502 replies to this topic

[TheAvengerLever]

It isn't a fanclub. No one deserves heaven. You know why? Because we are all sinners.

To answer your question, the good of people shows when they serve Jesus.

[Korhend]

As Hanz Frank, Leopold II, and Torquemada show?

[Oberon Storm]

Nice. If I serve Jesus I can kill as many Jews, gypsies, and political dissenters as I want.

[Nevermind]

As far as I'm concerned, God weighs the heart, but does not accept rejection. There is a difference between not knowing, and not listening.

[Fyxe]

And there's a difference between not listening and not believing, Lazuru. You're suggesting that everybody who listens will therefore believe.

If God can't accept rejection, then he needs to get over his ego.

[Nevermind]

I am suggesting that everyone who listens has the OPTION of believing, and that when all is said and done, if...IF Christianity is right...then there will be consequences for those that had the chance but did not take it.

And ego has nothing to do with it. Why give salvation to those who do not want it?

Edited by Lazurukeel, 29 June 2006 - 09:20 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

And ego has nothing to do with it. Why give salvation to those who do not want it?

Because it has nothing to do with people not wanting to have salvation. It's to do with people not believing that either

a ) God exists
b ) God can provide salvation.

Not believing that someone can provide salvation is not the same as not wanting it.

Ultimately, if... IF God is so omnipotent, he should realise that not everybody will realise he IS the real God and that not everybody will be able to trust his word, because he will know there isn't enough hard evidence to prove one or the other.

If you believe the Bible to be God's word, it's his word against everyone else's.

If you don't believe the Bible to be God's word, then it's the word of fallible human beings, which means it can't be very trustworthy anyway.

Either way you slice it, the Bible isn't enough solid evidence and I doubt there ever will be, which is why this all about faith. However, faith is dependent not only on your choices, but also on genetics and environment. There is a supposed God gene, but the evidence suggests that on its own it doesn't really do much and is very dependent on environment and your own choices.

So therefore, he should realise that not believing is not necessarily the fault of the non-believers. So if it's not their fault, why should they be punished?

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 29 June 2006 - 12:12 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

...It IS their fault. They've heard the stories and they didn't accept it either because they have their reason to.

[Reflectionist]

Because it has nothing to do with people not wanting to have salvation. It's to do with people not believing that either

a ) God exists
b ) God can provide salvation.

Not believing that someone can provide salvation is not the same as not wanting it.

Ultimately, if... IF God is so omnipotent, he should realise that not everybody will realise he IS the real God and that not everybody will be able to trust his word, because he will know there isn't enough hard evidence to prove one or the other.

If you believe the Bible to be God's word, it's his word against everyone else's.

If you don't believe the Bible to be God's word, then it's the word of fallible human beings, which means it can't be very trustworthy anyway.

Either way you slice it, the Bible isn't enough solid evidence and I doubt there ever will be, which is why this all about faith. However, faith is dependent not only on your choices, but also on genetics and environment. There is a supposed God gene, but the evidence suggests that on its own it doesn't really do much and is very dependent on environment and your own choices.

So therefore, he should realise that not believing is not necessarily the fault of the non-believers. So if it's not their fault, why should they be punished?

Looks like it's omnipotent God's word against the word of fallible human beings, that can't be very trustworthy to begin with. Is that what you are saying?

I'd rather choose God's word....

and the rest of your post was just assumption.

[SOAP]

But Re, not everyone thinks the Bible is even God's Word in the first place. I mean, to everyone else it's just the writings of a bunch of wise old men millions of years ago. Infact, [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of the logic and moral guidance provided by the Bible can be traced back to earthly roots even further back like the Code of Hammurabi. Not some higher celestial being. What makes the Bible any more the Word of God than say, the Qu'ran or the Pearl of the Great Price? Because you believe so? Whatever your claim is, it really just boils down your beliefs against everyone elses.

[Reflectionist]

Well that's very true.

But then again, humans are fallible, so the Bible may very well BE the word of God, and it wouldn't make anyone think any differently. That was the point I was trying to make.

EDIT - By God's Word, I wasn't talking about the Bible in that instance... It'd be like saying "Ref's word" As in 'I'll take your word for it...'

Edited by Reflectionist, 29 June 2006 - 03:21 PM.

[SOAP]

In that case the Qu'ran could be the Word if God instead but YOU, being an infallible human, wouldn't think any differently.

[Reflectionist]

What does the Qu'Ran say about God's infallablitly?

[Alakhriveion]

"There is no god but He, the Living, the Everlasting. Slumber seizes Him not, neither sleep; to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His leave? He knows what lies before them and what is after them, and they comprehend not anything of His knowledge save such as He wills. His throne comprises the heavens and earth; the preserving of them oppresses Him not; He is the All-High, the All-Glorious." (2:255)

[Nevermind]

Because it has nothing to do with people not wanting to have salvation. It's to do with people not believing that either

a ) God exists
b ) God can provide salvation.

