Right-wing fundamentalist's dilemma

[an American in Texas]

YAUG: "You say justice is an all encompassing value judgment. I say justice is very simply, fairness. By this definition, eternal torment is compatible with justice. It is perfectly just for God to punish a man eternally for rejecting salvation. After all:

1. God created man and gave him life.

2. God sustains man.

3. God entered human time, flesh and space to die for man.

The only unforgiveable sin is rejecting Christ as your Savior from the penalty of sin. Therefore, in answer to your question, eternal torment serves the highest value, justice."

Guest, there are no words to express how evil and blasphemous these assertions are.

Apparently your embrace of Calvinist theology completely blinds you to even the simplest of moral judgments.

The wickedness of some so-called Christians never ceases to horrify and amaze me.

Leigh

[Bryan]

YAUG: "You say justice is an all encompassing value judgment. I say justice is very simply, fairness. By this definition, eternal torment is compatible with justice. It is perfectly just for God to punish a man eternally for rejecting salvation. After all:

1. God created man and gave him life.

2. God sustains man.

3. God entered human time, flesh and space to die for man.

The only unforgiveable sin is rejecting Christ as your Savior from the penalty of sin. Therefore, in answer to your question, eternal torment serves the highest value, justice."

Guest, there are no words to express how evil and blasphemous these assertions are.

Good thing. Otherwise you might be able to come up with an argument other than implicit fallacious appeal to outrage.

We wouldn't want that, would we?

Apparently your embrace of Calvinist theology completely blinds you to even the simplest of moral judgments.

That's not just Calvinist theology. It's also Arminian theology.

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/...ef_arminian.htm

The wickedness of some so-called Christians never ceases to horrify and amaze me.

Leigh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Leigh's utter inability to express a cogent argument never ceases to horrify and amaze me.

[WilliamK]

I don't have to search all of existence to know with 100% certainty that a square with three sides doesn't exist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_square

Your intended meaning is correct, of course. I just found it mildly amusing that when you said "square with three sides", this entirely different meaning of the word "square" came immediately to mind.

You have to watch out for those alternate word meanings. Dishonest antagonists will sometimes use them to misrepresent what you say. Or sometimes even to misrepresent what they say, when it suits their purposes.

[Guest Paul]

Paul, I found it interesting that justice did not make your list.

By the way, I like your list in general, however some values you listed don't actually qualify as values per se.  "Health" for example, is a state of physical being, not a value.  All are very important however.  I just believe that justice is the foundation upon which a value system must be built.  Two more questions Paul:

1.  Can a god truly be considered a god of love if he is not absolutely just?

2.  Curious, just what is a "born again" Humanist.  Rather, what distinguishes a "born again" humanist from the ordinary variety?

For example, many people call themselves Christians, but I am a "born again" Christian.  This term comes from John 3:3.  In this verse Jesus says, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

The chapter is a dialogue between Jesus and a Pharisee named Nicodemus.  In the dialogue, Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be "born again" in order to experience salvation.  In a nut shell, its not being born again physically, but spiritually.  At the moment of faith in Jesus as Savior, the individual is reborn spiritually and becomes a child of God.

I like to use what I call the Roman Road when explaining the salvation experience.

It is called the Roman Road because all of the verses used can be found in the Apostle Paul's Epistle the the Romans.

There are essentially four things the individual must accept:

1.  The individual must accept the fact that he is a sinner.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."  Roman's 3:23

2.  The individual must accept the fact that there is a penalty for sin.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."  Roman's 6:23

3.  The individual must accept the fact that Christ paid the price for his sins.

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this :  While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."  Roman's 5:8

4.  The individual must respond to Christ's love.

"For everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved."  Roman's 10:13

Any individual, regardless of race, sex or past or present sin can experience God's salvation by responding to God's love from a sincere heart by praying a simple prayer like this:

Dear Jesus, I know that I am a sinner and that I don't deserve your salvation, but I also know that you are God.  I also know that you died to pay for my sins on the cross.  I know that death could not hold you and that you rose again proving that you are God.  Please forgive me of my sins and make me one of your children.

Thank you Jesus.

Amen

As a an idividual who has eperienced inner peace and joy by sincerely praying this prayer inviting Christ into my life, I invite all who would read this reply to do the same.  I want you to experience the inner peace that I have.  It passes all earthly understanding.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We were discussing justice, which is the only reason it isn't listed separately. From religion's ethical standpoint, justice encompasses all these other values, which is the point I was making. The only quibble I have with your first paragraph is that justice is built on these other values, not the other way around. Something is just because it serves these values. To say that these values are just because they serve justice would beg the question.

To answer your questions:

1. Look at the values justice includes, at least on my list. I reject the notion that justice means an eye for an eye, or an eternity of suffering for picking the wrong religion.

2. Read William James' book from about a century ago entitled The Varieties of Religious Experience. He chronicles the real-life experiences of people who described spiritual rebirth. I had such an experience on January 16, 1997, at around 8:30 p.m., continuing into the next morning, and it changed my life and way of Being. The only difference is that it wasn't attached to a belief in a god. So I know the inner peace you're referring to because I have experienced it, and continue to experience it. I just don't interpret it as you do.

Are you prepared to accept that I might know it as well as, or better than, you do?

