Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

It's sort of like that. We're chained to a wall forced to look at shadows until we are convinced that the shadows are real. Meanwhile, there's a whole new world outside the cave waiting for us to experience it.

_________________

Note: Technically, to know something it doesn't have to be true. People knew for many years that the Earth was flat, but they were wrong. I percieve the non-existence of God grasped in my mind with clarity and certainty, so therefore I know that there is no God.

Just to let you know where I'm coming from: I was born and raised Jewish but have since then abandoned organized religion. Though I know (see above) there is no Christian God since its commandments make no earthly sense, I do know that karma (a unified force in the universe) exists.







It's not that I refuse to accept a universal monotheistic force; it's just that I refuse to accept the Christian impression of God: namely that Jesus is the savior, humans are basically evil, and that if I don't follow the bible word-for-word I have "sinned". In my opinion, Jesus was just a prophet. I know there are things in the bible that very few Christians follow; namely keeping Kosher, and other period issues. See below for the evil issue.



This is the biggest problem I have with Christianity. The focus in on how terrible people "naturally" are, as opposed on the good of mankind. You're right that we're not perfect, but there's a very thick line between inperfection and evil. If we're evil, why do we choose to help the less fortunate through charity and tsedaka? Why do we call the police when there's an accident? Why do we choose to help our fellow man and world?

Yes; there is still mass poverty and depression, but in 200 years we've gone from almost everyone being poor to only 50% poverty. Yes, there are evil people, but if it weren't for the majority of good in all of us we wouldn't be improving the world every day. I know that people are mostly good, and not because of clear perception, but because it's true.

(Sorry about the length.)

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

First, I assume you are speaking pre-Ptolemy here (2nd century b.c.). Because, as I’ve stated numerous times before, the belief that the earth is round goes back at least 2000 years, and probably further.

Second, we have a word for those people who believed the world was round: mistaken. We do not call their false supposition “knowledge;” we call it “superstition.” Clarity and certainty in the definition relate to the way beliefs or suppositions match reality. Therefore, there can be no “knowledge” that the earth is flat, because the supposition does not match reality.


You can only believe that there is no God. An experience of something can prove its existence, but the lack of such an experience cannot prove its nonexistence. Therefore, there can be no knowledge of God’s nonexistence.


Improving? A hundred years ago we didn’t have nuclear bombs. A hundred years ago we didn’t have rampant air pollution. A hundred years ago we didn’t have crack cocaine. The last time I checked, people around the world are still being oppressed and slaughtered because of political, religious, and racial differences. The last time I checked, people around the world were still being denied their rights to basic necessities like food, shelter, and freedom. I don’t know what world you live in, but the one I see around me isn’t improving much at all.

Remember how I said before that we are fairly insulated against most of the evil that takes place in this world because we live in a country where we are relatively free? That still applies. Evil exists in this world, and continues to exist. Mankind has not improved, but is continuing to find new ways to oppress and destroy.

I’ll believe mankind is improving when I see illegal drugs eliminated (and that, because people no longer need to self-medicate their pain). I’ll believe mankind is improving when there are no need for jails and prisons. I’ll believe mankind is improving when the US completely dismantles its nuclear arsenal and disbands its military. I’ll believe mankind is improving when places like China and Saudi Arabia institute religious and political freedoms in their countries.

Your belief that mankind is improving is an illusion. And so, I ask you the question: are you willing to accept hell (and I mean accept it, not just risk it) in order to cling to your illusion that everything is all hunky-dory with mankind?


That depends on who’s defining poverty. And I’d question your statistics, too. I’m not sure they are correct.


A better question might be, if mankind is basically good, then why doesn’t everybody choose to help the less fortunate, and do that all the time? You have to keep in mind that not everybody does the kind of good deeds you describe. Many people are just self-serving jerks. Some are downright dangerous. Sadly, the Saddam Husseins of this world seem to outnumber the Mother Teresas.

What’s more, even those of us who do reach out and help, sadly, do not always do it consistently whenever we see a need.

