Eternal Hell

[amortalman]

I have two questions primarily for Christians.

1) If your brand of religion teaches that unbelievers will be judged by God and cast into Hell and the Lake of Fire for eternity to suffer there with no possibility of death or escape, is this action by God a just punishment, and why?

2) The second question is purely hypothetical and reaches way out there. If your God gave you permission to do as you please concerning eternal Hell, to keep it, or to abolish it in favor of, say, annihilation, would you keep it or do away with it?

NOTE: In regards to question number one I'm thinking about the story told by Jesus of the rich man and Lazarus found in Luke chapter 16. The Lake of Fire is mentioned in Revelation 20:10-15 and 21:8.

To me, an eternity of suffering in Hell defies logic and any sense of compassion what-so-ever. During my years as a Christian in an evangelical church, I've heard many preachers preface a sermon on Hell by saying they don't like to talk about it and don't like the concept of it but they must preach it because that's what the Bible teaches. I was once a part of a Biblical teaching program for children 2nd through 6th grade. I can only imagine the nightmares some of them had after being told that without Jesus they would go to Hell forever. Someone might argue that it's better that than to go to Hell. But does the fear tactic really work, and if it does, is that the best way, to scare the hell out of them?

In my understanding of the Bible, and what is being taught to millions of people in evangelical churches around the world, there are two kinds of people who will be cast into Hell. Those who have never heard the gospel and those how have rejected the gospel after having heard it. According to that teaching, there are countless millions of poor souls being tormented in Hell right now because they never had an opportunity to hear about Christ. Furthermore, there are hundreds if not thousands that are dying every day and going to Hell for lack of an opportunity to decide. Is that just?

Finally, I'm hopeful that the second question will cut to the Christians heart concerning the doctrine of Hell and reveal the insanity of it. To me, someone who would keep Hell if given the chance to abolish it is a Sadist of the worse kind. But then again, if a Christian says that he would do away with Hell is he demonstrating that he is more merciful than God?

What say you?

[shnarkle]

And my contention is that they would rather spend eternity with God in heaven than eternity burning alive in hell once they see the truth of them both. We're going round and round on this and it has nothing to do with the debate question.

It is more of an assumption rather than a contention. People are creatures of habit. If we were to assume that all of those Christians with this belief are correct, would you want to spend eternity with them? The reason I ask is because it doesn't seem to me that you want to spend any more time with them now. I could be wrong here, perhaps you still go to church and spend time with them anyways. I say this because even though I don't believe in much of this stuff myself, I still go to many of these churches because the production value of their services rival that of a some of the better shows in Las Vegas.

Jesus says the same thing. He tells the story of the man preparing the feast and inviting all of his friends, but they all decline his invitation. He then tells his servents to invite perfect strangers off the street in, and some of them can't even be bothered to get dressed up for the occasion. Nobody has a clue what's going on. We're all raving lunatics. We don't have enough sense to take off the grubby dirty clothes we've been working all day mucking out the horse manure, get a shower, and get dressed up for a feast.

The way I see it Jesus wasn't saying the same thing at all. If you had furnished the biblical reference for that story then we could all see that you got the story wrong. So wrong that it fails miserably to support your concluding statement.

I don't see what furnishing the biblical reference has to do with anything other than giving people a biblical page reference. Jesus didn't give any biblical references to his parable so what difference should it make? Anyone can google it to find the biblical reference if they're that interested. If this parable failed to make my point, then it's up to you to prove this, not me.

It's the interpretation of countless seminary professors and others who have used the principles of hermeneutics to interpret the Bible.[/b]

Countless numbers of people who are clearly mistaken. I've just pointed out the error of your argument, and all you can do is to point out that other people disagree?

Your statement above beginning with, "The story isn't meant to be read as if this rich man..." is a dogmatic statement. To claim that it's not dogmatic you would have to prove that your interpretation of the passage is the right one above all others and you can't do that. There isn't much argument about what is written in the Bible, but there's a hell of a lot of argument about what it means.

I usually hesitate to state the obvious because people tend to take offence. It's as if I'm insulting their intelligence by referring to the text itself. So I tend to just assume that they are familiar with the text. Evidently this isn't the case so I will provide the text itself instead of making false assumptions.

Here is the context leading up to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

Where do you think the Pharisees fit into that equation? Do you think Jesus is casting them as just servants? If so, where are you getting this idea from?

11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?

They really have no authority whatsoever in God's eyes. They can't even be trusted to present false doctrines effectively.

12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?

The oracles of God are meant for all of humanity. They are to be the city set upon a hill so that all can see. The light is not supposed to be hid beneath a bushel.

13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Jesus is not commending the Pharisees for being servants of God alone. He is judging them for being servants to mammon. How do we know this? Because the text tells us that they objected to this teaching of Jesus and mocked him. They could see his popularity and how easily what they were teaching was being discarded and quite suddenly ignored.

