Print

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

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Bohandas]

Well, the thing is that as I see it you're aying that your parents are worthy of respect because whilst they're mediocre in terms of doing good on a cosmic scale, they're also mediocre in terms of doing evil on a cosmic scale. That's no different to God, yet you have no respect for God.

Hrn. The big problem with that is we kinda' have a minimum for evil after which there is no excuse. We don't really have a minimum for good after which all things are excused. The scale matters, intensely. I have no respect for my parent that abused my other parent, despite that being incredibly mediocre in terms of doing evil, and frankly, the person probably being on the net when it comes to doing good.

Something that has committed (or at least is attributed as such) atrocities on a scale and magnitude equal to any in human history isn't even conceivable of being worthy of respect, regardless of what goods they enact. The scale makes for a significant difference. A person can redeem small evils, make atonement, etc. Great evils have no recourse.

There's also yhe fact that if he does any evil - any at all - it refutes the "omnibenevolent" claim

EDIT:
There is an infinite distinction between "benevolent" and "omnibenevolent" yet this is one which most theologians seem content to ignore (especially in discussions of theodicy)

[Angle]

You do know you're wasting your time, right Dwarfy? The believe because they want to. They don't care about evidence or reasoning or the truth, they'll just make up any justification they need. As they say, they have faith, and that's all that matters to them. Hell, if you really want to change there minds, try getting them to want to change them. Because without that, nothing you say will have any effect.

I honestly find this offensive. If I wasn't open to change, do you think I'd have stuck around for over three hundred pages of debate?

Then what would it take to change your mind? What evidence would suffice? What argument would satisfy?

For myself, I'd want a detailed and consistent theory of God that can be tested against reality, along with significant enough evidence to justify conducting such tests, and for the tests to come out positive. It's a lot to ask, but if there was a god, it could be managed.

[Frumple]

I do find it interesting on a philosophical level that you think there are irredeemable crimes, though.

... you do realize that that's basically one of the primary tenants of christianity, right? That literally the only way to absolve oneself of sin is by god's forgiveness, which is given only by its will. There is no act you can actually perform, as a christian, that grants you redemption. It's all by god's largess, not your doing. It may be well inclined towards doing so towards people that perform certain acts and hold certain thoughts, but there's nothing behooving it from not just saying, "No."

S'the basic concept behind the many denominations that say good acts are insufficient for obtaining salvation. For them, it's not a matter of there being irredeemable crimes, it's a matter of all crimes being irredeemable, and redemption being entirely out of the hands of the sinner, who can ultimately only pray and have faith. That's something going substantially further than just saying "some" acts are unredeemable.

... but yeah, when it comes right down to it, I do hold there are certain acts for which redemption cannot be obtained. Forgiveness, perhaps, but not redemption. It should be sought, should you commit one of them, if you wish to be anything but a beast that should be put down, but there are things once done that cannot be undone, and for which even eternity is not sufficient to repay. There are scales, once tilted, that cannot be rebalanced. It's a bar considerably lower than what's attributed the OT divinities.

It'd be pretty easy to change my mind regarding the christian god, though. Just throw out the OT and excise the nastier parts of the NT, maybe chunk out or better define the omnimax related stuff, and I'd have a pretty glowing opinion of the critter's formulation. I'm already pretty down with Streaker J, as things go. Relatively few problems with the christ part of christianity, it's just the rest of it that sticks in the proverbial craw. Unsurprisingly, the atrocities would bother me far less if they weren't there :V

[origamiscienceguy]

The bible is pretty clear that no sin or amount of sin is irredeemable. I can provide plenty of sources if you want me to. But here is one.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Christianity differs from every religion that I know of in that being "good" is not required to get into the afterlife.

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."

[Bohandas]

That line from Ephesians is exactly what Frumple was referencing

[origamiscienceguy]

The first part of my post was answering him. The second part was its own thing.

[scrdest]

Christianity differs from every religion that I know of in that being "good" is not required to get into the afterlife.

Funny that you should bring that up as a defence thereof.

[origamiscienceguy]

why is it funny?

[scrdest]

why is it funny?

Because it's a straight road to Hitler McStalin getting off free for converting on his deathbed while Boyscout Dogpettington is tortured for eternity for being brought up in a different culture.

[Rolan7]

There's also the one unforgiveable sin, described in Matthew and Mark:

Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come

Seems like the common (modern, generous and accepting) way of interpreting this is that you can't be forgiven as long as you're *currently* blaspheming against the holy spirit.  IE, you can't be saved if you're rejecting the holy spirit.

Nevermind that both passages insist that the sin, speaking against the holy spirit, can *never* be forgiven...  Clearly he (Jesus, supposedly) meant something else. 

Also, Jesus is saying this in regards to the Pharisees, basically explaining that they're going to Hell for opposing him.  Fun fact.

why is it funny?

To me, it's funny because political Christians try to legislate Biblical morality.  Whereas Biblically, being moral doesn't save you.  At best, morality is a side effect of being saved.  And most of the morality it suggests is from backwards ancient cultures.  Even Jesus condoned slavery.

[origamiscienceguy]

Forgiveness comes from the lord, so it would make sense if you can't be forgiven by someone who you you are blaspheming against.

[Bohandas]

Forgiveness comes from the lord, so it would make sense if you can't be forgiven by someone who you you are blaspheming against.

Again, remember your tenses. As Rolan7 pointed out, it clearly extends beyond those who are blaspheming

[Rolan7]

Yeah I mentioned that that's the common interpretation.
It's also not what the words say.  Even in the NIV.

I could interpret the Bible as saying everyone goes to heaven.  Because there's a part where God isn't willing that any of us should perish, and there's a part where Jesus died for all sinners.  And that would make a lot more sense than all those lines about salvation being conditional.

Heck, there are a lot of Christians who do exactly that!  And I can't really prove them wrong since they don't rely on the Bible or... anything.  Just a personal interpretation of the Jesus story, and some reasonable ideas about how a loving God would behave.  Good on them I suppose, because they tend to be quite nice, because they don't (necessarily) follow the intolerant or evangelical parts of the Bible.

[origamiscienceguy]

I don't know the answer. I'll have to do some research and give you an answer later.

[Rolan7]

That's totally cool, please don't feel pressured.  I don't feel like I'm arguing against *you*, so much as a very common conception.  I've been wrong about a lot of stuff in this thread, particularly when I speak without doing proper research 

In fact I should probably take a break.  I'm not angry or anything, just a bit overeager right now...