I am an atheist thread 4

[Jonathan82]

hahaha

 

[phooney]

While it may be interesting, I’m not sure it qualifies as rocking out material

 

[_A]

Ah, A… I wish I knew how to quit you!

OK, let’s talk hell. You clearly have a problem with “eternal torture”. I don’t blame you, it’s a rough idea. Would you mind explaining exactly what it is you dislike about it? Is it the eternal, or the torture, or both? Or is it a matter of who goes to hell? Or something else?

If the story were true, it would mean that your god tortures eternally for what can only be called minor offenses.
Like failing to believe, even when ‘belief’ can not be willed.

There’s one Vulgate, with many different translations. I don’t know what you mean by “whole different books”. But this is probably an unprofitable tangent, don’t you think?

I don’t know the word ‘Vulgate’, but what I mean is that there are different versions of the bible, and even different ‘holy books’ (such as the Q’uran). How does one choose which is the one to follow, when they all claim to be exclusively true?
What makes Catholicism more authoritative than, say, Scientology? Mormonism?
If your god would relieve such ambiguity, it would be helpful. If your god does not exist, then all these books, written by men, could be considered fallible and perhaps people would begin to study the universe itself for answers, rather than one or another (human-made, error-laden) holy book.

 

[_A]

Not really. You have to remember that according to the Catholic definition, God is the source of all goodness. Further, God’s goodness is reflected to an extent in “regular life”. That nice feeling you get on a sunny day? That’s from God.

So, if we’re right, then hell is certainly worse than regular life. It’d be like regular life, minus anything good.

And let me be clear. The catechism teaches (and the church has always held, as far as I know) that the absence of God is the primary suffering in hell. It doesn’t say that the absence of God is the only suffering. For all I know, all the medieval images are exactly spot on. I don’t think that’s the case, for a variety of reasons, but it’s possible. So please, lurkers, don’t read my posts and say “Well, absence of God doesn’t sound so bad, I guess I’ll just go sin.”

The bottom line is that we know very little about the real experience of hell, other than that it is tragically worse than the alternative.

God bless!

Are these threats of eternal torture consistent with an all-loving god who values free will?

 

[_A]

No sweat. Enjoy your Zepplin. Myself, I’m rocking out to Peter Kreeft at the moment.

Never heard of this ‘Kreeft’…which tracks would you recommend, NE?
For that matter (@ phooney) which zepplin tracks would you recommend?

 

[phooney]

I think my favourite is “Over the hills and far away”

youtube.com/watch?v=_swFHp-0_sY

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

If the story were true, it would mean that your god tortures eternally for what can only be called minor offenses.
Like failing to believe, even when ‘belief’ can not be willed.

So, a double objection. First, the eternal nature of hell, and second, the specific offenses that cause damnation. Right?

Since you don’t want to talk about Catholic teaching, let’s talk about the Bible. Any translation you like, I don’t care, as long as it’s in English. Which passages lead you to think that damnation is a result of minor offenses, like failing to believe? It seems to me that the Bible doesn’t say much about who specifically goes to hell. I certainly don’t know of any passage which says “If you don’t believe, you go to hell.”

The closest that comes to mind is John 14: “No one comes to the father except through me.” But he doesn’t say here how one comes to the father through him. There are certainly scripture passages that tell us Jesus wants to believe in him, that’s for sure. But again, I don’t know of one which implies what you’re claiming. Please let me know if you have one.

As for the eternal nature of hell. I think you have a misunderstanding of eternity. Don’t worry, we all do. It’s just not a concept that we can truly grasp. Like a Flatlander trying to understand three-dimensional space. We can make analogies and try to approach it, but we will never truly get it.

That said, it’s generally considered a mistake to think of eternity as just “lots and lots of time as we know it”. The Greeks had (at least) two words for time: Chronos, which is our day to day time, and Kairos, which is frequently described as “the eternal now”. God’s time is Kairos. It’s not just a matter of billions and billions of years, it’s like adding a whole new dimension to time. In The Great Divorce, Lewis’s allegory on the afterlife, an angel explains “There is no tomorrow, all moments are present now.”