But I notice that you admit that human beings aren’t perfect. Let’s stop there for just a minute. You are right. Human beings are not perfect. Even the greatest of saints tended to mourn their own personal flaws and limitations. If St. Thomas Aquinas (by all accounts a very wise, intelligent, pious, and holy man) can admit to being dumb, ignorant, and lacking charity, then what does that say about us? If Mother Teresa can admit, even with her lifelong service to God and to people, that she hasn’t done enough, then what does that mean for us, who do not have her level of dedication? If the great Rock of Faith, St. Peter, failed and denied Jesus at the crucifixion, then what does that say about us?

My point is this: we are imperfect. Maybe that doesn’t make us evil, per se, but it does mean we have a problem that needs to be addressed. We Christians see the root of this problem: we are alienated from our God. This is the fundamental flaw of humanity. No amount of good works in this life can change that. We need to be reconciled.

But that’s the hard part. Have you ever did or said something to a friend that really hurt them? How easy was it to go to them later and admit your fault and apologize? I’ve done a great deal of work in the area of addiction recovery (at the VA, I worked with recovering addicts, and for my presentation at CPE, I researched sexual addictions). And every single one of them begins with the notion that we need help. Step One in the recovery process is always to say, “I am powerless, and my life is unmanageable.” That’s a hard thing to admit. Step Five is to admit our faults to God and to other people. Step Nine is to make amends to people we have harmed in the past (if possible). So you see, the recovery process is about admitting that we are wrong. And admitting we are wrong is repeated necessarily throughout the process of recovery. The same is true in our relationship with people we have hurt. We must admit we are wrong in order for the healing in the relationship to begin. And that goes for our relationship with God. We must confess our sins so that God can heal us of them. That is what we mean by “repentance.”

So, at this point, I must ask the question: what do you want from us, Rick? You started this thread, so it must have some importance to you. You know how we Christians understand our relationship to God at least to some degree, and you know what we see to be the solution to that problem. You’ve already and vehemently rejected our proposed solution. So why are we here? What do you want me to say? Or do you want me to say anything at all? Do you want me to change my beliefs for your sake? Do you want me to let you continue in your illusion without confronting it? What is it that you want from me, Rick?

_________________

^And from everyone else who replied the Pro-Christian way?

I agree with you, for the most part, Didy. But isn't there a chance someone could have an experience "proving" to themselves that there is no God? Just a thought.

_________________

I can't imagine what that would be, though. I've read that Bertrand Russell, the great atheistic thinker of the mid 20th century, claimed to have had some sort of mystical experience, but apart from some description, I couldn't tell what.

The problem is that it's like arguing, "There are no such thing as gorillas becuase I've never seen one." And saying that to someone who has just come back from the zoo where they were looking at one.

I mean, even on that one thread about Magic, I argued that magic could exist against someone (I don't remember who) who said that it was ridiculous to believe in magic. Now I don't believe in magic, per se, but just because I've never seen real magic in action does not mean that there is no such thing. It's a simple logical point: lack of experience of something cannot prove its nonexistence, but experience of something can prove something's existence. There are always things in this world that are beyond our experience. Or as Shakespeare put it, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

In other words, at best such an experience can only allow someone to say, "I feel very strongly there is no God."

_________________

Like someone once said:

Absence of proof is NOT proof of abscence...

I believe that there is some God, just not sure which one...


Seriously, this thread has gotten way off course.

That's why I made that one rather lengthy post addressed to Rick. I felt like we had already covered what we Christians believe and why we believe it.

_________________

Reread the dictionary definition of "know" from my last post. You'll see what I mean.


See my last response.


Well, to start, thank you for completely ignoring the details of my post. Look over them again. Didymus, I'm truly sorry for you for what you and other Christians are taught to think of the world. I will never be able to get you to realize that the good in the world overshadows the bad by far, so I don't think there's any point in discussing it. Secondly, I'm not going to accept Hell because I don't "believe" it exists. I don't believe that Hell makes sense in a relativistic sensical universe. You have no right to mock my beliefs in true world optomism.


This data is the accurate version of the essay that started the thread.


