

Humans show total disrespect for human life. On a daily basis.

But God also gives eternal life. No man can do that.

Believe in eternal life, or leave God out of the discussion.

I'm afraid you are taking this conscience for granted.

I recognise it in myself, and in 99% of people I interact with.

And how far does this conscience go? What does it do? How efficient is it?

I have no worries, I have my opinions derived from my experience. I believe that the only judge that I could ever have of any value, is myself. I am interacting on this topic, because I have plenty firsthand experience of damaged humans, and the damage being quadrupled by religion and its tenets.

Then you are just saying that God has no authority over non-believers, and that's it.
If you don't believe in God, if you don't believe any of the characteristics ascribed to God in the Bible, then there is no point in arguing here.

Of course, concept a1 from Belief System A can always be condemned by concept b1 from Belief System B. But what makes us think that one belief system is superior to another?

I believe in mental freedom.

In *this* world?
Do you think we *should* have mental freedom, or do you think that we *have* mental freedom?

 

[stretched]

Hi water,

Quote water:
“No, I do not say that. Man can exist without God.
Man might *want* help from a higher authority though.”

I agree on this.

Quote water:
“I don't insist we need redemption. Some might want it.”

Do you want redemption water? Why?

Quote water:
“To say that religion causes division and suffering, is the same like saying alcohol causes car accidents.”

But, remove religion and remove X% of division. Remove alcohol and remove X% of car accidents. Simple logic. Action rather than inaction.

Quote water:
“To blame alcohol for the car accident, or to blame religion for division and suffering is to say that humans are not responsible for their actions.”

Without getting into the conversation that Calvin divided Christianity itself, he also caused Servetus (the “alleged” heretic) to die a slow and grisly death on a pyre, this was the direct result of his religious belief. There are countless more examples. This one incident is enough to expose religion to moral scrutiny. The conclusion is that religion causes division. All religions. Period.

Quote water:
“And don't forget: Some wars may be fought in the name of god, but all wars are fought for survival.”

The Crusades were a “war”, initiated in the name of the survival of Christianity only. Inspired by a historic account from and ancient book. No? More examples are available for dissection.

Quote water”
“For example, humanism says everyone has the right to work. Considering the numbers of the unemployed, I'd say this is a harsh transgression of humanism.
All human life is worthy, right? And yet people get killed every day, babies aborted -- humanism, yes.”

Ahhhh water. I hear you. You have wonderful compassion. I think the culprit here regarding employment would be capitalism and consumerism. Humanism is an ideal, not a solution. Many, many, worthy human lives were taken in the name of Christianity. Name me one single incident were humanism or its philosophy was directly responsible for a life taken. Abortion is a separate issue.

Quote water:
“We have no other standards. But it makes a great difference what absoluteness we attribute to these standards. Should we consider the human standards, which keep on changing, to be absolute? Should we say that there can be no greater power than that of man?”

Change is at least a certainty. Not much else is. Human standards will keep on changing. I believe there is a power greater than man. (surprised?) But we are talking Christian god here, and his punishment remains dreadful.

Quote water:
“Change the parameters for the sake of compassion? You mean God should act on connivance?”

God could get it right the first time. Well, is he, or is he not omnipotent?

Quote water:
“Tell me: In a situation where one has suffered a loss, and compassion is needed -- what is the compassion-receiver to do, and what is the compassion-giver to do?
If you try to ease the suffering of a friend who has lost a loved one -- no matter what you do, if this person is not willing to accept your compassion, then you can't do anything, and their suffering remains.
Compassion is ultimately up to the compassion-receiver, not the compassion-giver.”

Empathy and compassion seem to have a power and influence way beyond what we can understand. But attempting to answer this question, I would say you are right. The pain of loss can blind one of the ability to receive compassion. But one finds over time, the cumulative effect of compassion given, works wonders. I believe the compassion given should be unconditional, and the compassion giver should not expect a definite outcome. The “intent” of the compassion giver contains its own power. So no, no-one can take on the pain of another, but the intent of compassion has a healing effect on both the empathiser and the one suffering.

