toldailytopic: For those unsaved. If it turns out you were wrong and you face God in

[Skavau]

Skavau. I note your objections to my scenario. The issue is vicarious redemption. Would you or would you not be avoiding your moral responsibilities if you avoided the bullwhipping by letting the 2nd person of the Godhead take the punishment for you?

Yes I would.

 

[voltaire]

***************
---Quote (Originally by
voltaire)---
Skavau. I note your
objections to my scenario.
The issue is vicarious
redemption. Would you or
would you not be avoiding
your moral responsibilities if
you avoided the bullwhipping
by letting the 2nd person of
the Godhead take the
punishment for you?
---End Quote---
Yes I would.
***************---So paying your debt to God and society yourself is so important to you that you would rather face an unjust bullwhipping than spend an eternity with a God you will eventually understand and realize he was perfectly just in letting you face that punishment? Btw, it would not be whipping but you would still think you didnt deserve it.

 

[Skavau]

So paying your debt to God and society yourself is so important to you that you would rather face an unjust bullwhipping than spend an eternity with a God you will eventually understand and realize he was perfectly just in letting you face that punishment?

This is a loaded question. First of all, eternal torture for any crime whatsoever cannot be justified. Eternal punishment for finite crimes is by definition infinitely disproportionate (and so the claim that I would eventually understand that God was justified is in absence of evidence).

Secondly, I thought you said that God does not actually punish anyone and rather we punish ourselves?

Btw, it would not be whipping but you would still think you didnt deserve it.

You're right - I wouldn't. For a God to punish us for our nature is the height of incoherence and immorality.

 

[voltaire]

Skavau. Our analogies and scenarios are getting all crossed and tangled up here. I lose my place and say things that are contradictory to what i said before but your thought process is full of holes And self defeating although you are blind to it. This is what i meant by the huge disconnect between christians and atheists. i will try again next post with a different tact.

 

[voltaire]

Skavau. You say it morally wrong to let God in the 2nd person pay your moral debts for you. You say that finite punishment does not warrant infinite punishment. You say your crimes against God are not worthy of much punishment at all. You have decided what is right and wrong for yourself or rather you have accepted the moral code of the peopLe you respect. It is indeed immoral to let another human take your punishment in this life. But when we consider crimes against God, you are against vicarious redemption based on scenarious that exist in the here and now. How can you apply man made morality and insist that God abide by those rules? On what basis can you transfer a human engineered idea of vicarious redemption tmn a realm where such standards do not apply?

 

[nicholsmom]

Well, yes: if it's a question like the elephant, just based on statistics, the odds are most Christians are very mistaken and only grasp as much of the truth as, say, a Hindu or Buddhist might. So essentially, assuming there's any kind of judgmental God whatsoever in the afterlife, it's senseless to worry about him (or her) and prepare a defense of any kind.

That's close to true. No man is capable of grasping more than a corner of the truth about such a unique person as God. But He has not left us without resource that we cannot know truth from lies. We have many tools, not the least of which is rational thought which is used for literary analysis among other things. We have both physical and spiritual evidence. We have the person of God Himself revealing His true nature to us - or at least as much of that true nature as we can manage.

While comparison among the various belief systems the amount of knowledge concerning God is very like comparing degrees of holiness among humans (all fall short, so what's the difference?), it isn't just about how much we get right, but also about how much we get wrong.

For instance: the Hindus get it right that there is a spirit world, they get it wrong that all spirits are deserving of worship. Buddhists get it right that all life is sacred, but get it wrong that all life is equal (human life no more sacred than bug life).

I know that you disagree concerning who gets what right and who gets what wrong, but if Christians didn't believe that the Bible is true, we'd be Hindus or Universalists or something else. But we're not.

We're Christians - we believe the Bible to be Truth. So we use it as a measuring tool to discern truth from falsehood, and find that, while we may not know everything about God (far from it), what we do know is true and trustworthy.

 

[nicholsmom]

Perhaps I should have mentioned that in addition to being both atheistic and agnostic I am also an ignostic. That is, that I consider the concept of God to be incoherent as often as it is self-refuting. That there is no coherent definition for a being laced in impossibility.

I understand that you don't want to be found to be a sucker. It is a thing that requires faith to believe in the "impossible" - faith brings courage as well as hope. I will pray for you.

In any case, I respond claims made by theists claiming to be speaking on behalf of said God. If a Muslim or Christian informs me that I am a wretched sinner worthy of nothing less than eternal torture then I rightly feel indignation with such passive support for barbarity.

I don't like this approach either, but perhaps for different reasons. The Bible teaches me that all fall short of the holiness required by God. But I would much rather talk about God Himself - who He is, what He has done, that sort of thing.

