"You're going to hell!"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-09-2011, 04:50 PM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2011 05:26 PM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(01-09-2011 09:15 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Hell.
Pretty sure the only thing mentioned about hell in the bible is the fire. I don't believe in hell is my opinion of it in a nutshell, but the hell I was raised believing in was the southern baptist version. The eternal lake of fire where you suffer in an unimaginable amount of pain for all eternity and never get to see your loved ones ever again. Essentially it was built up as a place that I was told was worse than death where you are in eternal pain, physical and emotional.

Obviously not everyone believes in hell nor this version of hell. The concept of hell would scare me as a child to the point of tears every church service. Just being told that I can go to hell if I do certain things was torture...literally. Eventually I realized that heaven and hell was similar to Santa Claus' presents or coal. Be good go to heaven. Be bad go to hell. OR Be good get toys. Be bad get a lump of coal and switches.

After that revelation I went through the whole phase of not believing in hell. Only to realize that if I still believed in the bible then hell was real. So I started to pick and choose parts of the bible to believe. I thought I was trading irrational beliefs for more rational beliefs, only to realize a few years later when I began to scrutinize my new views that they were as irrational as my previous beliefs and did not actually make me feel better about my life and/or death.

Hell scared the god out of me.

Hello BeardedDude, thanks for the response, and I am very sorry for your experience with religion.

S.T.
(01-09-2011 10:33 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(01-09-2011 09:01 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  why one would want to discuss the Name of Someone they do not believe in is beyond me.



(01-09-2011 10:33 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  I don't was to discuss the word 'god' -- I merely challenged you to define it, so I know what you are talking about.

As best as I can figure out what it is you are trying to ask, my definition of God would be The One that has taken a miserable, angry man, and taught him to see outside of himself.

He has also been teaching that man a true concern for those around him, causing him not to just have concern when it is convenient, or profitable, but even when it calls for sacrifice.

I could go on, but, I think that is what you are looking for, right?

(01-09-2011 10:33 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  Don't try a definition that goes around in circles (by using other undefined words) or has no anchor in verifiable, repeatable observation, available to everyone, giving a reasonable probability that the word means something.

Why would the term God be undefined? It is one word that is universally understood without definition.


(01-09-2011 10:33 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  Don't use analogies (like the watchmaker), don't use the bible (of questionable origin and authors), don't use unverified myths and accounts, don't parade your lack of imagination as proof and, most of all, don't use the very concept itself in the definition.

How about this: God, a Being I was aware of my entire life, changed me. It happened, not in a church, not from the bible, but in a very serious crisis in my life. At that point, I began to seek Him out. The church I went first happened to be a church that gave a gospel presentation that I knew as I heard it.

They say that when they were finally able to communicate with Helen Keller, they told her of Jesus, to which it is reported that she said, "I already knew Him, I just didn't know His name."

Whether that is true or not, I can testify that a similar experience happened in my own life. Who is that important to? No-one but me.


(01-09-2011 10:33 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  That always bugs the rice out of me.

Excellent...that is funny!

(01-09-2011 10:33 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  Without that definition, we might as well talk about the word 'tops' -- 'spot' spelled backwards.

I do not see it that way. Not sure exactly what point is to be made here. This is like saying, tell me about Darwin and what he taught, but don't use his name, or what he taught...

? Like I said, I never said I was smart.

S.T.
(01-09-2011 11:59 AM)cufflink Wrote:  
(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi S.T., re "I would be curious to know, though, if evolution is true...why are there still monkeys?" PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS NOT A SERIOUS QUESTION! If you are serious, you clearly have no real understanding of evolution. Please reread some basic textbooks. Oops...I forgot...you adamantly refuse to do that...you don't value scientists' theories when you have the bible to tell you how things are! Guess that explains your stupid question then, doesn't it!

Mark has totally hit it on the head. That question is showcased by scientists to show just how uninformed creationists can be. The fact you could ask it seriously, S.T., demonstrates that you really, really need to do some outside reading. Why are you so opposed to opening up your mind? You urge others to come sit in a Bible-believing church to get a different perspective. Why won't you do something comparable? Are you worried it might weaken your faith?


I do not understand how it can be thought that I am in need of knowledge of something I am assailed with constantly. Evolution is not a big secret...just thought I would let you know. I watch documentaries about evolution, and quite honestly, I feel sorry for the ones on these shows, not for what they believe, but some of the stuff they say.

Constant "This proves evolution!" statments that to me, seem quite silly, just as silly as my view that the earth and everything in it was made in six days.

Again I am called closeminded. Okay, if that is the case, so be it.

But lets get back to topic: what exactly does evolution have to do with what athiests believe about hell?

How exactly is me being more openminded and reading extrabiblical books going to give me a better perspective on this topic?

If I was to discuss Darwins books with those here, would it be fair to say you could not reference his books?

Should I say that you must rely upon what others say about him?

Sorry, but this line of reasoning has nothing to do with honest discussion.

S.T.
(01-09-2011 12:21 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(01-09-2011 11:59 AM)cufflink Wrote:  You urge others to come sit in a Bible-believing church to get a different perspective. Why won't you do something comparable? Are you worried it might weaken your faith?

Just as I suggested in Post #56

The challenge was not met.

Probably, before such boasts are made, I would remind this poster that I have exceeded this challenge by far more than going to a university...I have come to talk with the expert handlers of true knowledge...right?

This would exceed my own suggestion. At least I feel so. Perhaps it is possible that there are those that go to Christian forums and discuss how we are in danger from our beliefs.

The first way to lose a debate is to assume. It is assumed that I have no exposure to science, or evolution, for that matter. If I were worried about "losing my faith," is it thought I would brave talking to such knowledgable and excellent debaters? Is that how it goes here? Is it thought that such efforts will drive me away?

I have talked with quite a few athiests on Christian forums, and as much as I hate to say it, they receive pretty much the same treatment That I am receiving from a few here.


But hey, thats okay...I am quite use to this type of "discussion from both sides.

