Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire My Grandaughter Got A New Bible...

You admit your religions calls for good people to suffer an eternity of torment.

How is this moral?

Yes, my friend, I may have added a few things. There are many flavors of Theist here on The Fire, so please just consider those comments as directed toward them and not yourself.

As for your statements about science and observation, yes science requires observation, but it does not require direct observation. As an example, we can know the orbital period of Pluto of 247.68 years, but we've only know about since 1930. Another example is dark matter. We've never directly observed dark matter, but we've observed it's effects through measuring the rotational velocity of solar systems, and it gravitational lensing, i.e. the effect of dark matter curving light as it moves through space. Gravitational lensing was first predicted, based on the hypothesis that dark matter existed, and then later observed. It is this, that science requires. That a hypothesis can make predictions that can be confirmed with observation, and those observations are repeatable, not a specific event in the past.

As for a static Universe, that went out the window with Edwin Hubble in 1923, and if you think the new mathematical model proposed by Sauyra Das of the University of Lethbridge in Cananda, supports a static universe, well, that's not quite right either. His idea is for a universe that is in effect eternal, due to time dilation, when everything was together before the universe began to expand. This leads to a universe filled with a super fluid of hypothetical partials. Because this is science, they are considering ways to test this hypothesis with real world, ahh, universe, observations, such as whether or not the observed distribution of dark matter in the universe matches with these mathematical predictions or not. Of course these would be indirect observations, since we cannot directly observe dark matter. Of course disproving this hypothesis would not help your case. Regardless if science disproves the Das Model, the Krauss Model, or M theory, it moves us no closer to your position that (the Christian) "God did it", or any other supernatural claim whether it be Zeus, Vishnu, birds fluttering their wings over a primordial ocean, or Leprechauns.

As for your last statement, once again, you just misunderstand science, and the burden of proof. Since the Christian God is constructed in a way that is is an unfalsifiable claim, the burden of proof is upon the person making the claim, not the person who disbelieves it. The classical example of this is "Russell's Teapot", where Bertram Russel proposed it would be non-nonsensical for other to believe his proposal there was a tea pot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars on the basis that is could not be disproven. Perhaps the only thing more nonsensical would be for scientist to spend a couple hundred million dollars on satellites to go look for it.

"In order to call something or someone "good" there has to be an absolute standard. Without an absolute standard, no one or nothing is either good or bad."

I don't know about that. I've got a Mark V Weatherby in 257 WBY that I think is just real good.

I didn't have to measure it against ANY standard to develop that opinion.

Life ain't nearly as complicated as some folks make it out to be.

"In order to call something or someone "good" there has to be an absolute standard. Without an absolute standard, no one or nothing is either good or bad."

I don't know about that. I've got a Mark V Weatherby in 257 WBY that I think is just real good.

I didn't have to measure it against ANY standard to develop that opinion.

Life ain't nearly as complicated as some folks make it out to be.

A.S.
Even many who profess to be Christians really don't have a correct concept of God. They see God as a punisher and one to be appeased.Even well meaning Christians try to earn salvation by good deeds and regular church attendance.That's not the nature of God or salvation at all.

The correct way to see the situation is that by your own deeds and free will you are already Hell bound.No one is good enough on their own for Heaven. One small lie or even lack of doing the right thing disqualifies you. God's standard is so high that none can earn it. It is so high in fact that only God himself qualifies. Because of that God became a man and suffered the punishment of Hell that men deserve. Because he didn't suffer for his wrong he can grant substitution for anyone who asks. Jesus grants the gift of having suffered in place of any person who seeks salvation from him.

It's even more than just a price paid in the stead of the sinner. Being born again means a union with Christ to the point that the man or woman shares not only in the price paid but in the heart of the redeemer.That born again person has their very nature changed to desire good rather than evil.

It's not about a God who seeks to punish anyone who won't cow down. It's about a God who seeks to rescue those already lost and headed for destruction.

In order to call something or someone "good" there has to be an absolute standard. Without an absolute standard, no one or nothing is either good or bad.