Quote water:
“Humans show total disrespect for human life. On a daily basis.
But God also gives eternal life. No man can do that.”

In the OT, god shows total disrespect for human life. We don’t know for sure that god gives eternal life. Its that simple.

Quote water:
“Believe in eternal life, or leave God out of the discussion.”

Why should god have the monopoly on eternal life? We all know that matter is never lost, but merely transformed. We are all constituted from the “stuff” of the universe. What is eternity?

Quote water:
“And how far does this conscience go? What does it do? How efficient is it?”

This conscience is so efficient it does not require threat of hellfire to operate. At its best, it is self sustaining.

Quote water:
“Of course, concept a1 from Belief System A can always be condemned by concept b1 from Belief System B. But what makes us think that one belief system is superior to another?”

We should rely on our (honest) experience of life to reach our conclusions. And we should all be free to live in the way we believe, without being burnt at the stake for heresy.

Quote water:
“In *this* world?
Do you think we *should* have mental freedom, or do you think that we *have* mental freedom?

We do have mental freedom. If we choose. Let no man, religion, or creed choose for you.

Allcare.

 

[A Canadian]

Here is my short, but to the point thought.

As long as you are good hearted, you shall not fear being refused to let into the "HEAVEN".

Not every religion is perfect...., then again what one man is... past, present or future, if we was created by a higher being why do people of any or no religion contradic rules or other religions.

I do not like calling him/her/it/whatever "GOD", but whatever they/he are/is should realize that one mans fault can be linked to hundreds if not millions of people. What is illegal and what is illegal from a religious point of view....

A poor, starving, dying man, steals food for his family... Thou shall not steal....
He is good at heart..... it is him vs. the world... he has done all he can to achive in life but has just failed... life just did not accept him for what he has done, did do, and tried to do... according to law and the so called "bible", this person will "burn in hell" either way....

Justice is blind.... and so is religion...

I think of religion as all the fast food chains.... in this modern day they are all trying to compete with each other... for crying out loud, X-mas is a national holiday in most countrys... that only shows you how religion affects people.... it is a holiday, so all must obey.... for crying outloud SANTA CLAUSE was brought to North America by COKE-A-COLA.... as if religion isn't being marketed enough.... goverments gets to decide what are national holidays... I see no national holidays in north america that are linked to Buhdaism... or any other religion holiday... Oh, there is St. Patricks day.... nice try....

People who read the bible say that the devil will try to detroy the world.... well guess what, religion has already done that, pending that it was not "satan's" plan in the first place.

People fight over religion more than they fight over human life..... The USA invade 2 or 3 countrys at once, but the pope making a 14 minute address while he is sick will make world headlines.....


Religion sickens me....

I belive something is out there, but I am sick everyone and everything... Nothing is true anymore, and nothing is false.....

How the hell can you decide on anything!


...My 2 cents....

 

[water]

Do you want redemption water? Why?

I have no idea what to think of redemption when it comes to me, personally.

But, remove religion and remove X% of division. Remove alcohol and remove X% of car accidents. Simple logic. Action rather than inaction.

Remove alcohol?! Are you crazy?! Have you any idea how many would oppose?! How many would feel obstructed in their rights and freedoms?!

Without getting into the conversation that Calvin divided Christianity itself, he also caused Servetus (the “alleged” heretic) to die a slow and grisly death on a pyre, this was the direct result of his religious belief. There are countless more examples. This one incident is enough to expose religion to moral scrutiny. The conclusion is that religion causes division. All religions. Period.

I categorically disagree.
Religion causes division? Then we could also say life causes death.


*Any* ideology causes division.

Your humanistic utopia would work only if all humans would be extremely alike, and none immoral (ie. not in opposition with the moral laws set by humanism).