Didymus, all I want is for Chrisitians to stop spreading their pesimistic universal ideology to people like me who don't want to hear it. You know how and why not everyone agrees with you. The church has no right to affect state.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!
We've now gone to the topic of religious force/influence on others while scanning almost everyone argument on this board. The original question was answered long ago. Maybe we should stop now and let the thread die.

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

Nope, no-one can prove the non-existence of a god (at least, not as far as I can make out - if there's a staunch atheist around here with a proof, I'd like to hear it!). However, to say "I know that there is not a god, full stop" bears as much weight in the reason department as "I know that there is a god, full stop" coming from you.

Also, I made a slight slip of the tongue above. When I said "the existence of a god" what I really meant was "the existence of God". And while I'm not sure about a god, I can affirm that there is no God.



And so you're as likely to be mistaken as them.



Nah, I don't reckon I can make you believe you don't know God. On the other hand, I don't reckon you can make me believe that you do.



I never said you couldn't argue God's case. I encourage it. Thing is, with that argument you weren't, you were just sweeping the matter away by saying that God exists. Full stop.



I've put the most important part in bold here. Compare: the highest probability (barring assumptions about the reliability of works of fiction) is that Peter Pan will indeed never grow up. But you see, I have an a priori case against the Christian philosophy which overrides any probability of Jesus rising from the dead. And you can't just say "bar X, Y and Z, there's no evidence against this proposition".



Yep, and the reason that it's such an effective mockery is that it's just as plausible as an Invisible God/Allah/Shiva.



Are you a parent, by any chance?



That's a silly quiz. An early question is "Do you believe in God?" and a later question asks "What has God done for you personally?" without allowing for an atheist answer. Tch. (I got 40, by the way. 10 points more and I'd've been in with a chance!)



Following your logic, it seems that no-one can truly say they KNOW that a two-sided rectangle does or does not exist. Or, for that matter, an Invisible Pink Unicorn. (NB that "no god at all exists" is different from "Christian God doesn't exist".)

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

Because we have a realistic view of humanity? Because we actually acknowledge that people have problems? Because we're not willing to buy into an illusion of Utopia when there is no such place? (That's a pun, btw. Utopia = "No Place").


Just because you don't believe it's real doesn't make it any less real. In counseling we call this "denial."

.
Whoever said the universe was relativistic? Or sensical?

First of all, relativism is false anyway. All it takes is for someone to deny it, and the whole theory falls in on itself.

I'm not sure what you mean by sensical. Certainly, there are plenty enough things in this world that don't make sense. Things like lung cancer, crack cocaine, rape, murder, etc.


But that gives you the right to mock our realism? You were the one who challenged our realistic view of the world. You were the one who said he'd rather go to hell than admit that mankind was fallen and in need of a Redeemer. I was merely responding. And, no, I do not consider my response mockery, but an honest answer to your challenge.

It all comes back to this: we Christians recognize that mankind is estranged from God and in need of reconciliation. Christ is the one who reconciles us. Without this reconciliation, there is no hope of a heavenly home, or more precisely, a place in the kingdom of God in the resurrection. That is my answer to the question of this thread.


Here's the flaw in your logic here, Upsilon. Everyone knows (or at least should) that works of fiction are not meant to be taken as reliable. However, in order to claim that miracles cannot or do not occur, you need to be able to prove that with certainty. Just like with what's his names argument against magic, this is only something you can claim from lack of experience. I.e., you can only claim, "I do not believe in miracles," whereas someone who has witnessed one can say, "I witnessed a miracle."

_________________

You can never fully disprove anything, only prove it. Even if you could somehow disprove each individual miracle, there's no way to prove that none could ever happen. But with one doubtless event, it is completely proven.

i am chirstian but im not that great of one i think if your not evil then you go to haven

Doom:

You might want to read THIS POST before drawing that conclusion.

You might also want to remember that Jesus did say, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except by me."

_________________

wouldnt that mean the nicist person could go to hell just cause they follow one way what about gandi

That's what a lot of fundementalist believe. But wether that's right or wrong is not our choice, it's God's when the time comes.