I am of Irish descent, and inherited a hard head, so, no worries.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2011, 10:56 PM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(01-09-2011 04:50 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(01-09-2011 11:59 AM)cufflink Wrote:  
(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi S.T., re "I would be curious to know, though, if evolution is true...why are there still monkeys?" PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS NOT A SERIOUS QUESTION! If you are serious, you clearly have no real understanding of evolution. Please reread some basic textbooks. Oops...I forgot...you adamantly refuse to do that...you don't value scientists' theories when you have the bible to tell you how things are! Guess that explains your stupid question then, doesn't it!

Mark has totally hit it on the head. That question is showcased by scientists to show just how uninformed creationists can be. The fact you could ask it seriously, S.T., demonstrates that you really, really need to do some outside reading. Why are you so opposed to opening up your mind? You urge others to come sit in a Bible-believing church to get a different perspective. Why won't you do something comparable? Are you worried it might weaken your faith?


I do not understand how it can be thought that I am in need of knowledge of something I am assailed with constantly. Evolution is not a big secret...just thought I would let you know. I watch documentaries about evolution, and quite honestly, I feel sorry for the ones on these shows, not for what they believe, but some of the stuff they say.

Constant "This proves evolution!" statments that to me, seem quite silly, just as silly as my view that the earth and everything in it was made in six days.

Again I am called closeminded. Okay, if that is the case, so be it.

But lets get back to topic: what exactly does evolution have to do with what athiests believe about hell?

How exactly is me being more openminded and reading extrabiblical books going to give me a better perspective on this topic?

If I was to discuss Darwins books with those here, would it be fair to say you could not reference his books?

Should I say that you must rely upon what others say about him?

Sorry, but this line of reasoning has nothing to do with honest discussion.
[/quote][/quote]

Let's not argue about being on topic, this thread has meandered through all topics under the sun... I figure just go with the flow of conversation.

Hajimemashite! I'm Katie (monkeyshine89)... I'm just putting my two cents in about evolution.

TV specials are usually not the best for real academic learning, most TV specials are meant to entertain or capture an interest in a certain topic. While TV specials about a certain academic subject, like evolution, may be entertaining, and to the layman, informative, it really isn't a good place to solely base you learning.

Like Mark and Cufflink, I'm not going to sit here and explain something that SHOULD be taught in high school. You want answers to evolution, then go look it up, Holy God Baptist Church, after all, you don't go to your pastor to teach you algebra, do you? Why should you go for biology? Go ask real biology teacher and biologists who do know what they are talking about.

Learning about evolution does give you better perspective on this topic? Well currently you have NO perspective. You have openly admitted that you have no idea the mechanisms of evolution, NONE. How can you argue against something you know nothing about? You should have a basic idea about how evolution works, and an even better understanding if you want to argue against it.

Also, keep in mind that evolution is not the same as religion or creation theory, not at all. Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is a myth (by definition). Putting evolution and creationism side by side is as stupid as meteorology against Zeus's lighting bolts. If you want to discuss evolution, fine, discuss it in the scientific sense. Using cited works that have been tested and demonstrated as true by thousands of different scientists is valid in a scientific argument.

If you want to discuss creationism as a science, or something that can be proved, then expect to put forth proof, in the same way evolution is done. You honestly can't expect me to dig through thousands of experiments and studies online just for you to cry foul by putting up a bible passage and calling it a day.

Look you don't have to rely on what people say about Darwin (oh and let's get with the times, Darwin is old hat, there are many scientists who contributed to our understanding of genetics and evolution). But you can ACCEPT facts and proofs about him and his theories. I don't accept things just because people tell me, I want proof and evidence, which is what I get with evolution, and what I don't get with creationism.

If you want to keep this argument going you are going to have to understand that I (and many forum members) do not think the way you do. Atheism or Scienceism or Evolutionism is not our religion (and it really isn't a religion). We accept evolution, not BLINDLY believe it.

Anyways, sorry for the long post, you have a nice day.

Mata ne!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes monkeyshine89's post
02-09-2011, 06:35 AM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
Ok some quick remarks. You mentioned something being adaptation not evolution read up on what evolution is. It's the scientific process of adaptations. We ask that you look past us because we are not immensely knowledgeable on the subject (most of us) and furthermore most of us aren't teachers. An adviser can help but sometimes fail to fully explain something even if they fully understand it.

I don't really defend evolution because there is no need to defend it. It defends itself by having easily provable real life examples. I will mention to someone in disbelief places they can go to see the proof which is wholly apparent.

I could never find anything I needed within a christian church. I grew up with baptist churches and I will admit paid absolutely no attention to what was being said. When I got to 8 years old I became interested in ancient greece's stories and at that point gained enough of an interest in religion to listen to what was being said. You know what I heard? A discussion of a hierarchical system, which places man above all things on earth. That statement alone was one I wholly cannot support as I know it is untrue and it was all it took for me to demand to never have to go to church again.

The question of defining god is that when held to scrutiny the idea of god by each person's volition is only a personal definition of a common undefined word. When put in question the definition changes in an attempt to remain correct at all times. Your examples of god were that of a personal god, he is asking you to state the global statements not your experiences. He can't experience your life himself so give him the explanation of what he should seek. For a philosophically minded person once this discussion comes up it is very difficult to accept discussing a god when there is no real grounding as to what is being discussed.

Your discussion of a life changing event from entering into the faith is the same as discussions of life changing events for people leaving the faith. This is not as one sided as you may think. People in general are very excited when they manage to change the way they view the world. And changing this view is a very large change.

You discuss black and white examples here such as the fact that there are only sheep and goats. There are some crazy people out there who from this way of thinking believe I am a hell-spawn because I am not male or female. Intersex which is on my title means that I was born in between the established genders. I rarely accept dichotomies mind you because there is nothing about me which fits into them.