[Guest Paul]

Why is Paul apparently unwilling to argue the point?  Why does he seem to expect people to accept his logic when he ignores the counterarguments?

a)  Why wouldn't god have neglected to tell whole populations about Jesus?

b )  People go to hell for sinning, not for not believing in Jesus (though actively dismissing Jesus may well be the "sin against the Holy Spirit" for which there is no forgiveness.  The issue here is how much grace is owed).  Paul seems to suggest that grace must be without limit--but that view seems absurd (as I've pointed out elsewhere, it may potentially lead to an infinite number of murders--Paul prefers to ignore the argument, calling it "silly").  In order to rescue his view from that absurdity, Paul has to draw a line somewhere--can he do it in principle better than the god of the Bible?

I'm willing to explore the issue--apparently Paul isn't.

c)  Again, people are condemned to hell for sin, not for their religious beliefs per se.  And what does sincerity have to do with it?  If I sincerely believe that murdering 5,000,000 infidels will punch my ticket to heaven, why should my sincerity count for anything given the enormity of my sin?  This points up the problem with Paul's supposed "objective" and "universal" morality--yes that one, the one he won't defend--the radically high number of exceptions to his "universal" morality should at least give him pause.  It's hard to detect any pause at all in his sermons.

Again, we find Paul advancing his argument with a barrage of unsupported assertions.  Why isn't it just?  Why, because it's not just ("no loving and just parent would think like that about children he loves")!  In so many words, Paul completely dismisses the sincerity of Islamic parents who send their children off to be suicide bombers--yet in the very next paragraph he might remind us that morality is objective and universal based on humanity as whole.

Paul's position is incoherent by all appearances, yet he will not negotiate a shred of it.

d)  Fairness doesn't assume that there is a proper state of affairs existing between people.  It assumes that there is a proper state of affairs in principle with which existing states of affairs should be aligned as closely as possible.

e)  More of Paul's unsupported assertions:  Why isn't it fair that some are born with greater intellect, healthier bodies, etc.?  One can't help but marvel at the utility of Paul's moral system, with its philosophical foundations shrouded in secrecy (not to mention incoherence).

(Though Paul apparently reserves the right to stand in judgment of all of those established customs and accepted ideas while fleeing any opportunity to justify his own system philosophically)

Paul exemplifies the value of creativity by wringing an application out of a tautology.

All carpenter ants are carpenter ants.  Is carpenter ant justice likewise possible on that basis?  Don't expect Paul to answer.  He can't be bothered justifying his views.  Others must justify their views to him, not the reverse.

Faith (not belief without evidence, but acting for the good even though we have no guarantee of the result)

Wisdom

Caring

Courage

Generosity

Happiness

Health

Benevolence

Creativity

Imagination

Innovation

Honesty

Humility, including an appreciation that there are a great many things we humans do not know

Patience

Reflection

Contemplation

Self-scrutiny

Development of self, physically and mentally

Teaching and mentoring others

Serving as an example for others

Leadership

Finding one’s best and most productive role, whether as a leader or not

Responsibility

Understanding

Appreciation

Dedication

Diligence

Enthusiasm

Loyalty

Trust

Respect

Honoring others by the way we treat them

Peacefulness

Tolerance

There are many others, but you get the idea.

Yes, I get the idea that Paul has just plainly illustrated the incoherence of his view again.

None of the above values is any higher than any of the others, hints Paul (there is not highest value).  This makes them effectively absolutes (either that or relative--we'll wait on Paul to clarify ... probably we'll wait forever).  Now observe the absurdity:

A man knocks on Paul LaClair's door in the middle of the night.  The guy has a sawed off-shotgun under his arm, as Paul notes through the peephole in the door, but Paul cannot place Wisdom or Diligence over Trust.  He lets the man in.  The man asked Paul for all of his money and valuables.  Though Paul knows it would not be responsible to give this man all of his valuables, he cannot place Benevolence below Responsibility, so he gives the man all of his valuables.

The man wants one more thing.  Don't tell anybody what happened.

Paul struggles for a moment on this one--this might be a good tale to tell at the next Humanists meeting to give everybody a good example of his Loving nature.  But he realizes that he can't put his wish to mentor others above Benevolence.  And Honesty bids him tell the late night visitor that he intends to tell his friends.  But what about Tolerance and Honoring others by the way we treat them?  Paul finally realizes that he cannot place his Honesty and Mentoring above Tolerance and Honoring.  He keeps the whole things secret (dreading Mrs. LaClair's questions about what happened last night, no doubt)--either that or he freezes up like one of Harry Mudd's androids realizing that he cannot fulfill the programming he has given himself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To answer Bryan’s questions:

a. God would have told everyone about Jesus to allow them to obtain salvation. If belief in Jesus was the condition on salvation, which many Christians hold it to be, God would make sure everyone heard about him so they could believe. I think that was clear before.

b. That’s not what Paszkiewicz believes, or a great many other Christians either. They believe that everyone who does not confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, for whatever reason, is doomed to an eternity in hell. Bryan, unless you’re being duplicitous, you have just as much of an argument with David Paszkiewicz as with me. Go argue with him.

c. Your comparison between sincerely believing in Buddhism and sincerely murdering 5,000,000 people is not well-taken.

d. You’re parsing. That state of affairs is between and/or among people.

e. That people are born with unequal abilities is unfair in the sense that everyone does not have an equal chance to succeed. It is amusing that someone who champions the Declaration of Independence, and in particular the statement that “all men are created equal,” would quibble with this.

You are absolutely right: I reserve the right to judge any custom and any idea I like. That is how customs and ideas are improved. People question them and propose alternatives.

