View Full Version : Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
Godless
06-15-05, 06:18 PM
Dood you must be bored!. Tony 1 is a ghost, this thread has been dead for three years, And Tony1 long gone, with the other nut heads of the era, who frequent this board!.
G.
Dood you must be bored!. Tony 1 is a ghost, this thread has been dead for three years, And Tony1 long gone, with the other nut heads of the era, who frequent this board!.
G.Matters not; the question still stands, I still had a good laugh, and wherever Tony 1 is I still express my Christian love.
Medicine*Woman
06-15-05, 10:23 PM
MarcAC: Matters not; the question still stands, I still had a good laugh, and wherever Tony 1 is I still express my Christian love.
*************
M*W: MarcAC, there is no question about whom Jesus was or who you thought he was. He didn't exist. So, there is no salvation. What is the driving force that makes you believe you are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus H. Christ???
audible
06-16-05, 03:17 AM
So my "smart" atheist friends: a convivial atmosphere on the communal road to hell.
Get out of your atheist shells will you? Better yet - stay in them and go to hell. :)
I had a good laugh too, thanks. ROTFLMAO
what is it with you religious zealots, we dont believe in heaven or hell, so why do you constantly throw it at us as if you think we'd be scared. duh!
EarthlyVagabond
06-16-05, 06:45 PM
Even if this is an old thread I like the subject. I would have to say that the problem with the logic is that even if you know something, it doesn't always have an effect on it. We may know that God is real, but it doesn't make your opinion change if we tell you. God may know what you are going to do, but it doesn't mean that he is going to stop you if it's bad. Hence you have freewill. However, He still may want to save you from a Hell you don't necessarily believe in. That brought about Jesus and the meaning behind John 3:16. It is an unconditional love that gives a motherly quality to the father. Freewill exists so that God is not a dictator. He may say love me or die, but that is a spiritual death as happened in the Garden of Eden they surely did not physically die as evidenced by the human race, but they died spiritually. Anyway, you shouldn't be mad when we say you are going to Hell if you are an atheist. Hell is in essence a place with the absence of a God you don't believe in. So rejoice, even though you may be a little hot, you will at least finally be rid of the God you are already ignoring.
Darkman
06-17-05, 10:01 AM
Nice post earthlyvagabond
Cris, your reasoning on the original post id flawed. you have confused Omniscience and Coersion by Fate.
Just because I know what that my son will not listen to my advice and commands, desiring to break the law and hurt himself terribly, I still must give him the advice and commands. I do not force him by this to break the law or do wrong, but I still will his good, whats better for him, though he will not listen. He has Free Will, I cannot force vhim either way, although I already have foreknowledge of his choice.
jayleew
06-17-05, 12:06 PM
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.
Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
Proposal:
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.
Question:
If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.
Conclusions:
If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.
If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.
If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.
Cris
I am tired of debating this with non-Christians, if you want a detailed explanation, go to Who created God? in the forum. We talked about it there. In a nutshell: We can prove that we do (in fact) have free will. I can run my car into a pole if I wanted to, but I hope you all just take my word that I have free will, and you all have free will, and not make me prove it by driving into a pole. :eek:
So, the question is, does free will negate the existence of God. It depends on your understanding of free will.
No, having free will does not. Why not? Because I can give you advice on any given decision you are faced with, but the choice is still yours. I can tell you that you ought to believe in God, but you have the choice. That is what the Holy Spirit does (in a simplistic explanation). It gives advice, but it is deeper than that. Your definition of "Free Will" is incorrect.
How can a God be omniscient without having a predetermined destiny for each of us (which destroys free will)? He knows the infinite number of possibilities and the infinite number of possibilities that can arise from each possibility. He also knows our hearts which then he can apply probabilities to each possibility, in order to know the chances of us choosing a certain way.
I propose that God doesn't know what we will choose, but he knows our heart, and he knows what will happen if we choose option A or option B. His behavior in the past in scripture supports this concept that God hopes that we will choose His way:
God, who predetermined to wipe out the Isrealites and planned to build a nation of Moses long ago, changed his mind because Moses pleaded for them. Right there it shows that God knows what will happen if Moses chooses to plead and if not, but doesn't know which possibility we will choose. However, he does know the heart of man and knows who he can trust to make the right decision. These people are called, "Friends of God" I hope God calls me a friend, but I don't know.
Long story short...your definition of Free Will is incorrect.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives despite external coercion.
jayleew
06-17-05, 12:09 PM
MarcAC: Matters not; the question still stands, I still had a good laugh, and wherever Tony 1 is I still express my Christian love.
*************
M*W: MarcAC, there is no question about whom Jesus was or who you thought he was. He didn't exist. So, there is no salvation. What is the driving force that makes you believe you are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus H. Christ???
Because to us, the Scriptures are the only concrete evidence of God.
jayleew
06-17-05, 12:19 PM
I had a good laugh too, thanks. ROTFLMAO
what is it with you religious zealots, we dont believe in heaven or hell, so why do you constantly throw it at us as if you think we'd be scared. duh!
It is rather futile. Christians! Heed the words of Christ:
Matthew 7:
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
In other words, it is futile to discern the scriptures for those who do not want to hear. They will only beat the "crap" out of you.
Hell is in essence a place with the absence of a God you don't believe in. So rejoice, even though you may be a little hot, you will at least finally be rid of the God you are already ignoring.:D Exactly, the "argument" shall stand in hell. :D
Turduckin
06-17-05, 02:18 PM
Because to us, the Scriptures are the only concrete evidence of God.
This 'scripture only' view is not supported by scripture. Romans 1 starting at verse 18 - What may be known of God - even his invisible qualities - is clearly evident in creation.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives despite external coercion.Very true - determinists should pay attention to this.
TruthSeeker
06-17-05, 02:40 PM
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
A paradox is not a false statement- it is a true statement that is seemingly contradictory.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paradox
par·a·dox ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-dks)
n.
1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
2. One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: “The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears” (Mary Shelley).
3. An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
4. A statement contrary to received opinion.
Paradoxes are very common when you are discussing higher truths, since higher truths are all-inclusive and flexible.
jayleew
06-17-05, 03:03 PM
This 'scripture only' view is not supported by scripture. Romans 1 starting at verse 18 - What may be known of God - even his invisible qualities - is clearly evident in creation.
Maybe not, but it is what keeps my logical mind from saying that God doesn't exist. Whether we like it or not, a belief in God is irrational according to the mind of man (which is science, reason, etc.). The fact that there is a Bible, which is the only message that I can touch from God, is evidence to the logical minds that CHOOSE to believe. So, my faith has a foundation in Scriptures and not what the preacher says on Sunday.
It is rather futile. Christians! Heed the words of Christ:
Matthew 7:
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
In other words, it is futile to discern the scriptures for those who do not want to hear. They will only beat the "crap" out of you.
At least atheists do not constantly call you dogs, swine, snakes, etc and hope you go to "hell"
At least atheists do not constantly call you dogs, swine, snakes, etc and hope you go to "hell"After seeing two (2) of your posts I have two (2) pieces of evidence which can be used to demonstrate your need of a "Reading for Dummies" manual.
Did I insult you in a thread somewhere or are you just being an ass??
okinrus
06-17-05, 03:38 PM
The threads too long to know whether I'm repeating anything or not, but here goes.
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
No, omniscience is knowing everything, basically having complete knowledge. Knowledge is a creation of God. Whether God knows the future depends on whether the future is a part of knowledge and whether God creates knowledge within time or outside of time.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Again, you haven't really defined free will here? What's freedom?To me, free will is the rational explanation of justice and ourselves in that we can say "we chose to do something". But freedom, unlike free will, can be taken away. Freedom is the individual's ability to physically do something, while free will is the individual's ability to make choices, not necessarily acting on them. Obviously this definition isn't good either. I suspect free will can only be properely defined by given circular examples, for there exists no other concept quite like free will.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
OK, there are other definitions of the word paradox. Often a paradox occurs because the speaker hasn't properly defined every and each word. For example, the saying everyone who seeks to save their life will lose it is not a contradiction because what is meant by the sentence isn't a contradiction.
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.
Your definition, yes, but what does this mean?
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined.
As soon as we are able to make a choice, we have free will. Whether this choice is known beforehand doesn't take away the fact that we make choices.
Did I insult you in a thread somewhere or are you just being an ass??You can't insult me. :)
Turduckin
06-17-05, 03:49 PM
The fact that there is a Bible, which is the only message that I can touch from God, is evidence to the logical minds that CHOOSE to believe. So, my faith has a foundation in Scriptures and not what the preacher says on Sunday.
What about faith, before the printing press was invented?
jayleew
06-17-05, 03:53 PM
At least atheists do not constantly call you dogs, swine, snakes, etc and hope you go to "hell"
Of course, of course.