As testament to who I am, I would discuss with you that if I were shown the "true face of god" I would explain it to other people but never see it as a god. That something is beyond me does not make it above me.
Now back to your topic of hell. The biggest discussion of hell that caught my interest was Dante's Inferno, I read that book at 10 years old (of my own volition). I felt he was very apt in describing his view of what hell would be. Yes he very much discussed his own opinion but there wasn't a lot to go off of. There are people who discuss gehenna as only existing post rapture. The only agreed upon definition of hell is the separation part, and the issue with hell being a separation from god is that the world is a separation from god, so there is no distinct difference. Those who have no issues living here would prefer to live a life that can be relatively similar as opposed to living a life that is wholly different more often than not.

The simple statement of becoming more than human suggests becoming not yourself as you are currently human.

The discussion of god as a parent is in many cases deplorable. Warning us of hell is not equivalent of warning us of a light socket. If a child puts a fork in the light socket they most likely will have quite a shock and then possibly be taken to an emergency room where they live through the experience and know from now on. Most parents do not state that a child can never make a mistake. Your mom says don't take a cookie they are for dinner tonight, and you take a cookie. Does this send you to eternal punishment? Why of course not, you get punished a bit for not listening but then you understand a little better that it's not just words and the experiment happens again.

What about the newly formed life put on a garden and told to cultivate it? Well if they make a mistake it's not only going to ruin their life, but it is going to ruin the lives of everything on their planet. The creation story discusses that in the garden of eden everything was in harmony and lived together well. When humans make a simple mistake not only are they punished but everything is punished as some become carnivores and all become creatures of needs. God's "children" were not given the benefit of being as they so obviously are experiential.

To make matters worse the story suggests that what is wrong for them punishes the entire world. Humans eat an apple: there is no longer a plentiful harvest and things must survive off of the sacrifice of each other. Humans lose sight of god: waters envelope the earth decimating everything that exists outside of that which is on a small boat (small in comparison to the world). There is no justification for a world punishment due to an action caused by a single entity, but this book suggests time and time again that everything is punished alongside any wrongdoer.

Does a parent do these things? If you don't listen are you and your cat sent to your room? or does the cat get to continue doing it's thing because it had nothing to do with what you did? Few parents will even go so far as to demand that experience is not necessary for understanding. Some do, but there are always those who go too far. There is no reason that a simple mistake should have required the exhaustive actions the christian bible suggests.

You know how to forgive a sin? give the sinner a second chance. No need to go through all of these hoops just to do exactly the same thing anyway. Why don't we look at the fact that many in the world are not in need of being retaught their lesson? This punishment of earth as many who look to the bible see it does not have a finite end. You do not ascend when you have learned your lesson. You die at whatever point in your life you happen to die and are at that point judged on whichever opinion you currently hold. That is not learning that is taking a crap-shoot. Our opinions change quite frequently. What if a true believer dies in a moment of doubt? Does that condemn them forever due to the fact they happened to doubt at the wrong moment? How about someone who has no interest in the issue dying at the one point in their life they start to attempt seeing this truth are they rewarded even though they never actually showed an attempt of trying to understand the lesson? If there were really a lesson to be learned then there would be no need to continue punishing those who learn it. The idea of the earth created in genesis is that of a paradise which will last forever in which many creatures live in harmony. If salvation is a return to that then people who correctly answer the test should be spirited away once they do.

Punishing the righteous is not right. When a man is convicted of a crime and sentenced to a life imprisonment. If, after the fact, it is learned that he never committed this crime then he will be exonerated. Why? because he is not in need of correction. Any of our ideas on justice do not suggest that those who are correct need to be judged the same as those who are incorrect but the idea of life being a test with no determinable ending suggests the exact opposite.

There's a few statements on "god's" punishment. definitely fits into the threads overall theme. I'm not here to preach to you I just want to discuss. Hopefully you can take some time to think about what I say, because I do think about what you say.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lilith Pride's post
02-09-2011, 07:10 AM
 
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  For a philosophically minded person once this discussion comes up it is very difficult to accept discussing a god when there is no real grounding as to what is being discussed.

Exactly my point!

PS. We are all philosophically minded to some degree.


(01-09-2011 04:50 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(01-09-2011 10:33 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  That always bugs the rice out of me.

Excellent...that is funny!

I thought you would like it -- you and rice go hand in hand! Big Grin

Quote:
(01-09-2011 10:33 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  Without that definition, we might as well talk about the word 'tops' -- 'spot' spelled backwards.
Not sure exactly what point is to be made here.

I will give you a clue.

What is the name 'Spot' usually used for?
Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2011, 09:49 AM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  Let's not argue about being on topic, this thread has meandered through all topics under the sun... I figure just go with the flow of conversation.

Not to be a stickler on a certain point, but how does assailing me with evolution be considered relevant, though I agree that going with the flow is certainly being done?

I will preface my replies with a simple request: can you give your take about hell?

The response need not be "Why would I...I don't believe in Hell!" as, if I am asked my take on Never-Never land, I would bladly give my response (personally I think it needs more adult supervision, but that is just my opinion).

But all in all, I agree, conversations need not be restricted to the topic only, though a mention of it would be nice once in a while.

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  Hajimemashite! I'm Katie (monkeyshine89)... I'm just putting my two cents in about evolution.

Watashi wa Ranger desu...lol

I counted about thirty cents, worth...but who's counting? (lol)


(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  TV specials are usually not the best for real academic learning, most TV specials are meant to entertain or capture an interest in a certain topic. While TV specials about a certain academic subject, like evolution, may be entertaining, and to the layman, informative, it really isn't a good place to solely base you learning.

Excellent point! Now, in contrast, is TV a good place to learn about Christianity and what Christians believe?

Think about that.

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  Like Mark and Cufflink, I'm not going to sit here and explain something that SHOULD be taught in high school. You want answers to evolution, then go look it up,


You misunderstand...evolution is a non-issue for me. I am not either seeking answers to evolution nor seeking to "disprove" evolution. One's views on this are their own, and I have no interest in arguing about it.