Not believing that someone can provide salvation is not the same as not wanting it.

Ultimately, if... IF God is so omnipotent, he should realise that not everybody will realise he IS the real God and that not everybody will be able to trust his word, because he will know there isn't enough hard evidence to prove one or the other.

If you believe the Bible to be God's word, it's his word against everyone else's.

If you don't believe the Bible to be God's word, then it's the word of fallible human beings, which means it can't be very trustworthy anyway.

Either way you slice it, the Bible isn't enough solid evidence and I doubt there ever will be, which is why this all about faith. However, faith is dependent not only on your choices, but also on genetics and environment. There is a supposed God gene, but the evidence suggests that on its own it doesn't really do much and is very dependent on environment and your own choices.

So therefore, he should realise that not believing is not necessarily the fault of the non-believers. So if it's not their fault, why should they be punished?

Firstly, those who do not believe He does not exist, and those that don't believe He will save them, do not exactly want His salvation do they. So it does have something to do with salvation, see.

I dunno about this God gene stuff. No idea what that is.

But, why should they NOT be punished. The believers are given just as much evidence as the non-believers, but they choose to believe, and the others choose not to. You choose your own fate. You don't go "Oh...well...there wasn't really enough stuff to make me believe, so it's not MY fault." You know, like I said, we all have the same things in front of us (those that actually do have access to it), and you can either believe, or not. You choose. You decide. Do not blame anyone else.

[Korhend]

And you have yet to give a reason why being in the fan club is a more deserving merit then say, not engaging in mass slaughter.

[Fyxe]

But, why should they NOT be punished. The believers are given just as much evidence as the non-believers, but they choose to believe, and the others choose not to.

Why should blind faith be rewarded and attempts to think for ourselves be punished?

You choose your own fate. You don't go "Oh...well...there wasn't really enough stuff to make me believe, so it's not MY fault." You know, like I said, we all have the same things in front of us (those that actually do have access to it), and you can either believe, or not. You choose. You decide. Do not blame anyone else.

It's not about blame. If everyone is provided with the same evidence then surely we would all either believe or not believe. Instead we are affected by our surrounding society, our family, our education and our life experiences and therefore we may be more or less inclined to believe the words of one book over any other. If the 'evidence' alone was enough, we would all believe. But apparently it isn't enough, and many people do not 'believe', and in your eyes they should be punished for having their own opinion and their own alternate life experiences and upbringing.

Call me a teensy bit crazy, but... That sounds slightly... Biased may be the word I'm looking for.

[Alakhriveion]

What is this evidence? It would seem God hasn't gone out of his way to make himself obvious.

[Fyxe]

Hence why I stuck 'evidence' in little quotey mark thingies. There is no verifyable evidence as far as I can see.

But hey, I'm a mere human! What the fuck do I know. Better believe in it just incase, eh? ¬.¬

I'm just purposely being a bitch now, but, still...

[Doopliss]

But, why should they NOT be punished. The believers are given just as much evidence as the non-believers, but they choose to believe, and the others choose not to. You choose your own fate. You don't go "Oh...well...there wasn't really enough stuff to make me believe, so it's not MY fault." You know, like I said, we all have the same things in front of us (those that actually do have access to it), and you can either believe, or not. You choose. You decide. Do not blame anyone else.

Ok, then. Give me a reason to believe in the Bible and to please God so I don't go to hell instead of believing in Greek mythology so I can please the gods so they take me to live with them after I die insted of going to Erebus where I will turn completely insane of boredom.

[Goose]

And you have yet to give a reason why being in the fan club is a more deserving merit then say, not engaging in mass slaughter.

Humans will always engage in mass slaughter, in the name of God or not.

But apparently it isn't enough, and many people do not 'believe', and in your eyes they should be punished for having their own opinion and their own alternate life experiences and upbringing.

God doesn't punish you for being you, thats why he loves you so much. We all have our own opinions and life experiences, and God loves that. He created us as individuals, and he was happy, is happy, with the way we are. He doesn't want us to become drones, but to engage in a relationship with him. When I pray, I often argue with God, and he argues back, just not in an obvious way.

God doesn't want the borg. Although 7 of 9 is cute.

What is this evidence? It would seem God hasn't gone out of his way to make himself obvious.

That depends on whether you'd use the Bible as evidence. But I"d use the first cry of a baby as evidence, or the fact that we can eat greasy hamburgers at 3am with our loved ones as proof, or chocolate. I'd use the sunset as evidence, or laughter.

But thats just me.