14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

Notice that this is explicitly pointing out that not only are Jesus' words being directed specifically to the Pharisees, but that they understand this fact, and are responding to his words as well. Again, there should be no mistake that he is directing his teachings to the Pharisees, and by extension all Pharisees. So, from that perspective if you came from a Pharisaic form of Christianity, I can see how you might see this as a teaching directed towards your denomination. However, the fact that this particular denomination isn't contemptuous nor compelled to deride Jesus' words indicates that they didn't get what was going on in the first place. Context is key here. Notice what he says next to these Pharisees:

15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Notice that he is distinguishing between what God teaches and what they are teaching.

16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Notice that even though Jesus has come to call Israel to repentance for their sins. He includes "all men" that are pressing into the kingdom.

18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,...etc.

Here are their teachings beginning with their doctrine on allowing adultery followed by his parable of the rich man. Again, you need to look at the text as it plainly states that he is addressing the Pharisees. They know who the rich man is in Jesus' parable. They know the rich man represents them.

The structure of this section also confirms the meaning.
Here it is:
Luke 16:15-31
Address to the Pharisees (Alternation)
A.(15) What the Pharisees esteemed (God's abomination)
B.(16,17) The Law and the Prophets. Proclaimed
A.(18-30) What the Pharisees taught. (God's abomination)
B.(31) Moses and the Prophets. Not believed.

Me:
Not at all. According to what I (and millions of others) have learned and been taught the rich man and all the other wicked dead will be removed from the temporary hell at the final judgment.

There is nothing in the text that indicates some doctrine of a "temporary hell", especially when one considers that even the false doctrine taught by the Pharisees doesn't admit to this. The underlying assumptions of these people are clearly false.

I think we've muddied these waters too much already, don't you?

Beginning with this doctrine of a temporary hell, and proceeding to teach a doctrine that was taught by the Pharisees which they learned, not from their own texts; but from their sojourn in Babylon.

If death were swallowed up first, then perhaps we could conclude that anyone that jumped in afterwards would perhaps be tortured forever since death was dead and gone.

Again, you're making statements as if only your interpretation is the right one.

My statements are based on simple logic. If death and the grave are done away with, then there can be no more death or place for the dead to be placed. However, even then if we are to take this theory seriously, the lake of fire doesn't negate of end death at all. There really is no such thing as death at all. There is only eternal life in joy or pain. So this theory redefines death to mean eternal life. This isn't much of a defense when one has to redefine words to fit one's doctrines.

You cannot furnish conclusive proof that your's is the ultimate truth,

I'm not providing anyone with ultimate truth. I'm simply providing arguments to back up my position.

All the rest of the debating I've been doing with you is to try, unsuccessfully so far, to show you what THEY believe. [/b]

Well, I can only suggest that you give up because I fully understand what they believe. I'm not disputing what they believe in the first place. I only show that their assumptions are false, and show why they are false to let you know what my position is when I answer this question. I'm not answering the question from my perspective, but from theirs. You are conflating the two. I'm just pointing out some simple facts which you are confusing with my answer to your question.

That's interesting about the devil being turned into ashes. I know you won't mind furnishing the scripture that backs that up. I could have missed it so I'd like to see it.

Sure, it's from Ezekiel 28:

You [d]had the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13
You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The ruby, the topaz and the diamond;
The beryl, the onyx and the jasper;
The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald;
And the gold, the workmanship of your [e]settings and [f]sockets,
Was in you.
On the day that you were created
They were prepared.
14
You were the anointed cherub who [g]covers,
And I placed you there.
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.
15
You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.
16
By the abundance of your trade
[h]You were internally filled with violence,
And you sinned;
Therefore I have cast you as profane
From the mountain of God.
And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the stones of fire.
17
Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor.
I cast you to the ground;
I put you before kings,
That they may see you.
18
By the multitude of your iniquities,
In the unrighteousness of your trade
You profaned your sanctuaries.
Therefore I have brought fire from the midst of you;
It has consumed you,
And I have turned you to ashes on the earth
In the eyes of all who see you.
19
All who know you among the peoples
Are appalled at you;
You have become [j]terrified
And you will cease to be forever.

In case you were unaware of this all Baptists believe that this refers to Satan. Pretty much all mainstream Christian denominations believe this refers to Satan, the devil.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 309 by shnarkle]



[center]

The misplaced burden of the proof[/center]

If this parable failed to make my point, then it's up to you to prove this, not me.

If someone is trying to make a case for something, it's up to that person to convince people, and NOT the other way around.

It's not up to them...

If I haven't convinced someone, I just haven't proved my case.
It's not then up to them to prove me wrong.
[center]
Attempting to shift the burden of the proof is just a big honking logical mistake.
[/center]

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 284 by amortalman]

Then they are mistaken because that is not what the Bible says. I suspect they stop short of Revelation 20 and 21.

