JTaylor

First, Christ didn't say 'you reap what you sow', it's a Pauline idiom from Galatians, but admittedly it's in the spirit of Christ's teachings.

Secondly, this idea that's being deliberately put forth by the anti-Christians (that doesn't apply to you) that heaven will be full of undeserving monsters is poppycock. Christ did say in Matthew 9:12-13 “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick, for I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners". He said these things to the moral, upstanding, 'churchy' types of His day. It is these prideful, self-righteous, spiritually dead people that will go to hell, because they don't think they need Jesus, they're self-reliant. But the sick, the ones who confess their wrong doing and seek salvation in Jesus, it is they who'll enter the Kingdom.

Why should people who deny Christ go to heaven? And why shouldn't people who accept His saving grace (whatever their earthly crimes) join Him? To me it seems perfectly natural.

How can simple men like you and I judge other men and women and their worthiness? Only God can do that and if that means Gandhi's out and Hindley's in, then that is that.

It is for the reasons I express above that Lewis's trilemma is watertight for people who claim that Christ was nothing more than a man. How can He claim to forgive (heinous) sins and judge the deep recesses of a man's heart unless He's God? He must be either divine or a lunatic or a liar. There is no room for Him to be a great moral teacher of the kind you describe.

Paben

iTrader: (5)

On this basis heaven must have been a very empty place before Jesus arrived on earth. Millions would have descended into Hell without understanding what they had done to deserve such treatment from a 'loving' God.

There's a thread elsewhere about the new robot technology, with an impressive bipedal version strutting about and looking every bit like a prototype Terminator. It's an amazing achievement but we would have to doubt the mental state of its creators were they to demand its unthinking devotion and love to avoid being scrapped and melted down. Come on God, what are you thinking?

dpb

Anti - Christians lol

britishbulldog

iTrader: (1)

Jt it was me who cherry picked some quotes from the Bible and I did so to show the absurdity of you constantly using this tactic, saying you cannot explain the meaning of certain passages in the Bible without quoting other parts of the Bible says everything I need to know, ie you cannot defend the quotes I posted (in your own words) all I can say is a God that allows truly evil people into heaven just because they repent and let's non believers go to hell even if they dedicate their life to others is the most screwed up concept I ever heard

I would liken it to a court where the judge says: did you abuse all those children? Yes but I ask for forgiveness and I believe in God, OK then don't worry about it!!

Did you dedicate your life to others and bring joy to the world, gave money to charity and helped everyone lesser fortunate than you, why yes I did, but I don't believe in God. Oh well sorry but it's life in prison for you.

Can you truly not see the complete and utter absurdness of that standpoint, you cannot and it is because the Bible says that is the way it is and therefore that Is the way it is, no critical thinking or disagreement allowed, it's all already set in stone.

The only thing you can do is fit your opinion round the Bible and try to justify it. You cannot ever say, well actually that part of the Bible is total s###e and It is clear to see that as once you have removed one card from the house of cards they all come tumbling down.

A prime example of blind faith is the ebola virus and people not going to hospital as "God" will save us, well guess how many people God saved, that's right not a single one, if you had an awful disease would you:

A. Go to hospital
B. Pray cos God will answer your prayers?

I 100% guarantee you would go to hospital and the only reason you would bother doing that Is because you know your prayers will make no difference whatsoever.

Thoughts?

JTaylor

What if the robot started rebelling and rejecting the commands of its creator? Surely the right thing to do would be to destroy it or reprogramme it. God hasn't destroyed or reprogrammed His creation, He's given it a chance to start afresh through the blood of the Christ Jesus. And a Christian's love and devotion isn't unthinking, it is reasonable to be loving and devoted to a loving and devoted Creator, a Creator that offers His creation choice. We are not automatons (unless of course one accepts a physicalist philosophy of the Geezerian stripe in which case we are), we are free to rebel and I believe we have a soul that transcends our matter.

JTaylor

I've defended the OT quotes, you just didn't accept it and I've already addressed that. I've also defended the quotes from Corinthians and Timothy, but I don't think you addressed my defence. I'm meditating on Luke, because I want to keep you happy by writing a defence which is Biblical, but which doesn't alienate you.

They will receive earthly punishment.

They will receive earthly rewards.

Well you've asked me a question and then answered for me. Nonetheless, I don't think the position is absurd for the reasons I lay out in my response to Martin's post. And there is room for critical thinking and analysis - it's called hermeneutics and I've gone to the trouble of explaining this earlier in the thread.

Well here you have my measure. I do believe the Bible is infallible, but I also accept that our interpretation of it may be incorrect.

