God's love is an absurdity

[Charles_Darwin]

There not your children silly. They are produced by genes.

child (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1.
a. A person between birth and puberty.
b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.
2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.

off·spring (ôfsprng, f-)
n. pl. offspring

1. The progeny or descendants of a person, animal, or plant considered as a group.
2. A child of particular parentage.

Now why not stop ducking the question. Would it not bother you if your children were to suffer horribly for eternity? Could you be happy knowing that? :nope:

 

[tobias]

Why only two choices? Why only heaven or hell. If i can’t bring myself to believe in a god instead of sending me to hell? Why does he not just do following. Not let me into heaven, and not condem me to hell? Just having nothing to do with me and leave me to kick about the cosmos for eternity, that would be kinda cool. Alot more fun than sitting on a cloud listening to jesus and harps

You’re asking why God does not just let you do your own thing in eternity. The alternative to doing His thing, is to do your own thing–Hell.

Also the whole idea of original sin is a pretty week one, even us mear humans realise it would be ridiculous to punish children for the crimes of their parents.

Original sin is not a condemnation for being, We mere humans can all recognize that the crimes of the parents have reprecussions for the children that do not go away. Catholicism does not teach that one goes to Hell for ignorance, one goes to hell for rejection of God. Original sin is the proclivity of the human being to reject.

Also people have not really given this heaven prize their full thought. Lets say a christian couple die in a plane crash. Due to their deaths their kids struggle to maintain their faith. As a result they drift from religion and die atheists. How on earth could the parents be happy in heaven knowing their children are to be tortured for eternity!!!. I know i couldn’t.

The chances are very good that the parents who died in the plane crash also lost their parents, and may have questioned their faith, but still come to beatific vision.
And once again the scriptures do not say tortured, the term is tormented. That is the point, the torment is self inflicted, those who choose to do it their way are in torment becuase of pride. Not lack of love from a creator, lack of the creatures unwillingness to reciprocate.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You’re asking why God does not just let you do your own thing in eternity. The alternative to doing His thing, is to do your own thing–Hell.

Original sin is not a condemnation for being, We mere humans can all recognize that the crimes of the parents have reprecussions for the children that do not go away. Catholicism does not teach that one goes to Hell for ignorance, one goes to hell for rejection of God. Original sin is the proclivity of the human being to reject.

The chances are very good that the parents who died in the plane crash also lost their parents, and may have questioned their faith, but still come to beatific vision.
And once again the scriptures do not say tortured, the term is tormented. That is the point, the torment is self inflicted, those who choose to do it their way are in torment becuase of pride. Not lack of love from a creator, lack of the creatures unwillingness to reciprocate.

If i am understanding you then you don’t see hell at the fire and brimstone torture chamber that some do, but rather being seperate from god? If so then i am fine with that idea, for i would be in the exact state that im in right now, for i don’t believe in any gods.

 

[tobias]

If i am understanding you then you don’t see hell at the fire and brimstone torture chamber that some do, but rather being seperate from god? If so then i am fine with that idea, for i would be in the exact state that im in right now, for i don’t believe in any gods.

The torment is incurred from pride; it is self infllicted, so your right, torture chamber is completely inaccurate. Fire is the imagery used to describe the torment one feels in this state of rejection, as fire is the same imagery used to describe the purging of purgatory. The difference has to be at least degree and duration, but as catholics we don’t believe that we get off scott free for our belief, we acknowledge our imperfection and realize we may have to endure the ‘fire’ of purgatory. In both states, one is not in the beatific vision. Of course the fire of the one in hell must be worse, for there is realization that there is no end, and it was freely chosen.

And since fire is a physical reality, we are not sure if were talking actual fire, or supernatural equivalent.

It doesn’t matter if you believe in any gods or God, if you reject Him, belief in His existence is irrelevant.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

It doesn’t matter if you believe in any gods or God, if you reject Him, belief in His existence is irrelevant.

You’ve got that the wrong way round mate.

If i don’t believe in a god, rejection is irrelevant.

I cannot reject that which i don’t belief in.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I cannot reject that which i don’t belief in.

1. What don’t you believe in?
2. Why don’t you believe in it?
3. Once you have understood what that is. You will find that you will have a reason to reject what you don’t want to believe.

I don’t think the real Charles Darwin would be very flattered that your using his name; him being a real intellectual and all.

 

[MindOverMatter]

1. The progeny or descendants of a person, animal, or plant considered as a group.
2. A child of particular parentage.

Its not a child silly, its just an object made up of atoms.

 

[MindOverMatter]

If i am understanding you then you don’t see hell at the fire and brimstone torture chamber that some do, but rather being seperate from god? If so then i am fine with that idea, for i would be in the exact state that im in right now, for i don’t believe in any gods.