I am calling you nothing. Jesus was illustrating the point he was trying to make, so that the people could understand. I am trying to stop the preaching and get to the arguement, in a way that Christians do with one another. After all, God is at the center of all our relationships, so we respond to God's word.
I will not call you any name, because it is pointless to come to any conclusion if both sides of an argument bash each other and their statements without thinking first. Mudslinging is pointless to solving an arguement. Besides the fact, the moment I start judging you, is the moment I cease to be Christian.
jayleew
06-17-05, 03:58 PM
What about faith, before the printing press was invented?
With my mind...I don't think I would have been a Christian before the Bible. If there was no Bible...I don't think I would have faith, because the word is my strength of faith. The word is my food. Now, that I have tasted the Words of Life, my faith would not diminish if all the Bibles were destroyed.
I would have driven a nail in Jesus and spit on his face.
Turduckin
06-17-05, 04:08 PM
Now, that I have tasted the Words of Life, my faith would not diminish if all the Bibles were destroyed.
But if all the bibles were destroyed, how would you hear the word, how would you eat your food. Wouldn't you starve to death?
Cyperium
06-17-05, 06:25 PM
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.
Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
Proposal:
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.
Question:
If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.
Conclusions:
If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.
If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.
If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.
CrisFree will is free will, if your choice is to kill someone then that is your choice. If Saddam Hussein wants to murder someone, then that is his choice. God is well aware that people are suffering, and will suffer. But it is still our free will, our choice to limit that suffering as much as we can. The rain comes down on both good and evil.
No one can argue that they are puppets, since they aren't. As high as the sky is over the earth, that high is the thoughts of God higher than the thoughts of men. Free will is a gift from God. And it is free. The freedom may be limited by our limited nature, but that's not all that bad, since if it wasn't limited in any way we would be like water flowing in all directions, we must have feelings and the choice of acting according to these feelings if we choose to, or not acting, or go against the feelings even. Troublesome as it may appear that God knows your next move, it isn't really because He is so much higher that you can do anything and God will have forseen it anyway. That is not a limit to free will, it is you that make the choice. You have been given the choice.
Crunchy Cat
06-17-05, 06:56 PM
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.
Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
Proposal:
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.
Question:
If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.
Conclusions:
If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.
If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.
If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.
Cris
Cris,
You make an excellent argument (good job). If Omniscience becomes
voluntary then it doesn't work and if it is voluntary then it works great.
This causes a logic problem as 'God' could choose to limit its perfect
knowledge to a cross section of what's available.
Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Christians` God is not omniscient.
Godless
08-19-05, 09:18 AM
Christians` God is not omniscient.
Thanks for clarifying that! not only is "IT" not omniscient, "IT" Dont exist. "IT" is not omnipresent, nor omnipotent, but it is "NONEXISTENT". We knew!.
Godless
TruthSeeker
08-19-05, 01:02 PM
It "doesn't" exist, Godless.......
Why not? Should we listen to someone that doesn't know grammar on the subject of an all-knowing creature? :p
I'm just being mean... ;)
Godless
08-19-05, 11:18 PM
I put the "IT" between paranthesis, to imply god. The word "god" to me is an it, not a being, not an existent, but a word with no identity. No other way to describe such a concept. God is nothing more than the illusions of ancient schizophrenic men.
Godless
Thanks for clarifying that! not only is "IT" not omniscient, "IT" Dont exist. "IT" is not omnipresent, nor omnipotent, but it is "NONEXISTENT". We knew!.
Godless
How funny! "IT" does exist. If "IT" does not exist hypothetically speaking, why use "IT"?
TruthSeeker
08-20-05, 12:19 AM
I put the "IT" between paranthesis, to imply god. The word "god" to me is an it, not a being, not an existent, but a word with no identity. No other way to describe such a concept. God is nothing more than the illusions of ancient schizophrenic men.
Godless
You didn't pay attention to what I said, did you? :rolleyes:
I wasn't talking about the usage of "it"...
Can someone tell me where I can find "free will" in the bible? I tried to figure out where it is but I haven't been able to. Thanks.
It`s not written in the Bible. It`s written in your heart.
superluminal
08-20-05, 12:26 AM
enton,
You are beginning to look stupid.
enton,
You are beginning to look stupid.
How come?
superluminal
08-20-05, 01:27 AM
Well, giving answers like "it's written in your heart" has so many problems I can't begin to list them. I can give that kind of answer by randomly picking out sentences from any book of bad poetry.
Godless
08-20-05, 01:36 AM
I understood very well what Usaid, that my grammar is lousy. So fucking sue me!!.
I'm a highschooldropout, thatearnsanaverageof80000ayearinthestockmarket!!.
callitintuition,Idon'tunderstandthefreakingmathbeh indit;)
Godless
Well, giving answers like "it's written in your heart" has so many problems I can't begin to list them. I can give that kind of answer by randomly picking out sentences from any book of bad poetry.
By the way, I just mix illumining poetry. Don`t be mad because I am a poet
( http://www.poetrypoem.com/rholu ).
Cris and supporters,
Firstly I say that I disapprove of forums like this, and that we should be respecting all opinoins, not using it as an online battle ground. I am a firm believer in God by the way, and your paradoxal arguement regarding His omniscience and free will works only in our present level of consciousness. God is obviously beyond the physical plane, and will never ever leave physical evidence as to His existence - you or anyone else as long as they live will never be able to prove or disprove God's existence. Is it so difficult that He is just beyond our comprehension? If you think of us now as the peak of humanity and its intelligence you are very mistaken. To think that "God does not work in terms I understand, therefore He must not exist" is exactly what makes us human. His consciousness is infinite, and the dwarfed vision of men cannot even begin to perceive His divine state. Humans have free will, and God is omniscient. It is the task given to us to overcome our state of existence through choice to find God again.
KennyJC
11-13-05, 08:37 PM
Hello old thread.
A (Christian) God can not exist because 7 day creation did not happen.
Good Game and Good Night.
Hello old thread.
A (Christian) God can not exist because 7 day creation did not happen.
Good Game and Good Night.
I read somewhere that the word for "day" in Genesis can also be translated as "era" or "unspecified period of time."
TrueCreation
11-13-05, 09:01 PM
edited - This is an old thread, so im making a new one for this post to go in.
-Chris Grose
Medicine*Woman
11-13-05, 09:19 PM
I read somewhere that the word for "day" in Genesis can also be translated as "era" or "unspecified period of time."
**************
M*W: More correctly it is translated as "age," as in the end of the "age."
**************
M*W: More correctly it is translated as "age," as in the end of the "age."
Yes, that's it. So the Genesis account doesn't necessarily limit the Creation to 7 "24-hour days," but instead could be 7 "ages" of unknown amounts of time (millions of years, perhaps?).
TruthSeeker
11-13-05, 10:14 PM
The Bible should be translated all over again.... :rolleyes:
PsychoticEpisode
11-13-05, 10:32 PM
Days, eras, ages...what does it matter? The only thing thats important is to make it satisfy what science is discovering every day. So, are we on Day 6 since things are still happening out there in the universe, or are we on Day 7 and God's still on siesta or are we on Day 8 or more? Some days were obviously longer than others when you think of hominids only being around for 2 million years and the Earth is 4.5 billion. Just how long is a day in biblical parlance. Let's figure it out assuming all days are of equal length.
If God took day 7 off, that would mean the first 6 days took 4.5 billion minus 2 million= 4.498 billion years. So each of the first 6 days were 4.498 billion divided by 6 = 749,667,000 million years. That would mean that God must still be off duty and resting because his 7th day still has 747,667,000 years to go. Of course the days could be 3 times that if you start at the beginning of time 15 billion years ago. Did the bible specify some days longer than others? It would have to be so because there are 10.5 billion years from light to the Earth creation. Biblical scholars are wonderful philosophers but lousy mathematicians.
Paraclete
11-13-05, 10:43 PM
Just saw this one -I must admit I have not read all the postings - too many !!
I promise that on this beauty I will ONLY use my philosophically skills !!
Cris, you claim, that the Christian God do not exist !!
It actually looks like both your proposal and reasoning holds water ...
Con gratulations.....
Then your question , OK ...
Conclusion 1: The first part is OK - you actually proves that God has no benevolence as you know benevolence, if he is omniscient - but then you jump to the conclusion that he is not worth our attention , I disagree : not all christians believe, that God is good as humans understand good.
Why do you think that God has benevolence as you know it - he loves to punish people :
He created Adam and Eve knowing they would eat his apples and kicked them out Paradise.
He created the people in the time of Noah - knowing they would sin and killed them by flooding the world.
He created the people of Sodom and Gomorrah , knowing they would sin and burned off their cities including the people .
He knew the people he created in Egypt would do wrong and send them the plagues.
God is still a bloody interesting creation and deserves our attention ........