And don't forget: Some wars may be fought in the name of god, but all wars are fought for survival.

The Crusades were a “war”, initiated in the name of the survival of Christianity only. Inspired by a historic account from and ancient book. No? More examples are available for dissection.

You don't seem to understand.
The Crusades were a “war”, initiated in the name of the survival of ChristianS only.
One group of people who has felt threatened in their existence, so they took precautions. All wars are motivated economically, for survival.
What *justification* the side who began the war gives, is eventually meaningless. They fight for their survival, and they justify this fight with their ideology.

Ahhhh water. I hear you. You have wonderful compassion.

Excuse me, I'm intrigued. How do I have "wonderful compassion"?

I think the culprit here regarding employment would be capitalism and consumerism.

Aha. And how come capitalism and consumerism prosper so well?

Humanism is an ideal, not a solution. Many, many, worthy human lives were taken in the name of Christianity. Name me one single incident were humanism or its philosophy was directly responsible for a life taken.

Alright. Let's turn this around: Do you think humans want humanism?

Abortion is a separate issue.

You better have a good argument for this assertion.

Change is at least a certainty. Not much else is. Human standards will keep on changing.

What is right today, may be wrong tomorrow, right? It's okay, there's no problem if you love your spouse today, you don't have to do so tomorrow, human standards change. Committment should be merely a word in the dictionary, a word that nobody uses anymore, since it is from those old times when religon still trampled around the world ...

Plead for the changing human standards, and you plead for moral relativism.

I believe there is a power greater than man.

And this power would be?

(surprised?)

No, I was just waiting for an answer.

But we are talking Christian god here, and his punishment remains dreadful.

You are viewing the Christian God outside of the context of Christianity. All you see is the dreadful punishment, but you refuse to see other things that Christians says their God has done as well. If you wish to talk about the Christian God, then you have to take into account *everything* about Him.

God could get it right the first time. Well, is he, or is he not omnipotent?

What makes you think God "didn't get it right the first time"?

Empathy and compassion seem to have a power and influence way beyond what we can understand. But attempting to answer this question, I would say you are right. The pain of loss can blind one of the ability to receive compassion. But one finds over time, the cumulative effect of compassion given, works wonders. I believe the compassion given should be unconditional, and the compassion giver should not expect a definite outcome. The “intent” of the compassion giver contains its own power. So no, no-one can take on the pain of another, but the intent of compassion has a healing effect on both the empathiser and the one suffering.

And God surely has this "intent of compassion".

See also this post: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=638341&highlight=excessive+grieving#post638341 , and the rest of the thread.

Humans show total disrespect for human life. On a daily basis.
But God also gives eternal life. No man can do that.

In the OT, god shows total disrespect for human life. We don’t know for sure that god gives eternal life. Its that simple.

The Bible says God took those lives.
The Bible says God gives eternal life.

You are willing to accept -- what the Bible says! -- that God is killed those people,
but you refuse to accept -- what the Bible says as well! -- that God gives eternal life?
!

This is awfully selective of you.

If you believe God took those lives, then you also have to believe God gives eternal life -- for *both* statements come from the *same* source.

Believe in eternal life, or leave God out of the discussion.

Why should god have the monopoly on eternal life?

I didn't say "God has monoply over eternal life". But you are very selective in what you choose to accept the Bible says, and what you refuse, even though the Bible says it.

If you cut up a belief system in little parts, and then accept only some, and refuse others -- then, surely, then this belief system will not make much sense, and it will be easy to discard it.

What is eternity?

Personally, I believe eternitiy is exactly one human life long. My life. My eternity.
This may smell of solipsism -- but it's true: I only have this life.

This conscience is so efficient it does not require threat of hellfire to operate.

Maybe I live in a bog or something, or maybe I'm old -- but I find believing because of the threat of hell fire is wrong, and results in a very selfish, static, secluded and unproductive faith.

