Originally posted by ckoh1965 Not really. God does indirectly force us to love him and worship him. How he does it is quite childish, really. He insists that the choice is ours. It's up to you to love me or not. It's up to you to worship me or not. But if you choose not to love me, then I won't welcome you into heaven.
If god really loves us, then that love should be unconditional. ...[text shortened]... above example ending up in hell for eternity. You expect me to accept that as sensible?
I really think you are looking at this wrong. If a person on Earth decided that they want to live without God then He allows that in eternity as well. If they choose to live here with God then that is what they get to do in eternity also. I don't think Hell is a place of punishment, it is just separation from God and his glory and Heaven is being in the presence of God.
What that means in terms of the quality of your eternity is never explicitly stated in the Bible except to say that outside of God's presence is not pleasant, the King James version says weeping and gnashing of teeth to indicate the distress. It is described as dark in contrast to the light of God's presence but I assume that this is just the best they could do to describe something that we are not able to understand.
Originally posted by whodey Shall we be as gods unto ourselves....?
What is so wrong with that? Why can't we be good people on our own accord? God should be happy if we are being good all on our own, without the need of threatening us with the fires of hell? Isn't his priority to see us all being good to each other, living in harmony? Why must our good deeds be the result of 'listening' to god in order to be valid? If we do good, we do good, period.
Well, it's been an interesting discussion. Not a very fruitful one, I'm afraid. But it's getting late, and tomorrow is yet another working day! Oh if only the bills would pay for themselves! Good night whodey.
Originally posted by ckoh1965 Not really. God does indirectly force us to love him and worship him. How he does it is quite childish, really. He insists that the choice is ours. It's up to you to love me or not. It's up to you to worship me or not. But if you choose not to love me, then I won't welcome you into heaven.
If god really loves us, then that love should be unconditional. ...[text shortened]... above example ending up in hell for eternity. You expect me to accept that as sensible?
Not exactly... It depends on the view. I'm a Lutheran. The believe is based on a "Sola Gratia, Sola Fide" rule,which means roughly that only the Grace of the God is needed for Salvation,while good live is one's duty as a Christian. This can mean that everyone shall be saved...
Originally posted by whodey The claim the love demands free will is common sense.
I believe that it is not, I see no necessary connection between love and free will. Especially when you have given no specific definition of what love entails.
Have you ever had someone in your life who tried to make you love them? I have and I can tell you that the instincitve reaction is to push them away. The idea behind love is demonstrating your love for another in some way and hope that it is recipricated, not demanded.
And yet you used the very word 'demand' for describing our requirement to love god. It may be unlikely for us to demand love and actually recieve it, it is far from impossible, take abusive husbands for example.
You atheists, on the one hand, say God should be capable of anything, EXCEPT giving us free will, which would mean we alone are accountable for our actions, not God.
Nonsense, god should be capable of everything, full stop.
You then further assume that being able to reject him, which brings death and suffering, is a sign of cruelty.
If he exists, we are not able to reject him, he threatens us with force and we spend eternity removed from his gaze as punishment, where is the free will there?
Perhaps you would like being forced to serve him as your free will is extracted from you?
I believe that is exactly what would happen if he existed.
Originally posted by Kindred Spirit Assertion: The existence of God is PROVABLE TODAY. Just as it was in Jesus' time...and even prior to his mission.
I have good reason to believe this is true.
Is there anyone who might be interested in exploring this critical topic?
All are welcome.
Bishop George "Georgey Porgey" or "Pork Pie" Berkeley used idealism to prove that God exists.
While grossly simplified, from what I've read, he argued that all knowledge is based upon our perceptions. He then made the leap to conclude that there is nothing exists without being perceived. Essentially, he stretched the concept of 'perception is reality' to the limit. He used God as the explanation of how things don't just fade away once we turn our perception away from them. This same explanation was used to justify why we typically have common perceptions. With this argument, Berkley demonstrated that an all seeing God would have to exist for a common reality to exist for any of us.
Personally, I feel there are gaping holes in Berkeley's Idealism Theories, but, it does "prove" the existence of God if you can accept his premises.
Originally posted by whodey Other coincidences to ignore include the Biblical God having one of the oldest recorded religions on record aside from Hinduism in regards to current religions of today. The earliest recorded mention of Hinduism was in 1500 BCE as where Abraham lived in 1800 BCE and Moses made the religion official via the Torah in 1400 BCE.
Also ignore the fact that the ...[text shortened]... e is akin to believing in the speghetti Monster and is nothing more than pure coincidence. 😛
You've sort of missed the point of my comment, but that's pretty typical for you isn't it?
Your point I think is that there's a lot of weight behind the Abrahamic religions. No argument from me.
But so what?
That's interesting.
Listening to a Uniting Church minister a while back in a discussion on his faith, he talked about faith without truth to be pointless and silly. Now his proof is different to what a scientist might acept true, but proof none the less.
My understanding of faith is not that it is blind faith or blind acceptance - but rather a belief based on personal interpretations of experiences.
Originally posted by amannion That's interesting.
Listening to a Uniting Church minister a while back in a discussion on his faith, he talked about faith without truth to be pointless and silly. Now his proof is different to what a scientist might acept true, but proof none the less.
My understanding of faith is not that it is blind faith or blind acceptance - but rather a belief base ...[text shortened]... personal interpretations of experiences.
But then, what would I know? I'm just an atheist.
Belief based on personal interpretations of experiences is what we SHOULD be living by, like you believe you aren't going to fall out of a jetliner cause you and millions of others have done it more or less safely. Like you believe a ladder is going to hold you up because you used it many times before. So what's wrong with just living your live as best as you can using your inner nose of morality to get by without having to kiss the asss of some non-existant god 20 times a day?
Originally posted by sonhouse Belief based on personal interpretations of experiences is what we SHOULD be living by, like you believe you aren't going to fall out of a jetliner cause you and millions of others have done it more or less safely. Like you believe a ladder is going to hold you up because you used it many times before. So what's wrong with just living your live as best as y ...[text shortened]... of morality to get by without having to kiss the asss of some non-existant god 20 times a day?
Nothing wrong at all - that's what I do.
But equally, you must be prepared for the notion that not everyone will agree with you. Wouldn't you rather live in a world where everyone DIDN"T agree with you?
I would ...
Assertion: The existence of God is PROVABLE.
08 Mar '07 15:08
Back to Top