If I am told that I must by decree feel both love and fear for this said being and know that this being knows my every thought and every action, I think I can rightly comment that said beliefs are best shady and at worst born of nightmares.

Sure. I get that. It isn't true, though. You do have the freedom to either love Him or not. To fear Him, if He exists, is only like fearing falling from a skyscraper, or fearing a stampede of hippos If God exists, then He can squash you like a bug. But He isn't a bully, so no worries. I am willing to bet that if you ever do meet God (before the Judgment, that is), that you will fall instantly in love - not because He forces it or demands it (or wind up in Hell), but because He is that lovable.

I am responding to what individuals believe about God and not the entire concept of God. When I am say I am anti-theist, or comment that hell is an unjust affair - I am pointing out my contempt for a world-view that includes sadistic permanent torture and a God that would approve of it.

Okay. I'll try to keep that in mind. Would you say that you are anti-justice, then? Or just anti-over-the-top-punishment?

You're glossing over the details. The details of which, if you are anti-torture are entirely necessary to explain.

Is there anyone for whom you would like to assign the punishment of eternal torture? Child predators, perhaps? Rapists? Sadistic Christians?

I cannot be told to ignore the fact that this God you describe might endorse eternal torture for our own nature, or for own inability to worship him.

I struggle with this myself.

We would not owe any hypothetical God unflinching obedience or unquestionable adulation of his inherent 'prowess'. Only a masochist would argue that we should.

It's such a funny thing to me to suggest that God would need to demand adoration. It's like a super model making everyone who enters her presence agree that she is beautiful :think:

It is one thing to seek out whether or not a God exists, but another to surrender our intellectual faculties (that he endowed upon us) to scrutinize his possible agenda.

I agree.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's close to true. No man is capable of grasping more than a corner of the truth about such a unique person as God. But He has not left us without resource that we cannot know truth from lies. We have many tools, not the least of which is rational thought which is used for literary analysis among other things. We have both physical and spiritual evidence. We have the person of God Himself revealing His true nature to us - or at least as much of that true nature as we can manage.

While comparison among the various belief systems the amount of knowledge concerning God is very like comparing degrees of holiness among humans (all fall short, so what's the difference?), it isn't just about how much we get right, but also about how much we get wrong.

For instance: the Hindus get it right that there is a spirit world, they get it wrong that all spirits are deserving of worship. Buddhists get it right that all life is sacred, but get it wrong that all life is equal (human life no more sacred than bug life).

I know that you disagree concerning who gets what right and who gets what wrong, but if Christians didn't believe that the Bible is true, we'd be Hindus or Universalists or something else. But we're not.

We're Christians - we believe the Bible to be Truth. So we use it as a measuring tool to discern truth from falsehood, and find that, while we may not know everything about God (far from it), what we do know is true and trustworthy.

Sorry NM, but from a Christian perspective there are plenty who believe that in a 'universal' sense God restores all. It's rather disingenuine to bracket those who ascribe to such as being outside the Christian faith, no matter how much you're at odds with such a position. Plenty believe Calvinist theology to be flawed, or Catholic, or Baptist, Or Presbyterian etc....so 'discerning truth' often seems to be at the whim as to whatever 'religious theology' one ascribes to. Ironically, most universalists I've known have no problem with accepting all the above (and more) as part of the Christian faith...

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Sorry NM, but from a Christian perspective there are plenty who believe that in a 'universal' sense God restores all. It's rather disingenuine to bracket those who ascribe to such as being outside the Christian faith, no matter how much you're at odds with such a position. Plenty believe Calvinist theology to be flawed, or Catholic, or Baptist, Or Presbyterian etc....so 'discerning truth' often seems to be at the whim as to whatever 'religious theology' one ascribes to. Ironically, most universalists I've known have no problem with accepting all the above (and more) as part of the Christian faith...

:e4e:

Muslimsaidwhat? lain:

 

[Samstarrett]

Muslimsaidwhat? lain:

I'm slow on the uptake, perhaps, but what have Muslims to do with it?

Regards,
Sam Starrett
:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm slow on the uptake, perhaps, but what have Muslims to do with it?

See, that's just the sort of attitude that will inadvertently give them the field...or is it? :think: As-Salam Alaikum, eh? :squint:

Cunning :devil:

 

[Granite]

That's close to true. No man is capable of grasping more than a corner of the truth about such a unique person as God.

Yet you claim to commune with him--to the exclusion of billions of people--and claim to be part of the only system that provides the truth and the whole truth.

We have many tools, not the least of which is rational thought which is used for literary analysis among other things. We have both physical and spiritual evidence. We have the person of God Himself revealing His true nature to us - or at least as much of that true nature as we can manage.

A member of any other religion on the planet could (and has) said the very same thing, so, we're right back to square one.

For instance: the Hindus get it right that there is a spirit world, they get it wrong that all spirits are deserving of worship.