Please answers these Questions. But please answer them directly, with no detours, as i want a serious debate with you. I don’t want to call you names anymore and i don’t want you to call Christians names either.

Question 1: Does the greatest good belong to you?

 

[tobias]

You’ve got that the wrong way round mate.

If i don’t believe in a god, rejection is irrelevant.

I cannot reject that which i don’t belief in.

Of course everyone rejects that which they dismiss. I don’t believe in evolution, my disbelief in it is a rejection of the theory.
More to the point, others believe in God, your disbelief is neccessarily a rejection of this God you do not believe in. It’s really not that difficult, I reject the gods of hinduism which I don’t believe in. Try it, it’s easy.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

1. What don’t you believe in?
2. Why don’t you believe in it?
3. Once you have understood what that is. You will find that you will have a reason to reject what you don’t want to believe.

I don’t think the real Charles Darwin would be very flattered that your using his name; him being a real intellectual and all.

I lack a belief in any gods.

Becuase the is no evidence.

I’m i never claimed to be an intellectual, im educated enough to have letters to my name

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Its not a child silly, its just an object made up of atoms.

Oh so people are not made of atoms now?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Please answers these Questions. But please answer them directly, with no detours, as i want a serious debate with you. I don’t want to call you names anymore and i don’t want you to call Christians names either.

Question 1: Does the greatest good belong to you?

I don’t own anything called the greatest good? If you want to have a serious discussion then you will need to be a little clearer.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Of course everyone rejects that which they dismiss. I don’t believe in evolution, my disbelief in it is a rejection of the theory.
More to the point, others believe in God, your disbelief is neccessarily a rejection of this God you do not believe in. It’s really not that difficult, I reject the gods of hinduism which I don’t believe in. Try it, it’s easy.

Oh i most certianly reject the hypothesis, but i cant reject your “god” (as in the thing) for in my mind it doesn’t exist.

For example i could reject the love of a woman, but i could not reject the love of a woman that does not exist.

I think this is just semantics.

 

[authenticity]

**I think what you are missing is that this whole universe is here to glorify God, including you. **

Even if that were true, why could god still not just deny me access to heaven, instead of sending me to hell?

You’re question implies, “Why doesn’t divine law work the I think it should work?” The same reason physical laws do not work according to your preferences. It’s like asking, “Why can’t I just fly like a bird when I flap my arms?”

**

Sin does punish people who are otherwise innocent. If I were to go rob a bank today and get sent to prison, I’m not the only one who gets punished. My family also suffers. Not just because I won’t be there. It’s sets a bad example for my children. It’s like a chain reaction.

Do we lock the kids up, for the parents crime?
**

A person can live in a prison even though they appear to be free.

**Every soul in hell has chosen to be in hell. While I certainly do not wish anyone would end up there, especially my children, I respect people’s right to make their own choice. I would rest easy in heaven knowing that all people were given the opportunity to make a fully conscious decision as to where they would be going.

The mistake in your hypothetical situation is that the love of God is sentimental and that human beings are at the center of the universe, instead of God.**

So you could be happy in heaven knowing your kids are going to be tortured forever? Nice. :nope:

If my kid murdered someone and was put in prison for life, would I be happy about it? Probably not, but I would also think it was a just punishment.

What if it was someone else’s kid who murdered someone and was put in prison for life, would I feel any sadness about it? I doubt it. I would feel it was for the common good, the love of all people, that one person should not be allowed to freely murder others.

The first form of love is sentimentalism (because I am related to the child). The second kind of love is agape. It is a love founded in justice, putting aside any selfish motive. It is for the good of society and for the good of that person that they should be put away. The sort of sentimental love doesn’t exist in the after life, so the familial relationships aren’t going to have some sway in my happiness or lack thereof.

One other thing: I don’t think we have a real good concept of eternity. We think of eternity as a really long time, but it is more like a lack of time. Time is set apart by events, that would mean a beginning and end… how can that exist in eternity?

So I don’t claim to know exactly what hell or heaven would be like. I seriously doubt however that it is the artistic images we use. No fire and pitchforks in hell. No clouds and harps in heaven.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

**You’re question implies, “Why doesn’t divine law work the I think it should work?” The same reason physical laws do not work according to your preferences. It’s like asking, “Why can’t I just fly like a bird when I flap my arms?” **

No its not like that, for the laws of the universe dont have an intelligence behind them. I am asking why there are only two options, why would i so called moral god punish someone for eternity just because someone could not believe something there is zero evidence for.

**A person can live in a prison even though they appear to be free. **

In other words, no we don’t. Why can you just answer the question without trying to spin it?

