Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jazzns' History of Belief
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 96 of 140 (638304)
10-21-2011 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Straggler
10-21-2011 12:12 PM


Re: Altruism - The Big Mac Effect
All of the evidence indicates that intelligence, consciousness etc. are the product of material brains. On what basis do you conclude that intelligence can even exist without a material brain?
Specifically, if "souls" actually existed, then that would mean that human consciousness is not tied to any specific portion of the physical body. If people can continue to think and be self-aware after death, with no brain at all, then why does brain damage have any effect at all? Why do psychoactive medications have an effect on personality and cognition?
If souls exist, and people continue to be their conscious selves after the complete death or even total destruction of the brain, then why is Alzheimer's disease so devastating to a person's mental abilities?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2011 12:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2011 12:54 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 107 by GDR, posted 10-21-2011 2:53 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 98 of 140 (638313)
10-21-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Straggler
10-21-2011 12:54 PM


Re: Altruism - The Big Mac Effect
All good points. But you don't even need to go to brain damage or disease to ask these sorts of questions.
What would one's personality be like in the absence of any of the hormones that affect such things in a healthy individual?
"We" are our physicality.
Entirely true.
The reason I chimed in is simply because the effect of physical changes to the brain (hormonal, artificial chemical, or structural) is one of the larger nails in the coffin of my own former faith. I've personally known people who've developed mental illness and used psychoactive medication, and even one person who suffered significant changes to her personality after a head injury. There seems to me no way to rationalize the concept of an immortal soul containing a human consciousness without any body at all, and the concept of changes to a part of a human body altering the consciousness of the individual.
If it were only body-related functions like motor control that were affected by changes to the brain, I could still allow for a soul that simply runs the personality processing independently of the meat brain. But when memory, personality, mood, language comprehension, etc. are all very clearly and incontrovertibly resident in the brain, there's simply no way to rationally include a "soul."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2011 12:54 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2011 1:24 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 100 of 140 (638318)
10-21-2011 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
10-21-2011 1:24 PM


Re: Altruism - The Big Mac Effect
Once you had rejected the notion of a soul did the rejection of an immaterial super-intelligence-consciousness (a godly prime mover) follow naturally or did that take more thought?
Wasn't quite the way it happened. I rejected Christianity and belief in god(s) first. I suppose at that point i also no longer believed in souls...but the consideration of the brain-vs-soul problem occurred later, serving more to solidify the direction of my belief.
Like many issues of my former faith, it's one of those very large inconsistencies that I had simply never thought of before. My religion served as a titanic blind spot, in which was hidden all manner of topics that should have triggered confusion, but which cognitive dissonance kept me from really thinking about.
Can one reject one form of immaterial intelligence and cling onto another?
Of course. I can loosely conceive of a hypothetical intelligent entity that possesses no physical form. I have no idea what mechanism would drive such a mind, but all things may reside in the utterly speculative space of total ignorance.
The problem is with human nonphysical consciousness. We have unassailable proof that human consciousness rests solely within the physical brain, and that altering the state of the brain through chemicals or even just a solid impact can permanently alter the personality, memory, etc of the individual.
That doesn't preclude a non-human entity having a purely non-physical mind, or even a hybrid of the two. If we discovered such a thing tomorrow, I would not at all reconsider the state of the human "soul," as I see no contradiction if the mechanism of consciousness is entirely different.
That's not to say that I actually believe that such a thing exists. I'd need a reason to do so; that I can conceive of a thing only means that I have a good imagination, not that my imagination is in any way tied to reality. Ignorance breeds freedom in imagination, but is a poor basis for belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2011 1:24 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2011 2:02 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 102 of 140 (638326)
10-21-2011 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Straggler
10-21-2011 2:02 PM


Re: Altruism - The Big Mac Effect
I agree with your differentiation between an immaterial human soul as the seat of human intelligence and personality etc. and that of an innately immaterial godly entity.
We do have what amounts to conclusive proof that a human "I" is a product of the physical whilst it remains relatively possible that a conscious entity lacking such physicality could conceivably exist.
But I seriously suspect that in most cases the two are rather entrinsically entwined and that belief in one goes hand in hand with belief in the other. I suspect that pretty much all heists are dualists of some sort. Whether they realise it or not.
That was the root of my question.
I don't think so. There are religions that believe in the non-total-physicality of human consciousness and yet do not believe in deities - like Buddhists.
Never forget that beliefs regarding spirituality are not universally alike, as certain others would have us believe. Belief in the nature or existence of souls and deities are widely different. Modern commonalities are largely due to the expansive reach of three particular religions that themselves share a common history.
It's been said that the near-universality of human belief in some manner of soul or spirit is evidence that such a thing may exist, but those beliefs are so different that it's almost criminal to even lump them together.
Theists in cultures dominated by monotheistic religions tend to most frequently have a both-or-neither belief regarding souls and deities, but I think that's more a cultural distinction than an observation of a pattern in human theistic beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2011 2:02 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2011 2:30 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 104 of 140 (638329)
10-21-2011 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Straggler
10-21-2011 2:30 PM


