Originally posted by serigadoWe all have our own world views a faith we walk out, and with
As you see your faith is blinding you from the independent point of view. If you say there's evidence for you being wrong, you should really admit you can be wrong. But as I understood, you admit you can be, but you have faith you are not... Your position seems very odd to me. I am sure if you study about science a little more you can be moved of your posit ...[text shortened]... arguments to convince me. I guess I am fundamentalist in being open minded, can it be wrong?
that we view all other's "independent points of views' with a bit
of skepticism, moreover we should view our own points of view
with a bit of skepticism too.
Kelly
Originally posted by vistesdThe difference is that you believe that serigado is condemned to eternal hell for sticking to what he has good reason to think is true, while you will be rewarded with eternal paradise for “doing the same.” And you apply such words as “loving” and “just” to that outcome. And my poor brain just says, “Does not compute!”
[b]But you aren't irrational. You are sticking to what you have a good reason to think is true, in light of the difficulties. I am doing the same, in light of the difficulties.
The difference is that you believe that serigado is condemned to eternal hell for sticking to what he has good reason to think is true, while you will be rewarded with eternal ...[text shortened]... insist that whatever is transcendent to that grammar cannot be presumed to be extra-natural.[/b]
By showing that faith in Christ is rational, I'm not likewise concluding that all rational decisions are equal, i.e., have the same outcome; as if God were a rewarder of rationality in itself -- it is not faith which saves a person, but what one chooses to place their faith in. I'm merely taking issue with the charge that faith in Christ is blindly irrational, which it is not. Further, I cannot say that every unbeliever will not be saved, but neither can I assure people that unbelievers will be saved, as Rajk pointed out. Those who never heard of Christ, for instance, may yet be granted a hidden desire to serve God. Scripture does not exclude that remote possibility.
Originally posted by epiphinehasFurther, I cannot say that every unbeliever will not be saved, but neither can I assure people that unbelievers will be saved, as Rajk pointed out. Those who never heard of Christ, for instance, may yet be granted a hidden desire to serve God. Scripture does not exclude that remote possibility.
[b]The difference is that you believe that serigado is condemned to eternal hell for sticking to what he has good reason to think is true, while you will be rewarded with eternal paradise for “doing the same.” And you apply such words as “loving” and “just” to that outcome. And my poor brain just says, “Does not compute!”
By showing that faith i ...[text shortened]... be granted a hidden desire to serve God. Scripture does not exclude that remote possibility.[/b]
If you were to remove the word “remote,” and rephrase your first sentence in terms of hope in the possibility for all, I think you would be standing squarely in the Orthodox stream—and, according to what Ivanhoe posted, perhaps the RCC as well.
I argue a bit beyond that, I know; in one sense, I would simply put the word “remote” on the other side of the coin. Origen’s version of universal salvation was condemned, in part because of it’s being tied to his notion of the pre-existence of souls, and his argument that universal salvation was necessary. Gregory of Nyssa’s version was not condemned; it did not become Orthodox doctrine, but remained an acceptable belief—pretty much in the terms that I mention above.
Am currently reading a couple of books on Nyssa. 🙂
Originally posted by vistesdBut people do choose to reject Christ in this life, definitively and finally. Christ says that such people are condemned already. Therefore, it is accurate to say that hell will most definitely not be empty. How empty remains to be seen, of course.
[b]Further, I cannot say that every unbeliever will not be saved, but neither can I assure people that unbelievers will be saved, as Rajk pointed out. Those who never heard of Christ, for instance, may yet be granted a hidden desire to serve God. Scripture does not exclude that remote possibility.
If you were to remove the word “remote,” and rephrase ...[text shortened]... much in the terms that I mention above.
Am currently reading a couple of books on Nyssa. 🙂[/b]
The bottom line is, if there is no hell, then there is no free will, and vice versa.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasAfter Christ's ascension, the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and through the Spirit spoke with the authority of God
[b]It's highly possible, or are you so naive as to think the apostles were perfect?