_________________

When your in counseling, and your in denial, chances are your denying something that has been proven and is right in front of you like alcohol abuse or drug abuse. Something that is fact. There is no proof of heaven or hell besides the beleifs or Chrisitans. How can you be in denial to something that isn't proven ?

You deny the fact that God isn't real. Are you in denial ?

The fact is that you cant win an anti-science argument on the grounds of religion and we cant win an anti-religious argument on the grounds of science. Its and never ending argument thats just going to turn bad.

_________________

God is a nice guy all who belive in him belive that if he thought that one path was better then all others then why is hitler so bad, he wanted all that didnt fit his perfect model of a person should go to hell but we all know in our hearts he was evil.

I belive no one at all goes straght to hell, havn't any of you you heard of "gods forgivness" and junk like that I think we all get a second chance.

I dont remember his name but one disiple didn't belive that jesus returned until he saw him then he was forgiven. I think that when you die you see god and he will ask you if you think you deserve to go to heaven and he will know if you are telling the truth.

Your idea is a nice one. It shows that you do care about people who are not of our faith. However, it's only an idea, and not equal to the Scritpures or the teachings of the historic Christian faith.

The Christian faith has always taught and believed that people can only go to heaven (or enjoy the benefits of the Resurrection, if you prefer) because Christ died for them. Jesus' own words are that He is the only way, and that the only way to God is through him, being joined to his death and resurrection through Holy Baptism, and trusting in his Word. Like when he said:

Now, I remember you making a comment earlier about not being a great Christian. That's okay. God doesn't require us to be great Christians. But he does expect us to trust his words. And his words throughout the Scriptures are that our relationship with him is one that can only be built on trust (i.e., that we believe him).

If God does have a way of dealing with good pagans, he has not revealed it, so we are not at liberty to suggest one on our own. However, he has spoken to us about the necessity of trusting his Word. Therefore we can say that if Christ says he is the way, the truth and life, then there is no other way, truth, or life that can help us.

In other words, it's just like Ramrod said, it's God's place to tell us who will and will not be saved, not ours to tell him. We can only speak to what he has revealed to us, which, so far, does not include a way to save those who do not believe.

I don't think any of us actually LIKES the idea of good people suffering an eternity of separation from God. Dante, for example, put the good pagans in Limbo, where at least they weren't being tormented. I don't like the idea of eternal suffering either. But my answer to it isn't to just come up with ideas whereby they COULD be saved, but instead to find ways to reach out to them. My suggestion to you: if you don't want to see good people suffer an eternity apart from God, then introduce them to him. Tell them about Christ. Share your faith with them. That, more than anything else, is why I keep posting on these religion threads.

_________________

well i belive that he meant that he was the only way meaning you need to follow his morals, and what about Jesus, he was jewish, i doubt he's in hell and i can go on with a long list of people that deserve to be in heaven and your acting like all chathlics go to heaven i quite "not all people that call my father lord will enter the kingdom of heaven" if god dose what you say the moral chistians wouldnt go to heaven they would refuse, if this is true i refuse to go to heaven.

besides why hell why must they suffer because they arnt the same , for god sakes i have a good atheist freind, we make fun of the sriptures all the time too i still dont think that ether of us are going to hell

Isn't that basically the principles of Lutheranism? That to get into heaven, one doesn't need to do acts of good, only believe in God?

Not that good works aren't necessary, but that good works don't save. The Bible is very clear that it is God's mercy that saves us, but that this mercy must be received by trust in God mercy. In other words, if you disbelieve God's mercy, then you are still alienated from him and not reconciled. God calls us to be reconciled, and that means to enter into a relationship based on trust. Without trust (what we call faith), there can be no relationship.

And part of that trust is doing what God wants us to do, i.e., good works. So a person who does not do good works is merely proving that they do not trust God.

Doom, I'd love to answer your question. Really I would. But without grammar and punctuation, I can't understand a word you're saying. Could you please type in such a way that I can understand what you're trying to communicate?

_________________

Well, I'll have to answer this question by saying that since I am a strong Athiest, I do not believe in Heaven or Hell. So, nobody is going to Heaven or Hell. We die when we die, and nothing happens afterward.