God put medicine on the earth for a reason, to reject it is folly. As an evolutionist I would be sympathetic towards these people, but would then offer them the Darwin Award. Still they're in glory now, so no more pain and suffering.

Paben

iTrader: (5)

There is absolutely no dispute that it's reasonable for Christians to love the Creator. It's God's demand for love and devotion (or else Hell and damnation surely follows) that is the critical point I was trying to make. If the robot went mad and started killing and destroying then its termination would be justified. However, were it to chug along nicely, carrying out its tasks in an orderly fashion, then that is all that its creators could ask of it. Its love and devotion would be neither required nor expected. Surely an all powerful and loving God should at least be able to match the kindness and commonsense of his creatures?

JTaylor

So you'd be happy for your creation to not know you? To not enter in to a loving relationship with you? How would your creation know love? Would they be self replicating? Lots of work to make this analogy stick, Paben.

Geezer

Just to clarify here, JT, I would like you to post some evidence up about proof of the miracles, of Genesis, of Christ living, of his resurrection. You know, contemporary accounts, archaeological evidence etc.


You have provided some historical events which are referenced in the bible. That is akin to saying "Sherlock Holmes is real because Watson was injured in the Afghan war"


Setting your fiction amongst real events attempts to make it believable.


Also the website is biblegateway, hardly an impartial view

Geezer

But that's all there is. We are nothing but a collection of hydrogen atoms that have, over a great deal of time, come to ponder their own existence and their place in the Universe. That is deeply troubling for you, obviously. However, that doesn't mean that humans cannot be caring, inspirational, spiritual (in whatever shape you feel that may take), brilliant and evil, but without the need for God.


God adds absolutely nothing to the human experience. It's a wonder in its own right.

JTaylor

You said I could choose, so I chose the Seige of Jerusalem and its account in the Bible. I do not read the creation account as historical (in the material sense) so I wouldn't and couldn't 'prove' it. Jesus of Nazereth's life was recorded (independently of the Bible) by Tacitus and Josephus (you can look it up). The resurrection is a matter of faith. And what 'impartial' site would you like me to use when quoting the Bible?

JTaylor

Describe consciousness to me.

What is it to care, inspire, be spiritual, be brilliant and evil? What is the yardstick, the measure? How can there be evil without good etc? This is where physicalists fall down. They start using language with heavily laden meaning, but deny there is any meaning in the universe.

God adds absolutely nothing to your universe and your experience. That's ok. To whom or what do you give thanks for your existence?

Geezer

Well, I accept I left the door open for you to dodge. Now I have clarified I for you, could you be so kind?


Of course I don't expect you to quote bible promoting sites, this comes back to the bible being the only source. And, you're not quoting the bible, this has been the whole problem, I am asking you to show that any portion of the bible, not relating to historical events that can be corroborated but other accounts (which is what you posted) are a true an accurate account of what transpired. We all know Jerusalem was sacked etc, what we don't know is, did Moses lead the Jews out of Egypt? The Resurrection? The great flood? All the stories that make up the OT and NT, that make it about God and Jesus.


I can't make it any clearer, but I suspect that is not the issue, is it? You already know what I ask.

JTaylor

So you want me to strip out all of the historical parts of the Bible and make historical the parts that are true-myth? In other words, you want the metaphysical made physical so that it fits in with your worldview. I don't think you actually understand Christianity, Geezer.

Let me be clear: the global flood is true-myth, the creation account is true-myth, the story of Adam and Eve is true-myth, the story of Moses is part-historical and part-myth, the resurrection is a matter of faith and so on. You're not going to get what you want from me regarding a reductionist analysis of these things so that it fits with your philosophy, Geezer. If faith was science, it wouldn't be faith it would be science. You seem to want faith iradicated? Is that correct?

hodgy0_2

well that is not quite right though

the whole quote included the line

"so it is the High Priest of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, and his followers who suffer from a tragic affliction: a deficiency of faith."

and evolution by natural selection - does NOT simply say we are "hard wired" for Faith

that is simply a misrepresentation - and assumes a creator was responsible for the hard wiring - that Dawkins (who argues against faith as a basis for science) would know if only he had faith

what evolution through natural selection demonstrates in not the "hard wiring" of faith, but rather that early humans who gave "agency" to something they did not understand were more likely to survive

so the belief that "gods" were behind events, allowed for better survival rates

JTaylor

And what evidence do you have that tells us that God is dead and that those devoid of the 'God gene' will be successful?