No, I'm pretty sure they read 20 and 21. It's just that they came to a different conclusion than the one you came to.

That's one reason I don't believe the Bible is inspired (literally God-breathed).

There are just too many interpretations of what is written there. How are we to know which one is the correct one?

...

In light of this, no one should claim definitively that their interpretation is the correct one. The only legitimate claim is that IN THEIR OPINION theirs is the correct one. See what I mean?

But rather than denigrate the Bible for our deficiency in interpreting it in truth, many Christians turn from such problems and seek GOD's leading personally: Proverbs 3:5 Trust have faith in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
and
Proverbs 22:19
So that your trust may be in the LORD, I have taught you today, even you.

which puts faith above understanding, especially the faith of stepping out and choosing an interpretation and a Church to associate with. Christians do not perseverate upon needing such proofs as you ask for here to make up our minds, For we live by faith, not by sight / proof. 2 Corinthians 5:7 so the answer to a need for Spiritual input into your life would be - which interpretation do you hope is the best for your happiness? Left, right, center, none? That is how we run our secular lives (investments, retirement savings, working for the family and not necessarily the self etc) anyway so it is no big leap to apply hope to Spiritual things.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 281 by amortalman]

Again, you need to take your argument to those who believe such things, not me. I'm not supporting their claims. I'm arguing within the context of what they believe.

So am I.

I'm not suggesting that the question is invalid. I'm simply pointing out some of the ramifications of this question that you may not have considered.

Whether or not I considered the ramifications is immaterial. The ones I posed the question to might need to consider the ramifications of what they're believing.

The question was meant to try to get those Christians to THINK about what they're believing instead of sweeping the troubling issue of hell aside and hide their heads in the sand.

So why do you have a problem with my replies when that's precisely what I'm doing??? The fact that you presented the question is precisely why I'm responding to YOUR questions.

You're dealing with complicated psychological issues. But to say that misery-lovers exist with no extenuating circumstances to explain it and that these same people would choose a fiery eternal hell over comfort in heaven is beyond ridiculous and I think you know it.[/b]

Far from it. I've heard countless people say things like: "If that's what heaven is supposed to be then I'll choose to spend an eternity in hell', or "If he's going to be in heaven, then I'd rather spend eternity in hell". etc.

Why wasn't it taught by Moses or the prophets?

It was taught by the prophets, and others in scripture.

An eternal hell with fire for the condemned was not taught. If it was you'll have to show me.

You're making my point for me. Nowhere in scripture is eternal hell fire taught because it was brought with them from the Babylonian captivity. Where the dead go is taught in the old testament, and it is quite explicitly stated as I've already documented.

Jesus, as I have already pointed out; is condemning the Pharisees for their false teachings. He's placing them right into their false teachings, and pointing out that they have effectively condemned themselves by their own behavior and judgements.

The point is that Jesus doesn't teach anything new about death and the afterlife except as it relates to the gospel message, and this doesn't contribute to the gospel except insofar as it shows how not to live; i.e. being a miser with the gifts God gives.

Even if that is true it is totally irrelevant to the topic of the OP. [/quote]

Not when one considers that hiding God's gifts is unforgiveable, and results in death forever. We're still dealing with the consequences of one's actions. Some people look at it as eternal torment while others just see it as eternal separation from God. Either way, however one chooses to interpret these observations doesn't negate that there are consequences for one's actions. You don't like the consequences outlined by some denominations. I'm pointing out that these are some of the things that are an integral part of the context YOU cited, AND are what lead directly to those consequences. Claiming that this is totally irrelevant doesn't make it so. I've just shown that your claim is baseless.

In that case, no one goes to hell,

Nope. All bodies are made from dirt and go to the grave i.e. "hell", Greek "Hades" which is translated from the Hebrew "Sheol" which is "the grave".

everyone goes to heaven

Nope, just the spirit that animated their bodies for their entire physical existence. This is true for anything that is alive. The spirit is not the person, but what animates people, animals, plants etc.

No one goes anywhere when they die. Their body goes into the ground and "knows nothing". The spirt that animated their bodies goes back to God. Their spirit is not their soul. The soul is the combination of the spirit and the body. When the spirit leaves the body, the soul cease to exist. The body returns to dirt.

[/quote]Ok, that's plausible for those who believe in God and the Bible, but it's only one interpretation of the scriptures. [/quote]

Not really. It's what the text states. The texts are consistent with this throughout the bible. This isn't really a personal interpretation. If there are competing theories, they require doctrines for support.

When you are "pointing out a few facts from the text" as the only viable interpretation you're claiming authority. Simply saying what the text does not help your argument any because ten people can have ten different opinions on what the text MEANS. You might point out what the text says, but the conclusions you draw from it are not necessarily the correct ones, no? Except maybe in your own mind.