What does that mean? Durned if I know. I’m still working on it. But maybe this is another case, A, where you should take that “I don’t know” position you’re so fond of, rather than condemning a doctrine which neither of us understand.

I don’t know the word ‘Vulgate’, but what I mean is that there are different versions of the bible, and even different ‘holy books’ (such as the Q’uran). How does one choose which is the one to follow, when they all claim to be exclusively true?
What makes Catholicism more authoritative than, say, Scientology? Mormonism?
If your god would relieve such ambiguity, it would be helpful. If your god does not exist, then all these books, written by men, could be considered fallible and perhaps people would begin to study the universe itself for answers, rather than one or another (human-made, error-laden) holy book.

Like I said to Jonathon a few posts back, one thing at a time! This scattershot approach just makes it impossible to get anywhere.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Never heard of this ‘Kreeft’…which tracks would you recommend, NE?
For that matter (@ phooney) which zepplin tracks would you recommend?

I’m new to him. The only one I have listened to is:
peterkreeft.com/audio/15_cslewis-problem-of-pain.htm

I just gave it a half-listen while I was working, so I can’t give it a particularly firm endorsement yet.

You might give this one a shot, too:
peterkreeft.com/audio/20_cslewis_time-eternity.htm

Obviously I haven’t listened to it yet, but it’s related to my previous post. If you try it, let me know what you think.

 

[_A]

So, a double objection. First, the eternal nature of hell, and second, the specific offenses that cause damnation. Right?

I don’t think we need to consider which offenses are hell-worthy. Some are, that is enough.
What could one person do for one-hundred years which would merit an eternity of Yahweh’s ‘furnace of fire’?

Since you don’t want to talk about Catholic teaching, let’s talk about the Bible. Any translation you like, I don’t care, as long as it’s in English. Which passages lead you to think that damnation is a result of minor offenses, like failing to believe? It seems to me that the Bible doesn’t say much about who specifically goes to hell. I certainly don’t know of any passage which says “If you don’t believe, you go to hell.”

As I mentioned, we don’t need to look at which offenses. Eternal torture in exchange for offenses which were, at most, carried out for a few decades.

As for the eternal nature of hell. I think you have a misunderstanding of eternity. Don’t worry, we all do. It’s just not a concept that we can truly grasp. Like a Flatlander trying to understand three-dimensional space. We can make analogies and try to approach it, but we will never truly get it.

The life we have is finite. The torture promised in the bible is not finite.
How is it that you think it is the work of a just and good being?

That said, it’s generally considered a mistake to think of eternity as just “lots and lots of time as we know it”. The Greeks had (at least) two words for time: Chronos, which is our day to day time, and Kairos, which is frequently described as “the eternal now”. God’s time is Kairos. It’s not just a matter of billions and billions of years, it’s like adding a whole new dimension to time. In The Great Divorce, Lewis’s allegory on the afterlife, an angel explains “There is no tomorrow, all moments are present now.”

So do you think that the torture (as promised in the ‘furnace of fire and gnashing of teeth’ passage) is a fair response to a human being?
When?

What does that mean? Durned if I know. I’m still working on it. But maybe this is another case, A, where you should take that “I don’t know” position you’re so fond of, rather than condemning a doctrine which neither of us understand.

I have been asked to accept what is written in the bible so often that it makes me ill.

If you believe your god created the universe, and the universe contradicts the bible on so many points, why not toss the bible, and study nature for your gods message?

Like I said to Jonathon a few posts back, one thing at a time! This scattershot approach just makes it impossible to get anywhere.

I will try, but just so you know, I enjoy the discussion even when it takes off on a tangent…
Go ahead and remind me to focus if you like…I will try to take the reminders well.

 

[_A]

I’m new to him. The only one I have listened to is:
peterkreeft.com/audio/15_cslewis-problem-of-pain.htm

I just gave it a half-listen while I was working, so I can’t give it a particularly firm endorsement yet.

You might give this one a shot, too:
peterkreeft.com/audio/20_cslewis_time-eternity.htm

Obviously I haven’t listened to it yet, but it’s related to my previous post. If you try it, let me know what you think.