Re: Altruism - The Big Mac Effect
I would suggest that they share enough in common to suggest a common source. Namely human psychology. The attribution of cause to agency rather than mindless processes seems to lie at the heart of most religiosity.
I think the more relevant factor in most religion is simply the human ability to have confidence in an unsupported proposition.
Anthropomorphism of nature is certainly prevalent, but I think it ties more that what specifically we come up with, where the real problem is that we simply tend to have unfounded confidence in what we essentially pull from our rectums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2011 2:30 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2011 4:01 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 106 of 140 (638333)
10-21-2011 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by GDR
10-21-2011 2:43 PM


Re: Altruism - The Big Mac Effect
There is no evidence that indicates whether or not a prime mover exists that set all of this in motion. That is a purely subjective conclusion.
You seem to think that all subjective conclusions (ie, opinions) are equally rationally valid.
Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by GDR, posted 10-21-2011 2:43 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by GDR, posted 10-21-2011 9:57 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 108 of 140 (638336)
10-21-2011 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by GDR
10-21-2011 2:53 PM


Re: Altruism - The Big Mac Effect
That actually is the scriptural message. The idea of a disembodied existence is Platonism that crept into some Christian belief.
Not entirely. The concept of a "spirit," and not just the Holy Spirit but as a human component, is prevalent throughout the Bible.
But less important in the discussion is the scriptural basis of a belief, but rather the prevalence of the belief itself.
As an apologist you're welcome to say that your interpretation of the Bible doesn't specifically mention a "soul" as a prevailing individual consciousness independent of the body, but the simple fact is that the vast majority of Christians do believe in exactly that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by GDR, posted 10-21-2011 2:53 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by GDR, posted 10-21-2011 3:37 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 113 of 140 (638354)
10-21-2011 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by GDR
10-21-2011 3:37 PM


Re: Altruism - The Big Mac Effect
I've only got a couple of minutes so this will be brief. Yes the concept of spirit is there but that does not mean that we are intended to live a disembodied existence. The message of the Bible is that we are to have resurrected bodies of which the resurrected Jesus is the prototype so to speak, in our re-created world.
There are no doubt many Christians who believe in the idea of a disembodied future but it isn't the view of the majority of Christian scholars. Arguably the most influential Biblical scholar in the world today is N T Wright
Irrelevant.
If I walked up to 100 random Christians, GDR, and asked them if they believed in an immortal soul, that the essence of an individuals personality, memories, and consciousness persisted after the death of the body independently in either Heaven or Hell, how many do you think would answer in the affirmative?
I couldn't care less what the Biblical scholars and apologists you link to might say.
We're talking about a belief that is, in fact, prevalent in the majority of Christian believers. Every one of the denominations I've participated in (Christian Reformed, Congregational, Presbyterian, and a few others) hold the existence of the human soul as a core belief. In every instance, you could have walked up to any member of any of the congregations I have been part of, and every single one of them would have answered my earlier question in the affirmative.
The Evangelical movement, immensely popular here in the States, focuses on the fate of the soul, independently of the physical resurrection, to a very strong degree.
There's simply no way to argue this, GDR. The concept of a soul is widely believed amongst most Christians. The opinions of a few Christian scholars and even leaders is irrelevant if most of the actual practitioners believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by GDR, posted 10-21-2011 3:37 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by GDR, posted 10-21-2011 9:40 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 118 by Chuck77, posted 10-22-2011 12:45 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 121 by Chuck77, posted 10-22-2011 1:42 AM Rahvin has replied
 Message 123 by Chuck77, posted 10-22-2011 2:48 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 125 of 140 (638638)
10-24-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Chuck77
10-22-2011 1:42 AM


