I don't want no eternal bliss...

[Eleutherios]

So I've been thinking about this whole heaven concept, and I've come to the conclusion that if it existed, I would not want to be there. Heaven is supposed to be a place where everybody is constantly feeling one emotion: happiness. Everybody I know and love would be stuck in emotional monotony. Happiness would become so commonplace that we would fail to appreciate how good it feels to be happy.

I like earth because we feel a variety of emotions. It is only because we suffer sometimes that we can truly appreciate how good pleasure feels. I love the people I love because they have deep and complex personalities, and I love getting to know those personalities. Our emotional lives are not simple, and things I value like love and morality and philosophy rest on how we deal with the various positive and negative emotions that we all feel. If we are stuck in a state of monotonous pleasure, we cannot have that same emotional depth, and I feel this would take a lot of meaning out of our lives.

The people whom I love know I love them because I am there for them when they suffer. It is true that we also sometimes experience moments of ecstasy together and relish in the fact that we are doing so, but it would not be the same if we did not have this emotional interdependence in times of pain. Without these occasional times of pain, my relationships with other people would not be as deep and meaningful.

Heaven is not my kind of place. I do not want a god to inject a superdrug into my mind that forever blocks out most of the emotions I am capable of feeling, and does the same to all my friends and family. I want emotional variety and emotional depth. I want to be challenged by moral dilemmas. I want to lean on people when I suffer and I want people to lean on me when they suffer. I want to feel angry or sad when bad things happen to good people. I do not want to remain in a state of indifferent bliss when there is injustice in the universe.

The problem with heaven becomes even worse if we assume that there is also a hell. If some of the people I care about deeply end up in hell, and I know they are suffering for all eternity because they made a finite number of mistakes, I would consider myself a heartless bastard if that didn't produce some kind of negative emotion in me.

Fuck heaven. Fuck God. Fuck Jesus. Long live Humanity!

[freakazoid]

C.S. Lewis talked about this very thing in the book Mere Christianity. You might find it interesting, when I have the time I could give you the exact chapter if you would like. Also there are different ideas about what hell would be like, and if it is for eternity. Lewis also talks about hell in the book. Also just because they made a bunch of mistakes does not mean that that is where they are headed. Don't let those jerks who profess that they are Christian tell you otherwise, like that person that was in that article in chit-chat. :(

[Question everything]

to play devil's (ironically in this case I suppose I'm "God's") advocate: eternal bliss means you get what ever you want, even sadness I suppose. (take it from a guy who made the mistake of going to a catholic school) the church's position is this: All emotions are valueable (even hatred :wacko: ) it is the way we use them that is important. On the other hand you got a point, I know a few catholics who think like that, it's confusing...

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:04 pm
C.S. Lewis talked about this very thing in the book Mere Christianity. You might find it interesting, when I have the time I could give you the exact chapter if you would like. Also there are different ideas about what hell would be like, and if it is for eternity. Lewis also talks about hell in the book. Also just because they made a bunch of mistakes does not mean that that is where they are headed. Don't let those jerks who profess that they are Christian tell you otherwise, like that person that was in that article in chit-chat. :(

C.S. Lewis talked about this very thing in the book Mere Christianity. You might find it interesting

But the premise is flawed (which he bases his entire book on) so that's moot.

[Comrade J]

I agree, to live for eternity would be awful, I hope (and believe) that when I die, I simply cease to exist, not go and live in the sky with loads of happy people.


C.S. Lewis talked about this very thing in the book Mere Christianity. You might find it interesting, when I have the time I could give you the exact chapter if you would like. Also there are different ideas about what hell would be like, and if it is for eternity. Lewis also talks about hell in the book. Also just because they made a bunch of mistakes does not mean that that is where they are headed. Don't let those jerks who profess that they are Christian tell you otherwise, like that person that was in that article in chit-chat.

Freakazoid, I'm sure you will not rest til everyone in the world has read that CS Lewis book! If it's so great, why don't you actually quote it, or paraphrase the argument. Imagine if every time we addressed an opposing argument in say, economics, we simply said "read Capital by Marx" or "Marx actually addressed this... but I'm not going to tell you what he actually said, just go read it yourself..."
Also, you're always pushed for time. You seem to find plenty of it to come on Revleft and tell people about a certain book or Christian argument, or tell them you have no time, but never have the time to tell them what it actually says. I'm still waiting for you to tell me why God exists, like you said you would.

Also, and I genuinely don't mean this offensively, but you can't exactly moan about other Christians not being "proper Christians," when as a self proclaimed revolutionary, you are going against the Bible's teachings on respecting the state as the legitimate authority. Though of course, no doubt the apparently great prophet that is C.S Lewis covered that in Mere Christianity, right? ;)

[freakazoid]

What do you find flawed about it? Are you saying that you do not believe that people have morals?

[Question everything]

as usual I'm Ignored :(

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Fuck God XD

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:06 pm
What do you find flawed about it? Are you saying that you do not believe that people have morals?
He said "all people have morals."

I don't. Counter-example -> conjecture refuted.

[ichneumon]

I don't. Counter-example -> conjecture refuted.

of course you do - you have a superego, like everyone else, and most likely you're not a sociopath


as usual I'm Ignored

this thread is about god bashing, not intelligent discussion. don't even try.



perhaps this will interest you: buddhists define heaven as a realm with little or no suffering, but we don't consider them eternal. they may last longer than this physical universe, but all realms where time is sequential have endings (insert weird buddhist logic here). thus, since beings only *learn* through suffering, souls in heaven who die when their realm ends go to hell, because they have not learned or grown at all.

quote the poet Han Shan

The elixir meanwhile was the secret of the gods
and that they were waiting for a crane at death,
or some said they'd ride off on a fish.
Afterwards I thought this through
and concluded they were all fools.
Look at an arrow shot into the sky-
how quickly it falls back to earth.
Even if they could become immortals,
they would be like cemetery ghosts.
Meanwhile the moon of our mind shines bright.
How can phenomena compare?
As for the key to immortality,
within ourselves is the chief of spirits.
Don't follow Lords of the Yellow Turban
persisting in idiocy, holding onto doubts.