Oops, can’t listen to that stuff at work…I will try again when I get home. Thanks, NE

 

[c659smith]

The facts of biology say that after a person is dead, they stay that way. For me to believe otherwise, We would need a few teams of medical professionals and biologists monitoring such an event.
Can you arrange another demonstration, or is your god not able to do these tricks except in old books?

But he facts remain facts and as I see it you have 3 choices.

I recognize that just because the disciples think they saw Jesus doesn’t mean that they really did. There are three possible alternatives:

1. They were lying
2. They hallucinated
3. They really saw the risen Christ

Which of these is most likely? Were they lying? The disciples knew that Jesus had not really risen, but they made up this story about the resurrection. But then why did 10 of the disciples willingly die as martyrs for their belief in the resurrection? People will die for a lie that they believe is the truth. But if Jesus did not rise, the disciples knew it. Thus, they wouldn’t have just been dying for a lie that they mistakenly believed was true. They would have been dying for a lie that they knew was a lie. Ten people would not all give their lives for something they know to be a lie

The hallucination theory is untenable because it cannot explain the physical nature of the appearances. The disciples record eating and drinking with Jesus, as well as touching him. This cannot be done with hallucinations.

Second, it is highly unlikely that they would all have had the same hallucination. Hallucinations are highly individual, and not group projections. Imagine if I came into this forum and said to you, “wasn’t that a great dream the twelve of us had last night?” Hallucinations, like dreams don’t transfer like that!

So then what is left?

People have come back to life as biology and science have plenty of documented cases where this has occurred. I will not go to references because you probably will not open them anyway and can investigate yourself. So your reference of once dead always dead does not stand.

 

[lkddav]

I’m back,

Hello 659

So what is proof and what is truth?

Proof -evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

Truth- the true or actual state of a matter. Conformity with fact or reality; verity.

What is extraordinary and what is ordinary?

Extraordinary- beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established. ( corpses coming back to life after three days).

Ordinary- of no special quality or interest; commonplace; unexceptional. ( dead people staying dead.)

What is evidence? That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Why even ask this? You can’t provide my evidence, can you?

These are the questions that must be answered by you for a benchmark should be established before one tries to meet such a heavy burden for you.

You cannot provide the evidence I need for proof of your god. If what you say is true it should be no problem.

You have nothing but hearsay…

Where is my evidence???

Your friend

les

 

[lkddav]

The resurrection of Christ is an event of history. It didn’t occur in some fantasy land or some special category of religious history. It happened in real space-time. Its occurrence was just as real and concrete as my posting here tonight. We should seek to discover whether it is true or false in the same way we investigate any other historical event, such as the civil war.
Would this way of proving evidence suffice for you that Jesus was resurrected?

No. Nobody in the civil war was returned from the dead to be the savior of mankind.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

les.

 

[lkddav]

So, a double objection. First, the eternal nature of hell, and second, the specific offenses that cause damnation. Right?

Since you don’t want to talk about Catholic teaching, let’s talk about the Bible. Any translation you like, I don’t care, as long as it’s in English. Which passages lead you to think that damnation is a result of minor offenses, like failing to believe? It seems to me that the Bible doesn’t say much about who specifically goes to hell. I certainly don’t know of any passage which says “If you don’t believe, you go to hell.”

Hello NE

What do you think of:
Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

I always took this to mean that this was “the” unforgiveable sin. What punishment would be handed out for the only unforgiveable sin. Wouldn’t it have to be hell?

The closest that comes to mind is John 14: “No one comes to the father except through me.” But he doesn’t say here how one comes to the father through him. There are certainly scripture passages that tell us Jesus wants to believe in him, that’s for sure. But again, I don’t know of one which implies what you’re claiming. Please let me know if you have one.

The general theme of the four gospels is to let jesus in your heart as your savior. If you don’t, you will go to hell. It’s pretty simple.
I don’t know what the catholic spin on it is but I have heard this fear story at every funeral for 43 years.

As for the eternal nature of hell. I think you have a misunderstanding of eternity. Don’t worry, we all do. It’s just not a concept that we can truly grasp. Like a Flatlander trying to understand three-dimensional space. We can make analogies and try to approach it, but we will never truly get it.

