|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Would a Loving God Create Hell? | |||||||||||||||||||
Prozacman Inactive Member |
As I have implied, I am only speculating about the sincretization of YHWH & Eloah by the Jews & the people who lived in proximity to them. I am studying Job & some notes & commentaries at the moment in order to gain more knowledge about thew issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7041 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
my condolances, Percy... that must be hard... ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
grace2u responds to Chiroptera:
quote: And yet, the existence of rational atheists proves you wrong. You can whine all you want about how there cannot be a mailbox on the corner of Main and Elm, but the mere fact that we are looking at it proves you wrong.
quote: No, you haven't. You have merely asserted them.
quote: You could start by supporting your propositions. For example, how do you establish that something is "absolute"? Even better, you could start by defining your terms. What do you mean by "morality"? Don't worry about the level of math. I am a trained mathematician and will be able to understand most of what you would write.
quote: No, you haven't. You've merely spewed a list of assertions.
quote: The mere existence of atheists is proof. Atheists have morality, some of those tenets of their morality are considered absolute, therefore the atheist universe can account for absolute truths, logic, and morality. The fact that you do not understand how they do this is not sufficient. It merely requires that those traits exist. They do, ergo, the claim is proven.
quote:quote: Incorrect. This claim is an observation. Even on such basic things such as killing, there is no universal standard. Some people claim that it is never, ever OK to kill somebody. Not even in self-defense. Others think that defending your own life is worth taking someone else's. Look at the debate over the death penalty. If there were a universal standard, then we would all be in agreement. Since we're not, then there isn't.
quote: Incorrect. You have it exactly backwards. Denying this claim defies the realities of this world. There is no universal standard of right and wrong.
quote: Incorrect. It is an observation of the most fundamental reality.
quote: Because intuition is the worst standard to judge anything. Intuitively, the sun goes around the earth. Observation is much better. Since observation tells us that there is no universal standard of right and wrong, then intuition is wrong.
quote: Incorrect. In fact, you have it exactly backwards. You are the one twisting the reality of the world to fit into your worldview. You are certain that atheists are...well...insane (or did you mean something else when you said, "they deny simple truths and loose their ability to speak rationaly or to even sustain a rational debate"?) And yet, simple observation shows that they are not. Therefore, the only way to maintain the claim that atheists are insane is to twist reality to suit your worldview. The mere existence of atheists shows you to be wrong.
quote: You just proved my point. Is there a particular reason why you feel the need to call atheists insane?
quote: Incorrect. Atheists have laws of morality. Therefore, your claim is proven incorrect.
quote: You mean observation isn't science? Observation isn't a logical approach? You just said that your standard is intuition. Given how counter-intuitive the universe actually is (the earth goes around the sun, velocity is relative instead of linear, most everything is quantized rather than analog), what on earth makes you think that following your intuition is sufficient evidence for anything?
quote:quote: Well, I am a mathematician, grace2u (whether or not I am an atheist being immaterial). I, too, would fail you. You have not proven your claim. You haven't even defined your terms. All you have done is spew a list of assertions.
quote: No, you're just insulting. Or is there some other way to take being called a lunatic?
quote: But the fact that they exist and are intelligible proves you wrong.
quote: Prove it.
quote: Yes. You are. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote:I do not know whether there are universal absolutes withing my atheistic world view; you have not yet defined the term "universal absolute". Until you do so, the term is meaningless, and any statement containing it is empty. This isn't meant to be an insult - just that your reasoning is rather sloppy. Part of this is that you are using terms that you think that you understand, but the rest of us don't. And it is often the case that when you try to define what you mean you find out that you don't really understand it like you thought you did (this has happened to me on numerous occasions). quote:Sounds like medievel metaphysics to me. You seem to be saying that the formal systems of logic defined by humans may be an imperfect model of some absolute laws of logic that exists in the mind of God, or something like that. Seems like a Platonic notion of some sort. There is no evidence that there is some sort of absolute laws of logic that exist to be discovered by humans. quote:The "laws of morality" depend on the context of culture. There are no absolutes. The "laws of logic" are an artificial contruction (admittedly, as a mathematician, a useful invention) that is used to aid the reasoning ability of the human mind, which appears to work in a holistic manner unlike the linear thinking in formal logic. quote:There is no absolute morality, so I have nothing to prove - it is for you to prove the positive assertian. There is no absolute logic; logic is a human invention. There may or may not be universal truths - you have not yet defined this term. quote:Unfortunately, that everyone's intuitive nature seems to give a different standard of morality would seem to contradict a universal standard. There simply is no universal standard of right or wrong. Like beauty, morality is in the eye of the beholder. But I may be wrong - you have not yet defined what you mean by universal. quote:You are indeed suggesting, but not demonstrating. I do not find atheism to be unintelligible at all - if you can't understand it then that is your problem. I suggest you ask people to explain it to you before you go into a ill-defined, confused tirade about how illogical it all is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
AjaJoy Inactive Member |
Rrhain,
What does your signature mean? "WWJD? JWRTFM!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
LOL, someone has to ask again.