Re: Altruism - The Big Mac Effect
Hi Chuck,
Matter-of-fact speaking isn't a problem. We all know at the outset that we have different sets of beliefs, it's fine for you to make statements of your belief as if you actually believe them.
But I'd just like to focus in on one little bit:
IOW, my mind, will emotions(soul)
You seem to be defining the "soul" as the "will, emotions, and intellect."
If the "soul" is independent of the brain, and governs your emotions, your will, and your intellect...
...then why does brain damage so drastically effect emotions, will, and intellect? If intellect is dependent not on the brain but rather on an intangible component, then why does brain damage affect intellect? If emotions are not resident in the brain, but rather the intangible "soul," why do psychoactive medications have the ability to completely change a person's emotional state?
If the "soul" takes care of those functions, then the brain should be irrelevant for them, shouldn't it?
but for now I just wanted to let you know you have a soul. Aren't you excited?
Chuck, I'm a former Christian. I used to have beliefs similar to your own. I used to believe in souls, and spirits, and a god, and so on. Went to church every week, read and studied the Bible outside of church, etc. Went through confirmation.
You aren't revealing "exciting new news" to me. I previously had those beliefs, and I've rejected them. I do not believe that any gods exist. I don't believe any such thing as a "soul" in the traditionally religious sense exists in reality.
I'm happy to discuss these topics with you, and I find the debate enjoyable. Friendly argument is fun for me, and the mental exercise of constantly looking for logical fallacies and critical analysis of competing claims is, I think, good for all of us. But really, you can lay off the attempted conversion. Unless you can show me real evidence that I can verify, I'm not at all likely to embrace beliefs that I've previously rejected as irrational and likely false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Chuck77, posted 10-22-2011 1:42 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 128 of 140 (638741)
10-25-2011 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Phat
10-25-2011 11:05 AM


Re: Matters of ultimate importance?
Perhaps one answer is that we don't have an infinite amount of time to decide. Which begs the question of how much time is enough?
I don't think that question is relevant at all.
What possible crime or "decision" could ever be made that would justify the punishment of being thrown into the "lake of fire" described in Revelations?
Let's put this in perspective, and talk about Hitler. I'm not calling anyone a Nazi, so I should avoid Godwin's Law.
The Holocaust is estimated to have murdered somewhere around 21 million people in the most horrible ways imaginable. You can't get a whole lot worse than being starved and tortured to death systematically, and I don't think we'll see a whole lot of argument there.
But if Adolf Hitler was sent to burn "alive" in Hell for a hundred years for every single victim his regime brutally murdered, a full lifetime of torture for every single victim...he'd still not have finished receiving his punishment.
If then he spent another thousand years for each and every one, ten lifetimes of nothing but excruciating, never-ending pain and torture for each and every victim, he still wouldn't be anywhere close to the end of his suffering.
I don't think even Hitler deserves an infinite amount of punishment for what can only possibly have been a finite crime, regardless of how large.
I can't think of any crime ever in any amount that could be committed in a human lifespan, even if the crime was repeated a thousand times a minute from sunup to sundown every day of a person's life, that would justify eternal punishment.
Even if you don't believe in the "fire and brimstone" version of Hell, if you believe that Hell is a punishment of any kind, I still cannot fathom what crime could be so terrible as to justify that punishment for eternity.
To punish a person for eternity is infinitely worse than sentencing a person to torture and execution for stealing a pack of gum; that would at least be a finite amount of punishment, it would have an end, even if the sum total of suffering was vastly out of proportion to the crime. Eternal punishment has no end, the ratio of suffering received to suffering caused is infinity to x, it's not even describable how unethically wrong that is under any illusion of a rational system of punishment. It's not an "eye for an eye," it's not even both eyes for an eye or dismemberment for a scratch, eternal punishment cannot even be compared to any possible crime committed in a finite lifetime.
Even if the punishment is minor, if instead of burning in a lake of fire forever you "only" have to be sad and lonely forever, eventually the suffering you experience over eternity will have to overwhelm whatever was caused by your crime in a finite lifespan, simply because the punishment never ends and your finite lifespan did!
What possible choice or crime could any person ever commit that would ever justify an eternal punishment of any sort at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Phat, posted 10-25-2011 11:05 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Phat, posted 10-25-2011 12:41 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 130 of 140 (638746)
10-25-2011 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Phat
10-25-2011 12:41 PM


Re: Matters of ultimate importance?
What if the concept of Hell is merely a willful choice to not share communion (common union or existence) with God? Besides, who is charged to do the judging?
Only if you're reading a different Bible from the one I read.
But what's actually entailed by "not sharing communion with God?" What would existence be like? Would I be alone, or with others who made similar "choices?" Do we get a world to live in, or do we just float in an endless void? Do you know? It's somewhat relevant information to making such a significant choice, don't you think, since after death you can never change your mind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Phat, posted 10-25-2011 12:41 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Phat, posted 10-25-2011 1:09 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 133 by GDR, posted 10-25-2011 2:26 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 132 of 140 (638749)
10-25-2011 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Phat
10-25-2011 1:09 PM


