Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

you couldn't have just picked Hinduism or Buddhism or something?


Depends on the religion's teachings


Then your body just decomposes into the ground

I believe that once someone accepts Christ as their Lord and Personal savior...they are saved from the sins that they would have had to pay for (Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord) in hell. It would take all of us an eternity in hell to pay for all of our sins, but Christ, sinless, only took 3 days to pay for our sins...

Christ paid for our sins so we wouldn't have to try to in hell

Forgot to add this...

It's a gift, so you have to accept the gift in order to recieve Christ's payment.

Please don't double-post, XVII. Use the edit button in the top right corner of your post; it's your friend.

_________________

I doubt {insert topic name here} is true... but hey... I'm Christian.

XVII: You have summed up the rather implausible segment of Christian doctrine that states:

1) God loves us and wants to save us from Hell
2) However, God is incapable of saving anybody who doesn't believe in him without them paying off their sins in Hell (even though God is omnipotent)
3) Furthermore, he completely abstains from giving us any evidence of his existence, thus saving us all (even though he loves us)
4) Also, any sin, no matter how miniscule, takes a literal eternity to "pay for" (even though any human action can only have a finite negative effect)

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

Man, and I was so glad to see this circular argument sinking into the abyss as well...

Here's the problem with your argument, Upsilon. As usual, you operate on the assumption that if God wants something, he's obligated to make it happen. You simply ignore the fact that, just like us, God is also a person. It's not necessarily that God cannot save someone without faith, but rather that there's no reason he should. If a person wants no relationship with him, there comes a point at which God will no longer pursue it. Think about it like this: if you were married to a woman you loved, but was constantly cheating on you, wouldn't you eventually get sick of it and tell her to get lost? The same is true with God. He is merciful, but with those who continue to be unfaithful to him, he will finally just get rid of them.

As for this lack of evidence: there's been plenty of evidence. It's just that you claim it's not credible. That's your problem, not his. And just like with that husband with the unfaithful wife, he's not exactly under any obligation to give you anything to prove anything.

And, as I have already stated like two jillion times ever two jillion seconds, hell is the consequence of this broken relationship. If your argument is that God ought to find some other way to deal with those who refuse to be reconciled with him, then I must point out the simple logical flaw in your reasoning: the argument is basically that God should show mercy to those who reject his mercy. He should somehow make them get what they keep throwing away. If I kept sending you a present, and you kept telling the UPS guy to shove it, how is it my fault that you never got it?

So, in answer to your own circular argument:
1. God is not obligated to do anything for anybody.
2. Apart from forcing you, how do you expect God to give you anything when you keep refusing to accept it?

_________________

There's a great show on PBS from 2001 called "Question of God". It basically summarizes everything we've been discussing in this thread in four hours. I'd highly recommend it for anyone who enjoys this kind of discussion.

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

Thanks, Rick. I'll see if I can catch it some time.

_________________

Is anybody here a Lutheran? J/W

But the wife knows that she's married and ignores it. Upsilon is arguing that he does not know any obligation to God.

_________________

Didymus and I are.

Martin would be proud.

_________________

Evin:

More like he doesn't acknowledge any obligation to God. As we are all God's creatures, we all have obligation to him whether we realize it or not.

_________________

But how is that fair? If one is married but doesn't know that, could one be charged with adultery? I think what Upsilon is saying is that he has to know he's married before anyone can charge him with adultery.

_________________

And as we;ve argued before, it really seems more lik Upsilon is also ignoring his marriage. We've been showing God to him all over this thread, but he continues to say no one has ever done so.

Romans 1:20 says, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

You know. Anyone who really examines Creation will see.

Oh, and to all the people who've been posting about getting to Heaven for being a good person, I highly recommend, "Since Nobody's Perfect, How Good is Good Enough?" by Andy Stanley; short, and highly lucid apologetics on the subject. Not only that, but alot of Christian bookstores have it dirt cheap...

Evin, there is such a thing as taking a metaphor too far. My point was that, when God acts retributively toward those who deny him, he is justified in doing so. If I understood Up's argument, he was saying that, if he truly loved us, he would not act in retribution at all. The example of a husband fed up with an adulterous wife was simply to demonstrate that love can, and does sometimes, end that way. Actually, a better example might be that of the parent of a wayward child (say, one who keeps running away). Eventually, the parent has no choice but to simply let the wayward child go his own way. Actually, I seem to remember the Bible mentioning such a story once...

As for obligations to God, it's sort of the same as obligations to the IRS. You can deny any such obligation if you like, but come the Ides of April...