What Would Jesus Do? Jesus Would Read The F(ine) Manual
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Intellect Inactive Member |
on the subject of Universal Absolutes. I would have to say there is a basis for them, but, in the end "absolutes" are determined by culture. Since we are people, of all things, we think people are the most important things in the universe. Therefore, what do people need? Well, eat, sleep, drink, propogate species. So to make sure this happens, there are certain rules we need to set, like no mass murder. That's why when most people think of murder they think of it as a "universal absolute." We can not propogate our species if everyone is dead. But you never know if it will be ok, in some culture somewhere in the world... so it isn't actually universal. Another thing is, what if there is something we know nothing of, that is vastly superior to us on some planet somewhere in the universe? Do we still set the "universal absolutes?" It could functions in ways that we don't even begin to understand. No I am not saying there is a God, because as far as the eye can see, there are just many people trying to sell differentiated goods all around. But if we don't know what there is out there in the universe, how can we have a universal absolute? It's more like "human absolutes" and since there are so many cultures, some that even repress basic human needs (sexuality/US) how are there any universal absolutes? It just gets fuzzier as the logic process gets away from basic human needs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
AjaJoy Inactive Member |
Thank you
I've never seen that before...but I like it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Thanks, Intellect, you make some good points, but grace2u is trying to make an argument and so what matters is what he means by "universal absolute".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
grace2u Inactive Member |
Thanks for the observation Chiroptera. This discussion has been going on for a couple days now on this thread as well as in the "Is it Science" forum. In the process of the discussion I have been asked to provide various definitions for the words I have been using. Concepts of universal absolutes, invariant abstract entities, and God itself have been used. For the sake of clarity I am in the process of putting together a more formal statement that we can use to base our discussion on. Since I am the primary one making a claim of absolute truths within the universe (and what their alleged existence might mean concerning the existence of God) it is fair(and should be expected) that I make clear what exactly I am saying. Therefore, I will be starting a new thread shortly which will attempt to keep the discussion focused and purposeful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6135 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
Rei,
I would like for you to begin two new threads in the Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy forum. I have several questions about your arguments regarding the use of rahab in Job, and I would also like to answer your list of statements about the KJV. However, I must request that you provide me with references for your evidence and especially for your quotes. I do not wish to debate anything without at least reading over it first. I look forward to your posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
apostolos Inactive Member |
Rei (and others),
I wanted to clarify. I did not mean to suggest that you were the only one drawing the subject away from the main topic and to Biblical accuracy, and I appologize for doing so. I know I was also doing that. I just felt uncomfortable with your questions and responses because it seemed like they took away from the main discussion instead of adding to it. I think that the idea of new threads is very interesting and would be very keen on seeing our discussion developed there, instead of here, where it would be more relevant. But let me know what you think. Russ
|
|||||||||||||||||||
apostolos Inactive Member |
=======
What a great loving God that is... ======= Intellect, Please excuse the belated reply, but I was curious if you were putting this thought out, along with the rest of your post, for response. The reason I ask is because it seems, by your post, as thought you are not grasping the whole context of the book of Job. While this is not dealing with the issue of hell, it does call into question the character of God in reference to his love. So I guess I was wondering if you were interested in hearing another take on what you presented. Russ
|
|||||||||||||||||||
apostolos Inactive Member |
Prozacman,
I also have periods of extended absence from this site, but I will try to stay up on things. I understood that you were doing some serious searching, which I have not yet done on your post to me (#33), and that is why I suggested looking into Melchizedek. The word he uses for God is different than the name used durring the time of the Aaronic priesthood but it refers to the same God, the God of creation. I will look into your comments in the forementioned post this week and get back with you. Let me know what you think about all this. And I realize this discussion, w/my suggestion of Melchizedek, may take things off subject. I will leave all this for your consideration. Russ
|
|||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6135 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
My condolences as well, Percipient, to you and the family. I am praying for the family, and it is my hope that Judy had accepted the loving God who created heaven.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024