Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Would a Loving God Create Hell?
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 196 (66057)
11-12-2003 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rei
11-12-2003 3:25 AM


"... but we choose things that are often a detriment to ourselves for the benefit of others" Hmmm... Sounds like something Jesus would say, doesn't it? Well, if we atheists & agnostics(myself) are capable of doing good things for others and in the process sacrifice of ourselves, then are we necessarily acknowledging the existence of a higher standard(God)? No of course not! There is good reason to think that the 10 commandments were derived partly from the Code of Hammurabi. These 2 sets of laws are very similar in nature for instance. But did ol'e Hamm. get his code from the Judeo-Christian god? Nope! He got it from his own genious mind.
Therefor we can confidently say that one can live according to a set of rules without requiring that our good actions are in "God's plan". What do you think?
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 11-12-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rei, posted 11-12-2003 3:25 AM Rei has not replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 196 (66074)
11-12-2003 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rand Al'Thor
11-10-2003 2:17 AM


If we are talking about the Judeo-christian god YHWH, I would NOT assign "loving" as one of his defining characteristics. So, of course YHWH could create HELL for those who didn't believe in him, since throughout the OT he deliberately does some nasty things to some innocent people(Job for instance). Besides, the only "Hell" in the OT that I know of is "Sheol", and I interpret that as either the grave, or a dark, dingy realm of spirits no different than the Greek Hades. I'm not aware that the ancient Jews had any concept of the after-life, until the Babylonian Exile. I think as time went on and things didn't get better for the Jews, they decided to demonize their enemies and send them to(sorry, I didn't get to finish my line of thought yesterday, I was the only person who got taken up in the Rapture).
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 11-13-2003]
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 11-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 11-10-2003 2:17 AM Rand Al'Thor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by apostolos, posted 11-12-2003 5:52 PM Prozacman has replied

  
apostolos
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 196 (66107)
11-12-2003 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Prozacman
11-12-2003 3:07 PM


a clarification
===============
I'm not aware that the ancient Jews had any concept of the after-life, until the Babylonian Exile.
==============
Pardon the interuption, but I was reading through this thread and just wanted to make a brief historical correction. The above statement is false, although I must clearly admit it is qualified by "not aware".
In fact, since you mentioned him, Job stated a clear understanding of an afterlife in the book of the Bible bearing his name. This is significant because it is widely understood that the account of Job predates Jewish occupation of the land that would come to be known as Israel. (This means it took place sometime during the book of Genesis.) Again, though not to be redundant, the significance of this is that the Babylonian exile did not take place until well after David was king, which was well after the initial occupation of Israel. So, there is a definite case for "ancient Jews" having a concept of the afterlife.
thnx for pardoning the digression
Russ
(p.s. the handle is greek for sent one, and not meant to be a self-claimed honorific title)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Prozacman, posted 11-12-2003 3:07 PM Prozacman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Rei, posted 11-12-2003 6:03 PM apostolos has replied
 Message 29 by Prozacman, posted 11-13-2003 11:04 AM apostolos has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 19 of 196 (66109)
11-12-2003 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by apostolos
11-12-2003 5:52 PM


Re: a clarification
1) Actually, Job speaks of Sheol, what the poster was referencing. Here's a reference:
SHEOL - JewishEncyclopedia.com
2) Name one piece of evidence that Job is contemporary with Genesis. Here's some that indicates that it wasn't:
The word "Rahab" is used twice in Job:
quote:
If he snatches away, who can stop him?
Who can say to him, "What are you doing?"
God does not restrain his anger;
even the cohorts of Rahab cowered at his feet. (Job 9:12-13)
By his power he churned up the sea;
by his wisdom he cut Rahab to pieces.
By his breath the skies became fair;
his hand pierced the gliding serpent. (Job 26:12-13)
Rahab is a refernce to Egypt (Isaiah 30:7, Psalm 87:4, Psalm 89:9-10, Isaiah 51:9-10, etc) and the Exodus.
The earliest reference to Rahab in the chronological portions of the Bible is that Psalm 87 was written by the sons of Korah, and Psalm 89 by Ethen the Ezrahite, so this would put it at the earliest during the time of David or Solomon; this would place Job as being written at some point between David and Isaiah.
You can get clues also in that Job's behavior - serving as a priest to his house - correlates to the time of judges (sacrifice was not the exclusive domain of priests in a central tabernacle then).
Also, Job is not unique; see Keret, Ludlul bel Nemeqi, etc.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by apostolos, posted 11-12-2003 5:52 PM apostolos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by apostolos, posted 11-12-2003 6:21 PM Rei has replied

