Main Entry: 1wor·ship
Now you are talking, but I am not sure that the words “merciful” and “justice” mean the same to you and me. For me they mean that a reward/punishment is commensurate to the deed (not necessarily equal, rather commensurate). If a deed merits three slaps on the hand, it is just to administer exactly three slaps. Administering “two slaps only” is merciful, while administering “four slaps” is neither merciful, nor just, it is cruel. In this sense mercy and just are contradictory.
Reason, logic and common sense. “Chasitizing” a child can be the sign of love, or it can be cruel, depending on the circumstances. I am sure that you do not wish to argue that every time a father disciplines his child, it comes out of love. Too many counter-examples are around.
Ok, let’s consider the odds. Let’s consider a small analogy:
Many people claim that they witnessed some events and believe that their interpretation of those events reflect the actual events. Many people claim that they have seen UFO-s, that they have been abducted by aliens, that they have been experimented upon. Maybe some are pranksters, but maybe some really believe in what they claim. Fortunately one one today subjects these people to torture and death. But maybe some would hold on to their assertions even under those circumstances. That possibility in no way would substatiate their claim. Extra-Biblical historic texts are not available for the alleged torture and deaths of the followers. The Gospels themselves have not been written until a few decades have elapsed after the death of Jesus, and have been written by many people, not the ones whose name they bear.
I certainly do not call anyone a “liar”. I am not a “universal” skeptic either, I just demand a certain level of “proof” or “evidence” for claims.
I don’t doubt that your description of your life is accurate. I strongly suspect that you experience certain, very uplifting moments in your life, which do not exist for me. I am talking about “religious rapture”, a feeling of “oneness with God”, and from other peoples’ description it is a very positive experience.
I am not selfish at all. I love my wife and my family and cherish and respect them. The usage of the words “earthly pursuits” do not mean “things” and accumulation of “things” only. It also incorporates people and interpersonal relationships.
That is you way of happiness, and I would never stand in your way of pursuing it. I am glad it works for you. For me it works in different ways and manners.
Fair enough.
The whole post reveals a deep ignorance of what religious life is.
However if you define “just” as “whatever God wants”, then we can never reach agreement. <<<
Once again, you avoided answering the question by playing a word game; the goal of which is to demonstrate that if one has to suffer, even if it is for one’s own good, it is merely an act of cruelty by a God that should be merciful. This you accomplish, not by debating the validity of chastisment out of love, but by offering the posibility that such an action can be also be, under hypothetical conditions, an act of cruelty.
maybe to be his own little god?
Of course I was exeggarating. Charging 6 dollars instead of 5 is usually a negligible amount, even though under certain circumstances it could be very excessive.
No, I did not assert that love always equals permissiveness. There is an old story about the doctors, frequently brought up by believers and it is very worthy of consideration. It goes: “if a doctor commits an act which seems like a horrible cruelty to the uninitiated bystander (for example cutting into a patient), it just means that the observer is ignorant of the underlying act of healing.” This is a very good argument - as far as it goes. But, it is NOT a get-out-of-jail card in general!
Even though we touched this before your sentence tells me that my stance is not clear to you. I do not reject God, I reject the concept of God as presented to me. Huge difference.
Again, only if your presented concept of God is accurate. If your understanding is in error, and God does not care if I believe in him or not, and bases his decision on how I acted in this life, I have nothing to fear.
The feeling that I am free to do good things, because I simply do them for their own sake, and do not wish to be rewarded for them in the next life. That I am free to avoid to do cruel things, because I do not wish to do cruel things to others, not because I fear retribution in the next life. The “morality” espoused by Christianity is that of the “carrot and stick” method, frequently used by organized crime: “do as I tell you, and you will be rewarded; do not oppose me, or you will be punished”. My atheism brings me freedom from transcendental blackmail.
First of all I have to say I find this thread interesting, and much better reasoned and argued on both sides than many of the others. I also want to say that I don’t automatically believe that atheists (or people of other religions or Christian denominations from my own) go to hell or are bad people.
I am glad you feel this way.
Nothing wrong with this. I read that people having an intense feeling of “oneness with God” or religious rapture describe this as a very positive experience. I do not doubt that it is true, even though I never felt anything like that.
I don’t doubt that you sincerely feel this way, even though I don’t share your sentiment.