Geezer

As I have said before, Christianity absolutely hinges on the fact that Jesus

• Existed
• Was the son of God
• Was resurrected

This is not metaphysical, these are questions of fact, of history. If those are not true (and although I don't believe it, I accept someone called Jesus may have lived around that time), and Jesus was simply a guy who had a bit of a following, then you are worshipping a falsehood. It really is that simple.










Which part of Moses is historical? The fact that Egypt existed and Rameses was Pharaoh? Everything else in it isn't, absolutely not.


Do I want faith iradicated? In some ways, yes, I suppose I do. If people stopped having blind faith in these things, then people wouldn't blow themselves up because they believe they will get 72 virgins in heaven, or whatever their particular religion teaches.


If people had to sit up and realise that this life, this world (presently) is the only one we have, then they would probably make a bit more of an effort to make things better. Why bother if you think you'll have an eternity of bliss, or that God will save the Earth?


I can be all things Christians can be, without having to believe, or give my allegiance/love/whatever to something.

Martin2005

The concept is contradictory JT, and I cannot square the great teachings of 'you reap what you sow' and 'do to other, what you would have others do unto you' etc, with the idea that those things don't actually matter. In the final analysis all these teachings can be ignored, throughout ones life, and heaven will be waiting for you. Why bother to teach this in the first place?


For me much of the bible is just a construct designed for command and control, things that JC would surely of recoiled at.


You don't need to be a member of a gym to be fit

JTaylor

I refer you to my previous post. You want faith to be science.

Part-myth, like I said.

Talk me through the ideologies that killed the millions of people in the last century.

People like Martin Luther King or Francis Collins.

Good for you.

JTaylor

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...6&version=NKJV

The harsh theocracy of the OT saw God attempting to control His chosen people, Jesus then frees His people from the law in the New.

Nobody's fit, Martin.

Martin2005

Do you believe it's more important to have faith, or be a good person - ultimately which counts?

JTaylor

One precedes the other.

neil-h

Even in Satanism?

dpb

You know what his answer will be lol

The only good of a thread like this as far I can tell would be to convert him to the second choice . But we've had 27 pages all ready, and nothing

Geezer

Which one precedes the other?

JTaylor

I believe that people only become good in the eyes of God through Jesus Christ.

britishbulldog

iTrader: (1)

Are you are saying that having faith precedes being a good person?

Do you believe that having faith means you are a good person?

How many people of faith were not good people, how many catholic priests were child abusers? Possibly due to the fact that all they need to do is repent and its all good.

My opinion is that Religion is three fold.

1. designed to control the masses in a time when you could get away with whatever you liked. No police, no DNA, no CCTV etc.

2. Humans are generally fearful of dying, it is much easier to believe that there you are going to go through the pearly gates to be met by a load of virgins than to accept you are quite simply going to end up in a hole in the ground.

3. Humans like to know the answer to everything, again its easier to say "God" than "i don't know",

When the bible was written we didn't have science, had no clue how big the universe was and believed the earth was the be all and end all. this has since been proved to be incorrect. The universe is an unimaginably large place and to believe there is someone up there who knows what we're all doing and thinking and cares about us is unbelievable and quite frankly quite arrogant. It does however give you a warm and fuzzy feeling and if that makes you feel better then so be it. However I truly believe the more we learn through science the less relevant religion will become until one day we will wonder how we even believed it at all.

Can I ask you 1 question, if we do discover life outside our planet would you believe God made that life as well, and how would that fit into the bible story?

Like I said before each to their own, as long as you aren't harming people then more power to you, however in my opinion religion does far more harm than good in this world.

I really would love to know how quickly god can create a planet, lets say a day per planet.

There are more than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
planets out there so he would have had to have started before the known age of the universe, give him his due he is one clever and hard working chap.

Final point is What happens to a person who uses religion for evil? to kill innocent people, do they get into heaven. We already know the answer:

Yes they do and that's why they did the evil deed in the first place, so they can go and sleep with some virgins, if they accepted there were no virgins waiting for them would they still have killed the innocent people I wonder, my guess is they would not. No reward, No gain.

britishbulldog

iTrader: (1)

How is a god that lets innocent children die but lets **** war criminals live to the age of 97 a loving and devoted creator, if he exists all it shows is he doesn't give a s**t

britishbulldog

iTrader: (1)

It's more important in gods eyes to have faith, he doesn't give 2 hoots if you are good, just repent and believe and you are ok in his eyes.
And you get a free ticket to heaven whilst all the good non-believing people burn in hell for eternity. simple really.

Martin2005

And this is the central thesis that makes me recoil at Christianity, and there is no logical response that I've heard or read that get close to explaining this.


God must be illogical, vain and malevolent for this to be true