[freakazoid]

He said "all people have morals."

I don't. Counter-example -> conjecture refuted.

Sure you do, if you are some kind of communist then you think that capitalism is wrong, that it exploits people, and it is wrong to exploit people. Which would be a moral.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:49 pm
Sure you do, if you are some kind of communist then you think that capitalism is wrong, that it exploits people, and it is wrong to exploit people. Which would be a moral.
Wrong, morality implies a set doctrine, based on nothing but metaphysics, and oft tradition, and is stagnant, whereas Communists, think capitalism is wrong, due to facts, and material and economic basis, and not on tradition, our opposition is fluid, and constantly being proven, our analysis is based on negative and positive, not intangible "right," or "wrong."

[MrDoom]

Sure you do, if you are some kind of communist then you think that capitalism is wrong, that it exploits people, and it is wrong to exploit people. Which would be a moral.
Perhaps he simply wants power for the proletariat?

There is no morality in materialist conjecture.

[freakazoid]

Wrong, morality implies a set doctrine,

No, it can change.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:13 pm
No, it can change.
No, it can't, it's considered immoral, until society as a majority accepts it, but still the moral paradigm states it's wrong, and purists point this out, while liberals deny it, and claim "out of context," hence all religious morals; has the bible changed it's moral, and rewritten itself since couple millenia ago? No.

[freakazoid]

But you can still have your own set of morals, whether it is from the Bible or not.

edit - Lewis explains this.

[ichneumon]

Wrong, morality implies a set doctrine, based on nothing but metaphysics, and oft tradition, and is stagnant, whereas Communists, think capitalism is wrong, due to facts, and material and economic basis, and not on tradition, our opposition is fluid, and constantly being proven, our analysis is based on negative and positive, not intangible "right," or "wrong."

postmodernism 101: everybody thinks their beliefs are logical and rational. otherwise they wouldn't believe what they do. duh.

my morality is based on enlightened self-interest, it's purely logical, it comes from buddhism and its stricter than most christian monastic vows.

examples, 2 of the 14 precepts:


1 Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.


2
Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others' viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.

[Zero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:04 pm
C.S. Lewis talked about this very thing in the book Mere Christianity. You might find it interesting, when I have the time I could give you the exact chapter if you would like. Also there are different ideas about what hell would be like, and if it is for eternity. Lewis also talks about hell in the book. Also just because they made a bunch of mistakes does not mean that that is where they are headed. Don't let those jerks who profess that they are Christian tell you otherwise, like that person that was in that article in chit-chat. :(
I saw that book today and almost bought it. If it is worth picking up I can do this, however is it on Project Gutenburg?

[freakazoid]

Project Gutenburg? What is that?

There is a free etext if it here, http://www.lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt Although I always prefer to actually read from a book than from a computer.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:49 pm

He said "all people have morals."

I don't. Counter-example -> conjecture refuted.

Sure you do, if you are some kind of communist then you think that capitalism is wrong, that it exploits people, and it is wrong to exploit people. Which would be a moral.
False. I am a communist based on my material interests. No "morals" involved.


my morality is based on enlightened self-interest

Soooo...you get a "morality" out of your material interest by..."enlightening" it? Please explain.


But you can still have your own set of morals, whether it is from the Bible or not.


I still don't.


Perhaps he simply wants power for the proletariat?

There is no morality in materialist conjecture.

+500 internet-credit.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 20, 2007 08:05 pm
I agree, to live for eternity would be awful, I hope (and believe) that when I die, I simply cease to exist, not go and live in the sky with loads of happy people.
You have a point there. Any kind of eternal afterlife would suck. Why? Because it would just be a matter of time before you would experience everything you could possibly experience there. And then you would experience everything you could possibly experience again, and again, and again, ad infinitum. And since everybody else would all experience the same infinity of experiences, in effect everybody would end up having the exact same memories and becoming the exact same person.

[ichneumon]

Soooo...you get a "morality" out of your material interest by..."enlightening" it? Please explain.

buddhist morality is based on the idea that leading a moral and ethical life makes people happy. this is sound psychology. it has nothing to do with heaven or punishment, or even what westerners think of as "karma". for instance: if i lie to people all the time, i lose my ability to trust other people. everything said to me has to be filtered through "what does this person really want, how is he lying". it's destructive and inefficient. if i steal, i become greedy and materialist. etc.

beyond that, when everyone accept a standard set of ethics in a community, the community is an order of magnitude more efficient. can you imagine a society where no one lies and no one steals? yes, this is hypothetical, but it's part of the enlightened self-interest.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:04 pm
C.S. Lewis talked about this very thing in the book Mere Christianity. You might find it interesting, when I have the time I could give you the exact chapter if you would like. Also there are different ideas about what hell would be like, and if it is for eternity. Lewis also talks about hell in the book. Also just because they made a bunch of mistakes does not mean that that is where they are headed. Don't let those jerks who profess that they are Christian tell you otherwise, like that person that was in that article in chit-chat. :(
Fundies used to bash Lewis on many of these dogmatic points. Once they realised that they could exploit the commercial popularity of his Chronicles of Narnia for their own gain, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Tim Haggard, and company have become his biggest cheerleaders, even going as far as working with their more liberal allies within the ruling class to more effectively exploit Lewis.