**If my kid murdered someone and was put in prison for life, would I be happy about it? Probably not, but I would also think it was a just punishment.

What if it was someone else’s kid who murdered someone and was put in prison for life, would I feel any sadness about it? I doubt it. I would feel it was for the common good, the love of all people, that one person should not be allowed to freely murder others.

The first form of love is sentimentalism (because I am related to the child). The second kind of love is agape. It is a love founded in justice, putting aside any selfish motive. It is for the good of society and for the good of that person that they should be put away. The sort of sentimental love doesn’t exist in the after life, so the familial relationships aren’t going to have some sway in my happiness or lack thereof.

One other thing: I don’t think we have a real good concept of eternity. We think of eternity as a really long time, but it is more like a lack of time. Time is set apart by events, that would mean a beginning and end… how can that exist in eternity?

So I don’t claim to know exactly what hell or heaven would be like. I seriously doubt however that it is the artistic images we use. No fire and pitchforks in hell. No clouds and harps in heaven.**

We’re not talking about murder and we’re not talking about jail. Like i said of all right now and i’m peachy.

 

[MindOverMatter]

**

No its not like that, for the laws of the universe dont have an intelligence behind them. I am asking why there are only two options, why would i so called moral god punish someone for eternity just because someone could not believe something there is zero evidence for.

**

Only God knows if the heart is honest or in denial. I can only speculate that you’re in denial of the evidence, based on my own knowledge and experience of the evidence. Current theology does not dictate that atheists necessarily go to hell. There may very well be people who could not see due to circumstance or capacity, and thus will not be judged according to their knowledge. But willful ignorance does not count. To oppose God is to oppose the greatest good. Thus one cannot share in the greatest good because of the necessity inherent in the opposition.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Only God knows if the heart is honest or in denial. I can only speculate that you’re in denial of the evidence, based on my own knowledge and experience of the evidence. Current theology does not dictate that atheists necessarily go to hell. There may very well be people who could not see due to circumstance or capacity, and thus will not be judged according to their knowledge. But willful ignorance does not count. To oppose God is to oppose the greatest good. Thus one cannot share in the greatest good because of the necessity inherent in the opposition.

Im in denial the same way you are just in denial about Zeus.

 

[Cbailey2]

No its not like that, for the laws of the universe dont have an intelligence behind them. I am asking why there are only two options, why would i so called moral god punish someone for eternity just because someone could not believe something there is zero evidence for.

That statement has as much proof for it as our statement does: Just because you don’t discern an intelligence behind the laws of the universe does not mean there is one. That assertion is just as absurd as claiming dark matter doesn’t exist because you haven’t seen it. The belief that there is no Creator is the same as the belief that there is one. Your world view is just as belief based as ours.

You believe we were not created or intended. We are an accident and, as such, have no purpose. It is logical for you to deny any sort of conclusion to life because life has no intrinsic purpose if we are not created. It is also logical for you to believe that each human being makes of life what we will, because, lacking any sort of “factory pre-sets” we must figure out our own reasons for being. If there is no God, there are no right answers, no wrong answers.

But all of that presupposes that there is no God, which you believe because you say you have found no proof. OK. Obviously there is proof to be had, for many of us (billions) have found reasons to believe, unless you suppose all of us to be unthinking, uncritical, unreasoning, or less intelligent than yourself. Of course, that is a possibility, but incredibly improbable. You have found no credible proof - how difficultly have you really looked? Have you allowed your hypothesis (there is no God) to influence your findings?

If there is a God and He created us, then we have an intrinsic purpose. We cannot choose to be anything we want because we have been created to be what we are. You cannot become a whale because you wish to be a whale: you will always remain a man because you were created a man and not a whale. If you were created, you are not a free spirit anymore than a fish can grow into a man.

If we were created, it is logical to ask “for what purpose?” - a question which will have one and only one answer, a question which will provide a baseline for what is right (fulfilling purpose) and what is wrong (not). If we were created, there are only two answers.

If we don’t have free will, then we fulfill that purpose - we are hammers that cannot but choose to hit nails. If we do have free will and yet a specific purpose, then we choose whether or not we fulfill the reason for our creation or if we reject that reason. We

 

[Charles_Darwin]

**That statement has as much proof for it as our statement does: Just because you don’t discern an intelligence behind the laws of the universe does not mean there is one. That assertion is just as absurd as claiming dark matter doesn’t exist because you haven’t seen it. The belief that there is no Creator is the same as the belief that there is one. Your world view is just as belief based as ours. **

I dont believe there is NO creator. I lack a belief in one due to the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise. The default position is a lack of belief, until you prove otherwise i still lack believe. That goes for life, the laws of the universe, and all posited gods.

