12 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziOk this is interesting.
here is my explanation.
i am a christian when it comes to jesus being the saviour and all and believing in the general message of the bible(be nice to God and to each other). anything else in the bible i believe only applies to that particular society(eg woman is an inferior being,noah's flood and the genesis).
so we consider a supreme being(one that he created us if we end up in heaven or hell. so he is not a sadist. (maybe just a little 😀)
You've gone with the humans are simply the amusment of a bored God. This is fair enough, I don't know if every Christian I know would agree that God is quite so trivial, but if there was a God, I certainly couldn't think of any other reason.
More interesting is your ideas about the omniscience of God. I have never heard this idea from a Christian before. Most of them would say, 'we have free will to make a choice, but God knows what we are going to choise.' If this was true then God would know what branch you'd end up on, and he would know exactly where you'd find your imortal soul. He would know which of his children would be hell bound before he creates them.
Now if we take your varient on Chritianity. If God does not know where people will end up before he creates them then he is left with an ethical dilema. He cannot vet his creations and only create those that will spend an eternity in bliss. Not creating someone has no negative effect on them because they would never know any better, so really the potentially saved people are irrelivant in this argument, and God should have created no one to avoid the possibility of anyone ending up in hell.
A totally different point: What do you think it says for the credibility of Christianity when you have such varing interpretations, such as your own? There does not seem to be any continuity at all, just a huge bunch of 'what I feel most comfortable with' ideas.
12 Mar 08
Originally posted by Jake EllisonI guess I'm having a hard time with your concept of mercy. You insist that a lack of creation illustrates more mercy than a creation that ends in hell, but that doesn't follow logical steps. By your thinking, zero becomes greater than one, simply because one has the capacity of becoming negative one.
My post if made from an assuption that Christianity is accurate. I do not believe in a God and therefore would not consider myself to have rejected him.
You are incorrect in your initial interpretation of my post. My point is that if we take Christian teachings as read (for example having to choise to follow or not to follow God) then why can they not ...[text shortened]... re any overly henious mispellings you think I should correct in future, then tell me.)
12 Mar 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziHow does a god which exists outside of time have a concept of "futures" - you're making out that he's in the present and can't tell what decisions you're going to make in the future, however he exists in the future just as much as he exists now, so how can he not know what decisions you are going to make?
And although he knows all these infinite futures(he is cool) he cannot know on what branch you will end up.
I think you are confused on this point. You've invented your god, surely it should be easy enough to abandon him?
12 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHClearly you are far beyond us all with logic and your fine wit.
I guess I'm having a hard time with your concept of mercy. You insist that a lack of creation illustrates more mercy than a creation that ends in hell, but that doesn't follow logical steps. By your thinking, zero becomes greater than one, simply because one has the capacity of becoming negative one.
However you seem stuck in yourself - you can't imagine a world where you don't exist. And in what way is it merciful to create people you know will go to hell?
speaking of which, when we go to heaven / hell we enter timelessness, which means we enter the same realm that god has been in since before time, so those souls which were going to hell would have already been there (in human timescales) before they were even born!
how does that work???
12 Mar 08
Originally posted by cpbrownThanks for the clarification.
in clarification of the non[b]bold section, i'm just stating that a god who is not all powerful / all knowing is an interpretation of god many people do not share (as you're well aware from your previous forum post) - highlighting the highly subjective nature of religious belief - in response to which I wrote the bold section:
religion is a "truth cla ...[text shortened]... its absolute simplicity - there is very little to disagree upon when there are no beliefs.[/b]
I don't see much difference in the unity of non-theists vs. theists. I'm not even sure why you see "unity" as an important indicator unless your expectation is that they'd be unified by truth. It's been my experience that theists for the most part have little interest in truth. For example, the vast majority of "Christians" don't follow the teachings of Jesus and many make no more than a token attempt. As such, their own desires are what they really follow.
Hedonism will be found to be lacking except amongst the most shallow, self-centered and immature.
12 Mar 08
Originally posted by cpbrownClearly you are far beyond us all with logic and your fine wit.
Clearly you are far beyond us all with logic and your fine wit.
However you seem stuck in yourself - you can't imagine a world where you don't exist. And in what way is it merciful to create people you know will go to hell?
speaking of which, when we go to heaven / hell we enter timelessness, which means we enter the same realm that god has been in sin ...[text shortened]... already been there (in human timescales) before they were even born!
how does that work???
I'd agree, but modesty prohibits such displays of public self-approbation. Perhaps you can help my cause by posting such sentiments from time to time in random threads?
... you can't imagine a world where you don't exist.
You'll have to humor me on this one: how would I know of my non-existence?
And in what way is it merciful to create people you know will go to hell?
Perhaps you're looking at the equation with the wrong lens. How can a loving God not create--- regardless of the outcome--- without violating His justice?
... when we go to heaven / hell we enter timelessness...
Slight correction on your concept of eternity. The Bible speaks of eternity as time without end, not without its basic essence.
12 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt isn't just that zero is greater then one, just because of the potential to become negative one. God knows exactly who will become negative one. Its not a potential, its a certainty. For those who end up negative one, of course zero would be better.
I guess I'm having a hard time with your concept of mercy. You insist that a lack of creation illustrates more mercy than a creation that ends in hell, but that doesn't follow logical steps. By your thinking, zero becomes greater than one, simply because one has the capacity of becoming negative one.
