|
Do You Think There is a God ? (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Orbax |
I believe in the ressurection of Jesus Christ. I have an earlier post of what took place. To me, that is a key event. Being ressurected would add weight to your words.
I think I know a lot. Call me immodest, but my thoughts and ideas arent just pulled out of the air. I have worked hard and long to learn the things I have. I am better educated than the majority of people.
and to answer you question: Under the belief system of Christianity you will go to hell. Here is a part of the reasoning behind this belief. *There are assumed premises here but if they are true then the conclusion is true also. There isnt really a way to prove the assumptions until you die* You have a soul. You sin. Sin corrupts the soul and twists it beyond Gods purpose. God is a spirit. He looks at you from a spiritual stand point. He sees a twisted, black, ugly soul and does not wish it in his Kingdom of Heaven. He only wants pretty souls. The way to cleanse your soul was made clear with the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ, his physical manifestation on earth. Ask the forgiveness of God and Jesus Christ who died on the cross for mankind's sins. Before we used to slaughter a sheep when we sinned to cleanse ourselves and off an appeasement. Jesus was OUR sheep. He died for all of us. We just have to pray and have a union with God, our Father. That cleanses our souls. It goes back to the question of the sweet old librarian who loves people and is good but doesnt believe in God. Yes she goes to hell. Her soul is a creature of hell and will be until she admits that there have been things done wrong and she wishes a relationship with God, our Father.
You dont have to believe that, but if you are asking if Christians think you are going to hell its yes. And age doesnt matter on books. The dictionary will still have all the words we use now. If someone picks up that book in a couple thousand years, they will say to themselves "this is how they spoke". The Bible mainly teaches principle and morality. Those are timeless.
Last note: People think that muslims who are raised in muslim families and have never heard the gospel are going to hell. That is wrong. To say that would be to say that God is foolish and that is blasphemous. God is a very knowledgeable entity I would assume and He would certainly grant allowances for different situations. It isnt a chopping block mentality of "believe or not believe" |
|
|
| davinox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
I believe in the ressurection of Jesus Christ. I have an earlier post of what took place. To me, that is a key event. Being ressurected would add weight to your words. |
You believe in Jesus' ressurection, I believe in the Philadelphia Experiment.
Both had several eyewitnesses, a story that can't really be disproven, but are rather rediculous.
I really don't believe the Philadelphia Experiment happened, but it goes to show what people believe is true. His disciples said he resurrected, the people who were "transported in time" in the Philadelphia experiment said it happened as well.
How do you know about this buisness with souls? What is a sin? The Ten Commandments say so, huh? So I guess it's alright to have slaves.
...wait...it's not is it? What is wrong and what is right is a part of society. Whatever made sense at the time to be acceptable was written at the time, because the book was written by humans.... NOT God.
Humans have said they have been touched by god since the beginning of their existance, and the only ones you believe are the writers of Bible, Jesus, and those who follow Jesus?
Religion is created by humans. The aspect of God helping this seems ridiculous, and it God didn't help, then religion is all BS. |
|
|
| Orbax |
Read my post on why I believe in the ressurection of Jesus. It isnt whim.
The Bible touches a chord in me. It resonates in me and I can feel the rightness of it. And dont try to use that against me, ive already posted ample other reasons.
The reasoning behind the soul is that there has to be more to this life than just some random quirk of fate. I have a sense of wonder to the world, and to me it seems like it had to be created for a multitude of reasons. When you say why is Christianity right? How do we know souls? how do we know sin? well we dont otherwise God would be proved and that wouldnt be faith would it? But for the most part sin is that feeling you have every time you type "Lesbians ing" into your search engine. You know its wrong and you do it anyways. That is sin. You dont need the Bible to tell you about it humans have a built in trigger called guilt that lets you know that you are doing a bad thing. And no one disputes the claim that God didnt write the Bible. I know He didnt. |
|
|
| Orbax |
and on the flipside of the questions you ask...