  
apostolos
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 196 (66112)
11-12-2003 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Rei
11-12-2003 6:03 PM


Re: a clarification
First:
I will look into the "sheol" reference but that was not the reference of afterlife I was thinking of. I will have to attend to this another time due to my current schedule with apologies (no pun intended).
Second:
=======
The word "Rahab" is used twice in Job:
=======
I do not wish to make this a textual debate however this is the rendering of the passages in the King James translation of the scriptures (with emphasis)
"Behold, he taketh away, who can hinder him? who will say unto him, What doest thou? If God will not withdraw his anger, the PROUD helpers do stoop under him." Job 9:12-13
"He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he smiteth through the PROUD. By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent." Job 26:12-13
Furthermore, the "serving as a priest to his house" is referenced at the latest in the life of Abraham which takes place in the teen chapters of Genesis.
Again, not trying to divert the main discussion. I just wanted to make a clarification based on what the Bible says.
Russ
[This message has been edited by apostolos, 11-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Rei, posted 11-12-2003 6:03 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rei, posted 11-13-2003 4:05 AM apostolos has replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 196 (66123)
11-12-2003 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rei
11-12-2003 3:25 AM


##########
So, you acknowlege that one needs not use Christ as a standard of goodness to live a good life. You personally define Christ as a standard of goodness. Atheists do not, and use commonly accepted social norms to define a standard of goodness. They coincide. The particular "standard" is thus irrelevant - we use the same standard
########
The problem with this line of reasoning is that you have no basis for your claims. While I acknowledge that both views contain followers within it that act both bad and good, and that atheists have a sense of right and wrong, the logical dilema that they have is that their worldview can not account for this. They have to borrow from the Theistic world view in order to make these claims of alleged injustice. Atheism as a philisophical system can not account for laws of morality, laws of science or any other universal invariant abstract entity. You can make a claim that raping a child is wrong, but I would demand you show me evidence. The monopoly analogy has been demonstrated to be oversimplified and can not withstand the simplest of scrutiny that I could produce. Why is it that raping a child is wrong? Do you agree that this is wrong? if so why? In some cultures it might be ok. Who are you to say that they are wrong in doing this? This struggle that you are having with explaining how an absolute moral truth can exist, demonstrates how the atheistic world can not make sense. It can not account for the transcendental truths that exist in the world. The only way around this is for you to deny that there are moral absolutes. I would then argue that you are choosing a much more complicated and unbelievable system of thought, than that wich is the obvious answer. Does this prove Christianty? In and of itself perhaps not, however it at least provides a starting point for our discussion on whether or not Christianity is a valid religion. Atheists continue to complain about scraps that they see. They continue to pose problems of evil, problems of injustice in how God might or might not be. In doing this, they are demonstrating that these universal invariant abstract entities exist, yet their worldview can not account for them. This is illogical and irrational at best.
###
Societies which turn to rampant crime and anarchy are self-destructive;
######
Agreed. Perhaps this is why God chose to reveal the concept of sin to us. Not because He wanted to be the great party kill joy but perhaps because He understands the destructive nature of immoral behavior.
########
On the mental level, there is a further issue: meaning. To pursue anything in life, you need a sense of purpose. A primitive creature may be able to simply consider whatever its desires are as "purpose", but in a highly social, thinking creature, who doesn't spend its life focused soley on subsistance, there needs to be meaning to life. Without it, why go on living? Each person has to define their own meaning in the universe.
######
This still does not address the problem of a lack of moral absolute truths. If moral truths were defined to be relative, or that which is perceived by an individual to be right or wrong, then the culture that tortures their young in sacrifice to some god are not really wrong. They are doing what makes sense to themselves and are therefore justified in doing this. I can hear you now, "but if it causes harm to others then it violates there happiness and is therefore not allowed". I could produce a number of moral atrocities that could be perceived to be helping a species or culture, however would still violate a moral truth and still be atrocious to our conscience. Even still there is no justification for even making this claim apart from what ever you have arbitrarily decided to produce. I am simply stating that the universe does not make sense if there is no God, with no absolutness. Since the atheistic universe is incoherent and illogical, failing to deal with the numerous realities of the world in a concise manner, I maintain that the theistic approach is correct-given the impossibility of the contrary.
########
Some take it a step further, and choose "deliberate good". There is no promise of reward, no eternal benefit, but we choose things that are often of a detriment to ourselves for the benefit of others.
########
In all honesty I do appreciate that these acts of kindness are committed without regard to ones self. They are simply done because it makes sense to you or for whatever reason. I would add that most Christians do the same. Acts of kindness are done not to gain favor with God or to earn something in heaven, rather they are done in gratitude to our Savior and because He has sovereignly commanded us to do these things. Even still this line of reasoning is still irelevant. The fact that you do good, for non-selfish reasons, has no relevance as to the validity of the claims I am making. In fact they actually provide more evidence suggesting the theist worldview is correct, since you are demonstrating that there is a concept of right and wrong, which you might claim to adhere to. Again, atheism can not account for these conecpts. If you can please show me (no more conventional/sociological/monopoly arguments either). Until then, I maintain that atheism can not account for the simple realities of the world in which we live, and therefore is an illogical/disproven system of thought.
Thanks for the feedback...
Christe eleison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rei, posted 11-12-2003 3:25 AM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rei, posted 11-13-2003 4:23 AM grace2u has replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6695 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 22 of 196 (66138)
11-12-2003 9:41 PM