This only proofs that God does what HE likes, and may not have the same ethics about good and evil as humans have ..
AND NOTICE THIS :
If Philosopher´s Stone is right about souls not feeling pain but just feel a little different when burning in fire - then actually God has benevolence because it is then NOT evil to let humans go to Hell !!!!!!!!!!!!
Conclusion 2: Yes , you actually proves that God do not exist if we have free will .
Con gratulation Cris - that is actually interesting ...
Conclusion 3) hmm , I am not sure this is good Cris , it is true that you prove that we are puppets in the hand of an evil monster (as you understand evil ). But now you jump to conclusions again , IF there are Christians that might accept God like that (God does what he wants and has no benevolence as you understand it ) ,then the choice is NOT nonsense, and after all they do not have any choice but accepting it, if it is Gods will , since in this case they do NOT have free will - do you see the logic ....
Or even worse - if Philosopher´s Stone is right with his souls not feeling pain - then God HAS benevolence, because it is not evil to condem humans to hell !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And then your proof has failed - then God DO indeed exist, omniscient,omnipotent and with benevolence ..... !!!!!
Cris - I think your proof is in dire strait !!!!!!! Please help me out on this one ,Cris !!!
Or even worse - if Philosopher´s Stone is right with his souls not feeling pain - then God HAS benevolonce, because it is not evil to condem humans to hell !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or, hell is very painful but only a temporary condition and God will forgive whoever repents eventually. The only people for whom hell is truly eternal and forever are the devil and his angels (including the "sons of perdition" who defect to the devil's side in mortality). The rest of us have hope and God is benevolent.
Or, hell is very painful but only a temporary condition and God will forgive whoever repents eventually. The only people for whom hell is truly eternal and forever are the devil and his angels (including the "sons of perdition" who defect to the devil's side in mortality). The rest of us have hope and God is benevolent.
I forgot to put this in:
Of course, to avoid hell altogether, we need to repent in this life and obey God's commandments, because if we procrastinate repentance, we may find ourselves unable to repent. Without repentance there can be no forgiveness, so it is vital for us to repent while in this life.
philosopher´s stone
11-13-05, 11:28 PM
Oh my God !!!!!!!
Cris, Cris, Cris, Cris - come and read this one !!!
This is a very,very good thread !!
Cris , your proof is a true beauty - I bow to yeh !!!!!!!!!!
But I actually think Paraclete did the impossible - he trumped it !!!!!!!!!!!!
Paraclete I have only one question : Are you God ?
BVS,
Hi and welcome to sciforums.
Firstly I say that I disapprove of forums like this, and that we should be respecting all opinoins,Why? Why respect someone’s opinion if you believe it to be wrong. One can still have respect for the person and at the same time prove their opinions to be nonsense.
not using it as an online battle ground.If religion is fundamentally dangerous to the future of humanity, as many of us believe, and religionists say otherwise, then we have a battle – online and offline, whether you think it good or not.
I am a firm believer in God by the way, Then I would recommend you take a course on logic so that you might be able to think more clearly.
and your paradoxal arguement regarding His omniscience and free will works only in our present level of consciousness.It is simple logic applied to current Christian mythology. You will need to change the myth if you want it to be logically consistent.
God is obviously beyond the physical plane, What does that mean and why is it obvious?
and will never ever leave physical evidence as to His existence Why not? Why would something apparently all-powerful want to hide?
you or anyone else as long as they live will never be able to prove or disprove God's existence.The logic speaks for itself. Do you want to redefine your god so that it becomes a logical possibility but with reduced abilities then?
Is it so difficult that He is just beyond our comprehension?That is the agnostic position. Theists claim otherwise. Or rather when faced with very awkward questions they claim their god is so mysterious that it cannot be understood – basic cop-out. That’s the problem with fantasies with no empirical basis; they fall apart when examined closely – which happens with every known major religion.
If you think of us now as the peak of humanity and its intelligence you are very mistaken.Umm, our current state is the peak of humanity and human intelligence. Prior to us in the evolutionary chain were our primate ancestors who had less complex brains. In the future as we develop better skills with genetic engineering we are quite likely to intelligently direct our future evolution and dramatically increase our current level of intelligence. But for now we are the most intelligent species on this planet.
To think that "God does not work in terms I understand, therefore He must not exist" is exactly what makes us human.Can you demonstrate my proof to be wrong then?
His consciousness is infinite, and the dwarfed vision of men cannot even begin to perceive His divine state.Yet he cannot escape simple logic though. He is constrained by the same rules as are we, e.g. he cannot make a square circle and neither can we. And in this case we cannot have free will if he is omniscient.
Humans have free will, and God is omniscient. Which we have shown is impossible. You can choose one or the other but not both. They are mutually exclusive.
It is the task given to us to overcome our state of existence through choice to find God again.According to Christian mythology, but unfortunately the tenets of Christianity described in this thread are paradoxical – i.e. the basis of Christianity is nonsense.
Paraclete,
Cris, you claim, that the Christian God do not exist !!Not quite. Only as defined within the claims of Christianity. If they were to amend their mythology to avoid the paradox then they can still claim a god of some type.
Conclusion 1: The first part is OK - you actually proves that God has no benevolence if he is omniscient - but then you jump to the conclusion that he is not worth our attention , I disagree : not all christians believe, that God is good Why then worship a malignant god? But does my opinion alter the prior logic?
Why do you think that God has benevolence - he loves to punish people :……..…This only proofs that God does what HE likes, and may not have the same ethics about good and evil as humans have ..And parents punish their children and we put people in prison, all in the hope that they will learn. You are confusing a mechanism with an ultimate result. One could argue that he would punish millions so that a greater good would be served ultimately. But that wasn’t my point. If omniscient and the creator then he would have designed every instant from the beginning of time to the end. Why then choose some to be eternal and some to perish where they could have no say in their ultimate fate? This is basic injustice and could not be seen as being in accord with omni-benevolence, which is part of the definition of the Christian god. See the Catholic Encyclopedia for this.
If Philosopher´s Stone is right about souls not feeling pain but just feel a little different when burning in fire - then actually God has benevolence because it is then NOT evil to let humans go to Hell According to the bible hell means permanent death – it is not a place where people suffer eternally, their souls simple cease to exist, consumed by the lake of fire. The apparent selection by God is that some will live eternally and another group will cease to exist – decided at the beginning of time before we had a chance to have any say in the matter.
.. IF there are Christians that might accept God like that (God does what he wants and has no benevolence as you understand it ) ,then the choice is NOT nonsense, and after all they do not have any choice but accepting it, if it is Gods will , since in this case they do NOT have free will - do you see the logic ....I think you would need to give an example of any Christain who would accept that their god is not omni-benelovent and even then this would have to be a minor cult. If we take the generally accepted perspectve that the Christian god is all-good then you have no case.
And then your proof has failed - then God DO indeed exist, omniscient, omnipotent and with benevolence ..... !!!!!
Cris - I think your proof is in dire strait !!!!!!! LOL – dream on. Ultimately good must mean life and evil must mean permanent non existence. If he is omni-benevolent then no one can be terminated, at least not without being given a choice, and that cannot occur if he is omniscient and created everything.
philo,
But I actually think Paraclete did the impossible - he trumped it !!!!!!!!!!!! Umm - I don't think so.
Marlin,
Yes, that's it. So the Genesis account doesn't necessarily limit the Creation to 7 "24-hour days," but instead could be 7 "ages" of unknown amounts of time (millions of years, perhaps?). The bible says days and we have no evidence it meant anything other than what we know as a day.
Attempts to rationalise this so that it fits the known facts of evolution are signs of desperate theologians trying to deal with the imposibility of the A&E story yet still trying to claim it as true somehow.
TrueCreation
11-14-05, 12:39 AM
Cris, im curious to see what your thoughts are in this thread, this one is somewhat old and is getting very long: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50075
Marlin,
The bible says days and we have no evidence it meant anything other than what we know as a day.
Attempts to rationalise this so that it fits the known facts of evolution are signs of desperate theologians trying to deal with the imposibility of the A&E story yet still trying to claim it as true somehow.
The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1:
Genesis 40:4 Translates as "a season"
Judges 11:4 Translates as "in the process of time"
And in LDS scripture (Pearl of Great Price):
Abraham 4:5,8 The Gods called the creation periods "days"
Paraclete
11-14-05, 01:04 AM
Cris ,
your headline is :" Proof that the Christian God can not exist " so that MUST be your main claim !!!!
Perhaps you should start with defining what you think is the " Christian " God , because there are really a lot of different so called christian churches where God is perceived different - incredible but true . If you mean the catholic perception of God then say so !!
By the way you are absolutely right in your paradox, so of course you can not have human free will and a omniscient God at the same time. I understand that very well - but your issue was : to proof that the christian God can not exist.