It still doesn't make Christianity and the moral structure of the Ancient Hebrews noble or appropriate modern civilisation or for humanity in general.

[RevMARKSman]

buddhist morality is based on the idea that leading a moral and ethical life makes people happy. this is sound psychology. it has nothing to do with heaven or punishment, or even what westerners think of as "karma". for instance: if i lie to people all the time, i lose my ability to trust other people. everything said to me has to be filtered through "what does this person really want, how is he lying".

That's simple logic. We expect other people to do what we do, therefore if we lie we will expect other people to lie. I don't know why you have to somehow slip "morals" or "ethics" in there...or even "enlightened." :huh:


beyond that, when everyone accept a standard set of ethics in a community, the community is an order of magnitude more efficient.

Not necessarily ethics...but mutually understood facts. Not saying "killing is wrong"...but "if you kill someone, we will hunt you down and kill you to prevent further killings and ensure the safety of the rest of us."


Any kind of eternal afterlife would suck. Why? Because it would just be a matter of time before you would experience everything you could possibly experience there. And then you would experience everything you could possibly experience again, and again, and again, ad infinitum. And since everybody else would all experience the same infinity of experiences, in effect everybody would end up having the exact same memories and becoming the exact same person.

I suppose that's a mathematical certainty, but what about the ability of the human brain to continually think of new ideas, new experiences, etc.?

Either way, I'd prefer immortality to eternal ...well...nonexistence.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

The heaven that is conceptualised in Chrisitianity breaks all the normal psychological rules. You wouldn't get used to it, in theory. It is literally a magic-happy land. By definition it must be perfect, and no objection can be raised against it... Irritating, but what can you do? It's not a rational idea, and it's proponents are insulated from reason by 'faith'.

-Alex

[manic expression]

On "Mere Christianity", I've read the first part of it and it is clearly flawed.

CS Lewis asserts that the laws people live by in all countries are basically the same. That is patently false and anyone who's studied history can confirm as much. Why? The way things as fundamental as property has radically changed. Take theft, for example: if you stole something in Sparta, you would be congratulated; if you stole something in Victorian England, you'd be severely punished. More strikingly, in hunter-gatherer societies, there is NO property (things are owned communally). There really is NO uniform morality, and that proves Lewis' premise false.

The only uniformity is a pragmatic one. A supporter of CS Lewis would ask, why don't people run around killing one another if there isn't any morality? Well, because a community simply cannot operate well under those circumstances. More importantly, the real basis for our laws is hardly moral, it is material: how a society makes things is at the center of all rules.

That's just a brief explanation.

[ichneumon]

quote (RevMARKSman)


That's simple logic.

buddhism IS simple logic

:P

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:22 pm
quote (RevMARKSman)


That's simple logic.

buddhism IS simple logic

:P
mmhmm...

Care to explain?

[LittleMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:44 pm
So I've been thinking about this whole heaven concept, and I've come to the conclusion that if it existed, I would not want to be there. Heaven is supposed to be a place where everybody is constantly feeling one emotion: happiness. Everybody I know and love would be stuck in emotional monotony. Happiness would become so commonplace that we would fail to appreciate how good it feels to be happy.

I like earth because we feel a variety of emotions. It is only because we suffer sometimes that we can truly appreciate how good pleasure feels. I love the people I love because they have deep and complex personalities, and I love getting to know those personalities. Our emotional lives are not simple, and things I value like love and morality and philosophy rest on how we deal with the various positive and negative emotions that we all feel. If we are stuck in a state of monotonous pleasure, we cannot have that same emotional depth, and I feel this would take a lot of meaning out of our lives.

The people whom I love know I love them because I am there for them when they suffer. It is true that we also sometimes experience moments of ecstasy together and relish in the fact that we are doing so, but it would not be the same if we did not have this emotional interdependence in times of pain. Without these occasional times of pain, my relationships with other people would not be as deep and meaningful.

Heaven is not my kind of place. I do not want a god to inject a superdrug into my mind that forever blocks out most of the emotions I am capable of feeling, and does the same to all my friends and family. I want emotional variety and emotional depth. I want to be challenged by moral dilemmas. I want to lean on people when I suffer and I want people to lean on me when they suffer. I want to feel angry or sad when bad things happen to good people. I do not want to remain in a state of indifferent bliss when there is injustice in the universe.

The problem with heaven becomes even worse if we assume that there is also a hell. If some of the people I care about deeply end up in hell, and I know they are suffering for all eternity because they made a finite number of mistakes, I would consider myself a heartless bastard if that didn't produce some kind of negative emotion in me.

Fuck heaven. Fuck God. Fuck Jesus. Long live Humanity!
You lack an understanding of heaven.
In heaven you will not be happy.
You will bask in the glory of God.
What gives you the assumption that in heaven you will always be happy?
It is a new state of existance, living in harmony with everyone, and with God.

Now hell is the oposite. Seperation from God.

Yea, I know you might say, "I am not with God now, so why would seperation be so bad?"

But you are with God right now, or it would be better to say, God is with you.

Hell is where you are alone. Compleatly alone, like you have never felt before.

I do not know if my explination is vaild to you, or helps you in any way... but ok.
there you go.

[Eleutherios]

Well, first you have to prove to me that a God exists, and that a God would be so cruel as to create a place like Hell, and that I would want anything to do with an asshole God like that.

[LittleMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 06:27 am
Well, first you have to prove to me that a God exists, and that a God would be so cruel as to create a place like Hell, and that I would want anything to do with an asshole God like that.
Of course you know I can not prove that God exists, with out getting all mystical...

But He simply hates the sin that consumes us and can not stand our presence in heaven.

But atleast you heard me out. ^^

[Eleutherios]

If you can't prove that God exists, then talking about God makes as much sense as talking about unicorns, for which there is an equal body of evidence. In order to say what something is or how something works or what attributes something has, you have to first be able to establish that it exists. If you don't even have the slightest shred of evidence to establish its existence, then logically anything you say about it must be completely made up in your own head. In order to say you know anything about God or Heaven or sin, you have to have some evidence that these are real things to begin with.

In the real world, if I want to say something about the Moon or about jellyfish or about protons, I have to work from the various observations people have made of these things and determine what their attributes are from these observations. If there were no verifiable observations of any of these things to begin with, it would be absurd to assert that they exist and assert that they have particular attributes. Likewise, it is absurd for you to assert that God and Heaven exist and assert that they have particular attributes, because you have admitted that you do not have any evidence that they are existent entities. Your belief that these things exist is based on your own wishful thinking and the wishful thinking of other people whose ideas have influenced you (probably including your parents, if the statistics are anything to go by).

This meme that has infected your brain is a very interesting one. It admits that it has no rational basis, but its emotional importance to you is so strong that you find yourself unable to free yourself from it.

By the way, I thought God was supposed to be all-loving and all-forgiving? Why can't he use his infinite wisdom and love to convince bad people to do the right thing? I mean, even humans have been known to do that kind of thing; you'd think a God would be able to figure it out. Why can't this God at least tolerate the "sinful"? I mean, I'm a mere human, and I can tolerate pretty much everybody.

By the way, what do you consider to be "sin"? Are we working off the Biblical definition, where homosexual sex, working on the Sabbath, and eating shellfish count as sins? Or have you given your God a conception of sin that is more in line with your own modern Western morality?

[LittleMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 06:58 am
If you can't prove that God exists, then talking about God makes as much sense as talking about unicorns, for which there is an equal body of evidence. In order to say what something is or how something works or what attributes something has, you have to first be able to establish that it exists. If you don't even have the slightest shred of evidence to establish its existence, then logically anything you say about it must be completely made up in your own head. In order to say you know anything about God or Heaven or sin, you have to have some evidence that these are real things to begin with.

In the real world, if I want to say something about the Moon or about jellyfish or about protons, I have to work from the various observations people have made of these things and determine what their attributes are from these observations. If there were no verifiable observations of any of these things to begin with, it would be absurd to assert that they exist and assert that they have particular attributes. Likewise, it is absurd for you to assert that God and Heaven exist and assert that they have particular attributes, because you have admitted that you do not have any evidence that they are existent entities. Your belief that these things exist is based on your own wishful thinking and the wishful thinking of other people whose ideas have influenced you (probably including your parents, if the statistics are anything to go by).

This meme that has infected your brain is a very interesting one. It admits that it has no rational basis, but its emotional importance to you is so strong that you find yourself unable to free yourself from it.

By the way, I thought God was supposed to be all-loving and all-forgiving? Why can't he use his infinite wisdom and love to convince bad people to do the right thing? I mean, even humans have been known to do that kind of thing; you'd think a God would be able to figure it out. Why can't this God at least tolerate the "sinful"? I mean, I'm a mere human, and I can tolerate pretty much everybody.

By the way, what do you consider to be "sin"? Are we working off the Biblical definition, where homosexual sex, working on the Sabbath, and eating shellfish count as sins? Or have you given your God a conception of sin that is more in line with your own modern Western morality?
On the topic of not being able to prove.
Your argument does make me think, which I like.

Now I am speaking of Christ and on, I find strong evidence, logical and physical to belive, that ...
1. Jesus existed.
-Most scollars would agree.
(Blah I dont feel like giving evidence for this, you should know that he at least existed)
2. He rose from the dead.
-according to the Bible... Roman guards were posted at the tomb. Now assuming this is correct, the deciples of Jesus, would have to overpower Romans, and move a large buiral stone.
(But it could happen...)
-Death of the Deciples. 11 of the 12 (after Judas killed himself, he was soon replaced with another) died Mytrs. If they had renounced their faith, they would not have been killed. Why would all these men die for a lie?
(is that logical?)

The tolerance of God.
To explain this I will also explain sin.
We sin alot.
Sin can be having lustful thoughts out side of marriage.
Being angry at the kid who beat you up and stole your lunch in the thrid grade.
Killing someone.
But to God, sin is sin.
You are most likely familier with Jeffery Dallmer.
The cannible, who killed (mostly) gay men and ate their flesh.
In prison, he converted.
He confessed his sin.
And as much as I hate it.
If he was truly confessing and believing.
I will see him in heaven.
His sin, is no greater than mine. (in the eyes of God)

So all people are bad, so when someone does the right thing.
God is making bad people do the right thing.

And unfortunitly I do not know why He can not stand sin so much, but I know that he can not. (That is realy a good question by the way.)

[freakazoid]

By the way, I thought God was supposed to be all-loving and all-forgiving? Why can't he use his infinite wisdom and love to convince bad people to do the right thing?

To do that would be turning people into robots.


Well, first you have to prove to me that a God exists,

This thread seems to be assuming that God does exist, so there is no need to prove that He does in this thread.



By the way, what do you consider to be "sin"? Are we working off the Biblical definition, where homosexual sex, working on the Sabbath, and eating shellfish count as sins? Or have you given your God a conception of sin that is more in line with your own modern Western morality?