I didn’t say that no value is higher than any other value. I said that no value is paramount over all the others. For example, wisdom is higher than understanding, but there is no comparing wisdom to courage. Wisdom and understanding are both in the intellect (wisdom spills over by pulling from emotion), while courage is an action. For one value to be higher than another value, it must operate within the same domain of Being. Else the comparison is like apples to oranges. As for someone showing up at my door with a gun, I think I’d figure it out. I know you’re eager to pick at everything I write, Bryan, but you might make some effort to understand it first.

You’re niggling, Bryan. To those who think I should have stopped responding to you a long time ago, I’m responding here only because you asked specific questions that merit answers. This response is for the open-minded.

By the way, just because you keep referring us to topic 5863 doesn't mean your comments there were persuasive or even germane.

[Strife767]

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_square

Your intended meaning is correct, of course. I just found it mildly amusing that when you said "square with three sides", this entirely different meaning of the word "square" came immediately to mind.

You have to watch out for those alternate word meanings. Dishonest antagonists will sometimes use them to misrepresent what you say. Or sometimes even to misrepresent what they say, when it suits their purposes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hah, that's obviously not really a square, though.

Okay, fine, I'm changing that part of the argument from "three" to "47," then. That oughta do it.

[Guest Guest]

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=57306

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Given the length and vacuity of this blabber, I decided to link to it.

Bryan, your incessant sniping is tiring. It would be one thing if you were making valid points, but you're not. How many people do you think are reading any of what you write any more? One post of that length would be daunting to many, to whom this discussion isn't important enough to devote that kind of time. When you post like that nearly every time, and each post is as logically and factually twisted as the last, it doesn't take long for people to start skipping past you. To use the following just as an example, a few paragraphs into your tome you write:

"It's not about those who 'guess' wrong, IMHO. It's about those who sin and do not avail themselves of the solution to the sin problem. The example of Israel itself should be instructive, here. Jesus encourages us to expect characters from the Hebrew scriptures in heaven, but none of them were 'Christians' in the modern sense."

For starters, I don't see much humility in the way you're presenting yourself. An IMHO won't cure that. Perhaps you could cure it if you wanted to, but so far I no evidence that you do.

Second, you have a double standard. You keep assuming the truth of Christian theology, but won't even give competing views the respect of fairly presenting them. You continually twist them into something they're not, and when you're called on an inconsistency or other defect in Christian theology you distort that too, as in this example.

On the internal structure of your argument, you're saying the same thing in a different way and pretending it's something different. According to you and other radical fundamentalists, "the solution to the sin problem" is acceptance of Jesus. So it's the same thing. The mere fact that other parts of scripture aren't consistent with that doesn't mean that your argument now makes sense; all it means is what reasonable people already know, which is that scriptures (and not only Christian ones) are loaded with inconsistencies.

I can understand people who don't belong to any of the traditional religions being insistent on these points because they are struggling for acceptance in a culture that has long put them down. What's your excuse? Whatever it is, it doesn't excuse your constant dissembling.

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

Are you prepared to accept that I might know it as well as, or better than, you do?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul, I thought "humility" and "respect" were on your values list?

Anyway, sorry if I offended you. I'm still curious about that personal experience though. What exactly, does it mean for a humanist to be reborn? The term "born again" is historically a Christian term going back to around AD 85 when the Apostle John used it in John 3:3. Without referring me to read an entire book on the subject, could you explain the process in terms of Humanism.

"...I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

Jesus, as recorded in the Gospel of John verse 3.

[Guest Re-Letter Addition]

[quote=Strife767,Jun 16 2007, 05:47 PM]

Oh, please.

There are no prophecies in the Bible that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories." --http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH110.html

The Bible says in itself, "I'm right because I say I'm right." Yeah, really solid evidence there.

Strife:

1. You failed to include a single example of a biblical prophecy which can be proven false. By the way, don't just mention it by name, or give a website, explain why it is false. Anything less would be intellectual laziness or deliberate dodging.

2. I'd like the chapter and verse on that supposed Bible quote. I've read the Bible cover to cover several times and I have never seen it.

Careful Strife the Bible you choose to deliberately misquote says this:

" I warn everyone who hears the words of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19.

[Bryan]

To answer Bryan’s questions:

a. God would have told everyone about Jesus to allow them to obtain salvation. If belief in Jesus was the condition on salvation, which many Christians hold it to be, God would make sure everyone heard about him so they could believe. I think that was clear before.

If it was clear before, then how was I able to point out that figures from before the time of Jesus were expected to be in heaven?

Let's deal with the argument you've directed toward that segment of the Christian population that thinks that hearing of Jesus is necessary--wouldn't want you needlessly thinking your argument is strong in that area.

Why isn't it fair for God to send to hell all of those who never heard of Jesus (under the assumption that they are necessarily bound for hell)? What is the foundation for that moral judgment?

Is it perhaps an universal and objective system of values that proves to be neither objective nor universal? Inquiring minds want to know.

b. That’s not what Paszkiewicz believes, or a great many other Christians either. They believe that everyone who does not confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, for whatever reason, is doomed to an eternity in hell.

That's true, but typically they realize that confession is done at the final judgment (where figures such as Moses who have counted as believers regardless of not knowing about Jesus are able to associate a name with the source of their salvation.. No matter--your argument stinks either way.

Bryan, unless you’re being duplicitous, you have just as much of an argument with David Paszkiewicz as with me. Go argue with him.