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  Holy God Baptist Church, after all, you don't go to your pastor to teach you algebra, do you? Why should you go for biology? Go ask real biology teacher and biologists who do know what they are talking about.

And we all know there are no Biologists that deny evolution, are there? Again, it is a non-issue.

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  Learning about evolution does give you better perspective on this topic? Well currently you have NO perspective.


Well, if my perspective was of any value, it would be asked about. To say I have no perspective shows that what I have to say is not important, not read, so why would I be surprised at this statement?

I am not.

Here is my perspective: evolution is an issue that must be worked out in the heart of each individual. Both believers and non-believers can be found to subscribe to evolution, and both can give reasonable defense as to why they subscribe to it.

However, remarks towards those who do not subscribe to evolution can be expected since the intent is to ridicule and to force the beliefs of some on others, showing that a claim of "openmindedness" is, after all, hollow.

The same behavioral patterns can be found in some on both sides of the aisle, both of which seem to exhibit a trend towards coercion, and it is something that is to be avoided, as the results can be seen as horrific in the history of man.

By the way, that is an "off the top of my head" and unpracticed response, not a copy and paste or a statement force-fed to me, nor is it the result of indoctrination.


(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  You have openly admitted that you have no idea the mechanisms of evolution, NONE.

I have? A deeper knowledge of evidential basis maybe, but I cannot recall saying I totally ignorant of the issue.

I converse with Evolutionists fairly often, examining the "cream of the crop" concerning their basis of belief and their personal positions, so, while not highly educated in this area, I would not say that I am completely ignorant.


(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  How can you argue against something you know nothing about?

Please read the posts, it should be clear who is "arguing." I came here to converse...not argue.

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  You should have a basic idea about how evolution works, and an even better understanding if you want to argue against it.

At the risk of sounding like I am whining...let me reiterate: I don't want to argue about evolution.

If I did, I have seen several threads that would be more fun, and I would have joined in on those conversations.

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  Also, keep in mind that evolution is not the same as religion or creation theory, not at all.

First, why do you bring this up?

Secondly, I think it only fair that you understand my position before presuming to educate me about my perspective concerning those issues.

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  Evolution is a scientific theory,

Theory? Please make up my mind: is it theory or is it fact?

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  creationism is a myth (by definition).

By who's definition? Is this meant to say that the people that believe that God created the world or that there is a God(and that pretty much includes every race and most of the population of the world) that we cannot see that there is a human trait that leads most to see the world as something created?

Think about that before you answer, please.

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  Putting evolution and creationism side by side is as stupid as meteorology against Zeus's lighting bolts.

And here we get to something I see as relevant, and as a mindset that I think most atheists even would disagree to: the implication is that people should not be allowed to freely believe that which they are led to.

I will be the first one to say that people should be free to come to their own conclusions with having a position forced down their throat, and that this is the very thing that leads to the perpetration of horrible acts of violence by some against others.

I would no more advocate the banishment of particular beliefs based on position than I would approve of rule by coercion.


(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  If you want to discuss evolution, fine,

But...I don't.

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  discuss it in the scientific sense. Using cited works that have been tested and demonstrated as true by thousands of different scientists is valid in a scientific argument.

What about scientists that do not embrace evolution. It becomes a battle of other sources, and I have only one source that I feel is worthy of defense, and that is the Once Delivered Faith.

As far as I am concerned...let 'em "duke it out" amongst themselves.

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  If you want to discuss creationism as a science,

I don't.

But, I would care to hear your thoughts on Gravitation Time Dilation, a fascinating "theory" to me.

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  or something that can be proved,

Do I have something I need to prove? I hope not, there is just not much to work with there.

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  then expect to put forth proof, in the same way evolution is done. You honestly can't expect me to dig through thousands of experiments and studies online just for you to cry foul by putting up a bible passage and calling it a day.

Please quote my "crying foul."

Like I said, I am not interested in playing "theory pong," as it will not be very profitable.

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  Look you don't have to rely on what people say about Darwin

Which is a good thing. I have heard that on his deathbed he is said to have said these two things: "How anyone can believe the theories I have presented...I don't know," and "Hebrews is the most magnificent book of the Bible."

Can I "prove" he said these things? No. Do I need to? No.

But, I will ay, that I am in complete agreement with Mr. Darwin if the latter statement is true.

Right on, Charles!

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  (oh and let's get with the times, Darwin is old hat, there are many scientists who contributed to our understanding of genetics and evolution).

Darwin is old hat? Get with the times? lol


(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  But you can ACCEPT facts and proofs about him and his theories.

I can also accept facts about other scientific pioneers, but, it is just not a topic of interest to me.

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  I don't accept things just because people tell me, I want proof and evidence, which is what I get with evolution, and what I don't get with creationism.

Okay, I don't have a problem with that.


(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  If you want to keep this argument going you are going to have to understand that I (and many forum members) do not think the way you do.

While this is quite true, I would just point out that I am aware of this.

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  Atheism or Scienceism or Evolutionism is not our religion (and it really isn't a religion).

Who are you trying to convince?

I do view mankind as a "religious" creature, and this fact cannot be denied, due to the more than apmple evidence we see in the peoples of both today, as well as those of history. It is a common trait, and "religion" does not necessarily have to include a god, hence sayings like, "He follows racing religiously."

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  We accept evolution, not BLINDLY believe it.

The implication being that religionists blindly hold to their beliefs.

The denial of a supernatural aspect to our existence is at the heart of the denial of God's existence, or the existence of gods in general.

My perspective, however, must also consider the "evidences" to the contrary, embraced by those who are not...religious.

Many people believe in ghosts, but not God. I myself believe in Angels, as well as fallen angels called devils in scripture, but in our modern world are generally called demons. I believe that behind every false god there is the power of demons.

Sounds really antiquated, outdated, and simply just silly, right?

All I ask is for an explanation for such widespread belief in supernatural occurrences? Electro-chemical deceptions in the brain?

(01-09-2011 10:56 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  Anyways, sorry for the long post, you have a nice day.