I believe this, too. I am sure that most people do not feel the “transcendental blackmail” I was speaking of. If I were a lousy psychoanalyst I would argue that these people repressed their fear, but that would be very dumb and uncalled for. Just the assumption that atheists deny the existence of hell, because they subconsciously fear of it and try to invalidate their fear by denial. (I consider psychoanalysis a bogus “science”.)
Do you hear what you are saying? You are saying that fallible human beings with imperfect intelligence and perception can only determine the perfection of God’s justice based on their imperfect knowledge and judgement. This is, again, an example of the problem you are having with God. You keep trying to figure Him out with your imperfect intelligence, logic, etc. Imperfection cannot judge perfection.
If the “means” are benevolent, then they can indeed be justified by the results. You state in bold red letters that **the end NEVER justifies the means, **but you then make an exception to that. This is contradictory.
Eternal damnation and torment can only be realized by rejecting or refusing to worship and/or obey God. If the atheist does this, he is indeed choosing eternal damnation and torment. You have freely chosen not to believe in Him, not to trust Him, and not to pursue Him. If, in the end analysis, you are lost, it is entirely of your choosing.
The Catholic believes and feels this way also, yet without atheism. The parable of the sheep and the goats plainly discerns the difference between those who do good things to others because it pleases their spirit to do so,(the sheep) and those who do good things only when they perceive it will garner them a reward from the master. (the goats.)
All people are free to avoid doing cruel things. The Catholic does not avoid cruelty out of fear or retribution. He avoids such things because God has illumined his heart, mind, and spirit with a higher understanding of righteousness and morality that is independent of empirical proofs and evidence.
Not at all. The organized criminal has no rights over my person, God does. As a creature of the creator, it is my free choice to love and obey Him, and then spend eternity in His presence, or reject Him and spend eternity seperated from Him. You are proceeding along the idea that if one could spend eternity seperate from God, but not in hell, say in a perpetual temporal existence of one’s own choosing, then you would be happy. But what is it about politics, corrupt politicians, terrorists, crime, pollution, stress, disease, debt, or even the unavoidable trip to the dental chair that is so appealing to you that you could live with them forever and believe you would be happy? Any scenario your mind could produce would eventually degrade into a living hell in and of itself over the tedious stretch of unlimited time.
This again exposes your inner motive. Fear. You are hoping that when you die, if you should then find unimpeachable proof of God’s existence, that He will then accept your acceptance of Him on your terms rather than His. God is worthy of all praise, honor, dignity and glory. If you have not given these to Him, you have then indeed dishonored Him. Why should you be given eternal bliss in His presence for that?
Well, for a while I thought that we can actually have a meaningful conversation, but it looks like it is impossible. At the very beginning I stated that I am unable to believe in God, because “belief” is NOT a volitional action. One cannot choose to believe in something.
I would rather you did not attempt to psychoanalyze me, because it does not work.
Maybe because he is “just”?
This makes no sense whatsoever. I have chosen to believe in God, you have chosen not to. Yet, one cannot choose to believe in something? This is totaly illogical. Everyone chooses what they wish to believe and what they don’t.
I have not employed psychoanalysis. The “fear” factor that I have identified from reading many of your past posts did not require any sort of analysis. It jumped out at me. I do not say that my observation is correct. I merely say that it seems to be self-evident. In order to understand a person’s position on an issue, it is sometimes necessary to understand their motives.
This sounds like you are signing off on this thread. That’s O.K. We could chat till doomsday on this and never get anywhere. Allow me to say that this has been a very interesting thread, far more informative than most. I have learned much.
you can’t choose to be convinced of something. An atheist might argue that a God seems like an invention of man to escape the idea of oblivion at death. No amount of fear of of a possible hell is going to take away the suspicion that it all might not be real.
So tell me, how can you “choose” to believe in Santa Claus aginst your judgement that Santa is just an imaginary being? Can you do that, and attest with total sincerety that prior to this point you did not believe in Santa, but now you are able to believe in him? What mental exercise was able to wipe out your disbelief and change it to belief? If Santa is not a good example to you, choose whatever you deem a better one. Just choose something that you do not believe in, because you consider it total nonsense, go through the proper mental motions to change your disbelief to belief, and let me know about the steps. I will employ them and see where they lead.
Not necessarily, but we don’t seem to go anywhere. Nevertheless I enjoyed your (name removed by moderator)ut.