That's my opinion.

Wow. That's more uneventful than the ending to Halo 2.

Oh, well. You know what they say...opinions are like elbows...everyone's got a couple. And to make things interesting, you need to have at least 4.

Doom:

I will make the best attempt I can to decipher your post.


Here a little bit of Scripture study on your part would be helpful. Jesus was not talking about morals at all, but about himself. Read what Jesus says about himself in John:

When Jesus speaks of faith, he is referring to himself as the object of that faith, not his morals. Why? Because it is through his sacrificial death and resurrection that we are brought to God, not through doing good deeds.


What's being Jewish have to do with anything? We're talking about faith in Christ, not being Jewish. Being Jewish has nothing to do with anything in this; according to Jesus it is faith in himself that matters. All the earliest Christians were Jewish. The Apostles were Jewish. And yes, Jesus himself was Jewish. But the key factor was faith in Jesus, not being Jewish.


I really hate to put it this abruptly, but I'm not really concerned about who you think deserves to go to heaven. As Ramrod stated above, that decision is God's alone. We do not have the right to tell him who we think deserves it or not. What's more, if you had read THIS POST (click here), you'd understand why I don't believe ANYONE deserves it, not even Christians.


What the crap is a chathlic? I never heard of such a thing. I reiterate my previous point: things like Grammar, Spelling, and Punctuation do matter.


Actually, you misquoted that. It's:

I bring this up because I wanted to point out that Jesus was again referring to himself, and not just to the Father. That's important. But you are right. Not everyone who calls him Lord will enter his kingdom. Those who are Christ's DISCIPLES will, not those who simply offer God lip service, but only those who follow the way of the Cross.


Moral Christians follow the way of the Cross and do not presume to tell the Creator how to run his universe. Moral Christians recognize that God is in charge and are thankful for his mercy. Moral Christians prefer to boycott hell rather than heaven, and they do so by sharing their faith.

And who says that God is the one who is responsible for people going to hell? Hasn't it dawned on you yet that people send themselves to hell? How? By refusing to be reconciled with their Creator through his Son. Blaming God for being holy and just doesn't change the fact that some people will not receive his mercy because of their own stubborness.


Funny you should mention that. I'd bet the vast majority of people in hell also never thought they would end up there.

So back to the topic: As stated in THIS POST (click here), no one deserves heaven. It can only be given or received as a free gift. Jesus Christ is the only one qualified to offer us that gift. If we refuse it, then we remain outside of God's will, and if we die in that unreconciled state, we end up in hell. We Christians, however, recognize our need for Christ's mercy and thankfully accept it. We also do good works in gratitude for his mercy, not to earn it. We also try to share this gift with others.

Doom. While I appreciate your perspective, I would suggest you get yourself involved in a church that teaches the Scriptures and learn what Jesus actually says about faith in him. What's more, I'd suggest you tone up your Grammar, Spelling, and Punctuation so people can actually understand what you're trying to say without having to dissect it. Finally, I would suggest that if you actually use Scripture in your replies. The only Scripture I've seen you use was a passage you misquoted. You're not likely to convince any serious Bible scholar unless you do some homework.

_________________

sorry about the grammer i write these in a hurry

[quote=I don't think any of us actually LIKES the idea of good people suffering an eternity of separation from God. Dante, for example, put the good pagans in Limbo, where at least they weren't being tormented. I don't like the idea of eternal suffering either. But my answer to it isn't to just come up with ideas whereby they COULD be saved, but instead to find ways to reach out to them. My suggestion to you: if you don't want to see good people suffer an eternity apart from God, then introduce them to him. Tell them about Christ. Share your faith with them. That, more than anything else, is why I keep posting on these religion threads.[/quote]


i belive that we should let people belive in what they belive in becuase maybe THERE the correct ones how are WE so sure and they deserve to go to heaven or there acuvalent to it

if god wanted all non-christians to go to hell wouldnt he just burtualy kil them all, that dosnt sound like him now dose it?

the more i think your wright the more i dis-like god

Could be, but to me, that's not a very good definition of faith for us, then, if we operate by this kind of doubt. There's an inherent contradiction in what you say here: "I trust Jesus, but I don't believe him when he says he's the Way, the Truth, and the Life."