Fallacy of the false dilemma. It makes no sense for you to base your rejection of god on David Paszkiewicz's particular beliefs about god unless you think his beliefs are universal (a possibility I must allow since you think that human values are universal).

I need not represent my own system of belief to point out flaws in your reasoning. An atheist could make the same arguments I'm making with equal applicability to your question-begging argument. You could even think of these criticisms if you were able to indulge in that degree of introspection.

c. Your comparison between sincerely believing in Buddhism and sincerely murdering 5,000,000 people is not well-taken.

Indeed. It seems to have produced another instance of the LaClair Dodge .

d. You’re parsing. That state of affairs is between and/or among people.

You say I'm parsing as though you think it's wrong to parse. There's good parsing and bad parsing. Sometimes bad parsing is the fault of the one doing the parsing. Other times it's more the fault of the one being parsed. Most times the responsibility is shared. No need to say I'm parsing unless you're going to make a case that I engaged in bad parsing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parse

Paul:

"Fairness assumes that there is a proper state of affairs existing between and among people"

Bryan:

d) Fairness doesn't assume that there is a proper state of affairs existing between people. It assumes that there is a proper state of affairs in principle with which existing states of affairs should be aligned as closely as possible.

Paul:

d. You’re parsing. That state of affairs is between and/or among people.

Since I specifically mentioned "between people" in my reply, it seems that one would properly parse what I wrote recognizing that I understood that Paul was talking about a state of affairs between people.

Paul appears to have unaccountably thought otherwise.

e. That people are born with unequal abilities is unfair in the sense that everyone does not have an equal chance to succeed.

If everyone had the same abilities, then everyone would tend to be best at the same things. That seems like it would create an unfair amount of competition for the most popular jobs. But maybe we could fix that by making sure that everybody could have the same job? Everyone could be a typewriter repairperson (or whatever)!

It is amusing that someone who champions the Declaration of Independence, and in particular the statement that “all men are created equal,” would quibble with this.

As if to suggest that "all men are created equal" had to do with physical and mental abilities? Nobody's going to follow that stretch, LaClair. Not even your most zombified supporter.

This again typifies Paul's approach to debate. There's no content in his comment above--it's incoherent. The Framers did not remotely have physical/mental equality at birth (or conception, etc.) in mind; they had in mind the application of morality whatever state a man found himself in. An amputee had the same God-given unalienable rights as anybody else regardless of his disability--and the same goes for a man born blind.

Ignoring (or, incredibly, misunderstanding) the meaning of the text, Paul fires off a facile personal attack (seeking to place his own view as intellectually superior despite the lack of content).

You are absolutely right: I reserve the right to judge any custom and any idea I like. That is how customs and ideas are improved. People question them and propose alternatives.

Did you forget that we were talking morality? How are you going to improve morality unless you've got a line on the true morality that others don't have? If it's universal, then why would your ideas be better than anybody else's? Does your notion of "universal" somehow grant you an allowance for having a better understanding than anyone else?

Can you explain the paradox, LaClair?

No? Then why not dodge the issue again?

Bad parsing, BTW.

I didn’t say that no value is higher than any other value. I said that no value is paramount over all the others.

Then give me the top two and I'll construct a insoluble moral dilemma for you out of those.

For example, wisdom is higher than understanding, but there is no comparing wisdom to courage. Wisdom and understanding are both in the intellect (wisdom spills over by pulling from emotion), while courage is an action. For one value to be higher than another value, it must operate within the same domain of Being. Else the comparison is like apples to oranges. As for someone showing up at my door with a gun, I think I’d figure it out. I know you’re eager to pick at everything I write, Bryan, but you might make some effort to understand it first.

I think that denying that any value is the highest will likely still lead you into problems of the type I described.

You’re niggling, Bryan.

I'm pretty sure nobody's allowed to use that word any longer.

By the way, just because you keep referring us to topic 5863 doesn't mean your comments there were persuasive or even germane.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As if to suggest that I think that just because I keep referring to topic 5863 that the topic is therefore persuasive and germane?

Again, this is typical of LaClair's vapid arguments.

That thread is germane because it contradicts assertions you made in your OP in this thread. I have been both willing and eager to discuss this topic, and you painted the situation the reverse.

You've been avoiding the key issue to this debate all along, and I've been pressing you on it for weeks:

You're not in a position to rule something unjust unless you have a moral foundation for making the judgment. You claim to have an objective and universal system, but you can't describe it as either universal or objective without engaging in logical fallacies (thus far, anyway).

The reader may note Paul's failure to acknowledge his mistake in trying to draw a conclusion from a tautology (beyond the self-evident truth of the tautology itself).

Is he dominated by pride, or what?

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

3. Condemning a person to hell for sincerely believing in another religion would be sick, hypocritical and obnoxious. Therefore, a morally superior god would not do it. This is obviously a story made up by insecure men. If you want to talk about fairness, what is fair about a child who has been raised as a Hindu or a Buddhist, and devoutly and sincerely practices that faith, being condemned to eternal torment for holding to her faith just as you are now holding to yours?

4. Your explanation is petty and therefore unconvincing...

Paul,

In respnse to #3, I have this to say:

God is fair because:

A. There were at least 2 times in all of world history when every individual on earth knew the true God.

1. In the Garden of Eden (Adam and Eve)

2. After the Flood when Noah, his wife, his three sons (Shem, Ham and Japheth) and there three wives. A total of 8 people.

In each each case, man was given the responsibility to pass on the truth to the next generation. However, individuals have free will and some chose not to inculcate it into their children. This indoctrination, by the way, is a biblical command to parents.