It’s more than that. As I pointed out, we have different definitions of happiness. I do not believe happiness is what modernists believe. Modernists believe happiness means “feeling good”. I side with the ancient Greek philosophers on this. Happiness, to me, means goodness itself, or in other words, “being good”. This only can come from grace, and thus a relationship with God. That’s why I don’t believe an atheist can ever attain true “happiness”, because they reject the existence of God. I don’t mean to offend anyone, least of all Hitetlen. Those are just my beliefs. With that being said, I will continue to do my best to love all atheists, and dialogue with them when they are open to it.
The Santa example is not a good choice. This example takes something that is demonstrably and irrefutably false and asks me how I can choose to believe it is true. So I will take you up on… “If Santa is not a good example to you, choose whatever you deem a better one.” I voted for George Bush, though I am not a Republican, I am a conservative. I disagree with the democratic party because it is mostly liberal, supports abortion, but specificaly because their hypocrisy has been downright loathesome. Therefore, I choose not to ally with them, to accept their platform or promises, or to vote for them. If, however, the Democratic party were to return to its roots, it could very well be possible that I could “choose” to support their candidates. (I would have voted for Sen. Barak Obama from Illinois if he were not fully in favor of abortion. If he became pro-life, I would certainly vote for him.) Nothing “forced” me to reject Obama at the polls. I could have overlooked his abortion stance and voted for him anyway for the sake of him being an “overall” better senatorial candidate.
How could I take something that is total nonsense and then somehow believe in it? If I were to find out at a later date that my perception of the subject I once considered nonsense was in error. When I was in the Air Force at tech school in Denver, I had a “run-in” with a guy named Joseph. It was one of those situations where we sort of bumped into each other awkwardly and it lead to a little friction between us that caused me to judge him as a complete jerk. I wholeheartedly “believed” that he was one of those guys that I could never deem with a sense of high regard. However, Lo and Behold, over a year later I met him on base in N. Carolina. As it turned out, though we went to different courses at Denver, we were both eventually assigned to Seymour Johnson AFB, N. Carolina. When I saw him walking in my direction down the sidewalk near the barracks, I though to myself, “Oh good Lord, here comes that nut Joe.”
We are going places, Hitetlen, just not where we intended to go.I have not caused you to become a believer, you have not caused me to become an atheist. If conversion was the intention of either of us, then we indeed have gotten nowhere. But conversion was not my original intention. I refuse to believe that neither you or I, or anyone else who participated in this thread, has gotten absolutly nothing out of this exchange of information and perceptions. in that light, we have gotten somewhere.
Well, this is a good point. It brings up the question, why do you think that the proposition of Santa is irrefutably false? Just because no one has ever seen Santa? Because traveling with the sled and visiting all those millions of children is nonsense in the light of our knowledge of natural laws? If you could convince yourself that Santa is magical, with all sorts of “supernatural” powers, you could start to believe in him.
This is a much better example. You believed that the guy in question has certain characteristics, and you were convinced that your perception is correct. Once you were exposed to the fact that you were wrong, you changed your opinion. (Which is very commendable, many people would refuse to consider new evidence.) I would like to point out that you would not have changed your opinion on other peoples’ testimony only (as you explicitly stated), you needed the personal reassurance that there is a reason to change your mind. I would venture to say that our approach is 100% identical. I don’t believe that the concept of God corresponds to an actual being, but I am willing to change my mind.
Not exactly: those would be necessary for me to know something. To believe something I don’t need ironclad facts, just something that lifts the concept in question out of the “sheer nonsense” category.
Absolutely! I agree with you. Especially the phrase “gut-feeling”.
That is where we disagree somewhat. Suppose I stated that I am able to skate and jump a single toe-loop (I cannot). You would weigh your knowledge about me, and about the chances that someone can jump a single toe-loop (Winter Olympics suggested this example), and may very well choose to believe or reject my assertion. In this case indeed there is a volitional process, and not much of a “gut-feeling”. However, if I asserted that I can jump a quintuple Axell (which no one has done yet), you would not even contemplate if you should believe me or not, your “gut-reaction” would take over, and reject my claim out of hand.
I sure hope so, if nothing else; then mutual understanding.
As it seems that this thread is reaching an end, I would like to summarize some positions held here in order to avoid common misconceptions regarding the existence of God and faith.
I agree with this reply. And I understand how you are applying this with your perception of God. But there is one point that still needs to be made.