People's opinions and interpretations may vary. There's no disputing that. The point I'm making is based on the texts while you aren't supporting much of anything other than the fact that others have differing opinions and interpretations. Supply one that refutes mine, and we can go from there. Otherwise, you aren't advancing the discussion. A competing theory or interpretation needs to be logically consistent. I've just pointed out that what you're presenting isn't logically consistent. To then point out that other people believe this and what I present is different doesn't refute what I'm presenting. Claiming what I'm presenting is or isn't authoritative is still just a claim on your part.

There is nothing in the definition or usage of the figure Parable that requires names be used or excluded from the figure. This is a non sequitur.

Me:

An equal argument can be made that your position is a non sequitur.

I doubt it, not without redefining the definition of the figure, or making up some arbitrary rule like "no names can be used in the figure Parable".

You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say it was a rule.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I pointed out the usage and definition of the figure Parable. These are the rules that govern how one discerns that the figure is being used in the first place. YOU said that an equal argument can be made against this. That would be making up your own rules for the figure. So you are the one who is stating that one can have this rule.

I said that, within the context of the scriptures involved, there are justifiable reasons why some do believe it.

And I pointed out that this isn't possible without redefining the definition of the figure.

I gave reference to an article that points to plausible reasons why many do not believe this is a parable. For one, Jesus did not say it was a parable.

The text also doesn't state it as a parable either. Again, this isn't a requirement . You are simply referring to people who are making up arbitrary rules for this figure that don't exist. There are a few examples of the text stating that Jesus spoke a parable, but I don't think there are any examples of the text stating that Jesus declared he was going to speak a parable. It's pretty obvious that he's teaching them with parables. It's also explicitly stated that Jesus intentionally used parables so that they WOULDN'T understand. In this case, the Pharisees got the message loud and clear and the rest of Christendom had it go right over their head.

Also, in this story alone he used the name of a person, not in his other parables. Those are just two reasons why many Christians think this is not a parable. With that said, one could argue that they're just making the story fit their doctrine. Could you not be doing the same thing?

No. I'm pointing out that the text itself defines its meaning. There is a much larger structure that shows all of the parables Jesus taught in this section of Luke's gospel go together and are mirroring the miracles that occurred earlier. There are a string of parables taught, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this story isn't part of those parables, especially given that it just doesn't fit anywhere else in the structure of the gospel as a whole.

All my arguments are within the framework of what evangelicals believe.
But what you're really doing in this whole debate is saying to them, you're wrong, and since you're wrong no one can ask you to defend what you believe and nobody can use what you believe in order to engage in a debate with you.

You're making a pretty serious straw man argument. All you have to do is address what I've presented and refute it. You haven't done anything close to that so instead you just present my arguments as if they haven't been defended. This is blatantly false. The fact that you can't refute them doesn't negate that you can't refute them. It shows that you can't refute them. This isn't a problem with my argument. It's a problem with your ability to refute my arguments.

Sorry, but the definition and usage of the figure is the only legitimate view. What people invent to support their fabricated theology isn't legitimate.

Don't you mean that your interpretation of that story is the only legitimate view? I'm sure there are a few hundred biblical scholars that would beg to differ!

Nope. I'm not presenting a different interpretation from the definition and usage of the figure. Those who you are referring to are the ones who are injecting their own observations into the figure's definition. This should be obvious.

A lifetime of suffering on earth is completely logical if you believe what science has shown, that life came about by natural selection and gene mutation. Suffering is then understood to be the natural consequences of living on this planet among often hostile inhabitants of all kinds, including viruses and germs, not to mention violent weather, earthquakes, etc.

A natural consequence of idiots, and the feeble minded.

So now you're resorting to ad hominem statements.

Not at all. If you're now going to claim that you don't have enough sense to take cover during an earthquake or electrical storm, that doesn't count as an ad hominem when it is claimed after the fact. If you don't have enough sense to wash your hands after you've come in contact with blood, dead rotting flesh, black mold etc. then the fact that this revelation was made after I made my comment cannot be used retroactively to claim I'm making ad hominem statements.

The ironic thing is that this work of fiction deals with your viruses and germs quite effectively. The text even suggests that you perform a scientific experiment to see for yourself.

[/quote]In what way does the Bible deal with viruses and germs? Where are they mentioned? By "the text" I assume you mean the Bible. So, where in the Bible does it say that we perform a scientific experiment?[/quote]

The text repeatedly points out numerous situations(e.g. blood, corpses, leprosy, molds, sexual intercourse, birth, defecating, etc.) where viruses and germs can be a problem and recommends washing as well as quarantine in some more extreme cases.