How do you know there arent souls? How do you know sin doesnt exist? How do you know religion wasnt divinely inspired? |
|
|
| davinox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
You dont need the Bible to tell you about it humans have a built in trigger called guilt that lets you know that you are doing a bad thing. And no one disputes the claim that God didnt write the Bible. I know He didnt. |
but you do need a society telling you what's wrong and right. Guilt isn't because you have a soul, it's because your brain is complex and emotional, and your history has developed your emotions that way.
Romans thought of nothing hosting Colesseums of death, that's because society thought it was OK...
Same thing with slavery and racism, some of the biggest racists were Christians.
| quote: | | How do you know there arent souls? How do you know sin doesnt exist? How do you know religion wasnt divinely inspired? |
I don't know...but it seems highly unlikely. I think there is an equal possibility that there is a God who rewards those who "sin", or a God who punishes everyone, or rewards anyone, or probably, doesn't care about some developed lifeforms in an extremely small span of time in the Universe.
I think it's highly unlikely that we know what God is like, if one exists. Who are we to assume? The only way to discover the truth is through discovery and testing.
---
Since this argument is not going anywhere, I'm going to stop posting for a while, let others go at it. (I'm still gonna read it though.)
I'm leaving with one thought. (I
Christianity is like:
I was at a hockey game, and the score was 2 - 1, we lost. It was a heartbreaker.
I go home, next day, the newspaper says, "WE WIN! 3-0!"
I'm like, "Everything around me says we lost 2-1... this can't be right."
But then all of your neighbors say we really won 3-0, and a bunch of other people say the same thing, only some say we won 2-1, some say 5-4, some say 3-1... but all saying we won, when EVERYTHING you saw says we lost.
The thing is, Christianity (like all other religions) is an extraordinary claim. It explains why we are here, that a divine creature created, controls and watches us, and explains in detail everything associated with it and our relationship with it.
This is an extraordinary claim, and like the newspaper, the only evidence is a written document by someone, even though there are documents exactly the same, but with different scores.
I think http://www.timecube.com has more evidence than Christianity, even though Time Cube is a ridiculous theory. |
|
|
| Orbax |
Thank God the founders of calculus, physics, math, geometery, biology, theology, etc didnt think like you do. If you cant understand it RIGHT NOW forget about it? Say " it" because you arent 100% sure? Damn dude. damn. I guess its just a personality thing. I dont give up when its hard or confusing.
and for the love of everything READ CS LEWIS'S "THE ABOLITION OF MAN" AND "MERE CHRISTIANITY"
he PROVES that society and morality are NOT based on education and society. What you just said about society is called moral relativism. That would mean if everyone BELIEVED the earth was flat then it would actually be so. That is not the case. Belief in NO WAY justifies the reality. Moral relativism is the most pathetic view of morality. The whole idea contains a contradiction. namely that the same action can be both right and wrong at the same time depending on the belief of the tribe. here is another one
Tribe X believs itself to be morally right, tribe Y believes tribe X to be morally wrong. Therefore the morality of tribe X is relative to the belief of the tribe.
If it is true that one and the same action can be both right and wrong at the same time or at different times, and assuming that each casae of moral judgement is a factually correct assertion of the speakers feelings,, then it will follow that when two or more persons appear to disagree they do not genuinely disagree. But in point of observed fact people DO genuinely disagree therefore protagorian relativism is False.
that whole statement makes morality too easy or too impossible. If there is no consensus on whether or not it is moral how can a judgement be made? It makes the concept of moral progress meaningless. There can be no such thing as a moral reformer.
no, morality is most definitely NOT relative to the belief of the tribe. There are universal principles, or categorical imperatives as my good friend Emmanuel Kant would say.
honestly honestly honestly PLEASE READ those books I said to. They will open your mind and they are SHORT!!!! a quick read! The "mere christianity" doesnt even go into the belief of God until the end of the book. His whole book is about moral principles. Its fascinating. It is not a book that will convert you in any way READ IT! its awesome! I cant stress it enough how good a book it is for ANYONE |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| the best theologians don't talk about god:D |
|
|
| ScuL |
I don't believe in any thing as a god.. :eek:
Only thing believe causes is war :whip: |
|
|
| Kamaya |
I don't believe in a God.