In the same sense, to conclude something as moral or immoral, one has to have an absolute standard. Without an absolute standard, there is no way to conclude there is any differnec in an eternity in torment or an eternity of bliss.

Thanks for the response A.S., it's always a pleasure to converse with you even if I don't agree. In fact it may be more pleasurable that way since simply agreeing with someone isn't much of a conversation.

I've always seen the scapegoat and animal sacrifice simply as the representation of Christ's true sacrifice to come. We are still saved by faith in that sacrifice and always have been, even if we didn't completely understand the representation. It was still faith in God receiving the substitute with salvation granted by him.

As far as the rules and the way God set them up, it is my belief that God simply wants people to freely choose to love him. There could be no love in the first place if we didn't have the choice not to love. I am confident that the system is set up the way it is because it's the best choice for the desired outcome.

Just remember my friend that it's never too late to choose.

Adam was not created with Original Sin. Adam and Eve were created with free will.

There were not rules in the garden, there was only one prohibition.

It is interesting, in that light, that given the choice, mankind would choose to disobey.

It leads me to conclude that no matter how God structures the rules or "rule" in this case, free will will choose to disobey...and blame God for it.

Keep blowing smoke! The "arguments" you are using to not believe in a deity with knowable attributes is philosophical baloney. You're going to have to do better than that, as the stuff you're trotting out here isn't even held by philosophical atheists anymore.

Here's some good books for you that quite well demonstrate the probability of theism, if you're willing to actually deal with the philosophy:

Douglas Groothius "Christian Apologetics"
Richard Swinburne "The Coherence of Theism" (to be read vis-a-vis JL Mackie "The Miracle of Theism")
Anthony Flew "There is a God"

"In order to call something or someone "good" there has to be an absolute standard. Without an absolute standard, no one or nothing is either good or bad."

I don't know about that. I've got a Mark V Weatherby in 257 WBY that I think is just real good.

I didn't have to measure it against ANY standard to develop that opinion.

Life ain't nearly as complicated as some folks make it out to be.

My statements were generic and not directed toward you. I think it is good that you ex daughter-in-law is allowing your grand daughter to attend church.

Here's a good book for the Christians.

The whole Christian house of cards tumbles when the Saul/Paul card gets pulled out of the foundation.

Read "The Mythmaker," by Hyam Maccoby.

It's the final nail in the coffin of the "religion."

RH, thanks for joining the conversation. There are just a few things you left out.

From the general Christian perspective (you enlightened version may very slightly),

God made the rules.
As the all knowing, all powerful creator of the universe he could make the rules any way he chose, yet, through the doctrine of Original Sin, he choose a set of rules that would dictate their destination as hell, before they are even born.

Now because God chose to set the bar at this spot, he has to create a "loophole" where he held of human sacrifice of himself, to himself, because the rules he created where unfair to begin with.

This is just a update version of the older symmetric practice of seeking vicarious redemption through scapegoating. This is where a tribe would load their sin upon a goat and drive it into the desert to die of thirst and pretend this some how absolved the tribes of their transgression. Now this in now way actually takes away the sins of the individual or tribe. Performing a humans sacrifice, or killing a goat in now way takes away your responsibility. It in no way returns the property you stole, nor returns life to the person you murdered. This not a path to moral. This is a way to escape your morality and responsibilities by accepting another immoral act. Keep in mind, regardless of how good you are, unless you accept your pieces of this human sacrifice, you will be tormented forever, just because God says so...but he loves you.

As for a desire to do good, I have a desire to do good and not evil, no Jesus required. Same with you. Previously you've claimed you were less good in the past then you are today and you credit Jesus with your transformation. Personally I believe the transformation occurred within you, and Christianity just happened to be the philosophy you choose to follow on the path to the new, better, more moral self. You could of chosen most any new guiding philosophy, and so long as you didn't fall in with zealot nutcases, the result would of been pretty much the same.

Georgia Boy,

I don't think I've debated you on this topic before. Regarding the Book of Genesis, do you interpret it in as literal or figurative truth?