I'd be careful, if I were you, speaking dogmatically about Hinduism. Very few westerners (including me) even understand the basics of arguably mankind's most complex religion. That said, I'm not familiar with this particular belief.

Buddhists get it right that all life is sacred, but get it wrong that all life is equal (human life no more sacred than bug life).

That's a simplification of a slightly bigger idea, NM.

I know that you disagree concerning who gets what right and who gets what wrong, but if Christians didn't believe that the Bible is true, we'd be Hindus or Universalists or something else. But we're not.

Or you'd be the type of Christian who rejects most of it but likes playing dress-up feel-good Charades on Sunday Christianity. You know what I mean.

 

[Skavau]

You say it morally wrong to let God in the 2nd person pay your moral debts for you.

Yes. Note that I say this loosely as the "moral debts" that you propose we are encumbered with aren't really moral debts at all - but rather merely a product of our imperfection (as bestowed upon us by this God). That said, using a simple example: If I was to murder someone in this life and then beg for God to take upon the responsibility of that for me, I would be absolving myself of accountability and effectively if deemed sincerely repentant could do anything.

You say that finite punishment does not warrant infinite punishment.

Indeed I do.

You say your crimes against God are not worthy of much punishment at all.

I'll go one step further and say that if I was to die today, my crimes against God would not be worthy of any punishment. Any illegal discretion that I may have done in my life have been served or I have been rehabilitated. My debt towards society has effectively been repaid in that regard.

ou have decided what is right and wrong for yourself or rather you have accepted the moral code of the peopLe you respect.

I have accepted moral precepts that I consider valid and necessary in any society that values personal liberty and community. Some are derived from those before me and those around me, of course. The same is to you. I am sure that pragmatically, you work with behavioural constraints considered relevant amongst your personal and wider community.

It is indeed immoral to let another human take your punishment in this life. But when we consider crimes against God, you are against vicarious redemption based on scenarious that exist in the here and now. How can you apply man made morality and insist that God abide by those rules?

Because "man made morality" happens to be the only in-depth and relevant morality we ever know. There is no reason whatsoever to presume that "theistic morality" or "God's rules" even exist much less are moral. Morality is a social construct designed by humans, for humans as to what we ought and ought not do within the context of a community. That is its pragmatic purpose and when someone suggests to me a hypothetical world or universe either in fiction or in theology where certain unquestionable insults towards morality are presented as absolute justice, I can and will query.

On what basis can you transfer a human engineered idea of vicarious redemption tmn a realm where such standards do not apply?

None - but I'm talking to you. I don't actually believe any 'realm' exists. You are now arguing me to suspend my judgment on this topic. You are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

 

[Skavau]

I understand that you don't want to be found to be a sucker. It is a thing that requires faith to believe in the "impossible" - faith brings courage as well as hope. I will pray for you.

I suppose it does require faith to believe in the impossible. I don't know why you view that as a virtue.

I don't like this approach either, but perhaps for different reasons.

I will take a stab at this and assume you don't like it due to the attitude that seeps from it. That is, it puts non-believers off.

The Bible teaches me that all fall short of the holiness required by God. But I would much rather talk about God Himself - who He is, what He has done, that sort of thing.

The part in bold is important here. If we are incapable of matching up to the "holiness" required by God, then how is it coherent for us to be judged on that standard?

Sure. I get that. It isn't true, though. You do have the freedom to either love Him or not.

In this life, I'm sure you believe that. I am not sure you do when it comes to your view in the afterlife.

To fear Him, if He exists, is only like fearing falling from a skyscraper, or fearing a stampede of hippos If God exists, then He can squash you like a bug. But He isn't a bully, so no worries. I am willing to bet that if you ever do meet God (before the Judgment, that is), that you will fall instantly in love - not because He forces it or demands it (or wind up in Hell), but because He is that lovable.

Pheromones? This isn't a frivolity. It is a curiosity.

Okay. I'll try to keep that in mind. Would you say that you are anti-justice, then? Or just anti-over-the-top-punishment?

I am not anti-justice. I am certainly anti "over-the-top-punishment" though.

Is there anyone for whom you would like to assign the punishment of eternal torture? Child predators, perhaps? Rapists? Sadistic Christians?

None of them actually. No-one. It can't be defended. Eternal torture for finite crimes.

It's such a funny thing to me to suggest that God would need to demand adoration. It's like a super model making everyone who enters her presence agree that she is beautiful

Do you think that God at least desires us to adore him?

 

[godrulz]

I've explained it frequently. It is the direct act of scapegoating one's moral responsibilities onto another, absolving themselves of moral accountability. That alone makes it anti-pragmatic.

