Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

~Snip~

Fun fact: Not all metaphores are true.
A parent may be forced to accept the mistakes a child will make, because both the cild and the parent will age, no matter what the parent does. So the parent may decide that some lessons are best learnt the hard way in order to better prepair the child for the illusive 'real world'.

God, however, as far as any bible storys tell, was not forced to accept such a reality, but rather made it out of spite for the actions of the child.

[lemon10]

  So much of the argument here is coming from people that think it would be cruel or heartless for the Abrahamic god to know what Adam and Eve would do, and yet let them do it anyway even facilitating to provide the setting necessary for it to happen.

  Again, I bring up human childrearing.  as a parent you cannot protect your children from everything.  You know without any doubt that they are going to be hurt.

  For example.  Are you being cruel by buying your child a bike?  You know that when the training wheels come off, they are certainly going to fall at least a few times.  But you accept this, knowing that a skinned knee or elbow, maybe even a broken bone might be the result of your gift of the bike.  Similarly, if the Abrahamic god considers itself to be a father figure to humanity, then it is the responsibility of the Abrahamic god to allow us to grow as a race.

  Almost everyone knows at least one or two people that were or are spoiled completely rotten.  Imagine an entire race of humans with that attitude looking to the Abrahamic god for their daily needs.  If the Abrahamic god prevented humans from experiencing trajedy, we would not grow as a race, or as individuals.

No, your not cruel by buying your child a bike, even if they get hurt. You would be cruel if you told your kid not to fall off, and he fell off anyways (even though its his first time) so you beat him and abandone him by the side of the road.
The problem is the huge disproportionate punishment that the abrahamic god inflicted on humanity, not the fact that he knew that they were going to eat from the tree of knowledge.

And sure maybe tragedy is necessary, but i don't see how original sin makes people grow as individuals (besides the eternity in hell i suppose).

[Sergius]

I am puzzled how some can say that God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, and yet somehow doesn't know what we would do? If he -doesn't- know everything about everything, past, present and future then that means he doesn't fit the bill as all-knowing. Instead, just lots-knowing.

Apparently, he's also omni-ignorant.

Demon Cat: Hello, Frank the human boy.
Finn: (GASP!) How did you almost know my name?!
Demon Cat: I have approximate knowledge of many things!

[FuzzyZergling]

Technically, God has never sent anyone to hell at all.
Hell is mearly the absence of God, so he is not sending you somewhere, just not letting you in because he can't stand your imperfection.
Or at least, that is how I enterpret what I heard when I went to church.

[lemon10]

Technically, God has never sent anyone to hell at all.
Hell is mearly the absence of God, so he is not sending you somewhere, just not letting you in because he can't stand your imperfection.
Or at least, that is how I enterpret what I heard when I went to church.

Yeah, hell is merely the absence of god (which doesn't actually make sence, isn't god omnipresent?). But no, god judges the soul, and either condemns them to hell or lets them into heaven (or purgatory, but i don't think that is really big a concept right now).


Looking on the wikipedia, i found this

The most common New Testament term translated as "hell" is γέεννα (gehenna), a direct loan of Hebrew ge-hinnom. Apart from one use in James 3:6, this term is found exclusively in the synoptic gospels.[18][19][20] Gehenna is most frequently described as a place of fiery torment (e.g. Matthew 5:22, 18:8-9; Mark 9:43-49) although other passages mention darkness and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (e.g. Matthew 8:12; 22:13).[19]

Apart from the use of the term gehenna (translated as "hell" in all English translations of the bible), the Johannine writings refer to the destiny of the wicked in terms of "perishing", "death" and "condemnation" or "judgment". St. Paul speaks of "wrath" and "everlasting destruction" (cf. Romans 2:7-9; 2 Thessalonians 1:9), while the general epistles use a range of terms and images including "raging fire" (Hebrews 10:27), "destruction" (2 Peter 3:7), "eternal fire" (Jude 7) and "blackest darkness" (Jude 13). The Book of Revelation contains the image of a "lake of fire" and "burning sulphur" where "the devil, the beast, and false prophets" will be "tormented day and night for ever and ever" (Revelation 20:10) along with those who worship the beast or receive its mark (Revelation 14:11).[21]

The New Testament also uses the Greek word hades, usually to refer to the abode of the dead (e.g. Acts 2:31; Revelation 20:13).[5] Only one passage describes hades as a place of torment, the parable of Lazarus and Dives (Luke 16:19-31). Jesus here depicts a wicked man suffering fiery torment in hades, which is contrasted with the bosom of Abraham, and explains that it is impossible to cross over from one to the other. Some scholars believe that this parable reflects the intertestamental Jewish view of hades (or sheol) as containing separate divisions for the wicked and righteous.[5][21] In Revelation 20:13-14 hades is itself thrown into the "lake of fire" after being emptied of the dead.