_________________

Yes, but still, if he doesn't know any obligation to God, why should he be obligated? He's arguing that Just because you're telling him that he has a obligation, doesn't make it true.

_________________

Like me putting sharks in the water?

Evin, we have all kinds of obligations in life. Just because he's not aware of them does not exempt him from them. To quote an old addage, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." If a policeman were to pull me over on the highway and ask to see my license and insurance, and I responded, "But I didn't know I needed those," how far do you think that would get me?

The same is true with God. Just because Upsilon, or anyone else for that matter, does not acknowledge any obligation to God does not mean he will hold him innocent. According to St. Paul, the very fact we exist within a created order is notice enough.

And if that's not enough, I'm here as an authorized agent of this God, giving him notice of God's authority. Upsilon may not acknowledge my authority to do speak on God's behalf, but it still does not exempt him from obligations to God, any more than failure to recognize a policeman's badge exempts one from obeying the law.

So here's my response in a nutshell:

1. Ignorance of an obligation does not exempt one from that obligation.
2. The created order itself is notice of God's authority.
3. God has sent authorized agents like myself to notify people of his authority.

_________________

why yes, being an athiest i think i will go to hell

oxymoron'd!

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

And the circular logic makes you head spin

_________________
ANNE WIDDECOMBE, MP IN HER ORIGINAL HAIRSTYLE

I don't assume he's obligated; I assume that he would. Look at it this way: someone you know and love more than anyone else in the world is in grave danger. They don't even know they're in grave danger, but you do. If you clap your hands once, you can save them from the danger. In fact, the thing you have to do to save them requires even less effort, even less sacrifice on your part, than clapping your hands.

Would you do it? Of course you would; you'd be insane not to.

And you're telling me that God, who loves me infinitely more than you love anyone on Earth, has infinitely more wisdom to make the sensible decision and is infinitely more capable of saving me from the danger than you are of clapping your hands, wouldn't save me? Instead he'd hide away up in his clouds and decide to let some flawed human beings tell the entire remaining population of the world that this religion is right, not any of the other religions. And if I'm not convinced, he's just going to shrug and say "Well, I did all I could, but he never believed in Jesus. I'm going to have to condemn him to eternal suffering."

Even if he isn't even partially to blame for infidels' fate (and I quietly maintain that he is) and therefore doesn't have to do anything about it, it doesn't mean he can't.



"Continue"? Continue being unfaithful to him, even through all the messages I've received from him telling me to start worshipping him? (Whatever you do, don't say that I have indeed been receiving messages via the Christians on this board, because I could equally receive such 'messages' from Muslims or Jews if the board was so demographically inclined.) If he ever spoke to me personally, you might have a point, but Evin was right on target: it's absurd to compare my relationship with God to a marriage, since in a marriage the two couples are mutually aware of each other's existence. Your analogy is fundamentally flawed.



It's my problem if the evidence that someone gives isn't credible? I don't think that line would get you very far in court. And yes, I'd say he is under an obligation. Seeing as I'm going to be damned for not believing, I think I'm entitled to some reason to believe.



And as I've stated two jillion times in as many seconds:

Hell as a so-called 'consequence' of this lack of relationship is only the consequence because God says it is. It's completely within his power to remove it altogether.
I can't 'reject' anything that I don't even know to exist.
Unless this UPS guy is invisible, inaudible and intangible, that analogy is flawed (okay, I haven't stated that one exactly before, but it's popped up in several disguises).

And, in answer to yours:

1. Actually, I think he is. As you said, "just like us, God is also a person"; I see no reason why the fact that he created us separates him from moral obligations. And you wouldn't like it if I threw a brick at you then claimed it was my right to do so under a contract that I'd never told you about and which you hadn't signed. And then claimed that I was not obligated to tell you about this contract.
2. How do you expect me to give you this cheque for a jillion dollars if you keep refusing to accept it? ...oh, wait, you didn't know about the cheque? Fair enough, then...



Excuse my short cynical snort, but that's a fairly lame argument. You've shown me nothing apart from a flawed counter-argument to my claim repeated ad nauseam.



Sez you. Paul may think everyone in the world who has ever existed has always known deep down that God is real but was too thick to do anything about it. But I speak on behalf of every non-Christian who has ever lived by saying that I'm not going to be told what I do and don't believe in my heart by some first-century Jack Chick.



And do you think that's fair? If so, you owe me seven million of your American dollars due to a bet I took on your behalf that the sun wouldn't come up this morning. Just because you don't acknowledge any obligation to our agreement does not mean that you don't have to stump up.



