J
jam070406
Guest
God allowed you a choice, you chose “oblivion”, why are you angry at Him about that?
- Status
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
liquidpele
*Why in the world would an atheist desire for God to not exist? *
Well, there are many reasons. For one, the Marquis de Sade rooted for the non-existence of God so that he could be evil with impunity. See his “Dialogue between a Dying Man and a Priest.”
It implies atheism is rooting for evil, or against your religion and beliefs.
I have never seen an atheist in this forum who was not rooting against our beliefs and in favor of his own.
Why is the truth offensive to you?
*Why in the world would an atheist desire for God to not exist? *
Well, there are many reasons. For one, the Marquis de Sade rooted for the non-existence of God so that he could be evil with impunity. See his “Dialogue between a Dying Man and a Priest.”
It implies atheism is rooting for evil, or against your religion and beliefs.
I have never seen an atheist in this forum who was not rooting against our beliefs and in favor of his own.
Why is the truth offensive to you?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
DavidHume
“Oblivion” to me means my own non-existence; anything else is not oblivion, but rather some malicious God’s twisted idea of retribution/reward.
I think this is a bit twisted! I also think you need to think twice about blaspeming against the God of Christians everywhere if you want respect in this forum. Your remarks are hateful in the extreme.
You mean that if a child was confronted with the choice between actions that lead to punishment and actions that lead to reward, he would be right to choose oblivion by commiting suicide? I don’t deny that some children end up making that choice, but the choice to me would be decidedly twisted.
How do you know that oblivion is preferable to hell, unless you have talked to those who are in hell?
“Oblivion” to me means my own non-existence; anything else is not oblivion, but rather some malicious God’s twisted idea of retribution/reward.
I think this is a bit twisted! I also think you need to think twice about blaspeming against the God of Christians everywhere if you want respect in this forum. Your remarks are hateful in the extreme.
You mean that if a child was confronted with the choice between actions that lead to punishment and actions that lead to reward, he would be right to choose oblivion by commiting suicide? I don’t deny that some children end up making that choice, but the choice to me would be decidedly twisted.
How do you know that oblivion is preferable to hell, unless you have talked to those who are in hell?
L
liquidpele
Guest
Those people desire for no consequences, that is not atheism. Perhaps atheism was a way to accomplish what they wanted, but the same can be said of evil and religion.
Everyone roots for their own beliefs… if you were arguing with a Muslim, you would be rooting that the other was wrong, and you believe in the same God. That is a ridiculous way to view a discussion.
The truth is never offensive, your condescending claims were. I don’t ramble on about how my experiences with the church were bad, or that all Catholics are bad because of a few bad priests. Anyway, I suspect you will not be apologising, so I’ll let it go.
J
JRKH
Guest
Something completely off topic here but interesting to those of us who debate other Christians about "Oral vs Written Tradition and Beliefs.
Above we have something that can be seen as a difference in viewpoint based on perceived (correct or not) inflection or underlying meaning contained within the uselection of certain terms. When I initially read Charlemane’s post I did not find it particularly offensive or confrontatioinal but Liquidpele did. Same Words - Different take - Different understanding - even different intent of meaning between myself and Liquidpele from the same words written by a third party.
This to me is one of the great meanings of Oral Tradition in the Church. Not that there are necessarily beliefs that we hold that were never written down or about, but rather that the Church’s understanding of the meanings of the Written text are based on the Oral explanations and teachings passed on from the Apostles to us.
End of Off topic Post
Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.
Peace
James
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
The truth is never offensive, your condescending claims were.
Well, I still don’t see how my remarks were condescending, but I’m sorry you took them as such.
Well, I still don’t see how my remarks were condescending, but I’m sorry you took them as such.
D
DavidHume
Guest
Sure, but if the God of Osama bin Laden exists, you’ll have a lot to answer for as well, most likely.
That sounds like a fascinating book.
Of course – just as you have condemned Vishnu, Allah, Zeus, Set, Baal, and whatever other gods you know of that do not meet your standards. Followers of those deities would make the exact observation of your critique.
The flippant answer is that God is perfect and I am not. Or rather, the God that I am referring to is alleged to be perfect but is clearly not, whereas I do not lie about my various imperfections.
Very thought-provoking remarks, but I still think praying for me will be more effective in the end.
D
DavidHume
Guest
You’re right, my remarks went too far. What I meant to say is that I could recognize a Christian God as being benevolent if “Hell” was really just nonexistence rather than torment, or even if “Hell” were a temporary state of affairs. Hence, universal salvation as a prerequisite.