You mean the laws from the OT?


Killing someone.

You mean murder.



And unfortunitly I do not know why He can not stand sin so much,

Because God is all good and sin isn't. Think of it like light and dark. Darkness is the absence of light. You can't turn on a dark switch and get rid of the light. You turn on the light switch and get rid of the dark. You can not have both at the same time occupying the same space.

[Comrade J]

By the way, I thought God was supposed to be all-loving and all-forgiving? Why can't he use his infinite wisdom and love to convince bad people to do the right thing?

To do that would be turning people into robots.

Well that is basically what Christians are then. They fit this definition - they are doing what God considers the 'right thing' to do, mindlessly following Biblical dogma without using logic or rational thinking. Is that not basically what a robot does - simply follows the order given to it without questioning them?
If God convinced all bad people to do good, then he would just be making everyone a Christian, so instead of just having some people in the world like 'robots,' we'd have six billion.



Well, first you have to prove to me that a God exists,

This thread seems to be assuming that God does exist, so there is no need to prove that He does in this thread.

Well with all due respect, that's absolute bollocks, even by Christian standards. The question of God's existence is absolutely fundamental to the argument. If you're going to make statements about God, Jesus, Heaven etc. then you must first actually provide evidence for it's existence. It is as meaningless as if I were to beging talking about the breeding patterns of migrating pink unicorns, or analyse the genome of a leprechaun. To make any statement about them, I would at first have to prove they existed, religious language is meaningless. (And before you start quoting Wittgenstein at me, I've heard it all before, don't bother.)




By the way, what do you consider to be "sin"? Are we working off the Biblical definition, where homosexual sex, working on the Sabbath, and eating shellfish count as sins? Or have you given your God a conception of sin that is more in line with your own modern Western morality?

You mean the laws from the OT?
Well you claim to take the Bible literally, so surely these laws are just as relevant as any in the NT? So if a guy punches me in the face, do I hit him back with equal force, or do I forgive him and give him a (non-sexual) hug?
Also, if you take the Bible literally, how is it possible to be a revolutionary? Didn't Paul teach that the state should be recognised as the legitimate authority?





And unfortunitly I do not know why He can not stand sin so much,

Because God is all good and sin isn't. Think of it like light and dark. Darkness is the absence of light. You can't turn on a dark switch and get rid of the light. You turn on the light switch and get rid of the dark. You can not have both at the same time occupying the same space.
How is this at all relevant to what Marijuanarchy was talking about? If God is perfect, surely he is able to cleanse people of their sin and let them live in Heaven if he loves them. I don't know about you, but I've never been tempted to throw people I love into a massive pit of fire. But maybe that's just me.
Also, do you believe in Original Sin? And please don't tell me to read Mere Christianity again, if you're going to respond, then do so with your own words.

[Cheung Mo]

Aren't Christianity and Maoism mutually exclusive belief systems?

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 07:23 am
On the topic of not being able to prove.
Your argument does make me think, which I like.

Now I am speaking of Christ and on, I find strong evidence, logical and physical to belive, that ...
1. Jesus existed.
-Most scollars would agree.
(Blah I dont feel like giving evidence for this, you should know that he at least existed)
Should I? I haven't seen any good evidence that the Jesus story isn't a myth. Maybe he was real, maybe he wasn't, but the evidence is so sketchy that I haven't yet been convinced that he was. Maybe you've found some line of evidence I haven't looked at yet? I think a good case can be made that Jesus was just a myth; I won't go into the details here, but if you're interested you can check out these links:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...esuspuzzle.html (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html)
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles...yth_history.htm (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm)

2. He rose from the dead.
-according to the Bible... Roman guards were posted at the tomb. Now assuming this is correct, the deciples of Jesus, would have to overpower Romans, and move a large buiral stone.
(But it could happen...)
Key phrases: "according to the Bible" and "assuming this is correct". I'm not going to just assume that this old book is correct when it is describing an obviously mythological series of events. I don't just take Greek mythology at face value and just assume that everything the Greeks wrote about their gods' participation in the Trojan War is correct, regardless of whether or not the Trojan War really happened. This stone, like your God, has no real evidence for its existence except for your book. I'm going to have to have some real evidence that the Jesus story is more believable than any of the other similar myths of savior gods and resurrecting messiahs that were popular at the time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP0x81L3vmk&mode=related&search=).

By the way, the Gospels contradict each other on what happened here. Luke 24:2, Mark 16:4, and John 20:1 say the stone was already moved, but Matthew 28:2 tells us it was not moved and that an angel of the Lord moved it for them. Were Luke, Mark and John mistaken, or was Matthew mistaken?


-Death of the Deciples. 11 of the 12 (after Judas killed himself, he was soon replaced with another) died Mytrs. If they had renounced their faith, they would not have been killed. Why would all these men die for a lie?
(is that logical?)
What's your evidence that this is true? I have heard this claim before, but I have not seen the slightest reason to assume that they did die as martyrs.

And even if they did, it is not at all unthinkable that they would die for a cult that just isn't true. We have plenty of examples of cults where people die for their beliefs. Surely they wouldn't die for a lie, so all those cult beliefs must have been true, right?


The tolerance of God.
To explain this I will also explain sin.
We sin alot.
Oh goody, the old Christian "you're evil and you need my religion to cure yourself" idea. Let's see where this is going...

Sin can be having lustful thoughts out side of marriage.
Oh no! I need to cut off my testicles for Jesus! I've never been married and I think lots of girls are hot. This is not something I can control. If we did not have sexual lust, our genes would not be nearly as successful at propagating themselves, so sexual lust is a basic part of everybody's unconscious psychological programming, just like the desire for food. This is basic evolutionary theory.