Why a hell?
From what I get from what the Bible says, man wasn't created for man. God created man for himself, to worship God and fellowship with. The Book of Genesis seems to draw a clear difference as to the creation method of every item in the new universe by saying God said "let it be" and it was. God somehow spoke or willed planets, stars, plants, water and animals into existance and they came to be. Now when the Bible says "spoke", I understand that it is using context relevant for the level of understanding and technological achievement of around 1500 BC or so. I'm sure the actual creation physics were much more complex if we had viewed them, but in comparison to the omnipotet Capabilities of God as expressed by the Bible, it was at the level of speaking it into being.
The Bible seems to shift gears in describing the in depth creation of man because it states that God formed Adam from the dust of the ground. Formed vs. saying "let it be". This creation method implies something much more important and intimate. Finally, God breathed life into Adam which implies that Adam is now a created but eternal being. The Bible says that God formed man in his own image. This makes sense if you look at God as one and yet three. God according to the Bible is Father, Son and Spirit (the full literization of this does not appear until the New Testament) and man is body, soul and spirit. You get the initial ideas of this when the Bible states, "And God said let Us form Man in our own image". - That's not a dirrect quote and I don't have the Blue Letter opened up because I'm at work and these computers suck.
So if God created man to be an eternal being vs. the apes, dogs, birds and ferns, which are temporal, then where does man go if he exercises his Pro-Choice rights by choosing to reject God or acknoledge him but agrees to disobey as in the story of Cain?
The Bible says God created the lake of fire for Satan and his angels after they had fallen, and since he did not create man for failure, he did not create a special place to send the fallen humans for eternity, he simply economized and sends them to the same place as the fallen angels.
So according to what the Bible says, God wanted man for fellowship and genuine worship. The only way to know it's genuine is to have a choice and choose to worship God on your own. If I tie my son Isaac up to the kitchen table and then tell him to stay in the kitchen, and then walk out of the room for 10 minutes and then re-enter and go into histerics because he obeyed me and stayed in the kitchen, did he really obey me? No, and I would appear to be a skitsofrenic (spelling?) to my son, just as God would appear to be a skitso if he created a perfect world without rules or consequence and then showered us with rewards for choosing to not do something we had no ability to do either.
So when humans reject God, the only option is to spend eternity somewhere other than with him, but the Bible states that once created, man exists for eternity, you need a place to send them.