"These commands that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them upon your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your forheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates." Deauteronomy 6:6-9.

B. In addition, God sent prophets to speak to wayward nations to call them to repentance. The book of Jonah is an excellent example of this. The Assyrian city of Ninevah was idolotrous and wicked and God sent them the prophet Jonah. The Assyrians responded by repenting and their city was spared.

C. God inspired prophets to record Scripture to be preached to the nations:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is usefull for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," 2 Timothy 3:16

"Above all you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

2 Peter 1:20-21

D. God revealed Himself to the world through Jesus Christ.

E. Jesus commands Christians to spread His Word.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Jesus in Mathew 28:19

Therefore, if there are areas of the world that are unreached with the Gospel, the onus is on man. Parents need to pass the message to their children and Christians need to obey and evangelize.

Lastly, about your point 4, remember your values as a "Humanist" Paul, they are supposed to include "humility" and "respect."

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

YAUG: "You say justice is an all encompassing value judgment. I say justice is very simply, fairness. By this definition, eternal torment is compatible with justice. It is perfectly just for God to punish a man eternally for rejecting salvation. After all:

1. God created man and gave him life.

2. God sustains man.

3. God entered human time, flesh and space to die for man.

The only unforgiveable sin is rejecting Christ as your Savior from the penalty of sin. Therefore, in answer to your question, eternal torment serves the highest value, justice."

Guest, there are no words to express how evil and blasphemous these assertions are. 

Apparently your embrace of Calvinist theology completely blinds you to even the simplest of moral judgments.

The wickedness of some so-called Christians never ceases to horrify and amaze me.

Leigh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry Leigh,

I am not a Calvinist, although I respect his high view of God. I do not believe man is predestined to Heaven or Hell as Calvin did. I believe man has free will. I do believe that God's plan for man's salvation was predestined though (Ephesians 1:11). That is, before the foundation of the world, God knew that given free will, the man He would create (although he was created perfect) was going to chose to sin. Therefore, being a loving God, He predetermined that He would suffer the penalty for man's sin on a cross. You see Leigh, God does not force anyone to trust Him and he didn't program us to automatically love Him like robots. If He did, man's response to God would not be out of genuine gratitude or love for God.

By the way Leigh, you called my asertions "evil" and "blasphemous."

Which assertions do you mean?

1. That God created man?

2. That God sustains man?

3. That God entered human time, flesh and space to die for man?

4. Or perhaps, that by rejecting Christ you would go to hell?

Leigh, you called people like me who believe these things, "so called" Christians.

A Christian, by definition, is a follower of Christ. Please allow me to share Christ's words:

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."Jesus in John 5:24

Leigh, it seems Jesus believes what I believe. Is Jesus therefore "evil" and "blasphemous?"

Carefull Leigh, cursing God is blasphemy.

[Guest Paul]

Paul, I thought "humility" and "respect" were on your values list? 

Anyway, sorry if I offended you.  I'm still curious about that personal experience though.  What exactly, does it mean for a humanist to be reborn?  The term "born again" is historically a Christian term going back to around AD 85 when the Apostle John used it in John 3:3.  Without referring me to read an entire book on the subject, could you explain the process in terms of Humanism.

"...I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

Jesus, as recorded in the Gospel of John verse 3.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They are on the list. So is openness, even though I neglected to mention it. In fact openness is an essential value for anyone who wants to grow and change. One of the tragic characterizing features of theistic fundamentalists is a lack of openness. So when I asked whether you were open to the possibility that I might know more of these experiences than you do, I wasn't asserting a fact (I don't know it to be a fact), but inviting you to be open and consider the possibility that I might be just as born-again, just as spiritual and just as religious as you are, or more. I don't get the impression you understood that, though. You must adjust your way of thinking to do it, but my experience is real, and it is as I've described it. If we are to gain anything from a dialogue, we must both approach it with an open mind. I apply that to myself as much as to you.

My spiritual rebirth came about when I recognized that Faith is better seen as an action than as a belief. I was participating in a project on the subject of human Faith. We were all struggling to understand where Faith fit into the picture. I had always understood faith as a belief in something. The mentor had proposed that there were three great creative forces in our relations with others, each of them operating in the domains of the mind commonly called emotion, intellect and action (the brain has known centers for emotions, thoughts and drives). We identified the emotional force first: Love. When we identified the creative intellectual force as Truth (the Truth of our common humanity, as I've mentioned here many times), I realized that there was only one place left for Faith: the mentor had to be proposing that it was an action. I'm not one to accept things blindly, but as soon as I realized what he was saying, it made perfect sense. When we act for good in the world even though we have no guarantee what results our actions will produce, that is Faith. When Annie Sullivan taught Helen Keller language with no prior evidence that it could be done, that was Faith. When the USA acted on JFK's promose that we would put a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s, that was an act of Faith. When Salk was trying to find a cure for polio --- this applies to virtually every major scientific discovery --- that was an act of Faith. When a young man or woman goes to college or beyond to pursue a degree, that is Faith. When I write to you now I have Faith that you may understand. That understanding changed my life. It's not hard to see why we call it a creative force.

Before my rebirth, I saw jurors as obstacles; afterward I saw my jurors as people just asking for the same kinds of explanations and answers I would want. Before, some of my clients were headaches, but afterward they were people with whom I could be empathetic and compassionate. Every person I encountered, every phone conversation thereafter was different. It may not mean much to you on paper, but it changed my life and allowed me to escape from the damage that had been done by some of the ideas you're trying to push back on me now.