I don't think God wants people to go to hell. But I also don't think he's going to force people into a relationship they don't want, either. As C. S. Lewis put it, there are two kinds of people in this world: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "Thy will be done." Hell is the final mercy God shows to those who will accept no other from him, that is, he lets them go their own way; he let's them have what they want, an eternal existence without him.


Again, I must caution you: hell is not God's fault, but people's. If people refuse to be reconciled to him, you can't blame him for it. In any case, being that you are not equal to God, I would suggest you not try to judge him. Hell is the natural consequence of people not being reconciled to God. God has already done more than enough to rescue people from hell: He sent prophets to warn them. He gave his Law so that people might know right from wrong. He gave his Word so that people might come to know him. He sent his Son to mediate for them, and to reconcile them through his death and resurrection. After all this, if people still refuse to be reconciled to God, it's their fault, not God's.

_________________

I'm not going to dispute your point about miracles, since that's not what I was taking issue with. But a priori theories about miracles are by no means the only thing that brings down the Bible. As I said in my last post, it's my logical case against Christian doctrine that cancels out the Bible's reliability.



You're falling into the same logical traps again. First, you claim that Hell is not God's fault and but ours. But it is God's fault if he's the one who made it so. (I also think that saying that all humans deserve Hell because two people a few thousand years ago disobeyed God is questionable.)

And you use the word "refused" as if it's a simple choice of accepting God or going to Hell. It's not; it's a question of whether or not you believe. And if you don't believe, you can't refuse.

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

You do realize that a priori means that your assumption is not based on logic, don't you? The fact that it is an a priori assumption which you then use to "disprove" the Bible is indicative of the circular nature of your argumentation. That is why your logic is flawed. All I have to do is introduce the mere POSSIBILITY of a miracle and your argument falls apart.


God did not create humanity for the purpose of watching them fall. Mankind chose freely to sin; God did not force them. Your argument is like saying, "The reason I kill people is because I grew up in a poor neighborhood. I blame society." If a criminal goes to jail for theft, you don't blame the victim for the crime.

You're not even paying attention to what I'm saying. My point is ontological, not merely legal. Maybe it is unfair that people go to hell, and that that's simply the way it is. But when people refuse to remain unreconciled to God, that is the condition in which they remain. Hell is just the natural consequence. A father might love his son, but if the son runs away and refuses to come home, then the son might still die on the streets. Is that the father's fault? Not if he truly loved his son and wished it otherwise, and did everything in his power to prevent it, just as God has done with us.

Unless, that is, you are proposing that God is obligated to FORCE people to repent and be reconciled. Is that what you are proposing? That God coerce people into believing? That's funny, because I'm pretty sure if it were a Crusader, an Inquisitor, or a Jihad terrorist, you'd probably object to it.


Maybe you're right about the part of it not being a simple choice. However, in the business world, if you believe a certain product or service is not worth what you're expected to pay for it, it's the same as refusing that product or service. The same is true with faith. If you do not believe God, then it's the same as refusing to trust him. Doesn't matter why you don't believe, only that you don't. And because you do not believe, you end up missing out on the benefits and suffering the consequences.

Upsilon, the very fact that you argue against God this way is refusal to trust him.

_________________

I must say you have good points but why would god create all these different types of people and let them live if all he wants us to do is bow down to him, your making god seem like a dictatior of sorts, I dont think anyone know for sure why we are here but I doubt that its so god can make us parise him, I belive that all god wants is for us to create peace, respect each other, and to live good lives but remeber that I belive in this it dosnt mean what I think it should be.

You brought up that we should not tell god what to do but if what you say is true, that the most innocent of people go to hell because they dont respect his all holy greatness I would tell him what to do because the number one thing I hate is treating someone horribly because they dont fit a sertin idea of perfect.

If we ant the correct religion then maybe we will be eaten by a lion/hippo/croc (ancent eygption bellif) you wouldnt want to think about that accperiance now would you