Re: Matters of ultimate importance?
I prefer to discuss God and belief concepts philosophically and openly speculative rather than limit them to the Bible...though that can be one guideline.
But speculation with no basis is useless. We might as well talk about a "choice" to be separate from Leonardo of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for all eternity. Virtually anything is conceivable. Actual popular religious beliefs at least provide some basis upon which to speculate, even if their own frameworks are themselves unfounded.
Great question to think about! Assuming that for the moment and purposes of this discussion, God is a possibility and a relationship in everyone's life that must be accepted, ignored, obeyed, (or perhaps) challenged.
Does a "relationship" with God alter my physical state? The Bible talks about a great city, and mansions, and so on, as opposed to an endless void. Would an existence apart from God be similar to living on Earth for eternity, with all the other people who similarly chose to be separate? Would there still be suffering? Does each person instead exist alone in their own little unbounded pocket Universe, floating uselessly in the solitude of an endless void? Does everyone wind up burning in a lake of burning sulfur? Are we forced to watch endless reruns of Friends, or the 700 Club?
Are all things equal, except that in one case you get to have a direct relationship with God, and in the other you don't?
Without knowing things like that, a decision is impossible.
Who would you prefer being "in communion" or contact with? Family? Close friends? Beer buddies? ex-wives? Chinese?
People, in general. Even though the vast majority of humanity frustrates and annoys me, human beings are social animals, and we don't do well in solitude. Friends and family would be a good start, my fiance in particular, but honestly just not being alone is a pretty big requirement for human sanity. Ever watched a documentary on people in solitary confinement? It's not the small spaces that get to them, it's the loneliness, and it can (and often does) lead to psychosis. Being alone for an extended amount of time is torture in and of itself.
And I happen to get along just fine with my ex-wife as long as we don't live together, thank you very much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Phat, posted 10-25-2011 1:09 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 134 of 140 (638753)
10-25-2011 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by GDR
10-25-2011 2:26 PM


Re: Matters of ultimate importance?
One of the problems I see is this. The fundamentalists say that by reading the Bible as if it was dictated by God are able to come up with all the answers. An atheist then is able quite rightly point out the inconsistencies in their beliefs. However, it seems when a Christian doesn’t have all the answers then you are critical of that as well.
I'm not critical of any answer. I;m critical of the answers that have been provided. I'm critical of any form of eternal torture, and I cannot answer a question when I don;t have even minimal facts upon which to base a response.
If the Bible said that the unfaithful and sinners were simply punished in accordance with their crimes (meaning receiving at MOST the same amount of suffering caused) and then allowed to join everyone else in heaven, I would be MUCH less critical. If the Bible said that the "choice" of whether to have a relationship with God was non-binding, that the decision could change at any time during the eternal afterlife, I would be less critical.
But those have not been the answers given.
Your words suggest that I'm just going to criticize regardless of the response, that there is no answer that would please me, and that's just not the case. The problem is that the only answers that have been given are either "I don't know" or something so unethical that I'm disgusted that anyone calls such an idea "justice."
The Christian God is a God who is loving, understanding and above all just. God wants us to reflect that image of Him into all of creation. We make choices about whether we wish to reflect God’s image or not, and somehow in ways that I don’t understand those choices matter. The thing is that God is just, and in the end what happens to us after the entropic world that we know is renewed will remain a mystery to us, but I have faith that we will see perfect justice done.
How can you maintain that view of God when the Bible is filled with stories like killing a man for ejaculating on the ground, or afflicting a man with horrible sores and killing off his family just to see if he would still praise God, or drowning the entire population of the Earth, and so on? Even if you maintain that these are just stories and that they didn't actually happen, what kind of monster uses stories of capricious mass murder to prove how loving he is? If God is "infinitely just," then why even tell a story about killing every firstborn child in Egypt? Why even fantasize about a lake of fire? Is your God trying to tell us how unethical he totally could have been in those stories? Is the lesson of the Bible "Gee, sure glad he isn't actually at all like those stories say he is?"
How can you reconcile that? "God is love, he just likes to really scare us?"
Maybe "he only hits me because he loves me?"
When we think of other "good and just" characters, we don't typically think of them murdering children, not even in a fictional story. Why then does the holy book of a "perfectly good and just God" contain so many stories of his injustice?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by GDR, posted 10-25-2011 2:26 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by GDR, posted 10-25-2011 5:12 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 136 of 140 (638792)
10-25-2011 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by GDR
10-25-2011 5:12 PM