Mata ne!


Tanoshimi ni shite imasu ...?

We will see, but, thanks for the response. I hope w can have good conversation in the future.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2011, 10:24 AM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2011 10:28 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: "You're going to hell!"
"All I ask is for an explanation for such widespread belief in supernatural occurrences? Electro-chemical deceptions in the brain?"

A desire to want to believe it because they thinks it is interesting. Our popular culture has been enabling these stories for centuries. People want something so they justify reasons to get it. In some cases it is dessert. "I really shouldn't eat it, but just once or twice a week won't hurt." To me this is the same thing as "that was a really weird sound I just heard. I have no idea what it was but I want an explanation so maybe it was a ghost." And then they watch a tv show that enables their obsession and they think that justifies/proves it.

People want to believe in it, so they do. If we did a better job at education by teaching critical thinking skill, people would abandon such silly beliefs. Like Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster. Organisms that big living near and/or in highly populated areas would not remain hidden for long and we would have better images than the grainy ones that are paraded about as "proof."

Perhaps it is an evolutionary adaptation to believe things so easily without evidence at first. This could be an adaptation to cause us to be cautious of the unknown, just in case it is dangerous.
(02-09-2011 10:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "All I ask is for an explanation for such widespread belief in supernatural occurrences? Electro-chemical deceptions in the brain?"

A desire to want to believe it because they thinks it is interesting. Our popular culture has been enabling these stories for centuries. People want something so they justify reasons to get it. In some cases it is dessert. "I really shouldn't eat it, but just once or twice a week won't hurt." To me this is the same thing as "that was a really weird sound I just heard. I have no idea what it was but I want an explanation so maybe it was a ghost." And then they watch a tv show that enables their obsession and they think that justifies/proves it.

People want to believe in it, so they do. If we did a better job at education by teaching critical thinking skill, people would abandon such silly beliefs. Like Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster. Organisms that big living near and/or in highly populated areas would not remain hidden for long and we would have better images than the grainy ones that are paraded about as "proof."

Perhaps it is an evolutionary adaptation to believe things so easily without evidence at first. This could be an adaptation to cause us to be cautious of the unknown, just in case it is dangerous.

And as for my experience with religion, don't be sorry. My experience shaped who I am today. What I believe and how I act are all causally linked to my past. It was ultimately not religion that caused me to abandon a belief in god but the irrationality of a belief in things without evidence. There exists no evidence for heaven, hell, god, angels, the flood, Noah's ark, Adam and Eve or any other supernatural story. The bible became nothing more to me than the Greek mythologies, and once I understood them that way they actually made sense, for once.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
02-09-2011, 10:29 AM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2011 10:37 AM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Ok some quick remarks. You mentioned something being adaptation not evolution read up on what evolution is. It's the scientific process of adaptations. We ask that you look past us because we are not immensely knowledgeable on the subject (most of us) and furthermore most of us aren't teachers. An adviser can help but sometimes fail to fully explain something even if they fully understand it.

Hello Lilith, I will break this up, as it is long, and I will try to do so with a general theme in each, that it might be easier to respond.

Thanks for the honesty, first. Rarely do people in discussions of this nature speak their hearts.

As far as looking past (most of you), as I have repeatedly said, it is your individual views that I am interested in, as it gives insight to, not just you, but how people in general end up holding the positions they do. When these are examined, it is at times in the habit of not just understanding someone else, but can at times give us insight to internal issues (issues meaning aspects, not the negative connotation).

Concerning adaptation, in my perspective this is a very real process in life in general. I have no problem accepting this. But, I do not want to get hung up on this subject, suffice it to say, what one believes on this subjectdoes not necessarily "put them in a box" or make them predictable that we can say we understand the individual.

And after all, is it important that people understand us? I think it is.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I don't really defend evolution because there is no need to defend it. It defends itself by having easily provable real life examples. I will mention to someone in disbelief places they can go to see the proof which is wholly apparent.

And this is something that both sides can say, though each side will reject the others'.

Before I can offer "proof" of the existance of God, I have to say that from my perspective this proof cannot be recognized by what scripture calls the natural man, as it is a spiritual understanding, and "salvation" is understood by the one possessing it and by no other.

Evidence can be exhibited to indicate salvation, but it can also be replicated by those not possessing it. This in itself is further proof, actually, to unbelievers that it is not real.

It has been said, "The single greatest cause of atheism...is Christians." This is probably more true than most Christians would care to admit.

I would say though, as I have said before, not that is said to be Christian...is Christian. And if we want to find out what true Christianity entails, there is only one source to go to, though this is complicated due to the extrabiblical (in my opinion) literature that is supposedly of Christian origin.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I could never find anything I needed within a christian church.

If I might be bold in asking this, could it be said "I did not find anything I wanted?"

Not asked to offend, but in hopes that an honest answer would be forthcoming. I would have to know the doctrine of this "christian church" before I would assume to comment about it, but the statements that follow give good indication that whatever the doctrine was...you did not embrace it.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I grew up with baptist churches and I will admit paid absolutely no attention to what was being said.

Thanks for the honesty. I just ask...what then was it that was rejected? How can it be said, "I reject Christianity," and also be said "I knew nothing about it?"

Just so you know, I do not think you were completely innattentive, and that some of it surely had impact on decisions and positions you made as you grew up. Which would take me back to the suggegstion that what this church taught, it was something you did not agree with. I can understand that completely, because there are things that are tough subjects to deal with in scripture. And this is compounded by two factors that I can mention: how this is taught and how what is taught is applied in the lives of those teaching it. In other words, teachers and parents "teach their kids" about what they "need to do and believe," then live a life that does not match up to what we see in scripture.

Sometimes I feel that atheists do have a better understanding of the righteous standard taught in scripture than "christians" do. But, what has to be kept in mind is that even believers do not meet this righteous requirement, and are more apt to look like hypocrites than the picture of the Christian given in scripture.