But even if it is just a capacity or potential you can't justify the torturing of some by the bliss of others. I don't think negative one and one are exact opposites in this case. I don't think any number of humans entering heaven can justify the entry of one human into hell. The idea of eternal damnation is repulsive. There is no one that deserves such treatment, and Christianity would have many good non believers end up there too.
Just for clarity, can you explain the lack of logic behind this statment: 'zero becomes greater than one, simply because one has the capacity of becoming negative one.' ?
12 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPlease explain what Gods justice is and why he violates it if he does not create.
[b]Clearly you are far beyond us all with logic and your fine wit.
I'd agree, but modesty prohibits such displays of public self-approbation. Perhaps you can help my cause by posting such sentiments from time to time in random threads?
... you can't imagine a world where you don't exist.
You'll have to humor me on this one: how would I kno ...[text shortened]... eternity. The Bible speaks of eternity as time without end, not without its basic essence.[/b]
12 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI suppose it depends on how you veiw hedonism. In a tradition interpretation I agree with you. But in a way, altriusm can be seen as hedionisic. It makes you feel good to help others. If I was to lead my life with a complete disregard for the feelings of others and only my own, I would be far from happy and would therefore fail in terms of traditional hedonism.
Thanks for the clarification.
I don't see much difference in the unity of non-theists vs. theists. I'm not even sure why you see "unity" as an important indicator unless your expectation is that they'd be unified by truth. It's been my experience that theists for the most part have little interest in truth. For example, the vast majority of "Christians ...[text shortened]... ill be found to be lacking except amongst the most shallow, self-centered and immature.
12 Mar 08
1 edit
Clearly you are far beyond us all with logic and your fine wit.
I'd agree, but modesty prohibits such displays of public self-approbation. Perhaps you can help my cause by posting such sentiments from time to time in random threads?
Sure thing, freaky
... you can't imagine a world where you don't exist.
You'll have to humor me on this one: how would I know of my non-existence?
granted - we can't conceive of non-existence, but this is exactly the point - regardless of your effortless superiority (see above) among humans, you are still only human, and so are trapped within a highly limiting neural framework.
And in what way is it merciful to create people you know will go to hell?
Perhaps you're looking at the equation with the wrong lens. How can a loving God not create--- regardless of the outcome--- without violating His justice?
Please explain yourself here.
... when we go to heaven / hell we enter timelessness...
Slight correction on your concept of eternity. The Bible speaks of eternity as time without end, not without its basic essence.
OK, so by which process have you decided which parts of the bible to believe literally and which parts to take poetically? Do you accept the subjectivity of your faith? If you do, does that remove meaning, reducing it to a postmodern approach - in which case you're more or less an atheist and there is no point in me arguing with your beliefs? Or are you a literalist in which case you threw logic out the window a long time ago and results again in there being no point in me arguing with you about your beliefs?
12 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Jake EllisonJust because someone helps others doesn't make them altruistic, though I think that this is a common misconception. Those who help others because as you said "it makes you feel good to help others" are really hedonists masquerading as altruists. They like to view themselves and have others view them as "altruistic."
I suppose it depends on how you veiw hedonism. In a tradition interpretation I agree with you. But in a way, altriusm can be seen as hedionisic. It makes you feel good to help others. If I was to lead my life with a complete disregard for the feelings of others and only my own, I would be far from happy and would therefore fail in terms of traditional hedonism.
12 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou have the humanistic arrogance that somehow from our evolutionary roots evolved a mechanism which acts in morally good ways, such as the traditional view of altruism. however, the mechanism for this action is in some ways selfish ... give me an example of non-selfish altruism if you think it's possible ...
Just because someone helps others doesn't make them altruistic, though I think that this is a common misconception. Those who help others because as you said "it makes you feel good to help others" are really hedonists masquerading as altruists. They like to view themselves and have others view them as "altruistic."
remember that by doing good for others, coupled with empathy, you can feel it done to yourself (this is why many serial killers display less empathy for example)
12 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMaybe true altrism is hard (impossible?) to find. Even if no one knows you help someone, it still makes you feel good. Prehaps we are all inherently selfish. We are really the centre of our own universes.
Just because someone helps others doesn't make them altruistic, though I think that this is a common misconception. Those who help others because as you said "it makes you feel good to help others" are really hedonists masquerading as altruists. They like to view themselves and have others view them as "altruistic."
12 Mar 08
Originally posted by cpbrownI'm sure you can think of examples as well as I. What you might have trouble with however is believing any of them given your hedonistic worldview.
You have the humanistic arrogance that somehow from our evolutionary roots evolved a mechanism which acts in morally good ways, such as the traditional view of altruism. however, the mechanism for this action is in some ways selfish ... give me an example of non-selfish altruism if you think it's possible ...
remember that by doing good for others, couple ...[text shortened]... can feel it done to yourself (this is why many serial killers display less empathy for example)
12 Mar 08
Originally posted by Jake EllisonI'd agree that it's extremely rare. I'd agree that we are "inherently selfish" and born "the center of our own universes". However, I believe that it can be overcome. I see it as maturity. We come into this world with only one point of view - our own. It's a difficult thing to get past.
Maybe true altrism is hard (impossible?) to find. Even if no one knows you help someone, it still makes you feel good. Prehaps we are all inherently selfish. We are really the centre of our own universes.