After Christ's ascension, the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and through the Spirit spoke with the authority of God (see Acts chapter 2).
The message was pure and great, the rewards were great, it makes sense Christianity spread.
How can a m not exclude me being a Muslim, but not that I should be one.[/b]
Circular logic again. You are justifying the bible with something in the Bible. That's cheating.
How can a message be pure if it isn't true?
If it has a good intention and a superior objective. Sometimes not saying the truth is for the better. Parents know this and sometimes "lie" or bend the truth a little for the well being of their kids. The same possible happened with the apostles and jesus himself.
Yes, I believe Christ had the authority to turn water into wine, and many other "impossible" works. You say it's impossible, but that's only because you've never seen it happen.
Not me, nor you, and nobody in this world saw such thing happen. Some say Jesus MIXED water and wine, so everyone could have some, analogous to the division of bread.
I know quite a lot about how things work, it's physically impossible to turn water to wine, I guarantee you. It's not about theories or being right or wrong. It's just impossible.
Would you say that science is complete?
Of course it's not complete. But for the Bible to be truth and miracles to have happened, science must be COMPLETELY wrong. And that goes against everything we see everyday.. except the Bible, of course. What does this indicate?
Can you see that the Bible only fits in that small portion of doubt science always admits? That's extremely small. For someone to believe in the miracles and the Bible, they must deny science and everything mankind has achieved this last centuries. Yet we are debating over the internet.
Methodological naturalism is the most easily discerned prejudice which you have
A prejudice? We diverge. Because naturalism is independent and can defend ANYTHING that is plausible, Independently. Where's the prejudice here?
____
It does not follow according to my line of argumentation that I should be a Muslim. I admit, it does not exclude me being Ia Muslim, but not that I should be one
Yes it does. The Qu'ran is much more reliable then the Bible (there's an original version still alive). It has a lot less contradictions. The only thing that stopped you from being a Muslim in that you were not indoctrinated that way. So all your faith was induced, You must agree in this point. If it was induced, it is not absolute, do you agree? So if you truly want to be independent and true to your arguments, you must embrace Islam. Think about this.
1 edit
Just an important observation: Hell was made for the devil and his angels, not directly for people who chose to go there. And the demons there aren't/won't be in charge. They are being contained and punished. It's not a pleasure cruise for the wicked.
So Hell will be far from empty no matter what the truth about human redemption.
Originally posted by epiphinehasSo I'm condemned to eternal damnation by using the reason God himself has given me. Your God only wants non inquisitive people, willing to worship him and having faith in him. I'm fair and honest to myself, instead of running away from reality and simply fall in the emotional pit of religion. It's quite easy to let everything go and simply believe there's someone we can trust and have faith.
[b]The difference is that you believe that serigado is condemned to eternal hell for sticking to what he has good reason to think is true, while you will be rewarded with eternal paradise for “doing the same.” And you apply such words as “loving” and “just” to that outcome. And my poor brain just says, “Does not compute!”
By showing that faith i ...[text shortened]... be granted a hidden desire to serve God. Scripture does not exclude that remote possibility.[/b]
I am the one taking the harsh path here. But I'm true to my principles. Your God is a dictator and unjust. What kind of love is that he professes? "Love me or go to Hell", that's the main message he gives. But Christians only emphasize the "Love me" part.
Like in the title of thread, an all Loving God and Eternal Hell are just incoherent.
Originally posted by serigadoIt's pretty obvious you know nothing about me. You probably assume that I grew up in a religious home, going to Church every Sunday and Wednesday, and doing all the other things normal "Christian" children do and singing Amazing Grace and saying "God is good, God is great" before bed every night. You couldn't be anymore wrong. You assume your smarter than me everyone else that God has spoken to, but the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. You may have had a wonderful education but what good will that do you when you have to face God and explain why you weren't smart enough to see the signs of his existence?
Your needs come from your genetics plus your education. It's perfectly normal for someone growing in a religious environment to need God. Luckily I had an independent education and I'm not afraid to criticize.