I am not a member of any religion, I sometimes wondered what it would be like to join a church -- but it never occured to me to believe under the threat of hell fire.

At its best, it is self sustaining.

I vehemently disagree. Your conscience cannot exist in a vacuum, all by itself. It needs the company and assurance (this at least) of other consciences.

We should rely on our (honest) experience of life to reach our conclusions.

Has it ever occured to you that it is easy to be honest once one knows oneself, and knows one's priorities, values and preferences? How many people know themselves this way ...

And we should all be free to live in the way we believe, without being burnt at the stake for heresy.

And you know what the modern being burnt at the stake for heresy is?
Rejection of all kinds. Crucifixion with isolation (to use Skunk Anansie's thoughts).
Where will you go, where will you hide, when there is noone left like you?

If you are not politically acceptable -- face the consequences.
If you have the wrong colour of your skin -- face the consequences.
If you are from the wrong socio-economical class -- face the consequences.
If you're not beautiful, cool, smart enough -- face the consequences.


People don't get burnt at the stake -- they are tortured their whole life long.

We do have mental freedom. If we choose. Let no man, religion, or creed choose for you.

You are such an idealist. South African history has been completely rewritten, right? Do you know what the truth is? *Can* you even know?

Let no man, religion, or creed choose for you.

This is impossible, you know. We all grow up in some society, we are all taught some language, we don't grow up in a vacuum. Some things have been chosen for us.

I think that what you are really trying to say, "Let no man, religion, or creed tell you what you are worth. Strive to not measure your worth by what others say, others who are not close to you."


* * *

I do not like calling him/her/it/whatever "GOD", but whatever they/he are/is should realize that one mans fault can be linked to hundreds if not millions of people. What is illegal and what is illegal from a religious point of view....

It is said that God knows your heart, and He is just.
What you fear is that God should judge the way man does. If you stick to this fear, then you are saying that man is above God, and has higher authority than God.
Be careful with that.

I belive something is out there, but I am sick everyone and everything... Nothing is true anymore, and nothing is false.....

How the hell can you decide on anything!

If the deterministic proposition were true, and you had no free will, then your dilemma should not arise, right? But it has. How come?

But, one must live, and to live, one must make decisions. Or they will be made for you, and you will lose yourself.

 

[MarcAC]

you first have to believe it exist for it to have authority...

Oh you terrible people!
And no one responded to try and fix this unfortunate view?
That's just not nice.

I'm not sure if it's me but does a blind man have to believe the Sun exists to have his skin become leprose with cancer for staying in its rays for too long?

 

[water]

Marc,


This issue has been addressed from the beginning on, in the initial premises, and then in Jenyar's reply -- "Do you have to accept the laws of the country you are in?"

 

[stretched]

Hi water,

Quote water:
“I have no idea what to think of redemption when it comes to me, personally.”

The next question would be be, do you consider yourself “fulfilled” in this life? Do you need forgiveness?

Quote water:
“Remove alcohol?! Are you crazy?! Have you any idea how many would oppose?! How many would feel obstructed in their rights and freedoms?!”

Alcohol is as much a tool for enslavement as is religion.

Quote stretched:
“Without getting into the conversation that Calvin divided Christianity itself, he also caused Servetus (the “alleged” heretic) to die a slow and grisly death on a pyre, this was the direct result of his religious belief. There are countless more examples. This one incident is enough to expose religion to moral scrutiny. The conclusion is that religion causes division. All religions. Period."

Quote water:
“I categorically disagree.
Religion causes division? Then we could also say life causes death.”

We are narrowing our conversation down to religion here. My statement: “Religion causes division in human society?”

Yes/No?

Quote water:
“You don't seem to understand.
The Crusades were a “war”, initiated in the name of the survival of ChristianS only.
One group of people who has felt threatened in their existence, so they took precautions. All wars are motivated economically, for survival.
What *justification* the side who began the war gives, is eventually meaningless. They fight for their survival, and they justify this fight with their ideology.”