"Reborn" is traditionally a Christian idea. There a great many marvelous and wonderful things in Christianity, but as I see it, Christianity became tragically lost in literalism. I strongly recommand Paul Tillich's little book on Faith. I don't recall the title, but go on Amazon and search Tillich - Faith. I'm pretty sure I even reviewed it there. For a Humanist like me, rebirth is everything it is for the Christian, except that we don't have a concept of a supreme being or an afterlife. The effects on our lives, however, are equally as profound and the process and effects seem to be the same.

You may say you will never abandon your faith. I once said that about Christianity too, but years ago honesty left me no other choice. If you have Faith that good people can discuss this subject openly and calmly, and that either or both can learn and grow as a result, then let's talk. If not, be at peace. I am.

[Strife767]

[quote=Strife767,Jun 16 2007, 05:47 PM]

Oh, please.

There are no prophecies in the Bible that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories." --http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH110.html

The Bible says in itself, "I'm right because I say I'm right." Yeah, really solid evidence there.

Strife:

1.  You failed to include a single example of a biblical prophecy which can be proven false.

Uh, excuse me, but it's your burden of proof to prove prophecies RIGHT, not mine to prove them false.

By the way, don't just mention it by name, or give a website, explain why it is false.  Anything less would be intellectual laziness or deliberate dodging.

No, intellectual laziness and deliberate dodging is you shifting the burden of proof.

2.  I'd like the chapter and verse on that supposed Bible quote.  I've read the Bible cover to cover several times and I have never seen it.

Don't be cute. It's a summary of the Bible's general message. It asserts its own authority, and circular logic lies at the root of that authority--it's the word of god because it's written in there that it's the word of god, and you accept that the writing is valid because it was written by god, and you know it was written by god because it says in the Bible, etc...

Careful Strife the Bible you choose to deliberately misquote says this:

" I warn everyone who hears the words of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."  Revelation 22:18-19.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not afraid of your holy book's baseless threats.

[Guest Paul]

In respnse to #3, I have this to say:

God is fair because:

A. There were at least 2 times in all of world history when every individual on earth knew the true God.

1. In the Garden of Eden (Adam and Eve)

2. After the Flood when Noah, his wife, his three sons (Shem, Ham and Japheth) and there three wives. A total of 8 people.

In each each case, man was given the responsibility to pass on the truth to the next generation. However, individuals have free will and some chose not to inculcate it into their children. This indoctrination, by the way, is a biblical command to parents.

"These commands that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them upon your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your forheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates." Deauteronomy 6:6-9.

B. In addition, God sent prophets to speak to wayward nations to call them to repentance. The book of Jonah is an excellent example of this. The Assyrian city of Ninevah was idolotrous and wicked and God sent them the prophet Jonah. The Assyrians responded by repenting and their city was spared.

C. God inspired prophets to record Scripture to be preached to the nations:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is usefull for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," 2 Timothy 3:16

"Above all you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

2 Peter 1:20-21

D. God revealed Himself to the world through Jesus Christ.

E. Jesus commands Christians to spread His Word.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Jesus in Mathew 28:19

Therefore, if there are areas of the world that are unreached with the Gospel, the onus is on man. Parents need to pass the message to their children and Christians need to obey and evangelize.

Lastly, about your point 4, remember your values as a "Humanist" Paul, they are supposed to include "humility" and "respect."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A. I disagree that it is fair for one person to be punished for another’s actions. To me that is distinctly unfair.

B. C. D and E. None of this matters. Entire populations never heard the Jesus story until years after he is said to have died. “I tried” wouldn’t be good enough for God. You’re saying God tried and failed. Why isn’t that just as bad or worse?

When I attended Catechism as a Catholic boy, the nuns told me that God would have died for me alone. That made sense to me and it still moves me, assuming the existence of God of course. I know that my own father would have given his life for me had it come to that. If my life was in danger, my father wouldn't have made a half-hearted effort to save me, and when it failed said "well, I gave it a shot." He would have done all he could, left no path to success untraveled, and left no step on that path untaken. He would not have rested until I was safe. Are you a parent? If so, you must know what I mean, or at least I hope you do. When you tell me that the God who loves me would leave the fate of my soul in the hands of other people, knowing they would fail, that makes no sense at all.

Humility and respect doesn’t mean that I will abandon my beliefs and adopt yours. Insisting on that is profoundly disrespectful. You folks have been pushing your case very hard for a very long time. I see very little respect in the way most fundamentalists approach this subject. Most of the time, they won’t even give our ideas the time of day. At least you’re asking a few questions.

[Bryan]

Given the length and vacuity of this blabber, I decided to link to it.

Bryan, your incessant sniping is tiring. It would be one thing if you were making valid points, but you're not.

And you can explain how Paul can call X unjust without some solid moral foundation?

If you skip that explanation, then you fail to make a valid point with your assertion.

Ironic, isn't it?

How many people do you think are reading any of what you write any more?

I don't concern myself about that. I assume that as many people as reply to my posts have read at least some of the post; I've been known to read a few of my own posts as well (I don't typically reply to my own posts, however--Paul's much better at that than I am).

One post of that length would be daunting to many, to whom this discussion isn't important enough to devote that kind of time. When you post like that nearly every time, and each post is as logically and factually twisted as the last, it doesn't take long for people to start skipping past you.