Originally posted by serigadoSorry for my delay , I was very busy, and I only have time in Weekends, I hope I can target all your questions,
So I'm condemned to eternal damnation by using the reason God himself has given me. Your God only wants non inquisitive people, willing to worship him and having faith in him. I'm fair and honest to myself, instead of running away from reality and simply fall in the emotional pit of religion. It's quite easy to let everything go and simply believe there's s ...[text shortened]...
Like in the title of thread, an all Loving God and Eternal Hell are just incoherent.
I will start with this post:
So I'm condemned to eternal damnation by using the reason God himself has given me.
Of course not, but he will put you in Hell if you ignored something during your resoaning.
Quran say:
(Nobel-Translation)(Al-Israa)(o 15 o)(15. Whoever goes right, then he goes right only for the benefit of his ownself. And whoever goes astray, then he goes astray to his own loss. No one laden with burdens can bear another's burden. And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger -to give warning- .)
So you are free to choose you way, and no one is punished for others, but Allah (GOD) makes it clear, that he will not punish untill he send a messanger. So as far as I know most Muslim scholars said that if some one didn't recieve the message we can't say he is in Hell. It is up to GOD because he knows what is inside every one so GOD may put him in heaven is he knows that he was really a good man.
So GOD didn't give us a puzzle to solve, he made his way clear by sending messangers. The only difference between you and me is that I believed he sent those messanger , and you don't.
So the idea is simple , did you spend enough effort to search by yourself for those messangers, or you just listened to others who told you that GOD doesn't exist.
I will try to check other posts to see what I can say about them 🙂
Regards
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoI am the one taking the harsh path here. But I'm true to my principles.
So I'm condemned to eternal damnation by using the reason God himself has given me. Your God only wants non inquisitive people, willing to worship him and having faith in him. I'm fair and honest to myself, instead of running away from reality and simply fall in the emotional pit of religion. It's quite easy to let everything go and simply believe there's s
Like in the title of thread, an all Loving God and Eternal Hell are just incoherent.
Can you see the egotism in your words? Nobody is asking you to take the harsh path. You are choosing to do so because you refuse to relinquish your own way. But by clinging to your life, you will ultimately lose it. That anger and resentment you feel toward God and Christians is a sign that the Holy Spirit is very near to you. I've been there. A rebellious heart can put up a good fight. The Lord will strive with you until you make it abundantly clear that you want nothing to do with self-surrender. I can attest to you, though, there is peace, joy and intimacy with the Lord waiting on the other side. I've never regretted making the leap of faith to trust God enough to surrender to Him.
I'll say a prayer for you. (I don't intend to be condescending by doing so.)
Your God is a dictator and unjust. What kind of love is that he professes? "Love me or go to Hell", that's the main message he gives. But Christians only emphasize the "Love me" part.
It is love which created you, it is love which created freedom, it is love which respects your freedom, it is love which protects freedom, and it is that freedom which chooses hell. God sends no one to hell, people choose it. God is the Source of all life and joy, and to reject Him carries its own consequences. The punishment fits the crime, because the punishment is the crime, i.e., saying no to God means no God.
If God were not love, then hell would not exist. Why? Because free will would not exist. The bottom line is, if there is no free will, then there is no hell, and vice versa.
Originally posted by serigadoCircular logic again. You are justifying the bible with something in the Bible. That's cheating.
[b]After Christ's ascension, the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and through the Spirit spoke with the authority of God
Circular logic again. You are justifying the bible with something in the Bible. That's cheating.
How can a message be pure if it isn't true?
If it has a good intention and a superior objective. Sometimes not sayi ...[text shortened]... ependent and true to your arguments, you must embrace Islam. Think about this.[/b]
I'm simply giving you my rationale for believing the infallibility of the apostles. Do with it what you will.
If it has a good intention and a superior objective. Sometimes not saying the truth is for the better.