When Moses is about to leave them, they have a big ceremony where they list the blessings and curses associated with obeying and ignoring God's instructions. God plainly tells them that to follow his instructions results in blessings while ignoring them results in curses. Beyond this God offers no explanation whatsoever. They just simply believe what he says, or not.

Prior to this, when they were first given the commandments, God also requests that they all come to him so that he may "prove" them. It is a "learn by doing" system. You follow his instructions and you then get to see how well it works out. Christians don't believe in any of this so don't feel bad that you missed it.

Science took a few thousand years to figure it out for itself because it wasn't into looking at mythologies, regardless of whether they contained easily reproducible results.

Oh. Well, that explains everything.

Somehow I suspect that it doesn't. What it explains is that Science isn't really into discovering the truth wherever it may lead. Science is more about dethroning previous gods. Ignoring them works well enough in most cases.

Science has shown that it is now attempting to become the new and improved religion on the block complete with high priests, and a laity exercising blind faith in all their orthodox pronouncements. Believers from all denominations are easily deceived.

Science and the scientific method couldn't care less about religion, much less in becoming one. All true science has ever been interested in is finding the truth, and if the truths they find upset those who believe in myth and legend and the ancient writings of a nomadic people, well, that's the price it pays for progress.

History, as I've shown repeatedly disagrees. Science can't be bothered to investigate what mythologies present because so-called scientists have already made up their minds that the observations made by iron age goatherds is worthless. Scientists paid a high price for this willful ignorance. They also prevented a lot of people who blindly follow them, their lives as well; the Black Death being a prime example. To add insult to injury, people blamed Jews because they had enough sense to wash, and quarantine themselves to prevent the spread of disease. Jewish doctors washed their hands when they came in contact with a dead body, when they delivered Jewish babies. The Christian and secular masses didn't see any reason to do this. When reason tries to trump common sense it usually loses.

High priests? You can't use the analogy of religious structures to science. Well, maybe you can in your mind. Blind faith? Is it blind faith to believe that the Polio vaccine will prevent Polio?

I've got a friend in the hospital right now who got the polio vaccine and got polio anyways. It is blind faith to believe what scientists say without question. When people ridicule others for asking questions, then they no longer deserve to be even considered proponents of science in the first place.

Is it blind faith to take an aspirin for a headache? Many Christians have no trouble enjoying the millions of benefits of science, but balk when science interferes with their precious traditions.

Why should science interfere with religious traditions? Interfering with religious traditions looks like a good way to overthrow those religious traditions, which as I've pointed out earlier seems to be what scientists are interested in doing.

But if one believes that God created us (making him responsible for us) and loves us and is full of compassion and kindness, then the terrible suffering of people including children and animals becomes a huge issue to try to justify.

They don't seem to be lacking any defenders for their faith.[/quote]

True. But as science advances, I think it will dispell more and more of the ridiculous claims (in my opinion) of a supernational god to explain things.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Once again, you're making my points for me. Science is blatantly attempting to usurp the role of religion. It is admitting to it's desire to dethrone religion.

Science has always bravely pushed itself forward against ignorance and superstition and I suspect it will continue to do so.

I suspect it will as well. You're personifying Science just like those iron age goatherds did with their gods. Personification is routinely used in most mythologies, and a great way to show the power of their gods. Yours is no different, and your posts illustrate this better than any of my claims ever could.

the Bible portrays God as merciful and compassionate. By definition God is love. "God loves the little children of the world." Yet, throughout history...

Wait. You said this was fiction, right? Since when does fiction depict historical events?

Who said it did? Not me. Let me paste here what I said:

Me:
Yet, throughout history...

There it is again. "history". See it? The bible is a work of fiction, by your own admission, so why do you think a fictional character is responsible for actual real historical events like floods, earthquakes etc.?

...children have suffered horrible abuses and the suffering that comes from earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanoes, storms - all the things referred to as "acts of God."
As you should have been able to see, I was stating events that are independent and outside of the Bible. No fiction there.

Yep, and as I pointed out a fictional god cannot be responsible for actual events outside that fictional setting. You're still confusing fictional characters with reality.

I was, as always, arguing a point within the context of what the Bible teaches, not what I believe. It is perfectly legitimate to say that Atticus Finch successfully defended a black man accused of raping a white woman in the book and movie To Kill a Mockingbird. Yet it was all fiction.

Yep, and I will make the same claim with this example as well. You cannot suppose that Atticus Finch will be able to actually defend real people in an actual courtroom. He is a fictional character.

If evolution created...

You're conflating your terms. Creation is what a Creator creates. Evolution doesn't create anything. There is no creation in evolution. Evolution cannot create anything.

Got me on that one! I should have said that evolution produced...