Sure, if you add the qualifications in bold. Out of curiosity, why are we discussing children?
I “found” non-existence quite comfortable before I was born. It’s certainly preferable to eternal torture.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
DavidHume
Out of curiosity, why are we discussing children?
Because we are all children of God?
I “found” non-existence quite comfortable before I was born.
Hmm. I’m having trouble wrapping my cerebral sword around that one. :knight2::knight1:
Out of curiosity, why are we discussing children?
Because we are all children of God?
I “found” non-existence quite comfortable before I was born.
Hmm. I’m having trouble wrapping my cerebral sword around that one. :knight2::knight1:
J
JDaniel
Guest
Then this discussion is moot! Of course there’s an underlying assumption that a being with free will is superior to an automaton, especially if that being possesses “life”, which is the prevailing presumption. Free will would indicate that it is important to life, to evolution, if you will. If I have poisonous berries in front of me, and non-poisonous berries, I would definitely wish to have the faculty of that freedom - if I wish to live, as well.
How do you DEMAND, or even bring forth love from your wife, or your girl friend (assuming you are a male)? If the other person has no freedom to choose, we have a mere association for undefinable - and, probably, unnecessary - expedience.
DH, it seems to me that you are being unnecessarily argumentative. (I herewith call for a ruling from the presiding judge.
)jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
D
DavidHume
Guest
Yes, but if I have no afterlife whatsoever on the one hand, or worship of a God that condemns his creations to hell on the other hand, I am also glad for a “freedom” to choose as well!
Ontological free will doesn’t factor into my life. I can live well under the pragmatic assumption that I and everyone else has some measure of free will, but whether or not that’s “actually true” isn’t relevant.
The only time ontological free will comes into play is when discussing metaphysical suppositions about a good deity permitting humans to sin and to be condemned to hell. In that case it seems to me that a truly benevolent God would remove the possibility for eternal damnation (though it is a slight abridgment of free will). Just as a benevolent parent removes the possibility of electrocution, poisoning, etc. from their children’s environment – though presumably God would be much better at people-proofing than humans are at baby-proofing.
Fair enough. To sum up, it seems to me that a benevolent God, hell, and total free will are irreconcilable taken all together. I expect that one or more of these things would be considered mysteries by Catholics, but that answer only suffices to people who already accept Catholicism.DH, it seems to me that you are being unnecessarily argumentative. (I herewith call for a ruling from the presiding judge.
D
DavidHume
Guest
And given a choice between true oblivion and a God who damns people to hell, I would take oblivion. But of course true oblivion isn’t even an option – only heaven and hell are. I cannot reconcile the concept of a benevolent God with only those two options for an afterlife. I’d prefer a karmic cycle or nonexistence to either.
J
JDaniel
Guest
DH, an absurd analogy. To be absent any knowledge, memory, volition, even involuntariness, in other words, the uttermost non-being, cannot be “known” in any sense of that word.
jd
1
1holycatholic
Guest
God does not damn anyone to hell.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Of course, we don’t hold our parents to that extreme. They can exhibit love, or punishment, and, except for the extreme few, we continue to love them.
That’s OK.
And, He just about does. It is really not that difficult to love God, do His will, and pro-actively love your neighbor. The nature of us as beasts is that we still are ultimately left with our own responsibility. I have no idea how I would regard the action of God to remove the punishment of Hell, were I now in Purgatory or Heaven, but, anthropically, while I am here on Earth, I consider it unfair and unjust to the rest of us.
The experience of punishment for wrongdoing is with us from an early age, whether at the hands of adults, or at the whim of non-living things that we collide with occasionally. For most of us, the avoidance of hazardous material is not at all a difficult negotiation. The same is true of our interaction with God’s rules. Quit complaining; just do it.
That being said, you, DH, will have it somewhat tougher than the rest of us. Why? Because of your intellectual capabilities, there’s not much you’re going to be able to shrug off onto invincible ignorance! I feel saddened for you.
Sorry. I still don’t want to rub elbows with them in Heaven, at least not the way I feel now. What’s fair is fair. What’s fair for me is fair for you. If it really is rather extraordinarily difficult to get into Hell, why should you be worried?
We don’t consider this event horizon a mystery at all. It is what it is. The way to God is so pleasurable, so wonderful, so replete with excitement, so much fun, so stimulating, that we can’t understand the problem. Does that make sense? It is not that we have negated, or are ignoring it, we simply don’t anticipate it. Anybody can do it. Those that don’t, work very hard in that effort.