So, by that rationale, you should be a Christian, too. If it's better not to know the truth, then why aren't you deluding yourself? The fact is, a lie, no matter how "pure," is never preferable to the truth regarding ultimate reality.
Not me, nor you, and nobody in this world saw such thing happen.
You are refuting my argument by simply restating your assumptions. But I've already shown that your assumptions are based on unreliable sources.
But for the Bible to be truth and miracles to have happened, science must be COMPLETELY wrong.
But you just said that the Bible fits in that small portion of doubt science always admits. Therefore, if the miracles of the Bible did in fact happen, science could not obviously be COMPLETELY wrong.
A prejudice? We diverge. Because naturalism is independent and can defend ANYTHING that is plausible, Independently. Where's the prejudice here?
It becomes a prejudice when it (methodological naturalism) is overextended. It isn't "universal experience," that is, the scientific method does not by itself rule out miraculous phenomena. A scientist performs experiments a certain number of times to determine the relative reliability of a theory about something or another, and can write a paper about his conclusions. But his tests cannot rule out a contrary result, nor phenomena that are unrelated to his observations.
It is a prejudice when science becomes a reason to rule out altogether the improbable.
The only thing that stopped you from being a Muslim in that you were not indoctrinated that way. So all your faith was induced, You must agree in this point.
I've been a Buddhist, a Taoist, a follower of various gurus, and I've investigated Islam, all before I became a Christian. I was not raised a Christian either; I was an atheist for the large majority of my life. Christ is the only one who truly set me free. So, no, I do not have to agree with your assessment.
Originally posted by SourJaxWhat are my options? Deny everything I know and start saying I believe God just by fear? But I can't feel fear, at all. I only feel that other people have fear.
It's pretty obvious you know nothing about me. You probably assume that I grew up in a religious home, going to Church every Sunday and Wednesday, and doing all the other things normal "Christian" children do and singing Amazing Grace and saying "God is good, God is great" before bed every night. You couldn't be anymore wrong. You assume your smarter than me ...[text shortened]... e to face God and explain why you weren't smart enough to see the signs of his existence?
I can't see any signs of existence of God except what you call the Bible / Qu'ran, which I can't take as truthful.
1 edit
Originally posted by ahosyney[/i]In resume, nothing tells me the difference between a false prophet from a true one. The best you have is testimonies many centuries old. That does not suit me.
Sorry for my delay , I was very busy, and I only have time in Weekends, I hope I can target all your questions,
I will start with this post:
[b]So I'm condemned to eternal damnation by using the reason God himself has given me.
Of course not, but he will put you in Hell if you ignored something during your resoaning.
Quran say:
[i](Nobel exist.
I will try to check other posts to see what I can say about them 🙂
Regards[/b]
There are dozens of those prophets. All they have their share of miracles and witnesses. Nothing makes one better then the other.
I listen to others, but I never take as true what people say. I must discover on my own. Only by doing so I may guarantee things I know are true. Everything else are suppositions. Sending a messenger and telling him to spread the word is not according to an all powerful God that could create 10^90 particles in an instant.
Islam tries to be obvious in sending a messenger to directly tell the instructions. That's quite honest compared to other religions, I admit. But if God really wants us to worship him on free will, he should say it clearly and regularly to all of us, instead of letting us rely on hear say from centuries ago.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasCan you see the egotism in your words? Nobody is asking you to take the harsh path. You are choosing to do so because you refuse to relinquish your own way. But by clinging to your life, you will ultimately lose it. That anger and resentment you feel toward God and Christians is a sign that the Holy Spirit is very near to you. I've been there. A rebellious heart can put up a good fight. The Lord will strive with you until you make it abundantly clear that you want nothing to do with self-surrender. I can attest to you, though, there is peace, joy and intimacy with the Lord waiting on the other side. I've never regretted making the leap of faith to trust God enough to surrender to Him.
[b]I am the one taking the harsh path here. But I'm true to my principles.