Nope, you're still not getting it. Evolution produces nothing. The theory of Evolution presents a process. It has never shown anything to be produced or created. It shows the origin of nothing. When it gets to the oldest of any species, it shows something that is already formed. It cannot produce anything fully formed. Creation makes that claim, not evolution.

Quote:
What's so different about natural selection and gene mutation and a god that "elects" those who he decides are more suitable for life? Perhaps he uses the exact same mechanism to decide which would make your accusations seem a bit unwarranted.

Me:
Why do you propose that God used evolution to create us?

Not necessarily. I'm just pointing out that the texts are similar in their framework.[/quote]

If one is going to believe that God worked in evolution then one needs to toss Genesis 1 out of the Bible.

I'm not talking or referring to belief. If you're going to discard religious beliefs, then I suggest you discard your beliefs; starting with the word itself.

That's not what Genesis teaches, in my opinion, and that of most Christendom.

Well, we're dealing with apples and oranges. Creation deals with the origin of the universe, life etc. whereas Evolution deals with a process, a "mechanism" of evolution. Even though Darwin titles his book, "The Origin of Species", he doesn't find or deal with the origin of anything whatsoever.[/quote]

No, because he was only dealing with the origin of species.

You are misinformed. I suggest you read his book. He discovers the origin of no species whatsoever. The title is a misnomer.

As far as I know, science only deals with ideas and theories using the scientific method.

You'll have to explain what you're talking about here. How does one observe or reproduce or falsify an idea? There are a lot of ideas and theories floating around now that are unproven, unfalsifiable, and they are being taken seriously by the mainstream public as if they're facts. Why? Because all the media has to do is start their reports with: "Scientists say...etc", or "Scientists are now beginning to see from their oracular devices such and such which indicates to them blah, blah, blah. etc".

Science isn't interested in trying to prove whether God exists or doesn't exist.

Well, it shouldn't be, but as you've already admitted, this isn't the case at all. Here's what you just posted:

But as science advances, I think it will dispell more and more of the ridiculous claims (in my opinion) of a supernational god to explain things.

Quote:
Why not just say that this whole process is unjustified without some god?

Me:
Because that's not what I believe and it's not what science teaches.

So science justifies human suffering, torture, rape, genocide, wars, pestilence etc.? How is that different from what this fictional deity does?[/quote]
No, science does not justify, it explains.

Saying that there is no explanation isn't much of an explanation.

In ancient times people didn't have the science we have today.

Sure they did, they called it religion. Science is no different. Science looks at the world around us and attempts to explain what's going on as best they can. Science creates it's own mythologies as a framework to understand the world around us. These frameworks are referred to as theories or hypotheses.[/quote]

Look at what you're saying. You just said that ancient people had the science we have today. So, could they extract DNA back then?

Evidently they could. Scientists have known for quite some time that human dna has been tampered with. The chromosomes don't match up like they're supposed to. Monkeys, Apes, pigs, etc. all have matching chromosomes, but human beings chromosomes don't math up completely; they've been spliced. This wasn't something that just happened recently either. Nobody seems to know why, yet this doesn't negate the fact that we all have a spliced chromosome. Spliced should never be confused with a mutation either. This isn't a mutation.

I don't know what country you live in but in the USA there are restrictions on abortion and they vary from state to state. So in the USA, a woman does not have the right to abort her child for no reason whatsoever.

Parental consent has become a joke, a short waiting period of a day or so isn't much of a restriction either. The bottom line is that if a woman comes in and isn't being coerced against her will to obtain an abortion, she will have no problem getting one.

IF the God of the Bible created this world and all living things...

What are you on about? The god of the bible is a work of fiction. He is the product of a lot of different authors imaginations. He didn't actually create anything in our world. You need to keep this straight in your head. You need to keep the two separate.

Covered this already.

Evidently not enough for you to see that fictional characters aren't real and have no influence over real events, e.g. earthquakes, floods, typhoons, hurricanes, lunar eclipses etc.

then, yes, HE can do as he pleases with it and us, including allowing the unnecessary suffering of children and animals and tossing the majority his creation in the burning hell when he's through with it.
For the record, I'm totally against abortion except in certain cases. And here again, you've stated your opinion on that subject as if it was a universal truth.

I did no such thing. You've taken leave of your senses. I'm merely pointing out legal distinctions and comparing them to the text.

Ouch! A shot below the belt. You could get a warning from the moderator for that. But you should know that, right? You said nothing about pointing out legal distinctions in your response.

I certainly did make that clear. I'm not making any claims to universal truths. In fact, I'm pointing to the fact that there are no universal truths at all. How could you miss that? How do you come to the conclusion that I'm making claims to universal truths when I'm actually making the exact opposite claim? Legal distinctions are not universal truths. The fact that a fictional god doesn't actually exist is also a point I made showing that there are no universal truths, or objective standards for right and wrong, or morality.

some people don't believe that an unborn child is the private property of the woman carrying it. Private property of human beings went out with slavery.