That said, it’s generally considered a mistake to think of eternity as just “lots and lots of time as we know it”. The Greeks had (at least) two words for time: Chronos, which is our day to day time, and Kairos, which is frequently described as “the eternal now”. God’s time is Kairos. It’s not just a matter of billions and billions of years, it’s like adding a whole new dimension to time. In The Great Divorce, Lewis’s allegory on the afterlife, an angel explains “There is no tomorrow, all moments are present now.”

What does that mean? Durned if I know. I’m still working on it. But maybe this is another case, A, where you should take that “I don’t know” position you’re so fond of, rather than condemning a doctrine which neither of us understand.

May I ask, what scripture in the bible states that god is in a different time dimension than his creations?

les

 

[lkddav]

But he facts remain facts and as I see it you have 3 choices.

I recognize that just because the disciples think they saw Jesus doesn’t mean that they really did. There are three possible alternatives:

1. They were lying
2. They hallucinated
3. They really saw the risen Christ

Which of these is most likely? Were they lying? The disciples knew that Jesus had not really risen, but they made up this story about the resurrection. But then why did 10 of the disciples willingly die as martyrs for their belief in the resurrection? People will die for a lie that they believe is the truth. But if Jesus did not rise, the disciples knew it. Thus, they wouldn’t have just been dying for a lie that they mistakenly believed was true. They would have been dying for a lie that they knew was a lie. Ten people would not all give their lives for something they know to be a lie

The hallucination theory is untenable because it cannot explain the physical nature of the appearances. The disciples record eating and drinking with Jesus, as well as touching him. This cannot be done with hallucinations.

Second, it is highly unlikely that they would all have had the same hallucination. Hallucinations are highly individual, and not group projections. Imagine if I came into this forum and said to you, “wasn’t that a great dream the twelve of us had last night?” Hallucinations, like dreams don’t transfer like that!

So then what is left?

Prove this story using something besides the bible.

People have come back to life as biology and science have plenty of documented cases where this has occurred. I will not go to references because you probably will not open them anyway and can investigate yourself. So your reference of once dead always dead does not stand.

Please cite your references. I would like to read through them.

Thanks

les

 

[lkddav]

I believe in the ten commandments from the OT and I don’t take the OT literally at all. What I do believe in Is the New Testament. Jesus didn’t believe in slaves.

Jonathan

If you don’t take the OT literally, How do you account for the “fall of man”. ???

les

 

[Jonathan82]

. How does one choose which is the one to follow, when they all claim to be exclusively true?
What makes Catholicism more authoritative than, say, Scientology? Mormonism?

Well thats the billion dollar question for an Atheist isn’t it.
look at this way a lot of the religions out there stem from Judaism, others have nothing to do with it. For the ones that stem from Judaism, Catholicism and Christianity(Jesus was raised Jewish and came to add to Judaism and take minor things out like slavery animal sacrifices etc.and in Judaism they are still waiting for the Messiah.) Both believe that Jesus is the son of God. then comes Islam they don’t view it that way but they see Jesus as only a prophet even though thats really not too bright, I will tell you why. They see Jesus as a great prophet yet if they approve of him being a prophet why do they accept him in the first place if he is calling himself the son of God? As for Hinduism I don’t know too much but I will tell you that Muslims and Hindus from personal experience treat women like dogs. Scientology=Tom Cruise, enough said.

If your god would relieve such ambiguity, it would be helpful. If your god does not exist, then all these books, written by men, could be considered fallible and perhaps people would begin to study the universe itself for answers, rather than one or another (human-made, error-laden) holy book.

Heres an Article I found after reading your comment. I think that If the Church is open to that then I don’t see why we would limit ourselves, like you say. I personally have always loved space and like star wars and star trek and I believe in different dimensions etc… and I still believe in God. ufoevidence.org/documents/doc814.htm

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I don’t think we need to consider which offenses are hell-worthy. Some are, that is enough.

Hey, **you **are the one who brought up “minor offenses, like failing to believe”. I’m glad that you now see that was a misunderstanding.

What could one person do for one-hundred years which would merit an eternity of Yahweh’s ‘furnace of fire’?