Except that a policeman's badge is given by the state and is proof of his status. You have no proof of your status except for the fact that you say you have it. In that case, I'm an agent of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (because I say so), you can't tell me I'm not (because you can't prove that the IPU doesn't exist) and this gives me the authority to tell you what's going to happen to your soul after you die.



1. You know, I'm still waiting for that $7 million...
2. Short answer: No it's not. Long answer: Even if it is, it's not notice of which god. Even if the fact that we exist does imply a creator, that doesn't mean it was your God any more than it is proof of Islam's truth.
3. Agent Upsilon of the IPU at your service.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

Well, considering that even the so-called disciples of the IPU don't even believe in her/it, I'm still not convinced that the IPU makes a hill of beans difference in this argument.

In the ultimate scheme of things, it is God who will judge what is just and what is not. While you might make a decent case from an entirely human perspective, in the long run, it doesn't matter. It's him you'll have to answer to.

As for would versus obligated: I fail to see any real difference in how the two ultimately play out in your argument. You are still expecting God to conform to your standards, rather than the other way around, as it should be.

You've already received plenty of messages that you should worship God. Several from me personally. Just because you don't want to believe the messenger does not mean the message has not been delivered. You demand that God speak to you personally? Why should he? You demand a high privilege there.

And what if he did? Have you given any thought as to how you would respond to God if he did speak directly to you?


a. He does meet moral obligations, but not necessarily the ones that you, a limited mortal human being, are trying to obligate him to.
b. Absurd argument: you have no power or authority to construct such a contract. Governments do. Rulers do. God, as creator of the universe, does as well. And he wouldn't be throwing bricks at people except those who deserve them anyway.


You have been told. Like a jillion times.

_________________

Do all non-christians go to hell?
Certainly not. Keep in mind with some religions that there isn't a hell, so they can't go there. It's also a bit wrong to consider your religion to be the "right" one when there is no proof that it ever happened. Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at anyone, but for most, if not all religions, there is only circumstantial evidence that their particular deity even exists. Basically I think if you believe in your religion, and your ideas of Heaven/Hell/Purgatory/Afterlife/e.t.c., you find out if you're right when you die. No-one really knows what happens, your body might just decompose, or your ashes...I dunno what happens to ashes. Anyway, I have no particular belief on this topic, as I also sometimes think that ideas of Heaven/Hell are just a result of a human wanting to be remembered for who they are, and not let their personality fade away.

I am actually a Catholic, too.

_________________
My DeviantArt --> http://www.animecase.deviantart.com
My blog --> http://www.schoolkidlife.blogspot.com ...I really need to post more

You've missed the point of the IPU, which is that it's just as rational to form a belief system around the IPU as around God. And, as an extension, according to your logic, you have to respect my authority as her agent, simply because I say it is so.



I repeat: do you think that's fair? What is it that I have to "answer to"? Embracing a harmless belief system that isn't to do with him? And you're honestly telling me that such an all-loving god would automatically damn two-thirds of the world on this fact alone?

Why? I wouldn't, and I'm a nasty little sinner. Christianity does hit a stumbling-block if the source of the world's love is less tolerant than the heathen he's eternally punishing.



Yes, I'm expecting God to make sense. If he doesn't "conform to my standards" - i.e., the standards of simple reason - then God defies reason and is therefore irrational. If this is the case, then belief in him is itself irrational and unreliable. QED.



And you think your own word counts for proof? You have received many messages from me telling you that Christianity is false - by your own logic, shouldn't you have apostatised by now?



Well, not personally. To everyone. And he should because is acknowledging his existence is the only way to avoid eternal torment, he should give us reason to acknowledge his existence over all the other religions. Otherwise there's nothing that separates his rule from - dare I say it? - fascism.



I'm sure that depends entirely on what he said.



Why not?



Oh, so now I deserve it, do I? Well, I'm glad to know that you deem all us infidels deserving of Hell.



By implausible sources such as you, yes. And I'm telling you that the Invisible Pink Unicorn will justly trample you into the ground if you don't believe in her. But my assertion that X is so doesn't make it so, and neither does yours.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

My point about the whole IPU thing is that, since her own disciples don't believe in her, why should I? On the other hand, since the Holy Christian Church has always believed in Jesus Christ, I feel plenty safe trusting him.

But, since I'm so implausable, I might as well not even answer you anymore, huh? If you need me for anything, I'll be over here cleaning my shoes.

_________________

That's Catholicism. Jesus was the payment for all of our sins. If we believe that He died on the cross as that payment, we are saved from Satan's eternal punishment.

_________________

Uh...I guess it's my turn now...?

Okay!

Thank you, IantheGecko!