Sorry, but according to the laws of this country, a woman's body is her own personal property. She is entitled to do with it as she pleases and that includes having an abortion.

But here's something you never hear about. What are the rights of the father of the child? It takes two to make a baby.

Sometimes it takes half a dozen. Sometimes it takes a sperm doner, but if he wants to make a decision, he needs to make it before he decides to place is DNA in the care of someone who has complete control over how that DNA is handled.

Did you think I would agree with you on that subject? Is that why you put it out as a given? To many millions of women and men, the life of an unborn child is precious and should be protected by a civilized society.

Why? What does that have to do with a civilized society? Are you suggesting that the society we live in is uncivilized because we abort a million babies a year? What's so uncivilized about that?

No, what I'm saying that it's an uncivilized practice. Since when is it civilized to kill millions of a society's children?
Since when is an unborn child precious? To whom? You? Don't make me laugh.

That comment isn't only disrespectful but it calls my character into question.

I'm not calling your character into question at all. I'm engaging in debate and pointing out that you aren't making logically consistent remarks. Killing people isn't moral or immoral. It isn't civilized or uncivilized. It simply doesn't matter anymore than the life of some bug that gets squashed when it impacts your windshield at 70 mph.

Unless you can explain the purpose of existence, there is no such thing as objective morality. There is no reason for any of this.

I don't have to be an authority to know what's precious to me.

So what? What's precious to you doesn't matter to society as a whole. You can believe that the cockroaches creeping around in your walls are precious, and nobody is going to care about that either.

Yeah, and the mob ruled in Nazi Germany, too.

Again, so what? I'm not making any distinctions here; you are for some unknown reason. Why don't you explain just what your position has to do with any of this. What we're doing in this country is no different than what the rulers of Nazi Germany did. You bring them up as if what they did was a bad thing. How can that be when they were just doing what they felt was right? That's the only morality we have; the mob's morality. They killed their undesirables, and we do the same thing; so what?

Quote:

If we're dealing with an infinitely just, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, wise deity here, then a perfect human being who does one thing wrong, even if it's forgetting to say 'hello' to someone in passing is practically as evil as a Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot in relation to God. In other words, you're in no position to pass judgment on a God like that. it would be like telling us that you completely understood quantum physics and string theory when you were four years old.

Me:
But we're not dealing with an infinitely just, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, wise deity here. We're dealing with a fictional character and that gives me the right to pass judgment on him.

You do realize that you're passing judgement on a fictional character, don't you? You can't pass judgment on fictional characters; they're not real in the first place.[/quote]

Within the context, I can make a judgment call. To use the same example I used earlier, I can judge that Atticus Finch was a good defense lawyer and upheld civil rights.

Good luck using him to defend your case, because you'll need all the help you can get.

My description of this fictional deity is accurate. It's how this fictional deity is portrayed by the author, and therefore it really doesn't matter what he does, it's condoned, just, right, correct, etc. It's really no different than mob rule, except instead of the mob, it's this one fictional deity who decides what is right and wrong. We don't live in a world of gods so there is no right or wrong anyways. Given that there can be no objective standard of right or wrong, whatever this fictional deity does makes no difference whatsoever. There can be nothing wrong with annihilating his whole creation if he wants to on a whim. You either do what he says, or get ready for some smiting. The same holds true in this world except that when you do something stupid, you get a good whupping for no apparent reason.

I really don't get what you're talking about.

I'm pointing out the obvious. I'm pointing out that fictional characters aren't real. You can judge them within their context, but if you judge them within your own context, especially a context that doesn't admit to the existence of gods in the first place, then your judgements are without any merit at all. There is no right or wrong, there is no objective morality so to say that what anyone does is right or wrong, or immoral makes no sense. It is especially ridiculous to make this claim with regards to fictional characters. It's completely pointless.

You seem to think that Science has some sort of explanatory power, yet when someone is swallowed up in a hurricane, there really is no explanation other than that they were too stupid to get out of the way.

I love pointing this out with regards to the last few tsunamis that hit land bereft of animal life. Why? Because they all had enough sense to get out of the way. While the oh so intelligent human beings with their special powers of observation still didn't have enough sense to run. Go online and watch the videos of people standing there waiting for the waves to come and wash them into oblivion.

Regardless of whether you believe in the gods or not; these people are supposed to be washed away.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 306 by shnarkle]


[center]

Opinions about people's inner thoughts and feelings[/center]

Perhaps if the comments posted were more about this topic and less about using the second person singular pronoun, this topic would be able to advance a bit farther. Using the second person singular personal pronoun is a tell tale sign of an ad hominem.