OK, so your objection is not punishment, but disproportionate punishment, right? Tiny infractions justify a tiny punishment, large infractions justify a large punishment? Judging from your explanation so far, I think we can agree on that. As far as I know, that’s a concept that 100% of human societies have agreed on, so we’re probably on sure footing there.

Similarly, I think we can agree that the punishment for theft or property destruction should be proportionate to the value of the property, right? Stealing a candy bar doesn’t justify the same punishment as destroying someone’s car.

So, how about the willful destruction of something of infinite value? How much punishment does that warrant? I’m referring, of course, to our relationship with God, which is damaged or destroyed through sin.

How is it that you think it is the work of a just and good being? So do you think that the torture (as promised in the ‘furnace of fire and gnashing of teeth’ passage) is a fair response to a human being?
When?

Asking for my opinion on something when I’m deliberately advocating a position I don’t personally hold is kind of unfair. But, no. I don’t like the idea of torturing human beings. I also don’t think that the most straightforward interpretation of scipture is always the right one.

Out of curiosity, do you know what word Jesus used for hell? Gehenna. Did you know that Gehenna is an actual, physical place near Jerusalem? It’s their dump where garbage is incinerated. It would be completely transparantly obvious to his listeners that there was a metaphorical aspect to the teaching. Sort of like if he was preaching in New York, and said that sinners would be sent to Jersey forever. Obviously that’s not meant as a literal truth.

But that’s an aside of my own. Right now, I’m trying to stick to the most simplistic, non-metaphorical interpretation. So, again – infinite retribution may be logically justified for infinite transgression. The question remaining is how valuable is a state of human grace, and I don’t see how anyone on this forum can possibly answer that. God seems to think it’s infinitely valuable.

I have been asked to accept what is written in the bible so often that it makes me ill.

I am absolutely not asking you to just sit down and accept the Bible. What I am saying is that these are not trivial concepts, so our knee-jerk responses will not always be spot-on. When the subject was the origin of life, you said “I don’t know” (please forgive me if I’m wrong, I’m not going to dig through 5000 posts for it). So why do you assume that you can effortlessly understand concepts like the true nature of eternity, which have baffled brilliant philosophers for millenia?

If you believe your god created the universe, and the universe contradicts the bible on so many points, why not toss the bible, and study nature for your gods message?

I think I’ve studied nature pretty thoroughly. If I may say so, I suspect that I’ve studied it more than you have. What’s your point? Oops, tangent!

I will try, but just so you know, I enjoy the discussion even when it takes off on a tangent…
Go ahead and remind me to focus if you like…I will try to take the reminders well.

Fair enough.

Peace.

ps - no offense to anyone in Jersey! I’ve never even been there, and I’m sure it’s lovely!

pps - no offense to anyone living near Gehenna.

 

[Jonathan82]

Jonathan

If you don’t take the OT literally, How do you account for the “fall of man”. ???

les

I didn’t say I didn’t believe it I said I didn’t take it literally. I think that In the OT it is written like a story and made easier to understand while in the New Testament it is not because it consists mostly of personal accounts of traveling with Jesus and his teachings.

As for Adam and Eve I do believe but only the idea not exactly how its written.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Hello NE

What do you think of:
Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

I always took this to mean that this was “the” unforgiveable sin. What punishment would be handed out for the only unforgiveable sin. Wouldn’t it have to be hell?

Sure. But blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not the same as not believing in Jesus.

The general theme of the four gospels is to let jesus in your heart as your savior. If you don’t, you will go to hell. It’s pretty simple.
I don’t know what the catholic spin on it is but I have heard this fear story at every funeral for 43 years.

Yeah, I know. But whenever I have offered Catholic teaching, A has gone back to the straightforward interpretation of the text, so for this discussion I’m trying to stick to that. So, if I can’t bring in Catholic teaching, you and A can’t bring in evangelical Protestant teaching. Seems fair, doesn’t it?

May I ask, what scripture in the bible states that god is in a different time dimension than his creations?

I don’t have a verse right on hand, partially because I don’t read it in Greek. I can try to google something up, but it probably won’t happen until Monday. Maybe you can try to dig it up? The key words are chronos and kairos.

God bless!