You claim that according to the bible hell means permanent death, where the souls cease to exist - please inform me where in the bible is that written !!!!!!!!!
And in your answer to philosopher´s stone about souls feeling pain - you claim that going to heaven means coming back to the earth again - that sounds not like the bible to me.
It sounds like reincarnation !!!
And before you edited your posting again ,then you claimed that you did not even understand my logic in conclusion 3 -
I am not surprised Cris , I am not surprised !!!!!!!!!
And in your answer to philosopher´s stone about souls feeling pain - you claim that going to heaven means coming back to the earth again - that sounds not like the bible to me.
It sounds like reincarnation !!!
Matt. 5:5
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Have the meek inherited the earth yet? I don't think so. This verse obviously refers to a time in the future, and that time hasn't come yet. Sounds like the earth will be heaven if the meek inherit it in the end.
Marlin,
The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1:
Genesis 40:4 Translates as "a season"That ref gives no definition of a day. Do you have the correct ref?
Judges 11:4 Translates as "in the process of time"Also does not appear to define a day.
And in LDS scripture (Pearl of Great Price):
Abraham 4:5,8 The Gods called the creation periods "days"LDS scriptures are not bible references.
Truecreation - yes, I've seen your post and read it - thinking of a suitable reply. I have something slightly differnt and trying to think how it would fit.
Your'e right this is a very old thread.
The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1:
“ Genesis 40:4 Translates as "a season"
That ref gives no definition of a day. Do you have the correct ref?
No, no, no. It doesn't define a day--rather, the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1 for "day" is translated by the King James Version people as "a season" in Genesis 40:4. And the same word appears in the KJV as "in the process of time" rather than as "day" in Judges.
Paraclete
11-14-05, 01:56 AM
Cris your conclusion 1 in your first post in this thread , is ONLY valid if christians agree that it is an evil act of God to send people to hell (you define under "question" in your first point : hell as ethernal damnation since it is the opposite of heaven - in your question) )
If Christians do not find it evil of God to send humans to Hell - then Conclusion 1 and 3 are both wrong !!!
You can not run away from that one ................
Marlin - using my RSV I cannot see that either of those references have any relevance. I.e. "some time", "after a time". Are you saying those references to time and the references to "day" in Genesis all mean "season"?
Paraclete,
your headline is :" Proof that the Christian God can not exist " so that MUST be your main claim !!!!Attention grabber. Read the Proposal at the beginning of the thread -
Proposal:
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
there are really a lot of different so called christian churches where God is perceived different - incredible but true . If you mean the catholic perception of God then say so !!I believe all main sects of Christianity share the same basic definitions of their God – i.e. omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent. They have taken these early assumptions and definition from early Catholic records. Now I’d be interested if you can show any main sect has different definitions or does not agree with these rather basic ideas.
You claim that according to the bible hell means permanent death, where the souls cease to exist - please inform me where in the bible is that written !!!!!!!!!’fraid you’d ask – came out of a long debate here on the issue – all centered around what Revelations meant. I’ll have to dig again.
And in your answer to philosopher´s stone about souls feeling pain - you claim that going to heaven means coming back to the earth again - that sounds not like the bible to me.Not the layman’s perspective, but Revelations has it. It was very controversial when we discussed it and I didn’t agree with it until a bit later.
And before you edited your posting again ,then you claimed that you did not even understand my logic in conclusion 3 - I am not surprised Cris , I am not surprised !!!!!!!!!That window was but a few seconds. Not quote sure what you are surprised by though. Your logic or my initial non-understanding.
Marlin - using my RSV I cannot see that either of those references have any relevance. I.e. "some time", "after a time". Are you saying those references to time and the references to "day" in Genesis all mean "season"?
The question we are discussing is, does the word "day" in Genesis chapter 1 have alternate meanings besides "one 24-hour period of time"? Or does it just have one meaning?
The answer is, the word for "day" in Hebrew has several meanings, and thus, the Genesis creation account can be interpreted as having seven "periods of time" wherein God created the world, rather than seven 24-hour days. This is to prove that an old-earth creation story may be supported by the Genesis account.
Here is what Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible has to say about the definition of the Hebrew word for day:
"day (24 hours); daytime (in contrast to night); by extension: an indefinite period of time; an era with a certain characteristic, such as "the day of the Lord" and the prophetic "on that day";" etc.
philosopher´s stone
11-14-05, 02:26 AM
Cris - I think you fail to see the gravity of your situation.
It clearly follows both logical and philosophical from the whole construction of your very first post on this thread - that your first and third conclusion will be wrong if
God is not perceived as "unjust, evil , perverted " for sending "individuals " to hell .....
Try to to read your first post very carefully - cris .....
philosopher´s stone
11-14-05, 02:35 AM
I only mean it logically and philosphically - If Paraclete finds any kind of "ammo" in finding some "christians " who do not perceive God being evil for sending individuals
to hell - then your first and third conclusion is flawed !!!!!!!!!
philosopher´s stone
11-14-05, 02:37 AM
Your paradox is still good though - cris !!!!!!!
It is a Paradox !!!
Paraclete,
Cris your conclusion 1 in your first post in this thread , is ONLY valid if christians agree that it is an evil act of God to send people to hell (you define under "question" in your first point : hell as ethernal damnation since it is the opposite of heaven - in your question) )
If Christians do not find it evil of God to send humans to Hell - then Conclusion 1 and 3 are both wrong !!!
You can not run away from that one ................I don’t see that it is important or necessary for Christians to agree on what is evil or not. For the sake of this argument the position must be independent of their opinions. If you have a point then it hinges on what is meant by omni-benevolence which I have taken to mean “all-good”, i.e. cannot do harm - and causing billions of people to cease to exist is the worst harm possible, surely, i.e. evil. As for “eternal damnation”, read “permanent death”. But either works well as a suitable example of evil and doesn’t change the logic of the argument. Heaven means life and hell means death – those are the opposites.
philo,
that your first and third conclusion will be wrong if
God is not perceived as "unjust, evil , perverted " for sending "individuals " to hell .....The argument doesn't rest on Christian opinions, but should specifically exclude them. In absolute terms, and the key to the argument, is the apparent arbitrary choice by the god of letting some to live and the others to die without giving them any chocie of their destinies.
Would you not consider the action of anything that arbitrarily causes the existence of billions or trillions of people to cease as evil?
Cris, where do you get the idea that evil people cease to exist after death? That is false doctrine.
finewine
11-14-05, 03:12 AM
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.
Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
Proposal:
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.
Question:
If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.
Conclusions:
If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.
If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.
If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.
Cris
Dear Cris,
You minimalize GOD into your own understanding and box him into your finite understanding known as human intelligence.
It is quite easy for GOD to be omniscient and man to have free will if you do not lock yourself into the confinement of time.
Think on that if you will in your intellectual wisdom.
It is such a shame that you should think yourself so much greater than GOD that you can say he is NOT worth your attention when HE in fact loves you so greatly that you are worth HIS greatest and most unswerving attention to give HIS very life for you, and you are but a miniscule bacterium compared to HIM.
Obviously, this is important to you and you give it your attention. Why is that?
KennyJC
11-14-05, 06:42 AM
I read somewhere that the word for "day" in Genesis can also be translated as "era" or "unspecified period of time."
Ah how convenient, but I'll give you that one.
Lets move on to the next one then, Adam and Eve never existed, in fact we evolved from the simplest of organic molecules. Chistian creation never happened therefor there can not be a Christian God.
philosopher´s stone
11-14-05, 08:06 AM
Cris , you ask me , if God´s action - which YOU believe is ending large numbers of individuals existence - is evil or not.
Any opponent with rhetorical skills could answer like this :
1) I do NOT agree that God ends the existance of individuals - according to my belief and many others the souls are immortal and have a happy time in hell , not feeling pain !!
And your claim that God ends the existance of individuals by ceasing their souls, are to my best knowledge, not founded in the Bible .....
That was one way to answer it , Cris , and do not get me wrong - I do not believe in anything myself - I am simply playing the devils advocate/lawyer in a philosophical play of words. This is like a chessgame with word for me - nothing less nothing more !!
The other way a rhetorical skilled opponent could answer your question :
2)Yes , I do agree that God ceases the existence of people - but that is not evil by God.
Let us take an example : an individual with a mortal uncurable painfull disease - many christians in my country think that euthanasia is acceptable - and in Holland it is legal - so there might be such a thing as ceasing an individual - without it beeing evil !!!!!
God might think that for instance your life with mental and religious agony searching for a true answer (you are searching for a church - and under your name it says that
you also are searching for immortallity ) - might be a mortal painfull uncurabel condition - and puts you out of misery together with trillions other individuals !!
I am only making an example of how the answers could be to your question - NOTHING
personal !!!!
Only a chessgame of words and logic !!!!!