That's okay. I'm most interested in people who think; Paul appears to prefer to play to the jury, OTOH.

To use the following just as an example, a few paragraphs into your tome you write:

"It's not about those who 'guess' wrong, IMHO. It's about those who sin and do not avail themselves of the solution to the sin problem. The example of Israel itself should be instructive, here. Jesus encourages us to expect characters from the Hebrew scriptures in heaven, but none of them were 'Christians' in the modern sense."

For starters, I don't see much humility in the way you're presenting yourself. An IMHO won't cure that. Perhaps you could cure it if you wanted to, but so far I no evidence that you do.

That doesn't seem very humble of you.

Second, you have a double standard. You keep assuming the truth of Christian theology, but won't even give competing views the respect of fairly presenting them. You continually twist them into something they're not, and when you're called on an inconsistency or other defect in Christian theology you distort that too, as in this example.

No, I don't have a double standard; I don't assume the truth of Christian theology.

Sometimes the truth of Christian theology is assumed true for the sake of argument (just like Paul does when he supposes that people consigned to hell would be consigned there unfairly)--but there's nothing wrong with that--unless you can think of something?

Perhaps doubling down on insufficient humility?

On the internal structure of your argument, you're saying the same thing in a different way and pretending it's something different.  According to you and other radical fundamentalists, "the solution to the sin problem" is acceptance of Jesus. So it's the same thing.

How does it follow that it's the "same thing"?

Because you have declared it so?

That doesn't seem very humble of you.

The mere fact that other parts of scripture aren't consistent with that doesn't mean that your argument now makes sense; all it means is what reasonable people already know, which is that scriptures (and not only Christian ones) are loaded with inconsistencies.

Even if we were to accept your bald assertion that the scriptures are inconsistent, my argument would continue to make sense.

As I pointed out to Paul, he cannot limit a criticism that leads to the rejection of hell to merely one set of doctrines that accommodate a version of hell that qualifies as just. That's like me rejecting all rides on merry-go-rounds because I do not like the chickens on the merry-go-round at Federal Harbor.

I can understand people who don't belong to any of the traditional religions being insistent on these points because they are struggling for acceptance in a culture that has long put them down. What's your excuse?

You point out a real inconsistency, and I'll figure out the excuse if necessary.

Above, you supposed that there's no real difference between people going to hell for sin as opposed to lacking "belief in Jesus," as Paul put it.

You just blindly gloss over the fact that Paul's subsequent argument attempts to make hell unfair because some who end up in hell don't have a clue about Jesus--but take away Jesus entirely and everybody goes to hell, right? So does that make the entire argument about hell being just go away? Of course not.

Go get your head examined for coming up with such a dopey argument.

Whatever it is, it doesn't excuse your constant dissembling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your example fell flat. Got any more that won't make you look equally silly?

[Bryan]

1. Look at the values justice includes, at least on my list. I reject the notion that justice means an eye for an eye, or an eternity of suffering for picking the wrong religion.

If you reject the notion that justice means an eye for an eye, then why do you practice law? How could you sue somebody (or be a party to same) if you didn't believe that there was some just recompense that somehow evened the scales of justice?

Why don't you just take a page from Les Miserables and send letters to people assuring them that you won't sue them (even if you've got a good case against them)? Watch those hearts change!

[Guest Guest]

If you reject the notion that justice means an eye for an eye, then why do you practice law?  How could you sue somebody (or be a party to same) if you didn't believe that there was some just recompense that somehow evened the scales of justice?

Why don't you just take a page from Les Miserables and send letters to people assuring them that you won't sue them (even if you've got a good case against them)?  Watch those hearts change!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cheap ad hominem attack. Anyway, the civil justice system is based on compensation, not retribution.

[Guest Guest]

If you reject the notion that justice means an eye for an eye, then why do you practice law?  How could you sue somebody (or be a party to same) if you didn't believe that there was some just recompense that somehow evened the scales of justice?

Why don't you just take a page from Les Miserables and send letters to people assuring them that you won't sue them (even if you've got a good case against them)?  Watch those hearts change!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude,

Do you even have a life other than this website? It's become the "Bryan Show".

Take a break, go get **** or something.

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

A. I disagree that it is fair for one person to be punished for another’s actions. To me that is distinctly unfair.

B. C. D and E. None of this matters. Entire populations never heard the Jesus story until years after he is said to have died. “I tried” wouldn’t be good enough for God. You’re saying God tried and failed. Why isn’t that just as bad or worse?

When I attended Catechism as a Catholic boy, the nuns told me that God would have died for me alone. That made sense to me and it still moves me, assuming the existence of God of course. I know that my own father would have given his life for me had it come to that. If my life was in danger, my father wouldn't have made a half-hearted effort to save me, and when it failed said "well, I gave it a shot." He would have done all he could, left no path to success untraveled, and left no step on that path untaken. He would not have rested until I was safe. Are you a parent? If so, you must know what I mean, or at least I hope you do. When you tell me that the God who loves me would leave the fate of my soul in the hands of other people, knowing they would fail, that makes no sense at all.

Humility and respect doesn’t mean that I will abandon my beliefs and adopt yours. Insisting on that is profoundly disrespectful. You folks have been pushing your case very hard for a very long time. I see very little respect in the way most fundamentalists approach this subject. Most of the time, they won’t even give our ideas the time of day. At least you’re asking a few questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for your response. Concerning the highlighted portions above, the Scriptures make it clear that man is not in total spiritual darkness. There are a number of witnesses to the fact that there is a God outside of the Bible:

1. Nature

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where there voice is not heard." Psalm 19:1-3

This is the Bibles rendering of the design argument. I think its interesting that these verses stress the fact that the witness of nature goes across culture and laguage barriers. See also:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities --- his eternal power and divine nature --- have been seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20

This verse implies that men are without excuse simply as a result of the witness of nature (design argument).