I do hope, that when I die answers will come to me about why, how, starting, end???!!
I sometimes think of the questions of life, but it only makes me go crazy and leads me to the conclusion I need to not think about it too much.
Greetz. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
and on the flipside of the questions you ask...
How do you know there arent souls? How do you know sin doesnt exist? How do you know religion wasnt divinely inspired? |
It's obviously a valid assertion that we can no more be certain of the nonexistence of souls/sin/god than of the existence of such given the evidence we possess. However, this is not relevant in deciding whether or not we ought to alter our behavior in order to comply with guidelines of unknown accuracy.
Consider the following hypothetical scenario:
You recieve a message in the mail which tells you that you are destined to die in exactly one week. However, it says that you can prevent your imminent death by sending five thousand dollars cash to some address. It provides some unsubstantiated claims to support its proposition, but nothing that could be considered proof.
You certainly cannot prove it to be incorrect (at least not until a week has elapsed), yet you can construct no compelling rational argument as to why you ought to believe it has any truth.
In this situation, the obvious course of action is to decline to forward money to the given address (and probably inform the authorities about it as well).
Religion is a way of life. When you choose to follow a religion, you're mailing away the cash, only you're sacrificing something far more valuable than a little money - your freedom.
In my opinion, if you're going to give up your freedom - even just a little - then you need more than faith to be operating in a rational manner: you need something substantial that can be corroborated in a definitive and indisputable way.
I have nothing but respect for you or your beliefs, but I earnesetly believe you are misleading yourself if you think religion can be rationally justified. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
he PROVES that society and morality are NOT based on education and society. What you just said about society is called moral relativism. That would mean if everyone BELIEVED the earth was flat then it would actually be so. That is not the case. Belief in NO WAY justifies the reality. Moral relativism is the most pathetic view of morality. The whole idea contains a contradiction. namely that the same action can be both right and wrong at the same time depending on the belief of the tribe. here is another one
Tribe X believs itself to be morally right, tribe Y believes tribe X to be morally wrong. Therefore the morality of tribe X is relative to the belief of the tribe.
If it is true that one and the same action can be both right and wrong at the same time or at different times, and assuming that each casae of moral judgement is a factually correct assertion of the speakers feelings,, then it will follow that when two or more persons appear to disagree they do not genuinely disagree. But in point of observed fact people DO genuinely disagree therefore protagorian relativism is False.
that whole statement makes morality too easy or too impossible. If there is no consensus on whether or not it is moral how can a judgement be made? It makes the concept of moral progress meaningless. There can be no such thing as a moral reformer.
no, morality is most definitely NOT relative to the belief of the tribe. There are universal principles, or categorical imperatives as my good friend Emmanuel Kant would say.
|
I would say that percieved morality is relative to the belief of the tribe, but that actual morality is not because it does not exist.
Can you provide any proof that any action is moral or immoral? Can you establish a standard by which any action could be judged to be one or the other?
Morality is entirely arbitrary; propositions concerning it have no truth value whatsoever.
It is not that the same action can be both morally right or wrong, it is that ALL actions are NEITHER morally right NOR wrong, since morality is devoid of actuality.
What people think is moral or immoral is not related to whether something truly is or is not moral or immoral. Every single person in the world could believe something to be immoral, but that would not make them correct.
If actual morality exists, then it is inherently unknowable, and therefore may as well not exist, for it is useless.
Codes of behavior should be based on reasonable people agreeing about the acceptability of actions based on those actions' immediate outcomes. It isn't easy, but it would create a far more stable society than one with codes of behavior based on unsupported beliefs and opinions. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| arbiter, so you are saying that if everyone on earth decided to rape babies as they came out of their mothers womb, and then smash their heads into the ground, it wrongness of it would be devoid of existence? It would actually be the RIGHT thing to do because everyone did it and believed it to be true? That idea tosses out any idea of moral progress and makes us no better than the brutish civilizations we tend to look at as barbaric and cruel these days. |
|
|
|
|