Peace !!
philo,
God might think that for instance your life with mental and religious agony searching for a true answer (you are searching for a church - and under your name it says that
you also are searching for immortallity ) - might be a mortal painfull uncurabel condition - and puts you out of misery together with trillions other individuals !!Now add in the rationale that the god designed and created everything. If we are somehow faulty that can only be because of its faulty design. But it is meant to be perfect and can do no wrong - so we cannot become faulty. In that scenario the choice to keep some and destroy others appears no more than the god's pleasurebale whim. I would suggest that to destroy people for pleasure is evil.
philo,
I do NOT agree that God ends the existance of individuals - according to my belief and many others the souls are immortal and have a happy time in hell , not feeling pain !!The idea that people are happy in hell is not a common belief. The primary concept of hell is an ultimate punisment, either eternal suffering or permanent death, doesn't matter which for this argument. I could imagine extreme mental anguish to be an appropriate punishment if you want to maintain your idea that pain is not possible.
Marlin,
Cris, where do you get the idea that evil people cease to exist after death? That is false doctrine. Do you understand the two deaths issue? Hell is the grave where we all go and the second death is where those judged unworthy are thrown into the lake of fire for permanent destruction.
Basic Christian doctrine - accept Jesus as your savior and you will achieve eternal life, otherwise you will die, and here it is spiritual death.
BVS
God is obviously beyond the physical plane, and will never ever leave physical evidence as to His existence
Then, if no physical evidence is available, how would anyone know a god exists?
His consciousness is infinite, and the dwarfed vision of men cannot even begin to perceive His divine state. Humans have free will, and God is omniscient.
Those statements contradict your argument. How do you know if no physical evidence is available?
Godless
11-14-05, 10:55 AM
according to my belief and many others the souls are immortal and have a happy time in hell , not feeling pain !!
That is quite a belief, now all you really have to do is prove that such a thing as a soul exist? What is a soul?. What do you mean by this term?
Godless
Finewine,
Hi and welcome to sciforums.
You minimalize GOD into your own understanding and box him into your finite understanding known as human intelligence.No, it is simple logic applied to irrational Christian mythology.
It is quite easy for GOD to be omniscient and man to have free will if you do not lock yourself into the confinement of time.If you believe it so then please explain how.
Think on that if you will in your intellectual wisdom.I have and it makes no difference to the logic. If you believe there is a problem then please explain.
It is such a shame that you should think yourself so much greater than GOD that you can say he is NOT worth your attention when HE in fact loves you so greatly that you are worth HIS greatest and most unswerving attention to give HIS very life for you, and you are but a miniscule bacterium compared to HIM.If he is evil as I have demonstrated he must be if he exists then I am vastly superior to him.
Obviously, this is important to you and you give it your attention. Why is that?Surely the demonstration of the probable non-existence of the Christian god must be important to Christians. It should dramatically affect their life beliefs. It makes no difference to my outlook since I already find Christian claims unbelievable.
TruthSeeker
11-14-05, 01:44 PM
If God took day 7 off, that would mean the first 6 days took 4.5 billion minus 2 million= 4.498 billion years. So each of the first 6 days were 4.498 billion divided by 6 = 749,667,000 million years. That would mean that God must still be off duty and resting because his 7th day still has 747,667,000 years to go.
Aaaaaaaahhh...!!!
THAT explain why the world is in such a deplorable state! God is off duty and resting!!! :p :D
Yaba Daba!:m:
TruthSeeker
11-14-05, 01:50 PM
Just saw this one -I must admit I have not read all the postings - too many !!
I promise that on this beauty I will ONLY use my philosophically skills !!
Cris, you claim, that the Christian God do not exist !!
It actually looks like both your proposal and reasoning holds water ...
Con gratulations.....
Then your question , OK ...
Conclusion 1: The first part is OK - you actually proves that God has no benevolence as you know benevolence, if he is omniscient - but then you jump to the conclusion that he is not worth our attention , I disagree : not all christians believe, that God is good as humans understand good.
Why do you think that God has benevolence as you know it - he loves to punish people :
He created Adam and Eve knowing they would eat his apples and kicked them out Paradise.
He created the people in the time of Noah - knowing they would sin and killed them by flooding the world.
He created the people of Sodom and Gomorrah , knowing they would sin and burned off their cities including the people .
He knew the people he created in Egypt would do wrong and send them the plagues.
God is still a bloody interesting creation and deserves our attention ........
This only proofs that God does what HE likes, and may not have the same ethics about good and evil as humans have ..
AND NOTICE THIS :
If Philosopher´s Stone is right about souls not feeling pain but just feel a little different when burning in fire - then actually God has benevolence because it is then NOT evil to let humans go to Hell !!!!!!!!!!!!
Conclusion 2: Yes , you actually proves that God do not exist if we have free will .
Con gratulation Cris - that is actually interesting ...
Conclusion 3) hmm , I am not sure this is good Cris , it is true that you prove that we are puppets in the hand of an evil monster (as you understand evil ). But now you jump to conclusions again , IF there are Christians that might accept God like that (God does what he wants and has no benevolence as you understand it ) ,then the choice is NOT nonsense, and after all they do not have any choice but accepting it, if it is Gods will , since in this case they do NOT have free will - do you see the logic ....
Or even worse - if Philosopher´s Stone is right with his souls not feeling pain - then God HAS benevolence, because it is not evil to condem humans to hell !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And then your proof has failed - then God DO indeed exist, omniscient,omnipotent and with benevolence ..... !!!!!
Cris - I think your proof is in dire strait !!!!!!! Please help me out on this one ,Cris !!!
Oh.... my.... God................ :eek: :bugeye: :p
“ Cris, where do you get the idea that evil people cease to exist after death? That is false doctrine.
Do you understand the two deaths issue? Hell is the grave where we all go and the second death is where those judged unworthy are thrown into the lake of fire for permanent destruction.
Basic Christian doctrine - accept Jesus as your savior and you will achieve eternal life, otherwise you will die, and here it is spiritual death.
Yes, I understand that for the wicked, there is a second death, a spiritual death. However, this doesn't end their existence; it simply puts them in a state of separation from God. They die pertaining to righteousness. But their spirits go on, and as 1 Cor. 15:21-23 tells us, "as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive."
Here is a web page explaining spiritual death:
Spiritual Death (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/afterlife/spiritualdeath.htm)
Marlin,
Mormonism doesn't really help with issues about Christianity or the bible.
The bible talks of two deaths - the first is the grave (hell) where we all go when we die. Everyone is then resurected and for those who fail judgement they will expereince the second and final death - the lake of fire. Those that live will inherit the earth.
That's an oversimplifcation of a very long thread here where we had a well grounded decent Christian biblical scholar - he was incredibly irritating but pulled many biblical texts together without sectarian interpretation. In the end I found his perspective on the mythology convincing.
Mormonism doesn't really help with issues about Christianity or the bible.
More ironic words haven't been spoken, since Mormonism IS true Christianity.
TruthSeeker
11-14-05, 04:29 PM
More ironic words haven't been spoken, since Mormonism IS true Christianity.
Oh yeah! Sure! Considering that it was created thousands of years after the Bible was put together and it completely ignore and mix many different parts of it..... :rolleyes:
Oh yeah! Sure! Considering that it was created thousands of years after the Bible was put together and it completely ignore and mix many different parts of it..... :rolleyes:
Mormonism, or rather, the true Church of Jesus Christ, has existed before the world began, eternally.
TruthSeeker
11-14-05, 04:34 PM
*cough cough....
You only say that because you want to have many wives and f*** many girls at the same time..... :rolleyes:
*cough cough....
You only say that because you want to have many wives and f*** many girls at the same time..... :rolleyes:
Nope. I only want one wife. Ever.
And the Church hasn't practiced polygamy since 1890. And it excommunicates those who practice it. ...rolleyes yourself. :rolleyes:
Marlin,
More ironic words haven't been spoken, since Mormonism IS true Christianity. LOL. Dream on kiddo.
Marlin,
LOL. Dream on kiddo.
You'll find out for yourself someday, Cris.
TrueCreation
11-14-05, 06:11 PM
Truecreation - yes, I've seen your post and read it - thinking of a suitable reply. I have something slightly differnt and trying to think how it would fit.
Your'e right this is a very old thread.
Thanks, I look forward to your response.
-Chris Grose
Marlin,
You'll find out for yourself someday.Nope. I already know for sure about LDS. If you take a look at the big picture of world religions then LDS is just a minor perversion. Its attempt at rationalizing Christianity is creative but futile.
macabre
11-14-05, 07:10 PM
Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread, and maybe I should have but here it goes. God knowing everything and us having free will are not a contridiction. God doesn't determine what we are going to do, He just knows what we will do. God knows what choices we will make but it is up to us to make the choices. God did not decide them for me.