____________

Questions:

• 
  1. I am talking about YOUR comments.. your ideas... your words. Not about you, this isn't about YOU, but what you wrote about people's motivations, my friend. Could you explain why addressing you personally using the second person singular pronoun is so offensive to you? ( there, I did it again, second person singular pronoun )
  
  2. Why do you assume that every time I use the word "you" that it's an ad hominem argument? I am commenting only on what you write. You write that you know people's inner motivations and feelings. I said we should ask them. Where is the ad hominen? If we pretend to read minds, how is that a good idea?
  
  3. Are your ( there, I did it again, didn't I? ) ideas about people's motivation just your OPINIONS about them, or is it the truth about them? How did you rule out your personal ERROR?
  
  4. If someone tells me that they know what people are feeling and thinking... How is that NOT pretending to read minds?
  
  5. Do you actually know what people feel and think without asking them?
  
  6. Do you know better than they do about what they feel and think?
  
  7. Are you always correct in your assessment?
  
  8. How many people are you talking about?...5, 20, 1000, 7 billion, or just yourself?
  
  9. How did you rule out projection of your own thoughts and feelings in your assessment?
  
  10. Are you the spokesperson for all of these people?
  
  11. Are you a qualified psychological practitioner, or are you giving us an amateur's opinion?
  
  12. If you are concerned about the actual topic "Eternal Hell", why are you telling us about people's motivations?
  
  13. If I ask you about that... how am I derailing the conversation. You brought up people's motivations, didn't you? I'm questioning your assertions about that.
  
  

____________

I've been quite clear that I'm not reading people's minds. This seems to be what you prefer to insinuate for some unknown reason. When people are incapable or intentionally decide to ignore better options, I really don't care what they're thinking. I'm not reading their minds in the first place. I'm simply pointing out what they say and what they do. No mind reading required. Your insinuations and assumptions to the contrary are not advancing the discussion.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 309 by shnarkle]



[center]

The misplaced burden of the proof[/center]

If this parable failed to make my point, then it's up to you to prove this, not me.

If someone is trying to make a case for something, it's up to that person to convince people, and NOT the other way around.

It's not up to them...

If I haven't convinced someone, I just haven't proved my case.
It's not then up to them to prove me wrong.
[center]
Attempting to shift the burden of the proof is just a big honking logical mistake.
[/center]

baseless assertions are not arguments. He made the claim that I failed without presenting an argument to prove this assertion.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 306 by shnarkle]

shnarkle wrote:

True, that's why I pointed out these are their words. These are their judgements. I don't keep track of these things, but it is not uncommon for me to hear people say things like, "I just want to die", or "That just kills me", or "My life is hopeless".

Some people are rational, and some people are not rational.
IF we want to know what they think about something, we should do more than just guess.

We should ask.

Ask them what? What they mean by "die"? What they mean by "hopeless"? I take it at face value. Why should I start asking people what they mean by the common meaning of words? Why should I assume that people don't understand how to use language effectively, or that they are misusing words?

Why should I ask, when a person has just informed me how they feel?

What's wrong with their explanation?

I'm not guessing what they're thinking. I'm listening with my ears to what they are actually saying. What makes you think that what people say is somehow just in my imagination or something that I'm guessing at? Why are still going on about mind reading and guessing? I'm not mind reading or guessing what people are saying.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 311 by ttruscott]


[center]
Not thinking for ourselves[/center]

But rather than denigrate the Bible for our deficiency in interpreting it in truth, many Christians turn from such problems and seek GOD's leading personally:

Well, they may imagine that they do.
As far as I can tell, they are only fooling themselves.

As a skeptic, an agnostic and an atheist, I would call that kind of thinking wishful thinking gone "viral".

Proverbs 3:5 Trust have faith in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;

That's an emotional appeal for people to be gullible.
Trust them.. don't use your OWN understanding.. have a little faith.

Use THEIR understanding... that's right... be like little lambs of god.. like children... come hither... come give them a call....

The first ten callers will get a free set of steak knives, and everything you really need to know.

which puts faith above understanding

Which is a great idea for those who are tired of doing their own thinking.
Let the preacher think for you, if you don't want to think for yourself.

In fact, this site is chock full of happy preachers willing to tell us just exactly what to think.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 307 by Blastcat]

I know many atheists, and there is more than just one of us who agree with my position, and that constitutes a GROUP.

That's the group I am speaking about.

And they told you to speak for them as well as just yourself, or are you assuming this? Did they tell you this, or are you able to read their minds?

Perhaps you should ask them if it is okay for you to speak for them instead of just guessing, or assuming that you can read their minds to get their approval.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 317 by shnarkle]

And they told you to speak for them as well as just yourself, or are you assuming this? Did they tell you this, or are you able to read their minds?

Your catching on.

Perhaps you should ask them if it is okay for you to speak for them instead of just guessing, or assuming that you can read their minds to get their approval.

I think you got my point, after all.