That is why balance must be sought in reconciling not only the righteous standard of God, which no man or woman can meet, and the fact that believers are like children when it comes to "growing up in the Lord."

Okay, I will stop there, this is getting long.

continued...
(02-09-2011 10:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "All I ask is for an explanation for such widespread belief in supernatural occurrences? Electro-chemical deceptions in the brain?"

A desire to want to believe it because they thinks it is interesting. Our popular culture has been enabling these stories for centuries. People want something so they justify reasons to get it. In some cases it is dessert. "I really shouldn't eat it, but just once or twice a week won't hurt." To me this is the same thing as "that was a really weird sound I just heard. I have no idea what it was but I want an explanation so maybe it was a ghost." And then they watch a tv show that enables their obsession and they think that justifies/proves it.

People want to believe in it, so they do. If we did a better job at education by teaching critical thinking skill, people would abandon such silly beliefs. Like Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster. Organisms that big living near and/or in highly populated areas would not remain hidden for long and we would have better images than the grainy ones that are paraded about as "proof."

Perhaps it is an evolutionary adaptation to believe things so easily without evidence at first. This could be an adaptation to cause us to be cautious of the unknown, just in case it is dangerous.
(02-09-2011 10:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "All I ask is for an explanation for such widespread belief in supernatural occurrences? Electro-chemical deceptions in the brain?"

A desire to want to believe it because they thinks it is interesting. Our popular culture has been enabling these stories for centuries. People want something so they justify reasons to get it. In some cases it is dessert. "I really shouldn't eat it, but just once or twice a week won't hurt." To me this is the same thing as "that was a really weird sound I just heard. I have no idea what it was but I want an explanation so maybe it was a ghost." And then they watch a tv show that enables their obsession and they think that justifies/proves it.

People want to believe in it, so they do. If we did a better job at education by teaching critical thinking skill, people would abandon such silly beliefs. Like Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster. Organisms that big living near and/or in highly populated areas would not remain hidden for long and we would have better images than the grainy ones that are paraded about as "proof."

Perhaps it is an evolutionary adaptation to believe things so easily without evidence at first. This could be an adaptation to cause us to be cautious of the unknown, just in case it is dangerous.

And as for my experience with religion, don't be sorry. My experience shaped who I am today. What I believe and how I act are all causally linked to my past. It was ultimately not religion that caused me to abandon a belief in god but the irrationality of a belief in things without evidence. There exists no evidence for heaven, hell, god, angels, the flood, Noah's ark, Adam and Eve or any other supernatural story. The bible became nothing more to me than the Greek mythologies, and once I understood them that way they actually made sense, for once.

You actually bring up a good point concerning the Loch Ness monster: would you be willing to be adamant as to its non-existance?

I am not trying to prove a point, but just point out one.

Because I have faith in science as a process, and one that reaches conclusions that are verifiable as well as increase knowledge that can be both bad and good, I would not either say there is or there isn't a "monster," because I know that dinosaurs existed at one point, and I am not willing to be dogmatic that there is no creature out there that did not survive.

As far as people "believing because they want to believe," I agree.
S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2011, 10:43 AM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
The Loch Ness monster and Big Foot are considered to lie in the realm of Cryptozoology. This is not recognized as a science and both the Loch Ness monster and Big Foot are not listed in Biology. We have no evidence (direct or indirect) to suggest that they exist so why would we think otherwise? The fact of the matter is that we find fossilized Mesosaurs and Plesiosaurs (the hypothetical creature people believe the LN monster is) all the time, but all we have of the LN monster is a grainy photograph? And prior to the discovery of Mesosaurs and Pesiosaurs would anyone have ever had enough speculative reason to assume that the LN monster looked like that at all? In science you first need testable, repeatable, falsifiable and verifiable evidence to make a claim. For the LN monster and Big Foot I am in the camp of saying they do not exist until proven otherwise.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2011, 11:04 AM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2011 11:07 AM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: "You're going to hell!"
aww you didn't finish the response.

My comment about your trust in adaptation is similar to a comment about someone believing in survival of the fittest. Evolution is in essence the scientific explanation of these ideas nothing more. You also cannot disprove it by proving a god because it's not theistic in nature. Just a mention of that separation.

I think understanding is great but feel few really are open to understand something they don't yet know.

When I said I was uninterested it does not mean I failed to hear what was said. I just didn't care up until 8 when my interest was met with disgust. I already knew really horrid truths from before this time after being molested at 5 years old. I was wanting to wait to respond after you discussed my own unique gender expression. I told you the doctrine that clenched it for me on christianity. I do not accept hierarchies as something beyond a contraption, especially inter-special ones.

I've also mentioned that even if you prove your god to me I will not call it god, Something that can do things I can't is not superior to me. Not even my creators are superior to me. While abiogenesis is still not very understood the mere concept of it is that the progenitors were far simpler than the product of them. I feel that generations move forward in a sense. Though I will agree with you that most parts of being human have been the same throughout this whole time. The things that define an age are the secular things taught to each generation and those revered by previous generations that were still interacting with an era.

For another example of my views on superiority. I have an opposable thumb which lets me hold objects more securely than my kitten (not owned by me but raised by me I don't own her). that I can hold things better than her does not mean that I am superior to her. It does mean that I am more capable of holding things, but that is not a mark of superiority.

You know what scripture says about a man wanting to be a woman? Very little, but the little it does say condemns it. I'm sure you know the baptist take on gay people too. Since I had no idea what I was and a slight understanding of gay I took that as a synonym to my situation. At present I am someone born outside of the American ideals of gender who, after being forced into malehood, rejected it and chose to live a life of her own taking the basis of being female as an acceptable compromise for people who can't comprehend an alternative. I'm nothing that people accept, and neither are my sexual habits. then again what point is it of me to worry about procreative sex? I couldn't procreate in the first place. there's a bit of it.

One thing I took from Baptists was a view of the world being a punishment which we suffer through, though I didn't take the "god as comfort" part so I was really depressed as a kid along with having questions that had no external answers.