KennyJC
11-14-05, 07:46 PM
Nobody ever answers any of my replies which are solid facts which say at the very least, religion is false.
If you are inclined to believe in a God, why not believe in a God, rather than believing in a religion? There is a dramatic difference between the two, and I wish people would click to that.
I for one am on the fence as to wether or not a 'God' exists, but I also have the common sense to know that no religion developed by mankind represents our god (IF there is one). Why can't people see that? People can function quite well as athiest or agnostic - It seems people have the most problems thinking for themselves as theists, so why waste more of your short life on a fairy tale?
Macabre,
It's very simple - if every action you will ever make is known well before you are born then where is your free will to do anything other than those pre-determined actions?
Marlin,
Nope. I already know for sure about LDS. If you take a look at the big picture of world religions then LDS is just a minor perversion. Its attempt at rationalizing Christianity is creative but futile.
Gee, for someone who doesn't even "know for sure" that there is a God, how can you "know [anything] for sure"? What are your criteria for "knowing for sure" about anything?
KennyJC
11-14-05, 08:19 PM
The same goes to anyone who knows for sure there is a God, many think 7 day creation and Adam and Eve are scientific fact.
As someone who neither disbelives or belives, I think there is only one solution, to explore our universe and expand our minds. Christianity has historically and to the presant day, been against this.
Marlin,
Gee, for someone who doesn't even "know for sure" that there is a God, how can you "know [anything] for sure"? What are your criteria for "knowing for sure" about anything? That's difficult but for Mormonism it is extremly easy - it is such an obvious fraud - it doesn't need a second thought.
Marlin,
That's difficult but for Mormonism it is extremly easy - it is such an obvious fraud - it doesn't need a second thought.
Remember those words when you come before the throne of God to be judged. It is His religion, He restored it through Joseph Smith, and He will show you that it's true.
If Cris, truly and absolutly did not believe in God he would not be posting. He'd be off doing other things then trifling with the non-existant God. Or concepts. But it's the antagonizing inability to quench the thirst for truth that lies in the center of his soul--that keeps him here--momentarily he's freed from the hunger and thirst, gripping to the logic and ideas of no God, but the fabric and fiber of his immortal spirit will not let him rest. Neither in time or in eternity, until this doubt is resolved.
The murmuring and simple doubt; That he could be completely and entirely wrong. From there, only one of two things can happen. He either summons God, or God summons him.
In the end every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess.
Marlin,
Remember those words when you come before the throne of God to be judged. Don't be silly no worthwhile god is going to be using a throne. What an infantile notion.
It is His religion, Again a silly idea. A real god wouldn't use such a dumb idea as religion.
He restored it through Joseph Smith, LOL - How can you be so naive and gullible as to be so totally brainwashed by a proven charlatan?
and He will show you that it's true. Dream on - that is all you have.
Cris, time will tell. I'm completely confident that the LDS Church is true. You'll find out eventually.
Nisus,
If Cris, truly and absolutly did not believe in God he would not be posting. I am lazy. My background is science, but science is hard. The religion forum offers me very easy pickings since religion is such a dumb thing.
He'd be off doing other things then trifling with the non-existant God. How can one trifle with something non-existent?
But it's the antagonizing inability to quench the thirst for truth that lies in the center of his soulIt is not a search for truth that keeps me here but the comedy of religion.
but the fabric and fiber of his immortal spirit will not let him rest.Don’t be silly – there are no such things as souls.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. -- Albert Einstein
Neither in time or in eternity, until this doubt is resolved.I have no doubt about the idiocy, childishness, and fallacy of religions like Christianity, but I live in hope that someone here might present something credible and believable. If I am at fault it is because my eternal optimism allows me to hope that reason and common sense will eventually prevail, and current religions don’t come close.
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. -- Albert Einstein
The murmuring and simple doubt; That he could be completely and entirely wrong. Now you are dreaming. That someone could so totally dismiss the utter foolishness that you hold so true is apparently beyond your comprehension.
From there, only one of two things can happen. He either summons God, or God summons him.Again don’t be so silly – the gods of the so called revealed religions are pure fantasy and quite absurd.
The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. -- John Adams
I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine. -- Charles Darwin
TruthSeeker
11-14-05, 10:29 PM
Cris, time will tell. I'm completely confident that the LDS Church is true. You'll find out eventually.
If that was true, I would kill myself.
...
...
Wait.... that wouldn't work in this case... :o :(
TruthSeeker
11-14-05, 10:32 PM
Nope. I only want one wife. Ever.
And the Church hasn't practiced polygamy since 1890. And it excommunicates those who practice it. ...rolleyes yourself. :rolleyes:
What is Mormonism without poligamy!? It's like Christmas with no Santa!
I mean.... that's what DEFINES Mormonism...
No fun!
...
No 72 virgins waiting for you in heaven...?
Yaba Daba :m:
TruthSeeker
11-16-05, 12:45 AM
Exactly.
What is Mormonism without poligamy!? It's like Christmas with no Santa!
I mean.... that's what DEFINES Mormonism...
No fun!
...
No 72 virgins waiting for you in heaven...?
Yaba Daba :m:
So the Mormons are sinners if they practice polygamy, and "no fun" when they outlaw the practice?
Doo, indeed.
But why would polygamy be considered sinful? I admit I don't know if there is a biblical reference on this but I don't remember one off-hand.
Having many wives seems emminently sensible.
But why would polygamy be considered sinful? I admit I don't know if there is a biblical reference on this but I don't remember one off-hand.
Having many wives seems emminently sensible.
It's a double standard. Just like the Pharisees of Jesus' and Paul's day, some self-righteous people venerate the ancient prophets and blow raspberries at the modern ones. In other words, it's perfectly okay for Old Testament prophets to have many wives, because after all, they lived long ago. But introduce the element of time and immediacy and it's suddenly the worst, most sinful abomination ever practiced, one in which only lecherous and adulterous people would consider practicing.
I don't see TruthSeeker condemning Father Abraham for polygamy, yet he practiced it and was not condemned for it by God.
That's because the issue is not that it was sinful (it certainly has no reason for being exceptionally abominable), but that it was a novelty propagated under the banner of revelation, and accepted as such in specific contradiction to the New Testament.
It's simply easier for Mormons to treat it as an attack on their morality (and for anti-Mormons to use it that way) than it is to see it as an example of what Christians consider the danger of Mormonism: that novelty is justified by revelation and ancient precedent, rather than responsibly in recognition of the work of the Spirit (who has been an active and constant companion to Christianity since Jesus breathed on his apostles).
Since it was a central doctrine of Mormonism that has been retracted under pressure, it inevitably casts a shadow on other novelties. We see it as an issue of credibility rather than morality.
'The real reason I cannot be in communion with you is... that to accept your Church means not to accept a given body of doctrine but to accept in advance any doctrine that your Church hereafter produces'. - CS Lewis
That's because the issue is not that it was sinful (it certainly has no reason for being exceptionally abominable), but that it was a novelty propagated under the banner of revelation, and accepted as such in specific contradiction to the New Testament.
Likewise, Christianity was propagated under the banner of teachings and revelations, and accepted as such in specific contradiction to the Old Testament regarding the Law of Moses and circumcision. The first century Jews certainly saw Christianity as being in great contrast, perhaps even blasphemic, to their laws and scriptures.
It's simply easier for Mormons to treat it as an attack on their morality (and for anti-Mormons to use it that way) than it is to see it as an example of what Christians consider the danger of Mormonism: that novelty is justified by revelation and ancient precedent, rather than responsibly in recognition of the work of the Spirit (who has been an active and constant companion to Christianity since Jesus breathed on his apostles).
Since it was a central doctrine of Mormonism that has been retracted under pressure, it inevitably casts a shadow on other novelties. We see it as an issue of credibility rather than morality.
Well, it needn't be seen that way. God said that if the saints were not allowed to practice polygamy peacably by the U.S. Government, they wouldn't be responsible to do so as a result. Polygamy may be reinstated after Christ returns.
Likewise, Christianity was propagated under the banner of teachings and revelations, and accepted as such in specific contradiction to the Old Testament regarding the Law of Moses and circumcision. The first century Jews certainly saw Christianity as being in great contrast, perhaps even blasphemic, to their laws and scriptures.
It's a false analogy, because neither Joseph Smith nor any of his followers are Jesus Christ. If Jesus had not been resurrected, his teachings would have proven themselves false, and none of its consequences would have followed. It would not have been possible to understand circumcision as being of the heart, because the old covenant would still be in place. It's the resurrection that allows me to say that baptism is of the heart - not merely an external sign of repentance, like John's baptism, but something God himself did (Romans 6:3) with the Spirit. We practice water baptism as a sign of the new covenant, just like Jews practiced circumcision as a sign of the old covenant (Col. 2:11-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col.%202:11-12;&version=31;)).