Being angry at the kid who beat you up and stole your lunch in the thrid grade.
Again, this is not something I can control. When somebody wrongs me, I feel angry; that is a completely natural emotional response. It does not make any sense to prohibit being angry at people for being violent and stealing things. Was it equally sinful to be angry at Hitler for killing 6 million Jews and stealing all of Europe? Or should we have just turned the other cheek?

Killing someone.
Is that an absolute? I agree that killing people is generally bad, but I won't deny that there are circumstances in which it can be justified. For example, I would have gladly shot Hitler if I was alive in 1939. If I were a passenger on one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center, and I had a gun, I think it would be justified to kill the hijackers. Fuck your God if he thinks otherwise.

But to God, sin is sin.
You are most likely familier with Jeffery Dallmer.
The cannible, who killed (mostly) gay men and ate their flesh.
In prison, he converted.
He confessed his sin.
And as much as I hate it.
If he was truly confessing and believing.
I will see him in heaven.
His sin, is no greater than mine. (in the eyes of God)
If his bad deeds are no greater than yours, then stay the hell away from my house.

This is funny stuff man. You mean I can go around killing people and raping people all I want as long as I repent before I die? Some moral religion that is...

So all people are bad, so when someone does the right thing.
God is making bad people do the right thing.
Fuck you. I assure you that when I do the right thing, it is because I care about other people and not because your God is taking over my brain and forcing me to do the right thing. First you say that mass murderers are no worse than the rest of us from a moral standpoint, and now you claim that we don't have any morality without your cosmic dictator guy making us do the right thing? You obviously have a very twisted view of what makes an action moral. I hope one day you can throw out your ancient scripture and base your morality on the real feelings of the real people in the real world around you.

And unfortunitly I do not know why He can not stand sin so much, but I know that he can not. (That is realy a good question by the way.)
How do you "know" this? You don't even know that God exists! You only believe it despite the complete lack of evidence.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:28 am


By the way, I thought God was supposed to be all-loving and all-forgiving? Why can't he use his infinite wisdom and love to convince bad people to do the right thing?

To do that would be turning people into robots.
No, it wouldn't. Notice I said convince, not force. If a friend of mine is about to do something immoral, and I have a discussion with her about the moral implications of her actions and she changes her mind, would that make her a robot?

[freakazoid]

Well that is basically what Christians are then. They fit this definition - they are doing what God considers the 'right thing' to do, mindlessly following Biblical dogma without using logic or rational thinking.

No, I do not mindlessly follow.



Well with all due respect, that's absolute bollocks, even by Christian standards. The question of God's existence is absolutely fundamental to the argument.

Yes, the question of God's existence IS absolutely fundamental, but this thread starts off assuming that God does exist. He is assuming that if Heaven does exist, therefore God exists, then that he wouldn't want to be there.


Didn't Paul teach that the state should be recognised as the legitimate authority?

No. I assume that you are talking about Romans 13? I post a little about it here, http://forums.jesusradicals.com/viewtopic....er=asc&start=25 (http://forums.jesusradicals.com/viewtopic.php?t=1205&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25)

Here is what I say,
don't think that Romans 13 is saying what most people think. After all 1 Samuel 8.7 says "and the LORD said to Samuel, 'Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you but have rejected me from being king over them.'" Which is God saying God is King, he is who they should be following not a human King.

Another example, Zephaniah 1.1-6 says, " The word of the LORD that came to Zephaniah son of Cushi son of Gelaliah son of Amariah son of Hezekiah, in the days of King Josiah son of Aman of Judah. I will utterly sweep away everything from the face of the earth, says the LORD. I will seewp away humans and animals; I will sweep away the birds of the air and teh fish of the sea. I will make the wicked stumble. I will cut off humanity from the face of the earth, says the LORD. I will stretch out my hand against Judah, and against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut of from this place every remnant of Baal and the name of the idolatrous priests; those who bow down on the roofs to the host of the heavens; those who bow down and swear to the LORD, but also swear by Milcomc; thoswe who have turned back from following the LORD who have not sought the LORD or inquired of him." c GK Mss Syr Vg: Heb Malcam ( or, their king) Implying that you can serve one but not both.

Another example, Acts 5.27-30 says, "When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. The high priest questioned them, saying, 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are detemined to bring this man's blood on us.' But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than any human authority.'" Peter and the apostles were directly defying the authorities and said that they do not obey human authority.

Another exaple, 1 Corinthians 15.24-25 says, "Then comes the end, when he hands over teh kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." Paul is saying the every ruler and every authority and power is Gods enemy.

Another example, Matthew 6.24 says, "No one can serve two masters, for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." Jesus is saying the you cannot serve God and wealth which could also probably mean the you cannot serve God and authority.

Another example, Matthew 4.8-10 says, "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all of the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; and he said to him, 'All these I will give to you if you will fall down and worship me.
Jesus said to him, 'Away with you, Satan! for it is written, 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.' ' " The devil says that he can give the kingdoms to whoever he pleases if Jesus worships him but Jesus says that God is Lord and we are to serve only him.

I also believe that somewhere it says that Satan was aloud pretty much rule over the earth and that in the end times God will take that away from him. Now if all that is not refuting what is commonly enterprited from Romans 13 then I have nothing else.


Well you claim to take the Bible literally, so surely these laws are just as relevant as any in the NT?

Not exactly,


I don't know about you, but I've never been tempted to throw people I love into a massive pit of fire.