Re: Matters of ultimate importance?
Why isn’t I don’t know an acceptable answer. If I ask a scientist what it is that caused the singularity to suddenly expand at time =0, he might come up with theories, but it would be honest to add that ultimately he/she doesn’t know. I can come up with theories about hell but ultimately I don’t know,
I don't know is perfectly fine when we really don;t know.
The issue is only that, in the absence of knowledge about the consequences of a choice, it is unethical to hold a person to that choice. If I ask you to pick Door 1 or Door 2, and I don't tell you that Door 2 leads to a watery grave, you didn't really choose to be killed, did you?
If we have no idea what our alternatives are when it comes to heaven and hell, then we cannot reasonably be expected to make a decision. We might as well flip a coin. It's unethical to then force us to stick with a choice for all eternity when we never knew the real stakes.
but I do trust in a loving and just God.
Why do you think he's loving and just? Are the Old Testament stories not actually about him at all? If not, what's their relevance? If so...how is he loving and just if he commits mass child murder?
I understand the entire Bible in context to be a metanarrative that is the story of God relating to His image bearing creatures. His call to us is that we reflect His image, the image of love and justice into the world. An overview of the metanarrative would run like this. Creation — Israel and the Prophets — Jesus — the church — the renewal of all things. That metanarrative that is the Bible is made up of a series of narratives, (as well as some poetry, drama etc), as told by a number of different writers throughout history. These narrative are told by a number of writers inspired to write the stories of the people of the era and their understanding of their own times and histories. As a result, the entire Bible is written in a way that is both personally and culturally influenced. Yes I believe that God’s revelation is involved and is reflected in the stories, but so are the influences of the pagan nations around them. Sometimes they actually worshipped other gods but often they simply transferred other beliefs on to Yahweh, in ways that suited their own purposes. The societal means of getting rid of undesirables was public stoning and so when it suited their purposes some bright light would suggest that this is what Yahweh wanted. If they wanted to slaughter their neighbour to take the land and/or goods, then again someone would suggest that Yahweh wanted this done and it would become part of the story.
So then the stories of injustice committed by Yahweh are wrongly attributed to him, and weren't actually him? They were either the acts of men acting in what they thought was his name, or just made up?
Is Yahweh incapable of revealing his true nature and contesting the bloodthirsty imagery? If so, why do the unjust misattributed portions of the Bible remain? Jesus seemed a bit more friendly and loving, but wouldn't an omnipotent deity be able to eliminate the bad, inaccurate stuff?
God’s solution to the problem was Jesus. In reading through the Gospels we can see that the vast majority of quotes by Jesus have an OT reference. Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew scriptures and at the same time gave us teaching that allows us to sort out what was of God in those scriptures and what was of man.
So the Flood never happened, the killing of the firstborn and other plagues of Egypt never happened, and all the genocide and war in the OT was just men who claimed to have God on their side?
If you disbelieve that much of the Bible, why do you believe any of it?
Back to hell then, (figuratively speaking ). Let us for a second assume that the God of the OT that sanctioned genocide and public stoning represented an accurate picture of the God that created us. I find the idea repugnant. Why would I worship a God like that? Why would I want to spend eternity with a God like that? If that is heaven I don’t want it.
I agree. My rejection of Christianity was not primarily moral, but if I had not already rejected it on rational grounds, The above would be very close to my moral reason for rejection.
I believe in a God who believes that as part of wanting us to be kind and just wants us to be forgiving. For some the idea of giving up the need for revenge is unthinkable yet that would be a characteristic of this renewed creation. I have often been told on this forum that I’m weak for having to have a sky Daddy to look after me. There will be those whose pride just won’t allow them to accept a world characterized and ruled by Jesus, a man whose idea of leading was to wash the feet of His followers. Would it be the act of a loving God to force people into a situation for eternity that they choose to reject?
But it very clearly sounds like you're basing your belief in God on what you want God to be, not on any form of evidence. You want to believe God is just and good, and so you're basing your concepts on those desires rather than Christian tradition or scripture. Or so it seems to me from your words here.
My understanding of hell is that it is an existence that is characterized by the hearts of those that reject the renewed world characterized by the love as expressed through Jesus. For most of us that sounds like an existence that would be unpleasant in the extreme but for many it seems that either that, or even final and total death, would be preferable, to an eternity with God.
Why must the choice be eternal? If we can never really know at the point of decision (ie, during our lives) what the consequences of that decision will be, then would it be the act of a moral, just and caring God to force us to follow through with the decision for eternity, even if we were to change our minds in a dozen, a hundred, a thousand, a million years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by GDR, posted 10-25-2011 5:12 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by GDR, posted 10-26-2011 11:06 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024