Edited by Goose, 29 June 2006 - 10:55 PM.

[Oberon Storm]

But, why should they NOT be punished. The believers are given just as much evidence as the non-believers, but they choose to believe, and the others choose not to. You choose your own fate. You don't go "Oh...well...there wasn't really enough stuff to make me believe, so it's not MY fault." You know, like I said, we all have the same things in front of us (those that actually do have access to it), and you can either believe, or not. You choose. You decide. Do not blame anyone else.

More like the "evidence" doesn't stand up to scrutiny than a simple choice to not believe.

[Nevermind]

Ok, then. Give me a reason to believe in the Bible and to please God so I don't go to hell instead of believing in Greek mythology so I can please the gods so they take me to live with them after I die insted of going to Erebus where I will turn completely insane of boredom.

Make your own damn reason. Do your own research. Find out YOURSELF why you should or should not believe. I am not here to do your work for you.


Fyxe, people think and feel for themselves, and are still able to believe. I'm not a religious man just cos all the cool kids are doing it. I did my own searching, and I've found my own set of beliefs. Hell, I even did all my own thinking. So then, faith is not necessarily blind. But if I were God, and I had people going "You know what, screw it, I'll follow you", I'd be gracious towards them. And then if I had people going "You know what, I'll believe in you and follow you if you show me a party trick", well then...they're always welcome to come along for the ride, any time they want, but if they say no, I'm not gonna force them. They're on their own.

and in your eyes they should be punished for having their own opinion and their own alternate life experiences and upbringing.

In my eyes, they will be left on their own if they choose rejection. In your eyes, I'm a mindless idiot for believing in this trash. That does not mean that I am right, or you are right. It simply means that I believe I'm right, you believe you're right.

And as for evidence, Alak, what you see in front of you is what you get. That's the thing about faith; taking what you have experienced, and putting trust in it. I agree that there is barely any physical and/or historical evidence around, if there is any at all. But you know, there's no real evidence to prove that it's not true. So it simply comes down to what you choose to believe or not to believe. People who believe in ghosts see ghosts, people who don't....don't. That doesn't mean ghosts are real or not, it just means that people will interpret what they experience according to their mindset. As I said, I've taken my life experiences so far and put together what I think and feel about the subject, and you'll do a damn good job if you manage to change my mind. I interpret what I experience, as do you.

Edited by Lazurukeel, 30 June 2006 - 12:31 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Firstly, those who do not believe He does not exist, and those that don't believe He will save them, do not exactly want His salvation do they. So it does have something to do with salvation, see.

But it's not exactly the same is it? They don't actively not want his salvation. They don't believe it's there, so to them it's not a choice between wanting salvation and not wanting it. Wanting salvation has nothing to do with it. To them, that salvation isn't there. If it's not there, how and why should they want it?

I dunno about this God gene stuff. No idea what that is.

Apparently, it's called VMAT2, however, there is some controversy on how much it contributes to belief.

But, why should they NOT be punished? The believers are given just as much evidence as the non-believers, but they choose to believe, and the others choose not to.

Because as an omnipotent God and an omniscient one, God should realise that the evidence isn't enough. You said it yourself, the believers choose to believe. This is not about evidence. There is no real conclusive evidence to prove God's existence, only a lack of real alternative.

Most people think, well, the Big Bang couldn't possibly have come about all by itself. Something must have created it. It must be God. Fair enough. There's nothing saying it isn't. However, there's very little saying it is. It's a perfectly logical conclusion, but there is an alternative explanation. And God, IF he exists, and IF he is omnipotent and IF he is omniscient, should know that and should expect people to not believe in him and he SHOULD know that it is not their fault and it is how their brains are wired.

Take for example, some of the religious people I've come across. They can't understand how I cannot believe in their God. They just can't. It's how their brains are wired. I can't blame them, though its almost exasperating trying to explain it to them and exasperating for them trying to explain their belief to me. It's not their fault. It's not my fault.

And God should know that.

I've gone through the same evidence as you have and I have come to the opposite conclusion. What does that say to you about the evidence?

[Nevermind]

But it's not exactly the same is it? They don't actively not want his salvation. They don't believe it's there, so to them it's not a choice between wanting salvation and not wanting it. Wanting salvation has nothing to do with it. To them, that salvation isn't there. If it's not there, how and why should they want it?

What I'm saying is that IF Christianity is right, then those that don't believe want nothing to do with salvation or anything like it, because they don't believe in it. The choice is there to believe or not, but they choose not to believe in it; they choose to think it does not exist, therefore they do not reap the benefits of it, IF it turns out to be correct.

Because as an omnipotent God and an omniscient one, God should realise that the evidence isn't enough. You said it yourself, the believers choose to believe. This is not about evidence. There is no real conclusive evidence to prove God's existence, only a lack of real alternative.