Yes, I know the crusades argument is a tired one but, there was no real threat to the survival of Christianity at this time. In his wisdom, Pope Urban II launched a campaign to regain control of the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Christian Holy Land from the Muslims. There might have been subsequent economic benefits. All “after the fact”. This was a endeavour in the name of religion.

Quote water:
“Excuse me, I'm intrigued. How do I have "wonderful compassion"?

You seem offended. I apologise, this is my opinion based on general reading of your posts, especially as “Rosa”.

Quote water:
“Aha. And how come capitalism and consumerism prosper so well?”

Global finances are controlled by a small cadre of financiers. Consumerism seems to be a tool for enslavement as well. It prospers well because one is conditioned to seek happiness in material possessions. It seems Christians are particularly prone to this behaviour.

Quote water:
“Alright. Let's turn this around: Do you think humans want humanism?”

Humans want a Big Mac with extra fries. Humanism it seems, is reserved for idealists like myself. (I do not see myself as a “humanist” per se though.)

Quote stretched:
“Abortion is a separate issue.”

Quote water:
“You better have a good argument for this assertion.”

My view is “life is sacred”, but religion should not influence rational decision-making.

Quote water:
“What is right today, may be wrong tomorrow, right? It's okay, there's no problem if you love your spouse today, you don't have to do so tomorrow, human standards change. Committment should be merely a word in the dictionary, a word that nobody uses anymore, since it is from those old times when religon still trampled around the world ...
Plead for the changing human standards, and you plead for moral relativism.”

Unfortunately every moment stretching into the future is an unknown factor. And yes, love seems fleeting. And it seems commitment per se, is more frivolous today than in the near past. Fluctuating general human standards notwithstanding, the dark heart of man has not educated itself to achieve a more compassionate state.

Quote stretched
"I believe there is a power greater than man."

Quote water:
“And this power would be?”

I am still working on this. He, he. I have experienced catharsis and epiphanies. Chemical or metaphysical, that is the question. My relativism.

Quote water:
“You are viewing the Christian God outside of the context of Christianity. All you see is the dreadful punishment, but you refuse to see other things that Christians says their God has done as well. If you wish to talk about the Christian God, then you have to take into account *everything* about Him.”

No worries. Christians say this god is all loving and all good. Can you spot the paradox? How do I reconcile this good god in the light of his cruel actions. *everything* about him as indicated in the canon, indicate an OT god, (not a nice guy) who metamorphoses into the NT god (who is remarkably silent) and becomes a Jewish instigator espousing very differing views and character as to the OT YHWH. Taken as a whole, “Everything” about this god is paradoxical, and flies in the face of common sense. Furthermore the OT god in particular lacks basic human compassion.

Quote water:
“What makes you think God "didn't get it right the first time"?

The fact that there are lepers in the world.

Quote water:
“And God surely has this "intent of compassion”

At first glance it would seem so, but upon deeper scrutiny, the intent of this god is indeed mysterious and certainly questionable. An old soppy cliché comes to mind: “If you love someone set them free, if they return, they were yours in the first place”. Que?

Quote water:
“See also this post: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ving#post638341 , and the rest of the thread.”

Now we are talking. I like you better already!

Quote water:
“The Bible says God took those lives.
The Bible says God gives eternal life.
You are willing to accept -- what the Bible says! -- that God is killed those people,
but you refuse to accept -- what the Bible says as well! -- that God gives eternal life?
This is awfully selective of you.
If you believe God took those lives, then you also have to believe God gives eternal life -- for *both* statements come from the *same* source.”

If this “source” could find it in its/his heart to stop talking with a forked tongue, I would find it in my heart to be less selective. If Jesus is god and he condemns men to the “eternal flames” this being does not give eternal life. Period.