That seems to mesh with the "firery hell" theme that was popular in the middle ages. So it seems that hell isn't just the absence of god.

EDIT: i thought that jesus dying on the cross erased original sin, looking at the wikipedia article that might not be the case/ might be wrong. Could someone give me a link/quote saying otherwise (or confirm that jesus dying didn't erase original sin)?

[Willfor]

Technically, God has never sent anyone to hell at all.
Hell is mearly the absence of God, so he is not sending you somewhere, just not letting you in because he can't stand your imperfection.
Or at least, that is how I enterpret what I heard when I went to church.

That is definitely one of the theological division points. The literal interpretation of hell's fire is just the most known because its proponents are the loudest. There are even some who don't even believe hell is a permanent place of punishment, but a temporary refining fire.

That seems to mesh with the "firery hell" theme that was popular in the middle ages. So it seems that hell isn't just the absence of god.

It's pretty awesome that Christians all believe the same thing and that there are absolutely no conflicting views on the subject itself from within the many hundreds of branches.

[Shambling Zombie]

I somehow doubt that God allows all the pain, suffering, strife and even the eternal damnation of billions of humans just to make humanity more well-rounded people by allowing them to experience tragedy.

That's pretty poor parenting by most standards.

Humanity is extremely imperfect, but it does seem strange to create us that way then shun us for that very attribute.

[Max White]

That is definitely one of the theological division points. The literal interpretation of hell's fire is just the most known because its proponents are the loudest. There are even some who don't even believe hell is a permanent place of punishment, but a temporary refining fire.

Back, when I was a slightly more beleiving person then I am now, I always held the beleif that god wouldn't just let people to burn, and if you repent in hell, you still get into heaven. I then continued to reason that I, as a mortal man, may very well come to this earler conculsion on the basis that it was a free pass out of hell, something rather desirabe. I then reasoned that by questioning my own conculsions, I must be a good enough person to not be so selfish in my interpratation of hell. I then continued to reason that I may just think that way because it gives my free pass back to me.

Then I turned agnostic, and my thought process got a lot less recurcive.

[Willfor]

Back, when I was a slightly more beleiving person then I am now, I always held the beleif that god wouldn't just let people to burn, and if you repent in hell, you still get into heaven. I then continued to reason that I, as a mortal man, may very well come to this earler conculsion on the basis that it was a free pass out of hell, something rather desirabe. I then reasoned that by questioning my own conculsions, I must be a good enough person to not be so selfish in my interpratation of hell. I then continued to reason that I may just think that way because it gives my free pass back to me.

Then I turned agnostic, and my thought process got a lot less recurcive.

And then without the proper recursive algorithms your program crashed when it couldn't access memory at the correct point, and your brain segfaulted.

[Max White]

Since then I have been this way.
*Sob*
I miss you scruffy logic!

[Shambling Zombie]

Scruffy logic...

*Imagines the statue of The Thinker, with a big busy beard*

[GamerKnight]

Scruffy logic is dead, Max White. He went off to a wonderful place in the sky, with lots of other logics where he will be very happy.

[Shade-o]

So, what's everybody's favourite Semitic god? I would say Melqart because Carthage and Tyre were awesome.

(Egyptian and Mesopotamian also acceptable, I guess)

[Siquo]

I am puzzled how some can say that God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, and yet somehow doesn't know what we would do? If he -doesn't- know everything about everything, past, present and future then that means he doesn't fit the bill as all-knowing. Instead, just lots-knowing.

He would know the future because he is omniscient. omniscience means he knows everything, all the time, and since the future is part of everything, he would know the future without having to calculate it.
If you did have to calculate it, you wouldn't be omniscient.
Take the stonelayer, he isn't omniscient, he merely knows everything that is happening in the present, and given enough time, can model the future.

You misunderstand "Everything" and "Time". Since both the stonelayers' timeline and his world are completely undetectable to us, he is essentially out of our time and dimension (which is merely a simulation anyway). If he wishes, he can stop our universe, make a new one to see what happens next, and then continue with ours, and we wouldn't miss a picosecond. Essentially, he'll know in an instant what will happen to us, but maybe we're not the real, first people but the model he just started, in which case he won't know what will happen to us, but there's no way of telling.
Omniscience, omnipotence and time relate only to this universe.

The stonelayer is even compatible with our Abrahamic God. He can make an avatar with a long beard in the sky if he wants to. Including souls, heaven, and who knows what else. God is the ultimate black box, you can't possibly try to reverse engineer that. (Why do people keep trying?)

That's pretty poor parenting by most standards.

Not really. To you, tragedy is war, murder, torture. To my 2 yr old it's not being allowed to watch Dora on TV. Tragedy is entirely subjective, and "punishment" is almost always too harsh, in the view of the punishee.

[Shade-o]

That's fine and all, but what makes it any more than speculation?