outta heaven you go

Originally posted by josephw
Ever hear of Jesus?

But you can't provide evidence that he is God. So, There is no reason to believe he speaks the words of God. We don't even know if God exists.

why cant there be an alternative to heaven that is NOT torture?

Originally posted by eatmybishop
so if i dont accept christ or believe in god i will spend eternity in hell, right?

Well, that depends on who you listen to when someone is telling you about Christianity...some believe that and some definitely do not.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Well, that depends on who you listen to when someone is telling you about Christianity...some believe that and some definitely do not.

And from the very earliest Christian times...

Originally posted by Zander 88
Does the law permit police to beat up anyone who violates a one way sign? If so, please describe that law. If the law allows the possibility of death, then they can't be blamed by law. Perhaps by your moral code, but not by government law.

I am not interested in whether the police can be blamed by law; I'm interested in blame according to a higher ethical standard (not my moral code, but in this case something like 'natural law' that would condemn the punishment for being excessive compared to the crime.)

Originally posted by Big Mac
that is not the stated consequence of breaking the rule. just because they choose to do so does not make it the right choice.

as with sin, the stated consequence, ACCORDING TO MY WORLD VIEW, is death and hell. therefore, it is not going beyond parameters to do so.

so to answer your question, no. the police are to blame. but god is not since he stated the penalty before hand.

In my hypothetical, I can set the consequence of breaking the one-way law to whatever I wish. I needed an analogy that better matched a God who sends people to hell for minor offenses.

I find your world view unethical. (Ethics is the only 'parameter' I'm interested in.)

In my example, the police did state the consequence beforehand. If you still hold them ethically blameless, then you are, in effect, saying that "might makes right", and that the powerful can do what they will as long as they advertise it in advance.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
In my hypothetical, I can set the consequence of breaking the one-way law to whatever I wish. I needed an analogy that better matched a God who sends people to hell for minor offenses.

I find your world view unethical. (Ethics is the only 'parameter' I'm interested in.)

In my example, the police [b]did state the consequence beforehand. If you s ...[text shortened]... ight", and that the powerful can do what they will as long as they advertise it in advance.[/b]

I can't determine what is fair and unfair in a being who is not me. I wish that there was no Hell for people to go to. I wish that even if there was that it would not be permanent. But, I can't deny it. It's Biblical. Unfortunately God did not ask my opinion before He set up the parameters. So, I can't argue with you here. We different beliefs on this. Mine are based on the Bible. Yours aren't. It is a question of different world views.

Originally posted by Big Mac
I can't determine what is fair and unfair in a being who is not me. I wish that there was no Hell for people to go to. I wish that even if there was that it would not be permanent. But, I can't deny it. It's Biblical. Unfortunately God did not ask my opinion before He set up the parameters. So, I can't argue with you here. We different beliefs on this. Mine are based on the Bible. Yours aren't. It is a question of different world views.

I can't determine what is fair and unfair in a being who is not me.

There are three options here:

(1) God is just because God acts justly (in which case you can make a determination, even according to what is described as just in the Biblical texts).

(2) God is just because, by definition, whatever God does is “just,” whether or not it conforms to human norms of justice (or even those articulated in the Bible).

(3) You’re saying you don’t know if God is just or not because you’re not God.

If you select (2) or (3), then that would also seem to apply to other things we (and the Bible) say about God—that when applied to God, we literally don’t know what they mean. In which case, we cannot say anything at all about God (which may well be the case).

I invite you to read through the “God Fails at Salvation?” thread (including the references cited on page 3). There is a prominent and ancient Christian soteriology (supported by scripture) that eliminates the dilemma. (And I don’t want to re-argue it all here.)

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I am not interested in whether the police can be blamed by law; I'm interested in blame according to a higher ethical standard (not my moral code, but in this case something like 'natural law' that would condemn the punishment for being excessive compared to the crime.)

As far as I know, nature doesn't have a "natural law of ethics" that we must follow. Nature doesn't say what's too excessive or too lenient. Society as a whole makes that decision.

I think vistesd has your answer.

Originally posted by Big Mac
I can't determine what is fair and unfair in a being who is not me. I wish that there was no Hell for people to go to. I wish that even if there was that it would not be permanent. But, I can't deny it. It's Biblical. Unfortunately God did not ask my opinion before He set up the parameters. So, I can't argue with you here. We different beliefs on this. Mine are based on the Bible. Yours aren't. It is a question of different world views.

Originally posted by Big Mac
"I can't determine what is fair and unfair in a being who is not me."

Why not? Don't we do this all the time?

Originally posted by Big Mac
"Unfortunately God did not ask my opinion before He set up the parameters."

As vistesd's posts illustrate, some of these parameters are open to interpretation.

Originally posted by Big Mac
"So, I can't argue with you here. We different beliefs on this."

Even though we have different beliefs, there is still value in trying to rid one's own belief system of internal contradictions. For example, the punishment of eternal hell seems grossly unjust and cruel to many of us, yet the bible claims that god is love, and that he is just. If I were a Christian, I would have to find some way to resolve this contradiction in order to feel justified in my beliefs.

Originally posted by Zander 88
As far as I know, nature doesn't have a "natural law of ethics" that we must follow. Nature doesn't say what's too excessive or too lenient. Society as a whole makes that decision.

I think vistesd has your answer.

By "natural law", I mean the laws derived from human nature.

Vistesd gave more than one answer. Which of them, if any, reflects your belief?

I once made the same argument as Zander.

However, it is possible that “human nature” (the nature of our consciousness) has evolved to include ethical sensibilities, that may be fairly common across groups (at least statistically). This is not to say that human nature is endowed with particular moral principles—but simply that we may have a “moral sense,” that also has something to do with our being societal/communal beings. It is possible that this sense develops in such a way that slavery, for example, becomes perceived as morally wrong by greater numbers of people...

It can be argued either way, I think—I have no particular “moral theory” here—just noting that our nature may have some sort of developing moral sense built in as part of the architecture of our consciousness, so to speak. (I think Kant argued this.)

That does not, of course, point to any kind of “divine command” theory of morality...

Originally posted by SwissGambit
By "natural law", I mean the laws derived from human nature.

Vistesd gave more than one answer. Which of them, if any, reflects your belief?

I dunno, that's why I tried to get outta the way. 🙂

But seriously, if I were to choose one, I would be more inclined to pick #1.

Originally posted by Zander 88
I dunno, that's why I tried to get outta the way. 🙂

But seriously, if I were to choose one, I would be more inclined to pick #1.

How do you deal with the possibility of eternal hell? Do you deny that it is eternal, or do you just trust God to act justly despite not knowing his reasons (like Job)?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
How do you deal with the possibility of eternal hell? Do you deny that it is eternal, or do you just trust God to act justly despite not knowing his reasons (like Job)?

I don't believe in God, so I don't believe in hell. 😛

But it's very clear. If you deny God's existence, or choose not to believe in him, then you have commited an unforgivable sin. Once in hell, basically, your screwed. Given that the ten commandments are very reasonable, and his message of love as well, I wouldn't have many problems trusting him to be just.