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6695 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 23 of 196 (66141)
11-12-2003 9:45 PM


Yaaahoooo!!!
This forum says that I'm now a member and not just a junior member anymore!! Look above my icon. OOoooooh waaakaaa waaakaaa waaakaaa!

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Prozacman, posted 11-13-2003 11:08 AM Lizard Breath has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 24 of 196 (66149)
11-12-2003 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by grace2u
11-12-2003 1:40 AM


grace2u responds to me:
quote:
quote:
That doesn't mean it was ordained by god.
In and of itself you are correct. However this concept does not make sense in an atheistic world.
Why? You keep asserting this, but you provide no evidence for it. If there can be absolutes without god, what is the problem? The rules of Monopoly are absolute. If you break them, you're cheating. And yet, the rules of Monopoly are created not by god but by humans.
quote:
quote:
You are confusing the concept of "universally accepted" with "cosmically ordained."
The laws of morality simply reflect the nature and character of God
But the existence of atheists who have the same morality directly contradicts this. The laws of morality, it seems, can come from somewhere other than god.
quote:
a presupposition of Christianity.
But you're being asked to prove that, not assume it.
Since atheists come up with moral codes, then it must necessarily be the case that morality does not require god. Since atheists have a sense of right and right, then it must necessarily be the case that right and wrong are not defined solely by god.
quote:
quote:
Sure there is: Our own experiences, thoughts, desires, and philosophies are the standards. For example, one can easily get the concept of the golden rule from taking a purely selfish view: I wouldn't want this to happen to me, so I shouldn't do it to others and similarly, I'd like other people to treat me that way, so I should do it to others.
What we are arguing here is that I believe these laws of morality are God ordained,
Irrelevant.
The existence of atheists shows you to be wrong. You can believe that all you want, but atheists have no belief in god and yet still have laws of morality. Therefore, morality is not necessarily god-ordained.
quote:
you believe they are conventions within societies.
That's an observation, not a belief.
quote:
1) In some ancient societies it was ok to sacrifice your first born to a God. In others (such as ours), it is not.
That's because the society accepted it. Morality is a social contract carried by the members of the group who share it.
quote:
According to your monopoly analogy, the culture that thinks its ok to kill there first born is simply playing with some modified rules and that their rules are ok since it's within their household.
Precisely.
And as long as everybody in the group agrees with that, it is.
quote:
Why is it that it is simply wrong to kill your first born?
Who said it was?
Your Christian god seemed to think it was OK and his servant, Abraham, didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with it because, after all, god told him to. He didn't think that god was going to stop him. God said to do it, so he was all set to go through with it.
Why is it when your god tells you to kill your first born, it's "right" but when somebody else listens to his god and goes through with it, it's "wrong"?
quote:
2) A male might want to rape a female because it makes him happy -- and he may even think that it makes her happy.
What does the woman think?
You're ignoring the fact that morality is something that is agreed to by all the people involved in the society. I think it's safe to say that the people being raped don't seem to think it's "right."
quote:
In fact he may wish that he could be raped (following the golden rule principle).
As the cliche goes, you can't rape the willing.
quote:
However you would be hard pressed to say that the beliefs of one could justify the commission of a horrible crime such as rape.
Indeed. That's because morality deals with not only with personal attitudes towards oneself but also societal attitudes. It requires complicity on all members of the group or it's merely anarchy.
quote:
Again, atheism can not deal with these realities in a coherent logical manner.
Sure they can.
We as a society have decided that it is wrong. What does god have to do with it?
Since atheists routinely decide that rape is wrong, their mere existence proves you wrong. Why don't you ask an atheist and see what he has to say about the subject?
quote:
Further demonstrating that as a philosophical system, it is bankrupt.
So atheists have no morals?
So why are there so many atheists who have morals?
Their existence proves you wrong.
quote:
quote:
The existence of atheists shows this to be wrong. The world is apparently quite sensible without god.
Using only one argument, the existence of the laws of morality, philosophers have demonstrated how the atheist world view can not give a logical account.
But the existence of atheists shows this to be wrong. The world is apparently quite logical without god.
The fact that "philosophers" assert something doesn't mean they're right. You can shout all you want about how atheism has no way to develop morality, but the simple fact that there are atheists with morality shows that claim to be wrong.
You can whine all you want about how there cannot be a mailbox at the corner of Main and Elm, but the fact that we're standing here on that corner looking at the mailbox shows that claim to be wrong.
quote:
While it is true that atheists exist, that does not prove that the world is sensible without God.
Then how could the atheists exist? They make sense of the world and do so without god. Therefore, it is possible to make sense of the world without god.
quote:
The atheist world view continues to suppress the truth about this, choosing to ignore rather than deal with the metaphysical realities of the world we live in.
How? Be specific. If you're saying that they are "suppressing the truth" regarding the existence of god, well, they can make the same claim about you. Who are we supposed to believe?
quote:
quote:
Why are you putting your stock in an illegitimate argument?
This is one of many arguments that theists can provide giving reason to believe in a God.
But you're confusing your personal inability to see how there is no god with some universal reality.
quote:
Of the 1000's of formal proofs presented throughout history, if one is proven correct, then the system is valid.
But there is no formal proof of god.
quote:
I have found that most atheists are extremely intelligent yet they fail to grasp the more fundamental questions and can not deal with the realities of the world in which we live.
Has it not occurred to you that they make the identical argument about you?
Who are we supposed to believe?
quote:
The monopoly example is one more example of this in my humble opinion.
Indeed. You may be extremely intelligent, but you fail to grasp the more fundamental questions and cannot deal with the realities of the world in which we live. The Monopoly example is one more example of this, in my humble opinion.
The existence of atheists proves you wrong.
quote:
It makes a little sense on the surface, but as you peel the layers away I find it extremely oversimplified and lacking in substance.
Indeed.
Your "proof" makes little sense on the surface and as you peel away the layers, it is apparent that it is nothing but an argument of "It's true because I say so."
How can the world not make sense without god when there are atheists around who do just that?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by grace2u, posted 11-12-2003 1:40 AM grace2u has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 25 of 196 (66186)
11-13-2003 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by apostolos
11-12-2003 6:21 PM