The teachings and revelations only had authority because they were grounded on Christ and his atonement, not because they brought anything new. The apostles exercized their duty of unlocking the gospel exactly as Jesus intructed them to. No tradition may set aside the commands of God, but any tradition is not necessary for upholding God's commands is man-made. Anything more places an unneccesary burden on non-Jews (Acts 15:28-29; Rev. 2:24).
Col. 2:20-23
Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
And what was God's command, as revealed in Jesus? "Love one another" (John 15:12). This is why God revealed to Peter: "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean". Christ had purchased the right for all men to approach Him, cleaning them with his blood. It was in response to the work of the Spirit that gentiles were also baptized with water (Acts 10).
Well, it needn't be seen that way. God said that if the saints were not allowed to practice polygamy peacably by the U.S. Government, they wouldn't be responsible to do so as a result. Polygamy may be reinstated after Christ returns.
What's the point? "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage" (Luke 20:34).
It's a false analogy, because neither Joseph Smith nor any of his followers are Jesus Christ.
It is a good analogy, IMHO. The doctrines and principles revealed to Joseph Smith were directly from revelation from Jesus Christ. Joseph restored the true church of Christ under Christ's direction, so the analogy is true.
The teachings and revelations only had authority because they were grounded on Christ and his atonement, not because they brought anything new. The apostles exercized their duty of unlocking the gospel exactly as Jesus intructed them to.
So did Joseph Smith.
What's the point? "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage" (Luke 20:34).
Yes, they will not marry in the resurrection. If they are married while in mortality in the temple, then their marriage will last for time and all eternity.
Nisus,
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. -- Albert Einstein
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. -- Albert Einstein
Quoting Einstein will only get you this far--
"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."
A letter to Max Born, December 12, 1926, according to Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 414. ISBN 0-380-44123-3. This quote is commonly paraphrased as “God does not play dice with the universe.” , and other slight variants.
Also Attributed to Einstein are the following quotes ..
"Before God we are all equally wise — and equally foolish.
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.
I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
Like I was saying...Quoting Einstein will only get you this far--Juxtaposed with his Theistic quotes. At any rate, his genius props up your suppositions, but also cuts you low to the ground.
I'm not as interested in what smart people said years ago, as I am interested in what they say now.
I have no doubt about the idiocy, childishness, and fallacy of religions like Christianity, but I live in hope that someone here might present something credible and believable. If I am at fault it is because my eternal optimism allows me to hope that reason and common sense will eventually prevail, and current religions don’t come close.
Hmm, at least according to Christ we can be ressurected, and also repent of our sins. According to you we're all basically F :bugeye: :eek: *#@ d. Lie down, and stay down? This doctrine my friend is as empty as sin. And if you posess some sort of superior knowledge than that of your bretheren with regards to our collective deception, then it must be a blessing for you; But I believe your campaign to convince us of our own worthlessness will perish right along with all these hopeless ideas you sustain and propogate.
Now you are dreaming. That someone could so totally dismiss the utter foolishness that you hold so true is apparently beyond your comprehension.
Utter foolishness is just as savory as the hollow and lifeless doctrines that you give birth to. If we're all destined to be dust and return to chaos and dirt, then any classification of any sort as to the thoughts of men is equally worthless.... :bugeye: is it not?
The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. -- John Adams
I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine. -- Charles Darwin
Looks like these fellows focused all their energies on condemnation and overlooked Grace and Salvation. I wouldn't follow Christ if his doctrine were hopeless as these men paint it to be.... No one would. I'm sorry that you can't see the light that escapes your comprehension.
Nisus,
...Quoting Einstein will only get you this far--Juxtaposed with his Theistic quotes.
"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."
A letter to Max Born, December 12, 1926, according to Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 414. ISBN 0-380-44123-3. This quote is commonly paraphrased as “God does not play dice with the universe.” , and other slight variants.
Also Attributed to Einstein are the following quotes ..
"Before God we are all equally wise — and equally foolish.
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.
I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
Einstein wasn't referring to a Christian style god. His religious perspective was pantheistic - i.e. the universe was a god that revealed itself through the laws of physics. Bear that in mind when you see such quotes - you will find that all his quotes are then quite consistent with his assertion that he is an atheist where Christianity is concerned.
At any rate, his genius props up your suppositions, but also cuts you low to the ground.Not so as you will realise if you study his religious perspective. I also quoted Einstein deliberatly in the hope that you would fall into that trap.
Nisus,
Hmm, at least according to Christ we can be ressurected, and also repent of our sins. It is still fantasy and has no value unless you can show it otherwise.
According to you we're all basically F *#@ d. Lie down, and stay down? No, it means we are on our own and there is no crutch to lean on.
This doctrine my friend is as empty as sin.Sin means nothing in this context. And all the evidence indicates this position is fact. I.e. you cannot demonstrate the existence of gods, souls, an afterlife, resurrections, heaven, hell, etc. These are all worthless fantasies.
And if you posess some sort of superior knowledge than that of your bretheren with regards to our collective deception, then it must be a blessing for you;Nothing superior is needed beyond not being gullible enough to believe fantasies are true.
But I believe your campaign to convince us of our own worthlessness will perish right along with all these hopeless ideas you sustain and propogate.You have things reversed again. It is the Christian who claims people are worthless and sinful and need redemption – that is the overwhelming Christian position, the reason why you believe you need a savior. I have made no statements claiming people are worthless, quite the reverse. I perceive us as having incredible potential to improve ourselves through technology and science, as I have extolled many times in these forums. If we can remove the blight and parasitic influences of religions like Christianity then we could make much faster progress.
Utter foolishness is just as savory as the hollow and lifeless doctrines that you give birth to.Which I haven’t. So your argument is lost.
If we're all destined to be dust and return to chaos and dirt, then any classification of any sort as to the thoughts of men is equally worthless.... is it not?We are not destined for anything, that is a religious concept. What we do and achieve is up to us. Our purpose is what we choose for ourselves.
I wouldn't follow Christ if his doctrine were hopeless as these men paint it to be.... No one would. I'm sorry that you can't see the light that escapes your comprehension.To believe you will achieve immortality and gain access to a heavenly paradise is the biggest con trick in the history of mankind. That somehow the ugliness of death is really a magical gateway to perfection. This is the essential evil nature of religions, that they convince the gullible that death is their best hope. If the devil were to exist then one couldn’t imagine a better scheme for him to devise than to have people believe in Christianity - the epitome of baseless false hope.
I also quoted Einstein deliberatly in the hope that you would fall into that trap.
Now that is just nasty.
Marlin.
Now that is just nasty. I know, but so many Christians attempt to claim that Einstein was really on their side when he really despised their perspective.
I think the whole "let's trap people in their words" thing in the name of a cause is reprehensible and despicable.
Nisus,
Einstein wasn't referring to a Christian style god. His religious perspective was pantheistic - i.e. the universe was a god that revealed itself through the laws of physics. Bear that in mind when you see such quotes - you will find that all his quotes are then quite consistent with his assertion that he is an atheist where Christianity is concerned.
I'll interpret them how I will, others also. No need for debate. They're colorful quotes. Taken from different shades of his life. I don't think either side totally supports or reduces theism. Since they are relative to the time he spoke them. I'm sure being a scientist, his ideas were subject to change.
Not so as you will realise if you study his religious perspective. I also quoted Einstein deliberatly in the hope that you would fall into that trap.
Well given that there isn't a timeline associated with these quotes I will just deduce that his thoughts on God, evolved alongside with his thoughts on the universe.
You can justify yourself, I suppose, under the context of your own perspective.
But I see no trap or snare =p Just your opinion.
It is still fantasy and has no value unless you can show it otherwise.
No value? I assume you are speaking for yourself.
What people determine valuable and beneficial to their own lives, is relative to the person.
Just as equally as they cannot prove, you cannot disprove. So neither is absolute.
No, it means we are on our own and there is no crutch to lean on.
Well since people can think for themselves and believe in what they want, many people find satisfaction and use religion as a crutch. Which either way it doesn't really matter how they get to the end, Cris, your point is the end we face, doesn't doesn't have any facet of discrimination, and that all of us are subject to the self same destiny.
I simply disagree.
Sin means nothing in this context. And all the evidence indicates this position is fact. I.e. you cannot demonstrate the existence of gods, souls, an afterlife, resurrections, heaven, hell, etc. These are all worthless fantasies.
"Sin" I used, hoping you would recognize the religious conotations that the word has. Comparing your ideas and associating them to what I consider, hell, spiritual death, because to me your ideas are destitute and lonely.
Nothing superior is needed beyond not being gullible enough to believe fantasies are true.
You don't think people doubt or question? You don't think any religious people doubt or question? Wonder or ask why? We do, we look at everything with the same perspective or close to the same as you do at a point in time, we just don't embrace them to their lonesome end.