Each one of us goes through what can be described as a black hole of faith. Even the cradle Catholic. Many climb out of it before the death bed, others on their death bed, and, still others in Purgatory. The list of “grave” sins is rather small. One simply avoids them. If, in our weakness we cannot, we are obligated to perfect the mechanism of reconciliation. Communication, contrition, absolution.
My friend, you are allowing yourself to get wrapped around the axle over this. God is absolute Power and absolute Goodness. These two things are rarely, if ever, seen together in one entity. They result in absolute Love and absolute Mercy, to name a couple more attributes that directly impinge on these considerations. When I was separated from God, your dilemma was my dilemma. Since I have returned Home, there is no dilemma.
To be quite honest, it is difficult to even think that God condemns anyone, but, I know He does because He has said that He does. But, they really have to mess up, and then, absolutely not care, not give a darn. That blend of fairness, mercy and punishment is perfect to me. I really don’t exert much energy being good.
jd
J
JRKH
Guest
If I may reword your remark, I would say that I may well have a lot to answer for if the “Muslim” understanding of God is more correct than mine. (Frankly the one Osama worships is not the God of Islam - he has been decieved)
It seems to me that many, thiests as well as athiests tend to talk about my God or your God or His God or their God, meaning I suppose the various definitions and understandings of God arising from the different faith systems.
In the end though God is always the same and it has been my goal to try and understand God from the perspective of what all of the Great Religions have in common.
That is why I would encourage one such as yourself to, rather than reject “God” because of the conflicing understandings of him, accept Him in principle and seek after the commonalities contained within the various belief systems.
It is indeed a fastinating book. If you were to explore it I believe you would find some surprising insights. Thoughts and actions that far transcend the “typical” idea of God and religion with its rules etc.
Just for the record, I do not condemn “Allah” as this is simply a different term for the One Almighty God, Creator of All. As to the others, those I would not accept as legitimate follow simply do not fit the definition of the Almighty God.
So, Could the alleged imperfections of God not be from your imperfect understanding of Him? After all, there have been scientific principles such as “Germs” that were scoffed at for many many years by well educated and well respected “men” of science. If one simply keeps an open mind one may learn much more than if one dismisses a principle out of hand.
Well said and Done -Very thought-provoking remarks, but I still think praying for me will be more effective in the end.
Hope you continue to come around and discuss.
My hope is that you will choose to at least become an agnosti or a theist. Best Place to Start.
Peace
James
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
DavidHume
And given a choice between true oblivion and a God who damns people to hell, I would take oblivion. But of course true oblivion isn’t even an option – only heaven and hell are. I cannot reconcile the concept of a benevolent God with only those two options for an afterlife. I’d prefer a karmic cycle or nonexistence to either.
You would not prefer the option of heaven over a karmic cycle or nonexistence?
Heaven is what you are offered, not hell. Hell is what the unrepentent sinner prefers.
And given a choice between true oblivion and a God who damns people to hell, I would take oblivion. But of course true oblivion isn’t even an option – only heaven and hell are. I cannot reconcile the concept of a benevolent God with only those two options for an afterlife. I’d prefer a karmic cycle or nonexistence to either.
You would not prefer the option of heaven over a karmic cycle or nonexistence?
Heaven is what you are offered, not hell. Hell is what the unrepentent sinner prefers.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Although I find it hard to conceive of it as something “preferentially” based.
jd :tiphat:
D
DavidHume
Guest
There is a fundamental difference between punishment and eternal punishment. The first can rehabilitate; the second is mere retribution.
But that’s your preference, just as it is my preference that everyone eventually make it to Heaven if it exists.
Well, that’s perfectly fair to say about your heaven, but not my heaven or their heaven or God’s heaven. I suppose a Heaven where you had to interact with people you just could not stand wouldn’t be much of a Heaven…
I’m not worried, just explaining why even if I were theist instead of atheist, it’s a bridge too far to orthodox Christianity, let alone Catholicism. So all of the cosmological proofs a few pages back – even if one were to convince me of a Creator’s existence – don’t really overcome these other obstacles to a Christian God.
To me it looks as though it is just people who say that He does. But that’s a whole different problem and one I’m not really fond of discussing much.
I still don’t see how eternal punishment can coexist with ultimate mercy. It seems a quite simple contradiction.
Nor me, but then I expect your idea of “good” and my idea of “good” have some minor differences.
- Status