Re: a clarification
The hebrew word is Rahab. Here's the definition:
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
1) Storm, arrogance (but only as names)
a) mythical sea monster
b) emblematic name of Egypt.
Besides, if you're silly like the KJV and translate it as "proud", the other passages that I referenced don't make sense.
The Hebrew reads that by his understanding, he smote Rahab. Rahab is the name of Egypt (and also a sea monster, but that wouldn't make sense).
Now that I've provided evidence that Job is notably later that Genesis, what do you have to suggest that it was contemporary?
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by apostolos, posted 11-12-2003 6:21 PM apostolos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by apostolos, posted 11-13-2003 7:54 AM Rei has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 26 of 196 (66188)
11-13-2003 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by grace2u
11-12-2003 8:00 PM


quote:
The problem with this line of reasoning is that you have no basis for your claims. While I acknowledge that both views contain followers within it that act both bad and good, and that atheists have a sense of right and wrong, the logical dilema that they have is that their worldview can not account for this.
But I just did account for it - natural selection. More specifically, memetic selection.
quote:
They have to borrow from the Theistic world view in order to make these claims of alleged injustice.
From our perspective, you're subject to such selection as well - and that developed your standards, not some God. Again, if you're looking at our worldview, you need to look at the whole worldview.
quote:
Atheism as a philisophical system can not account for laws of morality, laws of science or any other universal invariant abstract entity. You can make a claim that raping a child is wrong, but I would demand you show me evidence.
Exactly. Did you read my discussion of existentialism? "Meaning" and "purpose" are abitrary constructs which the invidual defines on their own. Typically, they define them on the "path of least resistance" - in line with social memes.
quote:
The only way around this is for you to deny that there are moral absolutes. I would then argue that you are choosing a much more complicated and unbelievable system of thought, than that wich is the obvious answer.
Harder to accept, yes. However, relativity is harder to accept than Newtonian physics. But it's more accurate. Quantum theory is much harder to accept still. And yet, it's more accurate. Just because you want something to be true, and it makes your life easy, doesn't make it true.
quote:
Does this prove Christianty? In and of itself perhaps not, however it at least provides a starting point for our discussion on whether or not Christianity is a valid religion. Atheists continue to complain about scraps that they see. They continue to pose problems of evil, problems of injustice in how God might or might not be. In doing this, they are demonstrating that these universal invariant abstract entities exist, yet their worldview can not account for them. This is illogical and irrational at best.
No, when we talk about "evil" and "injustice", since the world has no meaning, we simply define them around terms in common use. If we described them by anything other than terms in common use, we wouldn't be communicating, now would we? In an atheistic world, devoid of universal meaning and purpose, "evil" and "injustice" as humans define them are expected. They are not, however, necessarily predicted in a theistic world. In one with a God of infinite power and infinite compassion (as we know the word - some argue that God's definition of "good" is different from ours, but that's circular), explaining "evil" and "injustice" isn't so simple.
[quote][quote]Societies which turn to rampant crime and anarchy are self-destructive;
quote:
Agreed. Perhaps this is why God chose to reveal the concept of sin to us. Not because He wanted to be the great party kill joy but perhaps because He understands the destructive nature of immoral behavior.
Ah, and here we look across the divide of belief. You see it as God trying to help humanity. I see it as memetic selection. Both of us see the same thing, but interpret it differently because of our different paradigms of reality.
quote:
This still does not address the problem of a lack of moral absolute truths. If moral truths were defined to be relative, or that which is perceived by an individual to be right or wrong, then the culture that tortures their young in sacrifice to some god are not really wrong. They are doing what makes sense to themselves and are therefore justified in doing this.
And the answer you're not expecting.... Yes. That is correct. Now, from my worldview with my arbitrary definitions of meaning and purpose, what they are doing is wrong. However, from theirs, what they are doing is right. There are no absolute realities.
However, as I stated earlier, such a society will, in the long run, be selected against.
quote:
I can hear you now, "but if it causes harm to others then it violates there happiness and is therefore not allowed".
Nope. It may surprise you, but I don't believe that, and neither do most philisophical atheists. A drive for happiness is just an instinct; instincts have no more universal purpose than anything else in reality. One can *define* their instincts to have relevance, but it is an arbitrary definition to add purpose to reality.
quote:
Even still there is no justification for even making this claim apart from what ever you have arbitrarily decided to produce. I am simply stating that the universe does not make sense if there is no God, with no absolutness.
Actually, it makes perfect sense without God (I could go into how a universe with a God in it, which created the universe that it exists in, makes no sense). What is missing without a God is *purpose* for the universe. *Meaning*. Etc.
quote:
Even still this line of reasoning is still irelevant. The fact that you do good, for non-selfish reasons, has no relevance as to the validity of the claims I am making. In fact they actually provide more evidence suggesting the theist worldview is correct, since you are demonstrating that there is a concept of right and wrong, which you might claim to adhere to.
Actually, no. There are values which are positively selected, and values which are negatively selected. Societies which feel a sense of "right" and "wrong" that corresponds to our modern definition of such concepts are selected for. Again, we're back to memetic selection.
quote:
Thanks for the feedback...
Christe eleison
Actually, I've really enjoyed this conversation. It's been a while since I've had a good philisophical debate. Normally on this site, I'm simply having to deal with explaining how you can't have 6 miles of rain fall in a global flood without a huge change in potential energy, or how evolutionists don't believe in Larmarkism or Hopeful Monsters, or explain the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for the 1000th time... it's nice to have a different topic, one that is rarely covered.
- Karen Pease
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by grace2u, posted 11-12-2003 8:00 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by grace2u, posted 11-14-2003 1:10 PM Rei has not replied

  
apostolos
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 196 (66213)
11-13-2003 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rei
11-13-2003 4:05 AM