2. Man's conscience.

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thougts now accusing them, are even defending them." Romans 2:14-15.

Apparently, nature and man's conscience alone are enough to convict man biblically. I realize that man's conscience and nature testify only to the fact that there is a God, not that his name is Jesus, however, these truths taken with those mentioned in my original post completely justify God in sending the lost to Hell.

As a side note, Acts chapter 10 shares the story of a Devout centurian named Cornelius. Cornelius didn't know the true God, however, God responded to his prayer and sent Peter to his house to share the Gospel of Jesus.

to: KearnyOnTheWeb.com

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

Uh, excuse me, but it's your burden of proof to prove prophecies RIGHT, not mine to prove them false.

Actually, I don't believe it is Strife, you first made the assertion that all Bible prophecies are false without giving a specific example of one that is, let alone explaining why. This is like an individual being accused of a crime and the state saying the burden of proof is on you to prove your innocence.

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

A. I disagree that it is fair for one person to be punished for another’s actions. To me that is distinctly unfair.

B. C. D and E. None of this matters. Entire populations never heard the Jesus story until years after he is said to have died. “I tried” wouldn’t be good enough for God. You’re saying God tried and failed. Why isn’t that just as bad or worse?

When I attended Catechism as a Catholic boy, the nuns told me that God would have died for me alone. That made sense to me and it still moves me, assuming the existence of God of course. I know that my own father would have given his life for me had it come to that. If my life was in danger, my father wouldn't have made a half-hearted effort to save me, and when it failed said "well, I gave it a shot." He would have done all he could, left no path to success untraveled, and left no step on that path untaken. He would not have rested until I was safe. Are you a parent? If so, you must know what I mean, or at least I hope you do. When you tell me that the God who loves me would leave the fate of my soul in the hands of other people, knowing they would fail, that makes no sense at all.

Humility and respect doesn’t mean that I will abandon my beliefs and adopt yours. Insisting on that is profoundly disrespectful. You folks have been pushing your case very hard for a very long time. I see very little respect in the way most fundamentalists approach this subject. Most of the time, they won’t even give our ideas the time of day. At least you’re asking a few questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry Paul, I forgot to sign my response to this post earlier. Again, thanks for endulging me.

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

I am not afraid of your holy book's baseless threats.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At least not until Judgment Day:

"Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them ... If anyones name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:11 and 15.

[Bryan]

Cheap ad hominem attack. Anyway, the civil justice system is based on compensation, not retribution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They "eye for an eye" passage in the Bible is about compensatory justice, not retribution. Look it up.

"Cheap" ad hominem attack? Paul's career is based on something he's denouncing as morally unjust. And I clearly offer him the opportunity to try to explain himself (not tha[t] he's likely to take it).

Where were you when David Paszkiewicz was on the receiving end of cheap personal attacks, anyway?

Edited June 19, 2007 by Bryan

[Guest Paul]

Thanks for your response.  Concerning the highlighted portions above, the Scriptures make it clear that man is not in total spiritual darkness.  There are a number of witnesses to the  fact that there is a God outside of the Bible:

1. Nature

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.  Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.  There is no speech or language where there voice is not heard."  Psalm 19:1-3

This is the Bibles rendering of the design argument.  I think its interesting that these verses stress the fact that the witness of nature goes across culture and laguage barriers. See also:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities --- his eternal power and divine nature --- have been seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."  Romans 1:20

This verse implies that men are without excuse simply as a result of the witness of nature (design argument).

2. Man's conscience.

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thougts now accusing them, are even defending them."  Romans 2:14-15.

Apparently, nature and man's conscience alone are enough to convict man biblically.  I realize that man's conscience and nature testify only to the fact that there is a God, not that his name is Jesus, however, these truths taken with those mentioned in my original post completely justify God in sending the lost to Hell.

As a side note, Acts chapter 10 shares the story of a Devout centurian named Cornelius.  Cornelius didn't know the true God, however, God responded to his prayer and sent Peter to his house to share the Gospel of Jesus. 

to: KearnyOnTheWeb.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're welcome. You have a kind spirit, and I appreciate that, though your arguments are not persuasive to me.

What you call design is better explained by natural forces, and besides, I cannot fathom why a loving and omnipotent god would make the world so that most of the sentient creatures would have to kill and eat each other to survive. This is an argument Matthew made in Paszkiewicz's class that first week. You might be interested in hearing that part of the discussion. Listen to how the students react. They didn't know how to handle the argument, and said the wildest things. The class that day never calmed down after Matthew made that point.

What the Bible has to say about man's "conviction" means nothing to me in itself, and in addition there is still no explanation of any set of values that would support eternal torment. People have claimed that this most extreme of all imaginable punishments is "fair," a claim that isn't persuasive to me in the least, and even that claim doesn't explain why a loving god would do it. As a father, I care deeply about the welfare of my children. "Fair" is not my first concern, and punishing someone forever with no hope of redemption is not my idea of fair. Punishment has to serve a purpose to be "fair" and to be just. What purpose would eternal torment with no hope of redemption serve? That is the question that the defenders of this idea either do not grasp or cannot address.