You believe we were not created or intended.

I see no evidence to suggest otherwise.
**
We are an accident **

Nope
**
and, as such, have no purpose. **

Nope

**It is logical for you to deny any sort of conclusion to life because life has no intrinsic purpose if we are not created. **

Why would it be illogical for me to deny a conclusion to life it it were not created? Seems like a contradiction to me? You conclude god created life, i deny that conclusion because there is not one shread of evidence to suggest life was created. Whats illogical about that?

It is also logical for you to believe that each human being makes of life what we will, because, lacking any sort of “factory pre-sets” we must figure out our own reasons for being.

Agreed

**If there is no God, there are no right answers, no wrong answers. **

I can agree with this to a certain extent, there are no absolutes.

But all of that presupposes that there is no God, which you believe because you say you have found no proof. OK.

Yep

Obviously there is proof to be had, for many of us (billions) have found reasons to believe, unless you suppose all of us to be unthinking, uncritical, unreasoning, or less intelligent than yourself.

There are different types of intelligence. For example i am good with numbers, yet awful at spelling. You dont just get cleaver people and stupid people. However i do believe you are not as able to critically review the evidence as i am. But then was brought up to think critically from day one, where are most religious are not brought up to think critically about religion.

**Of course, that is a possibility, but incredibly improbable. **

Not really, we see the amount of atheists rising exponentially, and the amounts the scientifically literalte the number is extremely high.

**You have found no credible proof - how difficultly have you really looked? Have you allowed your hypothesis (there is no God) to influence your findings? **

The only think that should influences finding, or i prefer the word conclusion, is evidence.

**If there is a God and He created us, then we have an intrinsic purpose. We cannot choose to be anything we want because we have been created to be what we are. You cannot become a whale because you wish to be a whale: you will always remain a man because you were created a man and not a whale. If you were created, you are not a free spirit anymore than a fish can grow into a man. **

I can’t become a whale if there is no god. A fish can’t grow into a man.

If we were created, it is logical to ask “for what purpose?” - a question which will have one and only one answer, a question which will provide a baseline for what is right (fulfilling purpose) and what is wrong (not). If we were created, there are only two answers.

But first you must find evidence that we were created, there is none.

If we don’t have free will, then we fulfill that purpose - we are hammers that cannot but choose to hit nails. If we do have free will and yet a specific purpose, then we choose whether or not we fulfill the reason for our creation or if we reject that reason. We

free will is a myth.

 

[authenticity]

**You’re question implies, “Why doesn’t divine law work the I think it should work?” The same reason physical laws do not work according to your preferences. It’s like asking, “Why can’t I just fly like a bird when I flap my arms?” **

No its not like that, for the laws of the universe dont have an intelligence behind them. I am asking why there are only two options, why would i so called moral god punish someone for eternity just because someone could not believe something there is zero evidence for.

First of all, there is an intelligence behind it. There is observable integrity in all natural systems. If you break a physical law, you aren’t going to live that long. If you break a civil law, you’ll be imprisoned. If you break divine law, you go to hell. It isn’t that simple in reality. You might try to jump off a building to fly and just break your leg. You might get community service instead of jail time. You might end up in purgatory instead of hell.

The point is that the law is not biased towards any one person. It’s purpose is to maintain the integrity of the system. In the case of divine law, the integrity is love between God and humanity. Your lack of knowledge (“zero evidence”) of the law does not mean the law doesn’t exist. If you didn’t know murder was against the law, you couldn’t use your ignorance as a defense for murdering someone.

But you do know the law, the evidence is written on your heart. If you murder, steal, lie, you know you have done something wrong. No one needs to tell you. The question is: how do you get back on the right side of the law once you have committed an offense?
Your faith is not necessary for the law to exist, it is necessary for your forgiveness.

**A person can live in a prison even though they appear to be free. **

In other words, no we don’t. Why can you just answer the question without trying to spin it?

Your question or comment was about original sin. To you, God is punishing us for what someone else did. The reality is that Adam’s sin creates the propensity for sin in you. A child who has been abused is likely to abuse his children. A woman who has been beaten is likely to seek out aggressive men. The child of a criminal is likely to become a criminal himself. Jesus pointed out this chain reaction… for example, with divorce:

"It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’ But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Original sin is a universal form of this chain reaction. We still have free will-- that’s why I used the word “likely”-- but all of us have this propensity based on original sin.

And what is that sin? It is a sense of pride. Thinking you know more about how to run the universe than God and defining everything according to what pleases you. It blinds people to the truth. A person’s natural premise is that he or she is God or a god and so the universe should run the way they see it.