Re: a clarification
=======
Here's the definition:
1) Storm, arrogance (but only as names)
a) mythical sea monster
b) emblematic name of Egypt.
=======
First, I do not know anything about Blue Letter Bible. They could be some fly-by-night, hack organization, or they could be completely valid in terms of scholarship. I would like to present a quote, however, from "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" which has a copyright of 1890 and has been widely used in theological circles since then, because of its proven accuracy. (FYI: the numbers refer to the system used to link the uses of words through out the Bible to their definition in the textbook. The word looked up was "proud", found to be in the forementioned two passages of Job.)
#####
7293 xxx(please excuse the absence of the hebrew letters) raw-hab from 7292; bluster(-er):-proud, strength.
7292 xxx raw-hab; a prim. root; to urge severely, i.e. (fig) importune, embolden, capture, act insolently: -overcome, behave self proudly, make sure, strengthen.
#####
Now that definition of the Hebrew word seems contrary to the one you found, so both can not be right. Obviously my position is that the above definition is correct. I say this because of the proven accuracy of the work it comes from. Also, the translation "proud" has a more harmonious connection to the immediate context. This is because both passages are statements against the position of stating you have knowledge and not recognizing Him from whom all knowledge comes. This would be a proud man, one who lifts himself up in the face of God impudently. This idea is also harmonious with the larger context of the debate that goes on between Job and his friends over the course of the book.
=======
Besides, if you're silly like the KJV and translate it as "proud", the other passages that I referenced don't make sense.
=======
Thus far you haven't proven the KJV translation to be errant logically, grammatically, historically, or in any other way. So your considering it "silly" seems to be a rush to judgement instead of an accurate conclusion. As far as it not fitting in with your passages of scripture, that is not valid to the argument.
The reason I say this is because the usage of a word (or words) in multiple passages of scripture does not unify those passages uness the definition can be seen to be synonymous, and that definition must include contextual considerations. I could add more about this (because the original hebrew, and even the english translation, is in a format called 'ancient hebrew poetry', and thus affects contextual consideration) but that is not the main issue.
The original point was the knowledge of an afterlife before Babylonian exile. This is true because of, for one example, Job's statement in Job 19:25-26.
"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God."
Many factors indicate this book predates the Babylonian exile. This, coupled with the two verses, shows that there was an understanding of afterlife in the ancient hebrew mind before the forementioned time.
Russ
[This message has been edited by apostolos, 11-13-2003]
[This message has been edited by apostolos, 11-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rei, posted 11-13-2003 4:05 AM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Rei, posted 11-13-2003 6:30 PM apostolos has replied

  
Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 196 (66217)
11-13-2003 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rand Al'Thor
11-10-2003 2:17 AM


Appologies, off topic.
But isn't Jordan a Christian writer ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 11-10-2003 2:17 AM Rand Al'Thor has not replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 196 (66248)
11-13-2003 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by apostolos
11-12-2003 5:52 PM


Re: a clarification
Alright, good; Then where in the Book of Job does it say or even imply that the Jews of Job's time believed in an afterlife? And by the way, I'm a fair dude, I'll look thru Job to see if I can find it, and if I do, then I'll post it! Then I will become AWARE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by apostolos, posted 11-12-2003 5:52 PM apostolos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by apostolos, posted 11-13-2003 11:27 AM Prozacman has replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 196 (66250)
11-13-2003 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Lizard Breath
11-12-2003 9:45 PM


Re: Yaaahoooo!!!
Weeeelllll, aren't you proud of yourself! Hey everyone, giv'im a cookie!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-12-2003 9:45 PM Lizard Breath 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