This is why repentance and faith are conditions of receiving this substitution for the penalty of sin. We come to see that we are guilty, condemned before a holy God and cannot save ourselves. It is not a denial of moral responsibility. Those who want to pay the penalty can do so by rejecting the provision/substitute. Those who see our helpless estate, flee to Him for mercy. God wants to forgive and show mercy, but there are governmental issues to make it wise to do so. Even a human judge can show leniency, but not unconditionally and not always (lest the law and government be compromised). Justice is also another issue. So, the issues are governmental, not personal (must appease God to make Him willing to forgive), for God and us.

You are rejecting a straw man caricuture of the issues out of ignorance. Even without understanding the details, we can take the face value truths of God in His Word. He calls us to trust the death and resurrection of Christ. He shows that we are sinners. Our understanding on the theological nuances can be debated or caught up with. On judgment day, you will not be arguing the merits of your wrong views of the atonement. You will clearly see the wisdom and wonder of God, the love of God, the awefulness of sin in the cross. Believers generally get it, but you just use it as an excuse for continued unbelief.

 

[godrulz]

Well, yes: if it's a question like the elephant, just based on statistics, the odds are most Christians are very mistaken and only grasp as much of the truth as, say, a Hindu or Buddhist might. So essentially, assuming there's any kind of judgmental God whatsoever in the afterlife, it's senseless to worry about him (or her) and prepare a defense of any kind.

False religion can be exposed as such. You underestimate the truth of God's revelation (you rely on your darkened reason) in Scripture, the person of Christ, creation, etc. Buddhism is incoherent and cannot save. Christianity is coherent and based on God's revelation. God is a responsible Creator and is able to communicate truth. I can show that Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, Muhammad, Koran, etc. are false prophets, false scriptures. It can be demonstrated that Jesus is God and that the Bible is the Word of God.

Just because you are deaf, dumb, and blind does not mean Christians are.

 

[alwight]

False religion can be exposed as such. You underestimate the truth of God's revelation (you rely on your darkened reason) in Scripture, the person of Christ, creation, etc. Buddhism is incoherent and cannot save. Christianity is coherent and based on God's revelation. God is a responsible Creator and is able to communicate truth. I can show that Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, Muhammad, Koran, etc. are false prophets, false scriptures. It can be demonstrated that Jesus is God and that the Bible is the Word of God.

OK good, I'm all eyes.

Just because you are deaf, dumb, and blind does not mean Christians are.

Huh?
You seem to have omitted the actual explanation part GR, but I will wait for the edit.

 

[chair]

False religion can be exposed as such. You underestimate the truth of God's revelation (you rely on your darkened reason) in Scripture, the person of Christ, creation, etc. Buddhism is incoherent and cannot save. Christianity is coherent and based on God's revelation. God is a responsible Creator and is able to communicate truth. I can show that Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, Muhammad, Koran, etc. are false prophets, false scriptures. It can be demonstrated that Jesus is God and that the Bible is the Word of God.

Just because you are deaf, dumb, and blind does not mean Christians are.

GR, for once, just once, please try to actually prove or support your declarations. We can start with the basic one (actually two) here:

It can be demonstrated that Jesus is God and that the Bible is the Word of God. ​

So- go ahead and do this. It would be best to start a separate thread.

 

[Silent Hunter]

OK good, I'm all eyes.

Huh?
You seem to have omitted the actual explanation part GR, but I will wait for the edit.

GR, for once, just once, please try to actually prove or support your declarations. We can start with the basic one (actually two) here:

It can be demonstrated that Jesus is God and that the Bible is the Word of God. ​

So- go ahead and do this. It would be best to start a separate thread.

. . . typical of gr . . . as we ALL know.

gr neg'd me for the following:

How do you know Luke didn't write Luke?

. . . because I don't "know" if it was indeed written by Luke (no one does . . . except whoever did) . . . absent evidence that he actually did write it . . . it is safe to assume he didn't . . . Luke authorship.

. . . with "you always trust wiki? Luke wrote Luke...get over it"

. . . as if he is the ultimate authority on Biblical scholarship . . . :rotfl:

 

[Granite]

False religion can be exposed as such. You underestimate the truth of God's revelation (you rely on your darkened reason) in Scripture, the person of Christ, creation, etc. Buddhism is incoherent and cannot save. Christianity is coherent and based on God's revelation. God is a responsible Creator and is able to communicate truth. I can show that Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, Muhammad, Koran, etc. are false prophets, false scriptures. It can be demonstrated that Jesus is God and that the Bible is the Word of God.

Just because you are deaf, dumb, and blind does not mean Christians are.

Just because you're an arrogant stuffed shirt doesn't make the same out of your brethern, fortunately. As others here have pointed out, a declarative statement (especially from you) does not make something so. Your personal conviction is not proof of anything. Since you seem completely numb to this concept I'd appreciate it if you left me alone on this thread. The adults are talking.