Hell is a separation from God, Like LittleMao had said. Also I suggest that you read, The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel, Part 2, Chapter 9, Section: The Disquieting Question of Hell, Pages 164 - 166. I am not saying that you should buy it, just if you are in a bookstore that you should pick it up and read that part. Or you could buy it and read the whole thing, :D


Key phrases: "according to the Bible" and "assuming this is correct". I'm not going to just assume that this old book is correct when it is describing an obviously mythological series of events.

Well it's not just according to the Bible, that is how things happened back then.


I'm going to have to have some real evidence that the Jesus story is more believable than any of the other similar myths of savior gods and resurrecting messiahs that were popular at the time.

The Case for Christ also talks about this, but I currently can not find where. When I do I will post my response.


Also, do you believe in Original Sin? And please don't tell me to read Mere Christianity again, if you're going to respond, then do so with your own words.

Um... Go read Mere Christianity, :P Actually I don't remember if he touched on that subject in that book. And I do not know all that much about Original Sin to be sure if I believe it or not. Also, my own words suck, :( That is why I often say to go read this or that book, or provide links to other places. I think I had talked about that in another thread here.


Should I?

Yes, yes you should, :D. I will read those link that you posted when I have the time, and I will dig up some stuff on the evidence that the Jesus of the Bible was real. In the meantime I suggest you read The Case for Christ, :D



By the way, the Gospels contradict each other on what happened here. Luke 24:2, Mark 16:4, and John 20:1 say the stone was already moved, but Matthew 28:2 tells us it was not moved and that an angel of the Lord moved it for them. Were Luke, Mark and John mistaken, or was Matthew mistaken?

They do not contradict each other. This to was covered in, you guessed it :D, The Case for Christ. And I can give you the exact spot where it talks about it. Part 3, Chapter 12, Pages 213 - 217.



What's your evidence that this is true? I have heard this claim before, but I have not seen the slightest reason to assume that they did die as martyrs.




Surely they wouldn't die for a lie, so all those cult beliefs must have been true, right?

They are dying for something that they believe is true. And what they claim to believe is that they had witnessed the resurrected Jesus. If they believed that what they was preaching was actually a lie then they wouldn't of have died for it. This is also talked about in The Case for Christ, :D



Oh no! I need to cut off my testicles for Jesus! I've never been married and I think lots of girls are hot. This is not something I can control. If we did not have sexual lust, our genes would not be nearly as successful at propagating themselves, so sexual lust is a basic part of everybody's unconscious psychological programming, just like the desire for food. This is basic evolutionary theory.

You have misunderstood what he was meaning. It isn't to just think that a girl is hot. It is a lot more than that. Interesting that you should bring up the desire for food because C.S. Lewis brought this up in his book Mere Christianity, :P. In fact there was a thread that I had posted about this in, and instead of pasting everything that I had said there I will post the link, it is really long. http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63447



Again, this is not something I can control. When somebody wrongs me, I feel angry; that is a completely natural emotional response. It does not make any sense to prohibit being angry at people for being violent and stealing things. Was it equally sinful to be angry at Hitler for killing 6 million Jews and stealing all of Europe? Or should we have just turned the other cheek?

While I think that pacifism should always be our goal there are times that call for violence. I talk a little about it here, http://forums.jesusradicals.com/viewtopic....t=2145&start=25 (http://forums.jesusradicals.com/viewtopic.php?t=2145&start=25) and here, http://forums.jesusradicals.com/viewtopic....er=asc&start=25 (http://forums.jesusradicals.com/viewtopic.php?t=1842&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25) Also Mere Christianity touches on this subject also, in Book 3, Chapter 7. Here is a link to a free online etext, http://www.lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt

I said in a previous chapter that chastity was the most unpopular of
the Christian virtues. But I am not sure I was right I believe the one I
have to talk of today is even more unpopular: the Christian rule, "Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Because hi Christian morals "thy
neighbour" includes "thy enemy," and so we come up against this terrible
duty of forgiving our enemies. Every one says forgiveness is a lovely idea,
until they have something to forgive, as we had during the war. And then, to
mention the subject at all is to be greeted with howls of anger. It is not
that people think this too high and difficult a virtue: it is that they
think it hateful and contemptible. "That sort of talk makes them sick," they
say. And half of you already want to ask me, "I wonder how you'd feel about
forgiving the Gestapo if you were a Pole or a Jew?"
So do I. I wonder very much. Just as when Christianity tells me that I
must not deny my religion even to save myself from death by torture, I
wonder very much what I should do when it came to the point. I am not trying
to tell you in this book what I could do-I can do precious little-I am
telling you what Christianity is. I did not invent it. And there, right in
the middle of it, I find "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin
against us." There is no slightest suggestion that we are offered
forgiveness on any other terms. It is made perfectly dear that if we do not
forgive we shall not be forgiven. There are no two ways about it. What are
we to do?
It is going to be hard enough, anyway, but I think there are two things
we can do to make it easier. When you start mathematics you do not begin
with the calculus; you begin with simple addition. In the same way, if we
really want (but all depends on really wanting) to learn how to forgive,
perhaps we had better start with something easier than the Gestapo. One
might start with forgiving one's husband or wife, or parents or children, or
the nearest N.C.O., for something they have done or said in the last week.
That will probably keep us busy for the moment. And secondly, we might try
to understand exactly what loving your neighbour as yourself means. I have
to love him as I love myself. Well, how exactly do I love myself?
Now that I come to think of it, I have not exactly got a feeling of
fondness or affection for myself, and 1 do not even always enjoy my own
society. So apparently "Love your neighbour" does not mean "feel fond of
him" or "find him attractive." I ought to have seen that before, because, of
course, you cannot feel fond of a person by trying. Do 1 think well of
myself, think myself a nice chap? Well, I am afraid I sometimes do (and
those are, no doubt, my worst moments) but that is not why I love myself. In
fact it, is the other way round: my self-love makes me think myself nice,
but thinking myself nice is not why I love myself. So loving my enemies does
not apparently mean thinking them nice either. That is an enormous relief.
For a good many people imagine that forgiving your enemies means making out
that they are really not such bad fellows after all, when it is quite plain
that they are. Go a step further. In my most clear-sighted moments not only
do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty one. I
can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So
apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate some of the things my enemies do.
Now that I come to think of it, I remember Christian teachers telling me
long ago that I must hate a bad man's actions, but not hate the bad man: or,
as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner.
For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting
distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But
years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been
doing this all my life-namely myself. However much I might dislike my own
cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been
the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the
things was that I loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to
find that I was the sort of man who did those things. Consequently,
Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for
cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have
said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the
same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man
should have done such things, and hoping, if it is anyway possible, that
somehow, sometime, somewhere, he can be cured and made human again.
The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities
in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story
might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's
first feeling, "Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that," or is it
a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first
story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If
it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which,
if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning
to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head,
later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as
black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything-God and our friends and
ourselves included-as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be
fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.
Now a step further. Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No,
for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to
punishment-even to death. If one had committed a murder, the right Christian
thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is,
therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence
a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy. I always have
thought so, ever since I became a Christian, and long before the war, and I
still think so now that we are at peace. It is no good quoting "Thou shalt
not kill." There are two Greek words: the ordinary word to kill and the word
to murder. And when Christ quotes that commandment He uses the murder one in
all three accounts, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And I am told there is the same
distinction in Hebrew. All killing is not murder any more than all sexual
intercourse is adultery. When soldiers came to St. John the Baptist asking
what to do, he never remotely suggested that they ought to leave the army:
nor did Christ when He met a Roman sergeant-major-what they called a
centurion. The idea of the knight-the Christian in arms for the defence of a
good cause-is one of the great Christian ideas. War is a dreadful thing, and
I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken.
What I cannot understand is this sort of semipacifism you get nowadays which
gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with
a long face and as if you were ashamed of it. It is that feeling that robs
lots of magnificent young Christians in the Services of something they have
a right to, something which is the natural accompaniment of courage- a kind
of gaity and wholeheartedness.
I have often thought to myself how it would have been if, when I served
in the first world war, I and some young German had killed each other
simultaneously and found ourselves together a moment after death. I cannot
imagine that either of us would have felt any resentment or even any
embarrassment. I think we might have laughed over it.
I imagine somebody will say, "Well, if one is allowed to condemn the
enemy's acts, and punish him, and kill him, what difference is left between
Christian morality and the ordinary view?" All the difference in the world.
Remember, we Christians think man lives for ever. Therefore, what really
matters is those little marks or twists on the central, inside part of the
soul which are going to turn it, in the long run, into a heavenly or a
hellish creature. We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy
hating. We may punish if necessary, but we must not enjoy it. In other
words, something inside us, the feeling of resentment, the feeling that
wants to get one's own back, must be simply killed. I do not mean that
anyone can decide this moment that he will never feel it any more. That is
not how things happen. I mean that every time it bobs its head up, day after
day, year after year, all our lives long, we must hit it on the head. It is
hard work, but the attempt is not impossible. Even while we kill and punish
we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves- to wish that
he were not bad. to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in
fact, to wish his good. That is what is meant in the Bible by loving him:
wishing his good, jot feeling fond of him nor saving he is nice when he is
not.
I admit that this means loving people who have nothing lovable about
them. But then, has oneself anything lovable about it? You love it simply
because it is yourself, God intends us to love all selves in the same way
and for the same reason: but He has given us the sum ready worked out on our
own case to show us how it works. We have then to go on and apply the rule
to all the other selves. Perhaps it makes it easier if we remember that that
is how He loves us. Not for any nice, attractive qualities we think we have,
but just because we are the things called selves. For really there is
nothing else in us to love: creatures like us who actually find hatred such
a pleasure that to give it up is like giving up beer or tobacco. ...



This is funny stuff man. You mean I can go around killing people and raping people all I want as long as I repent before I die? Some moral religion that is...

If you are truly asking for forgiveness and believe that what you had done was wrong. And what do you mean "some moral religion that is" At one point you people are angry about the concept of hell and now you are angry that God is forgiving?



Fuck you. I assure you that when I do the right thing, it is because I care about other people and not because your God is taking over my brain and forcing me to do the right thing. First you say that mass murderers are no worse than the rest of us from a moral standpoint, and now you claim that we don't have any morality without your cosmic dictator guy making us do the right thing? You obviously have a very twisted view of what makes an action moral. I hope one day you can throw out your ancient scripture and base your morality on the real feelings of the real people in the real world around you

I do not believe that God makes bad people do anything. I am not sure what he meant by that, I don't know if he meant something else or what but I do not agree.



How do you "know" this? You don't even know that God exists! You only believe it despite the complete lack of evidence.

I still plan to get around to writing up the evidence. Also Lee Strobel has a book called The Case for a Creator. I have not read it yet but if it is as good as the other then it should be really good.



No, it wouldn't. Notice I said convince, not force. If a friend of mine is about to do something immoral, and I have a discussion with her about the moral implications of her actions and she changes her mind, would that make her a robot?

Oh, alright. Replace you having a discussion with your friend with her conscience having a discussion with her. And then some people have gotten so far that they are able to completely put it on mute.