Quote water:
“I didn't say "God has monoply over eternal life". But you are very selective in what you choose to accept the Bible says, and what you refuse, even though the Bible says it.
If you cut up a belief system in little parts, and then accept only some, and refuse others -- then, surely, then this belief system will not make much sense, and it will be easy to discard it.”

This seems to be the problem. Most Christians don`t look into the “detail” of their Bible enough. By looking into the “detail” the flaws and deceits are exposed. Part of the reason education was disencouraged by the early church. Just to make myself clear, “ I do not accept any portion of the Bible as truth” The belief system called “Christianity”, upon my scrutiny, is utterly questionable, and I hereby discard it.

Quote water:
“Personally, I believe eternitiy is exactly one human life long. My life. My eternity.
This may smell of solipsism -- but it's true: I only have this life.”

This life is all we have for sure. I agree with you on this. Don’t let a god get in the way of your happiness.

Quote water:
“Maybe I live in a bog or something, or maybe I'm old -- but I find believing because of the threat of hell fire is wrong, and results in a very selfish, static, secluded and unproductive faith.

I am not a member of any religion, I sometimes wondered what it would be like to join a church -- but it never occured to me to believe under the threat of hell fire.”

I wholeheartedly agree.

Quote water:
“I vehemently disagree. Your conscience cannot exist in a vacuum, all by itself. It needs the company and assurance (this at least) of other consciences.”

I believe your conscience is a product of your genes, biological balance, and life experience. Jean Valjean in “Les Miserables” is a fair example of conscience at work in the human condition.

Quote water:
“Has it ever occured to you that it is easy to be honest once one knows oneself, and knows one's priorities, values and preferences? How many people know themselves this way ...”

It would seem religion and other forms of indoctrination stand in the way of this realisation.

Quote water:
“And you know what the modern being burnt at the stake for heresy is?
Rejection of all kinds. Crucifixion with isolation (to use Skunk Anansie's thoughts).
Where will you go, where will you hide, when there is noone left like you?
If you are not politically acceptable -- face the consequences.
If you have the wrong colour of your skin -- face the consequences.
If you are from the wrong socio-economical class -- face the consequences.
If you're not beautiful, cool, smart enough -- face the consequences.
People don't get burnt at the stake -- they are tortured their whole life long.”

F&*k `em all. Forget everything you’ve ever learnt about how to be, and be yourself. Look in the mirror and fall in love.

Quote water:
“You are such an idealist. South African history has been completely rewritten, right? Do you know what the truth is? *Can* you even know?”

Yes, I am a silly idealist and a soppy romantic. My truth is relative to me alone. Do I need to know what truth is? Is happiness a conclusion or a process?

Quote water:
“This is impossible, you know. We all grow up in some society, we are all taught some language, we don't grow up in a vacuum. Some things have been chosen for us.”

Then choose to change them if you want.

Quote water:
“I think that what you are really trying to say, "Let no man, religion, or creed tell you what you are worth. Strive to not measure your worth by what others say, others who are not close to you."

Yes indeed Water.

Allcare.

 

[audible]

Oh you terrible people! :D
And no one responded to try and fix this unfortunate view? :(
That's just not nice. :mad:

I'm not sure if it's me but does a blind man have to believe the Sun exists to have his skin become leprose with cancer for staying in its rays for too long?

but a blind man can feel the sun, on his face, even if it causes cancer, but something non-existent cannot, make him warm or cause cancer.
so it has no power over him.

and rosa it was not addressed by you or jenyar, as you regarded god as an authority, regardless of asking whether we consider it had any.
I quote "If one doesn't have to acknowledge God's authority over oneself, what authority does God have over one?" if it was printed thus, then it would have been addressed " If one doesn't have to acknowledge God's authority over oneself, then what would you consider to have any authority over you?."
you would not of got that reply from, musta or marc if you had.

 

[MarcAC]

This issue has been addressed from the beginning on, in the initial premises, and then in Jenyar's reply -- "Do you have to accept the laws of the country you are in?"