If I have a choice to believe, or not believe in God, setting all religion aside-- I would still choose to belive in God, because I like the idea. It's facinating to me, it inspires me. Though you find this idea of little worth, I find it to be of value.
As long as you are going to deal with humans and freedom of will you have to factor in that there will always be people that believe in God, or some form of a divinity or deity. You can't eradicate this nature of ours.
You have things reversed again. It is the Christian who claims people are worthless and sinful and need redemption – that is the overwhelming Christian position, the reason why you believe you need a savior. I have made no statements claiming people are worthless, quite the reverse. I perceive us as having incredible potential to improve ourselves through technology and science, as I have extolled many times in these forums. If we can remove the blight and parasitic influences of religions like Christianity then we could make much faster progress.
You don't understand Christ at all in my opinion. Nor his doctrines. Because I see them in a totally different light, then what you just said.
Which I haven’t. So your argument is lost.
I really never felt I was arguing.
We are not destined for anything, that is a religious concept. What we do and achieve is up to us. Our purpose is what we choose for ourselves.
I meant it in the most simple application, where we end up and what becomes of us. Death is our end, according to my interpretation of what you say. So if we're all just destined to a simple death and nothing becomes of us, I don't see why you are so opinionated.
To believe you will achieve immortality and gain access to a heavenly paradise is the biggest con trick in the history of mankind. That somehow the ugliness of death is really a magical gateway to perfection. This is the essential evil nature of religions, that they convince the gullible that death is their best hope. If the devil were to exist then one couldn’t imagine a better scheme for him to devise than to have people believe in Christianity - the epitome of baseless false hope.
I don't believe I have acheive immortality, I already feel that I know I am immortal. Though I know I can die physically, I've yet to experience it. So long as I can think, I will be alive, flesh or no flesh.
Marlin,
I think the whole "let's trap people in their words" thing in the name of a cause is reprehensible and despicable. Absolutely agree. Why do Christians do it so often then?
Marlin,
Absolutely agree. Why do Christians do it so often then?
Human nature, maybe? Can we really paint with that broad a brush, though? Some Christians do, some don't. Some atheists do, some don't. Too broad a generalization.
Nisus,
To be fair - Einstein's perspectives are a tricky issue. At the height of his time to come out and declare oneself an atheist would have been social, politcial, and career, suicide. As with many public figures what they say in public is often very different to their private perspectives. I've researched Einstein a great deal and he was fairly consistent with his quotes, but I think he knew very well how people would mis-perceive them. He had a sense of humor.
Moving on ....
Godless
11-16-05, 06:45 PM
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787)
"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State."
Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to S. Kercheval, 1810)
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God."
-- Thomas Edison
Moved on I did.
Godless
Nisus,
No value? I assume you are speaking for yourself.No, I was seeing this in terms of the entire human race. If everyone chose to believe that fantasies were true then that sounds like a recipe for extinction, or simple mass suicide, as some religions groups finally decide.
What people determine valuable and beneficial to their own lives, is relative to the person.Understood but it wasn’t a relative consideration. But I do fully appreciate that those who have trouble dealing with the stress of every day life, or who have trouble facing their inevitable non-existence will look to religion to give them a sense of hope. The effect can be soothing and can result in less stress. Others of course are racked by the guilt that religions often inspire.
Just as equally as they cannot prove, you cannot disprove. So neither is absolute.But I wasn’t claiming a disproof on this. My point here is that your beliefs are fantasies. That is a factual observation and will remain so unless you can prove your claims as true. In the same way that the Lord of the Rings was a fantasy unless you can show it was true.
Well since people can think for themselves and believe in what they want, many people find satisfaction and use religion as a crutch.I understand, but why not deal with life as it actually is rather than behave like a cripple?
Which either way it doesn't really matter how they get to the end, Cris, your point is the end we face, doesn't doesn't have any facet of discrimination, and that all of us are subject to the self same destiny.To a point. But while the religionist will accept this as inevitable and look to a supernatural exit, which I see as a defeatist and fatalistic perspective, I and many like me are actively looking to solve the problems of involuntary death through science and technology. It is the very real difference between “there is nothing we can do so let’s not try” and “how do we solve this problem”.
Comparing your ideas and associating them to what I consider, hell, spiritual death, because to me your ideas are destitute and lonely.There is nowhere that says that truth must be pleasant. But creating and believing in the fantasies of gods so you can feel happier is surely just simple delusion.
You don't think people doubt or question? You don't think any religious people doubt or question? Wonder or ask why? We do, we look at everything with the same perspective or close to the same as you do at a point in time, we just don't embrace them to their lonesome end.I understand. It takes tremendous courage to accept that the truth is not pleasant, and few people face that – hence two thirds of world take the perceived happier route and believe in gods instead.
If I have a choice to believe, or not believe in God, setting all religion aside-- I would still choose to belive in God, because I like the idea. It's facinating to me, it inspires me. Though you find this idea of little worth, I find it to be of value.I understand it very well. I prefer to seek truth instead.
As long as you are going to deal with humans and freedom of will you have to factor in that there will always be people that believe in God, or some form of a divinity or deity. You can't eradicate this nature of ours.I am hopeful that through science and technology that will change and people will come to see that a belief in a god is as meaningless as believing that the world is flat. The major breakthrough is likely to be the full understanding of how the brain operates and the final elimination of any doubt concerning the soul concept. Without that concept theism will simply be irrelevant.
You don't understand Christ at all in my opinion. Nor his doctrines. Because I see them in a totally different light, then what you just said.In Christianity it is necessary to demean each person so that they will accept the need for saving. It is a fundamental Christian tenet that everyone is a sinner. I’m sure you will agree with this. Having established that then the next phase is to offer a solution – hence the glowing wonderful loving Jesus with wondrous moral principles holding a heavenly paradise as a reward and solution to humanities sinful nature.
It is a sales trick. Create the illusion of a need and then sell an unnecessary solution. You have been hooked, stung, and sold.
I really never felt I was arguing.LOL – I meant in the debating sense.
Death is our end, according to my interpretation of what you say. So if we're all just destined to a simple death and nothing becomes of us, I don't see why you are so opinionated.Because I sense there is a solution that we could realize sooner if religion wasn’t in the way.
I don't believe I have acheive immortality, I already feel that I know I am immortal. Though I know I can die physically, I've yet to experience it. So long as I can think, I will be alive, flesh or no flesh.Unfortunately no one has yet shown that anyone has ever survived death in any form. And given that countless billions of people have died one would think that if there was an afterlife that there would be some indication, although I agree that is not necessarily so.
It is a good analogy, IMHO. The doctrines and principles revealed to Joseph Smith were directly from revelation from Jesus Christ. Joseph restored the true church of Christ under Christ's direction, so the analogy is true.
Maybe you can explain why Joseph Smith revised his early visions to fit his later "revelations"? This wasn't necessary for anything Jesus or the first apostles said.
In the earliest "official" account of his first vision, given to the Church in 1832, he said he "saw the Lord" and was forgiven of his sins, but before that he told people (Willard Chase (1827), Martin Harris (1827) and Peter Bauder (1830)) only of a single spirit or angel. In a 1835 diary entry, he mentions two unidentified "personages" and many angels - the sonship of Jesus is affirmed, but he is not identified as any of the angels present. (In the same year he writes in his Lectures on Faith that God the Father is a spiritual presence, while Jesus Christ has a tangible body of flesh).
The version that is used today was written in 1838 but first published in 1842, and includes for the first time the fact that it was the Father and Son who appeared (despite his earlier revelation that "without [the authority of the priesthood] no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live": D&C 84:22). Among all the first vision accounts, it is only Orson Pratt's 1840 account (and two later ones based on it) that includes the promise that "true doctrine the fulness of the gospel, should, at some future time, be made known to him". Some of Orson Pratt's other writings were retracted because of "inaccuracies", as you know.
So not all Joseph Smith's revelations, by his own admission, came from Jesus himself. The Book of Mormon, revealed by the angel Mormoni, was supposedly translated (the translating ability being a gift from God (http://www.irr.org/mit/1833boc-cs-p10.html)). Revelations in the original Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price had been revised (i.e. words weren't added as new revelations, but into existing ones). Christians are not asked to pray about any other book than the Book of Mormon for accepting Mormonism.
The gospel of Jesus, on the other hand, came directly from God - Him being the Word of God..
So did Joseph Smith.
Then there is no reason to believe that the "restoration" he brought would be more successful than the church Jesus himself established.
Yes, they will not marry in the resurrection. If they are married while in mortality in the temple, then their marriage will last for time and all eternity.
Which is the age that will end when Jesus returns, and the living and the dead are gathered judgement. Hence: no "reinstatement" of marriage, or polygamy, after the resurrection. &q