Most people think, well, the Big Bang couldn't possibly have come about all by itself. Something must have created it. It must be God. Fair enough. There's nothing saying it isn't. However, there's very little saying it is. It's a perfectly logical conclusion, but there is an alternative explanation. And God, IF he exists, and IF he is omnipotent and IF he is omniscient, should know that and should expect people to not believe in him and he SHOULD know that it is not their fault and it is how their brains are wired.

Take for example, some of the religious people I've come across. They can't understand how I cannot believe in their God. They just can't. It's how their brains are wired. I can't blame them, though its almost exasperating trying to explain it to them and exasperating for them trying to explain their belief to me. It's not their fault. It's not my fault.

And God should know that.

Evidence is lacking, and most people would think logically like that, yes. And you know what, He probably DOES know that.
Yet other people still choose believe in Him, and that's what makes the difference. So why should people who turn away be excused? As above, those who choose not to go by it should not reap any benefits that may come from it. What point is there in rewarding someone for sticking by your side if you are going to give the same reward to someone who doesn't want anything to do with you, or hell, doesn't even believe you exist?

I've gone through the same evidence as you have and I have come to the opposite conclusion. What does that say to you about the evidence?

It simply means that I have interpreted the evidence in a different manner to you and have come to a different conclusion. That's all. You now have your belief, I now have mine, although neither beliefs would be a constant.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

What I'm saying is that IF Christianity is right, then those that don't believe want nothing to do with salvation or anything like it, because they don't believe in it. The choice is there to believe or not, but they choose not to believe in it; they choose to think it does not exist, therefore they do not reap the benefits of it, IF it turns out to be correct.

And I'm saying that can't be right, because I'm one of those people that don't believe in it. If a God exists, sure I'd want it. But seeing as I don't believe it's there, how can I want it? In fact, how can I not want it? It's not there, so I can't not want it, because there's nothing to not want.

The choice is to believe it's there or not, but the choice is perfectly understandable and God must realise that.

Yet other people still choose believe in Him, and that's what makes the difference. So why should people who turn away be excused?

This is about priorities. If the unforgiveable sin is to not believe in God, then someone who has done good, done Heaven's work because they chose to, is punished with no chance of redemption. Is that fair? With so many different religions, how can they not be excused for choosing the wrong one? After all, it's the word of one religion against another. Who are you gonna trust and what reason do you have to trust them?

Now let us assume that they are given a second chance when they enter Heaven.

There is God. And suddenly, they cannot deny him any longer. They believe in him. They are pardoned.

If that is the case, what is the point of Hell? No one's going to go to Hell, because ultimately if God exists and if they go to Heaven after they die, they are presented with unrefutable proof that he exists. Logically, after they die, no one will reject God. Therefore, everyone will accept him in the end everyone will accept salvation.

No one is punished and everyone is forgiven, no matter how big a sin they commit. Does that sound right?

The logic behind this Christian ideal of being punished for not believing in Christ as God etc. etc. is unsound, unfair and not very forgiving for a forgiving God.

[Nevermind]

Why must He realise that? On what terms must He think "Okay...you got me...here's a free absolution coupon just in case it turns out I DO exist." By all means, if it was me, I'd be going "no fuck you, the others are following me, why do I need to sympathise with you not choosing to believe in me?" But hey, redemption is not up to me is it.



You simply gotta choose who to trust. I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that every other religion is wrong, and that mine is right, but I will tell you that I BELIEVE mine is right, whether you do or not.

However, one thing that does not sit with me is people saying that things like "there isn't enough proof", "I haven't been shown enough", all that sort of stuff. [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of people are able to accept it and believe it with the proof, or lack of proof, that is already in circulation. So I really don't see why those who say there is not enough should get let off the hook, and I really don't know why they believe that IF there is a God, He should let them off easy, because of that excuse, even though others willingly accept what they have been given.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

And here we go to the point I was going to get at through a long circuitous way. You can't understand why I think this way. Why exactly do you think that is?

[Nevermind]

Because I do not believe people should get something for nothing. In this one example, I do not believe that non-believers should be excused when they are under the same conditions as believers*. That is only an example, and the moral scenario can be applied to many, many different situations.










*Remember, this comment is made under the assumption and/or hypothetical that it is true. If it is not, then you don't have anything to worry about.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Because I do not believe people should get something for nothing. In this one example, I do not believe that non-believers should be excused when they are under the same conditions as believers*. That is only an example, and the moral scenario can be applied to many, many different situations.
*Remember, this comment is made under the assumption and/or hypothetical that it is true. If it is not, then you don't have anything to worry about.

And here is the point. They are not under the same conditions. If they were, they'd all come to the same conclusion.