I noticed, but one would think that the mystifying mustaf would have read the initial posts before posting what he mysteriously did; maybe his methods of thought are more of a mystery than others'.

 

[MarcAC]

but a blind man can feel the sun, on his face, even if it causes cancer...

He may feel heat. How many artificial sources of heat exist? What if he believes that one source which is truly the Sun is an artificial source? Sunlight will cause cancer. The point stands. If our beliefs affected reality that much then what a world we would live in.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

He may feel heat. How many artificial sources of heat exist? What if he believes that one source which is truly the Sun is an artificial source? Sunlight will cause cancer. The point stands. If our beliefs affected reality that much then what a world we would live in.

but a blind man can feel the sun, on his face, even if it causes cancer, but something non-existent cannot, make him warm or cause cancer.
so it has no power over him.

marc I believe you missed the point, whether the blind man feels heat from any source be it artificial or not, is irrelevent, the fact he cant feel it from a god is relevent.
if his beliefs affect his reality, as hes blind he wont know any different, but he will still be able to use the other four senses. the invisible and the non-existent are the same and have no effect over him.

 

[water]

but a blind man can feel the sun, on his face, even if it causes cancer, but something non-existent cannot, make him warm or cause cancer.
so it has no power over him.

How do you know God is non-existent?


You know what? I think that you, mustafakofi, mis-t-highs, pavlosmarcos, fahrenheit 451, the preacher and possibly some others have gotten together as a team and you have set out gainst religionists and theists and are challenging them to come up with a proof of God. A proof that the simplest person could understand.

and rosa it was not addressed by you or jenyar, as you regarded god as an authority, regardless of asking whether we consider it had any.
I quote "If one doesn't have to acknowledge God's authority over oneself, what authority does God have over one?"

if it was printed thus, then it would have been addressed " If one doesn't have to acknowledge God's authority over oneself, then what would you consider to have any authority over you?."

This is another spin on the discusison, yes.
But the point is in the process of being addressed in my discussion with Stretched. The way he answered to the opening premises, it leads to think he believes there is possibly another authority.
Otherwise, we're again in the free will discussion.


* * *

marc I believe you missed the point, whether the blind man feels heat from any source be it artificial or not, is irrelevent, the fact he cant feel it from a god is relevent.

How is that a "fact"?

if his beliefs affect his reality, as hes blind he wont know any different, but he will still be able to use the other four senses. the invisible and the non-existent are the same and have no effect over him.

This is not true. You can be ill, but not know why.
I'm not sure how radiation works, but if I am exposed to it, it will still give me radiation disease.
Just because I don't know what something is, or because I don't understand it, doesn't mean that this doesn't affect me.

A man's beliefs surely affect his reality; but a man's beliefs are not all that affects him.

A man's beliefs were the only thing that affect him if the man were a solipsist. Which is, in effect, the same as claiming that he is a god ...

 

[MarcAC]

You know what? I think that you, mustafakofi, mis-t-highs, pavlosmarcos, fahrenheit 451, the preacher and possibly some others have gotten together as a team and you have set out gainst religionists and theists and are challenging them to come up with a proof of God. A proof that the simplest person could understand.

So you notice the similarities in the quality of their (named) posts too? Crap I thought I was the only one. Strange isn't it?

 

[pavlosmarcos]

How is that a "fact"?

sorry that's blatently obvious, what effect can the invisible and non-existent have on anybody.

This is not true. You can be ill, but not know why.

but you will feel ill, you cant get sick from the invisible and the non-existent.

A man's beliefs surely affect his reality; but a man's beliefs are not all that affects him.

of course not.

A man's beliefs were the only thing that affect him if the man were a solipsist. Which is, in effect, the same as claiming that he is a god ...

agreed but I had'nt said that, had I.
however I said, the invisble and non-existent have no effect on him.