What I rejected was that the statements being made were true. I rejected it with my family because they were subjecting me to this. I did not reject my family by saying that is just not true and arguing vehemently.

I grew up seeing the ease of life for those who accepted these lies. Yes lies, while there are parts of the book that you can consider true there are many portions that are downright lies. From cures to discussing the motives of nonbelievers. Plenty of things written in these books just aren't true.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lilith Pride's post
02-09-2011, 11:21 AM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2011 12:17 PM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  When I got to 8 years old I became interested in ancient greece's stories and at that point gained enough of an interest in religion to listen to what was being said.

I also had an interest in greek mythology, but I always saw it mythology, though we all as kids like to fantasize about ourselves dwelling in our favorite stories.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  You know what I heard? A discussion of a hierarchical system, which places man above all things on earth.

Not sure what is meant here, whether it refers to "man's dominion over animals," or man's "superiority over women."

The first I would affirm, the second, well...I look at it as both have a role to play, and while I am fundamental in my belief that the man is to be head of the household, so to speak, because he is according to scripture, held accountable in ways that a woman is not, I do not view him as "superior to women." Both need each other.

Concerning greek mythology, there is a significant difference to scripture in which women are presented, in the sense that deity is ascribed to females as well as men, showing a closer resemblance to equality than teh picture presented of God in scripture, where both He as well as angels are always spoken of in the masculine.

Bottom line, though, is that God is Spirit, whereas the gender division of man is, when compared to a discussion of God, really not a relevant issue.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  That statement alone was one I wholly cannot support as I know it is untrue and it was all it took for me to demand to never have to go to church again.

So, if I am reading this correctly, another religion (and it was a religion) convinced you to reject Chrsitianity, of which you admit that you knew nothing about?

Think about that.

It was more a dislike of a concept that you personally were not willing to embrace, wasn't it?

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  The question of defining god is that when held to scrutiny the idea of god by each person's volition is only a personal definition of a common undefined word.

I still do not see the point that was tried to be made in this: the term god really needs no definition. It is a concept that is found in all races.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  When put in question the definition changes in an attempt to remain correct at all times. Your examples of god were that of a personal god, he is asking you to state the global statements not your experiences.

I think I will just answer the next question, which I can better understand what is sought.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  He can't experience your life himself so give him the explanation of what he should seek.

It is very simple, really, according to my understanding of scripture (which I admit is subject to examination in itself, and I would not discourage anyone from doing so):

Scripture teaches that man is spiritually separated from God, and when he is born, this separation has with it a nature that ha a proclivity to do what he wants.

Scripture teaches that throughout man's history God has revealed His will for man, and, being God...expects obedience to that word.

Man's nature rebels, naturally, causing this separation to be continued, but...God goes the "extra mile" in extending His mercy toward man by the very revelation of Himself and His will for man.

He will speak to the natural man's heart and give him opportunity to be reconciled, and in this age, this is specifically the knowledge that Jesus died to take upon Himself the penalty which man will receive. This point alone is the toughest one for natural man to recognize, as it is in itself a condemnation of man, which is going to rankle with...you guessed it, the very nature that separates man from God!

It's not fair, one will say, I didn't do anything wrong! But is that so? Who can claim not to have ever lied? Stolen? Committed murder? And the revelation found in the New Testament teaches that hatred is considered as equally worthy of condemnation as physical murder, so, I will rephrase the question: who among us has lived a life in which we never ran across a person we did not hate?

Okay, getting back to the question, according to my study, until a man is born again, he will have no "evidence" of God. I can not "transfer" this knowledge any more than I can transfer my actual life experience. Sounds like a cop-out, and it will probably be received as such.

Only through the hearing of the gospel and the conviction of the Holy Spirit can man be brought to a place where God is "real" to them.

Now, having said all that, understand that this is my interpretation of scripture. It is something that I can show scripture teaches, and I reiterate that I cannot "prove" God's existence to someone...only He can do that. He uses His children in this process, to be sure, but He also reveals Himself apart from using preachers and teachers.

But it would be ironic for God to reveal Himself to those who are adamant...not to "know."

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  For a philosophically minded person once this discussion comes up it is very difficult to accept discussing a god when there is no real grounding as to what is being discussed.

Yet, from my perspective, I believe there are grounds for my belief in God. And not just a god, but the God of scripture, Who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Your discussion of a life changing event from entering into the faith is the same as discussions of life changing events for people leaving the faith.

You have given your experience (and I am talking about the specific mention, not implying this is all there is to it), and it seems that what is a probablity is that as a child, biblical teachings were rejected due to an understanding that was incomplete. I would venture a guess that poor teaching and exposition is more to blame than the actual teachings themselves.

continued...
(02-09-2011 11:04 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  aww you didn't finish the response.

As my buddy Bugs Bunny would say..."You don't know me too good, do you." lol

I said I was a windbag, and I am not about to make a liar out of myself...at least not intentionally. I will have to come back to this post, as I should get to work, but, I am still working on the response to your post.

You may want to wait a bit and condense your response, this is just taking a little time.

S.T.




(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  This is not as one sided as you may think. People in general are very excited when they manage to change the way they view the world. And changing this view is a very large change.

I see it all the time. On Christian forums (and sorry, this is what I am used to, this is actually my first visit to a non-christian forum) I see changes made in positions, and it might amuse you to know that no-one, not even on Christian Forums want to thought to be wrong. Human pride causes most of our problems in life, I believe.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  You discuss black and white examples here such as the fact that there are only sheep and goats. There are some crazy people out there who from this way of thinking believe I am a hell-spawn because I am not male or female. Intersex which is on my title means that I was born in between the established genders. I rarely accept dichotomies mind you because there is nothing about me which fits into them.

I say there are only "sheep and goats" because that is what my study of scripture has led me to conclude. It is one of the most basic principles taught in scripture, and when we look at the progressive revelation concerning redemption (meaning, not a change in the plan of redemption but an increase in the knowledge revealed about that same plan) we are forced to come to this conclusion.