Can you see the egotism in your words? Nobody is asking you to take the harsh path. You are choosing to do so because you refuse to relinquish your own way. But by clinging to your life, you will ultimately lose it. That anger and resentment you feel toward God and Chri The bottom line is, if there is no free will, then there is no hell, and vice versa.[/b]
I take the path I find the best, all the time. I feel no anger or resentment towards anyone, where did you take that idea? I only want all people to get along, and religions always tend to get people angry. Also leads to a lot of misconceptions and drives people away from logic and good reasoning. So I try that people follow my philosophy. My philosophy is self-growing and self-adapting with arguments and debates. If all people did the same, it would be marvelous. This philosophy lead me to great happiness, self control, peace, and personal achievements. I can't simply follow a religion. I only would follow a religion if I found God plausible and I would do so by fear of Hell, and not by agreeing with God's point of view.
I thank you for your prayer. It shows concern for your fellow human being. I hope you can find the truth and be happy too.
It is love which created you, it is love which created freedom, it is love which respects your freedom, it is love which protects freedom, and it is that freedom which chooses hell. God sends no one to hell, people choose it. God is the Source of all life and joy, and to reject Him carries its own consequences. The punishment fits the crime, because the punishment is the crime, i.e., saying no to God means no God.
I don't choose Hell. I choose to disagree with God. God doesn't like it, so he sends me to Hell. So it means I don't have a choice, right? That's what seems absurd to me, because I don't really have a choice. I try to find reasoning but I can't, what can I do? Be false to me and to God, only by fear? God wouldn't want that, I believe.
If God were not love, then hell would not exist. Why? Because free will would not exist. The bottom line is, if there is no free will, then there is no hell, and vice versa.
I can't understand it. God is sending everyone to the same place: from really bad persons to simply disbelievers, for Eternity, with no possible redemption. Where does this make sense with a loving God?
Would you send your own creation to eternal Hell, just because he didn't have faith in you, although he was a good person? I disagree in this point.
Existing Hell there's no free will. It's worse then pointing a gun at your head. "love me or go to hell". This is the God of fear that wants submission, not love. Yet, Jesus talks about Love in a good way. I like his message, not his God nor his rules
Originally posted by epiphinehasI'm simply giving you my rationale for believing the infallibility of the apostles. Do with it what you will.
[b]Circular logic again. You are justifying the bible with something in the Bible. That's cheating.
I'm simply giving you my rationale for believing the infallibility of the apostles. Do with it what you will.
If it has a good intention and a superior objective. Sometimes not saying the truth is for the better.
So, by that rationale, ...[text shortened]... ly one who truly set me free. So, no, I do not have to agree with your assessment.[/b]
You were trying to give a reasoning, but that reasoning was questioned and the questioning not rebated. So, doubt remains on the veracity of the testimony of the apostles. There's no assurance the Bible is true.
You are refuting my argument by simply restating your assumptions. But I've already shown that your assumptions are based on unreliable sources.
But every source is unreliable! We must stick with what's more plausible. And my sources are quite plausible. I should know: that's my work to study it. I stick with what I can check everyday. You stick with a 2k yrs book.
But his tests cannot rule out a contrary result, nor phenomena that are unrelated to his observations.
Miracles are a lot more then non-related phenomena. Miracles aren't simply "something we have never seen". They really go against physics and AGAINST related and "proved" to exhaustion phenomena.
So, it's not a prejudice. We admit we can be wrong and the laws can be different. But history tells us that physicists in general are not wrong (at least in a crucial way): they simply are incomplete, but their laws tend to be correct in the right limits.
I've been a Buddhist, a Taoist, a follower of various gurus, and I've investigated Islam, all before I became a Christian. I was not raised a Christian either; I was an atheist for the large majority of my life. Christ is the only one who truly set me free. So, no, I do not have to agree with your assessment.
That's interesting. What made Christianity more plausible to you then Islam? I find Islam a lot more attractive as a religion, although I prefer Jesus' message. Islam is simply a lot more coherent with itself.