As to the rest of this statement, I am not sure exactly what you mean, as to whether this is physical or if it refers to your preference.

As far as who is "hell-spawn," there is a difference between SIN and sins, and a failure to distinguish between the nature we are born with with individual acts that that are sins, is one of the misunderstood lessons of God's words.

If one objects to something the other is doing, this falls into the category I usually term sins. Whether that sin is a prohibition in scripture is determined by scripture, and is subject to interpretation, though I will say, most issues can be settled through exposition.

If it is sins that are in view, then everyone is "hell-spawn," because all sin, and fall short of the glory of God. That is just a bible fact that few will argue.

But, to explain what I consider "hell-spawn," this refers not to people, but doctrine, primarily. There are people that I believe preach demon doctrine, though it is cleverly disguised as truth. That is the insidious nature of religion, it can in all appearances seem "externally righteous," but as the Lord said, beneath is a rotten stinking corpse (and this is a paraphrase).


(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  As testament to who I am, I would discuss with you that if I were shown the "true face of god" I would explain it to other people but never see it as a god. That something is beyond me does not make it above me.

Does that mean that "if there were a God, you would not submit to Him?" Because it in some way lessen who you are?

That is not a sentiment that scripture teaches, but rather, it teaches that this is a sentiment that is found in humanity.

But clarification is needed.

continued...




(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Now back to your topic of hell. The biggest discussion of hell that caught my interest was Dante's Inferno, I read that book at 10 years old (of my own volition).

So it is admitted that a major contributor to your beliefs about Hell do not come from scriptural teaching, but from an extrabiblical source?


(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I felt he was very apt in describing his view of what hell would be.

And that it suited what you wanted to embrace? My only point here is that rather than coming to a conclusion based upon what most would consider the likely source of information, your position is based upon what can only be called the opinion of a man.

Or I should say, actually led to the position held at this time, and was a contributor, not necessarily the cause.


(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Yes he very much discussed his own opinion but there wasn't a lot to go off of. There are people who discuss gehenna as only existing post rapture.

Post Millennial would be my position.

And pre-eternal state.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  The only agreed upon definition of hell is the separation part, and the issue with hell being a separation from god is that the world is a separation from god, so there is no distinct difference.

As far as gehenna being a separation, I agree.

However, I would have to disagree that the world in general is a separation from God, other than being born separated. It does not preclude reconciliation and fellowship with God.

In that, there is a distinct as well as signifigant difference.


(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Those who have no issues living here would prefer to live a life that can be relatively similar as opposed to living a life that is wholly different more often than not.

I don't quite understand this statement, so I will go on.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  The simple statement of becoming more than human suggests becoming not yourself as you are currently human.

I believe that scripture teaches the new birth, what is commonly called being born again. It is a "creation" that is spiritual that gives a new nature that is contrasted to the old.

At this point, a believer is placed in a "standing" which is legal in concept, rather than experiential, meaning, we have been deemed righteous, though we still retain unredeemed flesh which has due to its physical nature desires as well as needs. For example, I do not believe that when we are glorified we will "have to" eat to survive (though I think we will eat as suggested both by the Lord's actions after glorification as well as other passages that imply the same), but for now, we have to eat...or we die. This issue extends to spiritual matters as well, concerning "needs versus wants," such as
man and woman's desire to have a "mate," which is a natural need in our lives, which will not be an issue in the glorified body.

But because we, because we are still in unredeemed flesh (as Christians), are still subject to this flesh, we do not neglect the instruction given to believers to bring our flesh under control, and to put away such things like adultery.


(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  The discussion of god as a parent is in many cases deplorable.

I do not see it that way. God is depicted in a "Fatherly" manner in scripture because it is a human concept we can understand. We do not make it exactly the same thing as earthly parent, but it is illustrative to this characteristic of God.

I would also say to clarify that I do not want it thought I believe in a "universal Fatherhood of God," because that view can be seen as in error according to scripture.




(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Warning us of hell is not equivalent of warning us of a light socket.

Agreed. It is a far more serious issue.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  If a child puts a fork in the light socket they most likely will have quite a shock and then possibly be taken to an emergency room where they live through the experience and know from now on. Most parents do not state that a child can never make a mistake. Your mom says don't take a cookie they are for dinner tonight, and you take a cookie. Does this send you to eternal punishment? Why of course not, you get punished a bit for not listening but then you understand a little better that it's not just words and the experiment happens again.

To put this back in perspective, first, I would just say that the comparison is not equitable. We are not talking about warning from physical harm.

To make a comparison, we would have to have the parent telling the child, "Do not sell drugs, or you will end up in prison."

The child that does grow up to sell drugs and ends up in prison has done two things that the one who ends up in hell will do: 1)They have disregarded and disobeyed what they were instructed not to do; 2)they have broken the law.

We do not, as Americans, put law to the side because the offender is related to us (not supposed to, anyway). Neither does God set aside His law.

The warning was given, the instruction was given, yet by his own choice to rebel, our hypothetical drug dealer receives the consequences.

The good news, though, is that unlike the justice system in this world, God first implores the sinner to not take such a course, and actually stands in the place of the condemned, leaving them free from fulfilling the prison sentence.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  What about the newly formed life put on a garden and told to cultivate it? Well if they make a mistake it's not only going to ruin their life, but it is going to ruin the lives of everything on their planet. The creation story discusses that in the garden of eden everything was in harmony and lived together well. When humans make a simple mistake not only are they punished but everything is punished as some become carnivores and all become creatures of needs. God's "children" were not given the benefit of being as they so obviously are experiential.

Is direct disobedience to be thought of as a "simple mistake?"

Could it be admitted that if God is real, and He specifically says, "Don't do this," would we say direct disobedience should be overlooked?

Adam was not a child who simply made a mistake, but was a man that directly disobeyed. Eve, on the other hand, was deceived. But the responsibility fell on Adam.

There are many issues that could be discussed concerning Adam, but I will leave off there on this issue.


continued...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: