To all the equal opportunity debate going around in the LDS church it's taught that babies have souls and anyone who doesn't have the chance to hear the gospel on earth will have that opportunity in heaven. Because lets face it there are good people who have gone their whole lives not being able to hear about jesus and there are people who died well before they would have been able to.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
ITT: We Discuss our Religious Backgrounds/Ideas
- Thread starter sonickid01
- Start date
- Status
so what if i went on a killing spree and killed all the newborn kids, guaranteeing them into heaven? that to me sounds like a loophole for getting everyone else into heaven, even if it still leaves you in a pretty bad position
and if you still have to "prove yourself" worthy of being in heaven once you get there, I really can't comprehend how a baby with no cognitive development would be in a position to hear the gospel on earth and understand it, unless when you get there your mind gets the development it needs.
which brings me to this: if this is the case then our existence on earth is pretty pointless, if we're just gonna get tested upstairs? and if not, then you have yourself a loophole for getting into heaven. bazinga
I was being ironic, cookie. Obviously I failed to Poe's Law or something of that nature. I wasn't making any serious assertions, it was a joke :P
If church/religion/jesus is the truth etc. why wouldn't the child find him on his own? Are you saying that without endoctrination from a young age, everyone would be atheists?
That was obviously a typo on his part and you know it. If you don't then I question your grasp of the English language. Don't be a fucking asshole.
I feel sorry for you. You can't seem to tell the difference between someone asking legitimate questions about religion, someone pointing out flaws in your argument, and someone outright bashing religion.
Free will means that God does not know which choices you will make, and he did not know you would become an atheist. You chose to d so and you also choose the words in your posts carefully, in order to inflict maximum insult.
God's ways are not man's ways, and the God has omniscience is different that whatever the literal human definition is. In an earlier post you were miffed the Catholic Church doesn't condone abortion. This is because human life begins at conception and abortion therefore takes a human life, making it incompatible with the principle of protecting the sanctity of human life and dignity at all stages of development. I am eager to here you explain how we don't actually know when human life begins, or are you going to use the alternative strategy of splitting hairs over when human life becomes meaningfull enough to protect? Or are you going to go with that statement which has the highest "troll value," e.g. "fuk humans."
God would judge you based on your actions. While your nature informs your actions, it does not create them, any more than having a coffee addiction makes you guzzle down a whole pot or having an attraction to someone of the same sex makes you engage in male-on-male fornication. The inclination to do something (tempation) and the actual action are seperate. God does not judge us based on our temptations but on our actions.
Striving to be the best troll you can be hardly qualfies as a virtue. You entirely misunderstand what hell is. Hell is the complete and purposeful separation from God through a human beings actions in life. There won't be any fire, your skin won't burn off, worms will not devour you, you will not be able to converse with famous murderers and dictators. Your soul will simply corrupt and will suffer eternal misery and separation from all goodness and exist in a ceaseless, loveless void. But that doesn't play well in movies so that isn't how it's depicted.
Part of being a good Christian is to recognize these biologic/psychologic faults in judgement in other people before they have the chance to inflict any pain and suffering. A true Christian life is difficult, it requires discipline and awareness not only of yourself but others around you.
Contrary to your statement, the reliance on imperfect humans to save their own souls is part of God's perfection. What use would life on earth be if everyone were perfect? No one is surprised when a machine executes their programming, so what value would having a perfect world of perfect beings have? Good and Evil objectively exist. There is no purpose for good without its counterpart.cookie said:
I must reiterate that God's ways are not man's ways. Humans spin around infinitely on defining something as basic and obvious as the beginning of human life. Humans easily ignore facts that get in the way of their agendas in order to promote their own interest. Humans are so wrapped up in concerning themselves with being right that they fail to concern themselves with being good. I don't have a problem being incorrect or misinformed, I have a problem being apathetic, uncaring, sluggish, cowardly, or dismissive of other people's concerns.
The problem is I am also a human, and there are people who would rather be right than be good. At some point I am called as a Christian to confront these people who have an array of very sound, very logical arguments for why no one should believe in God or religion. For me it doesn't really matter because being wrong about God when I die is irrelevant. It is a massive waste of my time and resources to prattle on about having no logical proof of a God I have faith in. Faith is by definition belief without evidence. What I would rather focus on then, as I cannot prove my creator's existence, is to focus on what he commands me to do and why.
God is taken at face value. For me he exists, and he wants me to follow his commands. In order to do so I must understand why he teaches what he does and what the results are if I do not follow them.
What I am concerned with is why I should believe in the value and sanctity of human life.
What I am concerned with is why I should support and protect that model of the family that has the most success in bringing up well-adjusted, productive, caring members of society.
What I am concerned with is why I should not oppose every vile and toxic thing but out by other human beings that degrades my fellow human beings.
Whether God exists or not is irrelevant to addressing these (among other) concerns. To spend time debating the validity of faith using scientific trials is to waste resources trying to deconstruct an unscientific premise to begin with. Science is not a moral philosophy, it is a tool. Belief in God may be unscientific, but unscientific is not equivalent to morally wrong.
Given my belief in God strives me to do things I otherwise would not do, to be kinder, to be more patient with my fellow men, I could not care less if God's characteristics are illogical based on human definitions. My behavior towards others is impacted positively, so whether God has the characteristics of the Christian God is irrelevant to the fact my mere belief manifests itself in my actions. As my actions undoubtedly exist, that's a sufficient basis for me to continue believing in God. Circuar reasoning? Sure, whatever, call it a feedback loop if you must. Either way you're chastizing me for being a better person and wasting my time trying to chide me for not being scientific enough. Nitpicking is not a morally desirable trait, and being an insulting nitpicker is repugnant in general.
Morm can have his 6-11 IQ points. I'd rather be considered marginally dumber and significantly more considerate than be marginally smarter and significantly less considerate. Never mind that intelligence doesn't neccesarily match up to wisdom.
I was talking about the reliance on imperfect humans to save the souls of other people. Whether or not they get into heaven is not strictly in their control, and as such you will have some people who go to hell they drew the short straw. Life isn't fair, and I would rather have a world without evil that is fair than one where it isn't fair but I have free will. The value of having perfect beings is that it maximises happiness. Having evil deviates from this optimum situation. I really wouldn't care about having free will if I was truly happy.
I don't see how being so concerned with being right gets in the way of being good. I have no trouble being a moral or law-abiding person while maintaining a frame of mind that strives for truth or whatever. If you get distracted then that's a personal fault of your own.
Why can't you be both right and good?
The connection is clear, though. It is not because wanting to know God would lead to have a strong Christian belief, that a strong Christian belief necessarily results from wanting to know God. A→B does not imply B→A. I am pointing out that presumably, a factor that causes a strong belief in Islam could cause a strong belief in Christianity. More generally, certain factors could cause a strong, but ultimately fake belief in Christianity.
It's not because God created the universe that he is not a douche. If God requires that we worship him, until proven otherwise, he is an egomaniac, a tyrant. I don't care if God says he is not a tyrant because all tyrants say that. If I am to follow rules, I want to be confident that it is the right thing to do. I don't want to be abused. You act as if, for some reason, the creator of the universe would never lie to you, as if God would never abuse anyone. I, on the other hand, hold that if God acts like an egomaniac, then he probably is an egomaniac, and I don't respect egomaniacs. Sure, maybe God has excellent reasons to act like that. That is why I would be willing to listen to these reasons, and evaluate them on their own merit. But if he can't present them, if he just hand-waves my plea and says "I'm God, don't question me", I'm sorry, but I call bullshit on his motives. Feel free to believe whatever the hell your creator tells you, but I'm not that gullible.mattj said:
If God was an ogre, you would walk right into his mouth.
Well...mattj said:
There you go! Two Christians here who use a different definition of omniscience than you do. How about you just argue with them and come back when you all agree?
Cookie: That circular logic is called begging the question. It's every bit as much of a logical flaw as the Strawman, which is probably the most mis invoked classical bit of logical failure.
So if I masturbate to gay porn all night and day, but then have sex with my wife, I'm not going to heaven? What if I masturbate to straight porn or have sex with my wife while thinking about man abs? Is that okay?
You make it sound like christians are saints or some sort of chivalrous people with special vows. You are on such a high horse about the morality being a cause to be christian (or at least that's where you back peddle to all the time). You must think of yourself as some sort of Jedi.
Nobody is bashing religion. It is not a personal attack on the institute or yourself when someone calls you on faulty logic. Don't take questioning or asking for explanation on something that doesn't make sense as an insult. A bit of advice: when you get defensive like this and play the mercy card, you look like a complete baby and that your side of the debate is wrong.
Good call. You know, that's the problem with a personal God- even with a black and white bible, no single pair has the same feelings (see: "Evidence" substitute) or thoughts on the matter. Meanwhile, Brain, Cookie and myself are ALL on exactly the same page without some prior scandalous discussion. Disunity in the idea across the board punctures a huge hole in the community rebuttle (when it comes up) as well as consensus rightness.brain said:
Oh so that explains how there can be inherent hypocrisies or paradoxes, I get itdeck said:
No, in that and the AIM conversation I was defining the playfield, something I've learned that I must do with christians (and especially you) because you move the goalposts so fucking much.
Actually addiction is a lot more involved than you think, it's not a choice to wake up every day and freak out for Heroin if you are addicted. Same with gay sex, it's not a choice, fucking deal with it. I've demonstrated time and again how it's a legitimate biological population control in response to population density (in beetles, rabbits and other animals as well as humans).
So if I masturbate to gay porn all night and day, but then have sex with my wife, I'm not going to heaven? What if I masturbate to straight porn or have sex with my wife while thinking about man abs? Is that okay?
Sounds like a place I'd send someone I love very, very much (regardless of their actions but as punishment forever without hope of redemption)
So you're saying that if your new neighbour was a 50 year old man that constantly had young kids coming over for babysitting but they then disappeared weeks later, turning up butchered on the side of the road after being horrible raped in the ass (but with lots of candy in their bellies), you would go to hell for not recognizing his faults before he sins? Good christians need to read minds, jesus
You make it sound like christians are saints or some sort of chivalrous people with special vows. You are on such a high horse about the morality being a cause to be christian (or at least that's where you back peddle to all the time). You must think of yourself as some sort of Jedi.
Hell requires both action and knowledge though as the denial has to be deliberate. It's thus not possible to fail to save someone's soul if you never had access to them in the first place. And again, the key point is God takes into account the full ledger of the individuals actions.
The real test though isn't when you live in a society of sane laws. The bar for being a "good" person in a sane society is incredibly low. When your values conflict with what the government and the laws say you can do (or force you to do) is when character is actually tested.
You can be, but being good is a virtue that requires you sometimes act against your own self interest or what is logical or rational. If you are forever focused on being logical or rational in a given situation and the logical or rational course is an immoral one, then you should not let the desire to be logical or rational beat out the virtue to do good.
No, you don't get it, and you never will, because all definitions must be defined by the values you assign them. Omniscience must preclude free will under your definition and all other definitions should be cast aside. Your construct requires knowing what you are going to do to be the same as you actually making that choice when it isn't. Knowing a thief is likely to steal an item and watching him do so are completely different things. The thief is still choosing the action and could choose a different action, a possibility which God can also see. Your definition of omniscience requires determinism when free will is antithetical to determinism. It is a paradox only because you refuse to leave your definition of omniscience. If I'm moving the goalposts it's because mine are placed normally, 100 yards apart, and you're camping out on the 30 yard line.
Quit bitching Morm. Don't whine about moving goalposts when you have an entire hierarchy of things with "troll value." Your modus operandi is to ask a bunch of rhetorical questions that you have no actual interest in discussing the ramifications of, you just want to lead somebody back onto your limited field when they don't want to play on it.
Engaging in gay sex is a choice Morm. It requires action as differentiated from the inclination to engage in it. We already discissed this but since you want temptation to be defined as action then no further discussion can be had. I'm not going to argue in your myopic sandbox. You have basically conceded you don't believe in free action. So why do you bother posting at all? Did you choose to do so or not? I'm not really interested in debating someone who believes they are a low-grade snark machine driven inexorably by base impulse. Human weakness can be overcome on an individual basis and religion can serve as a strength and catalyst for that drive, not only through its teachings about self-worth and dignity and the recognition of fault but also through the physical support structure. God and his people enable others to do things they would not have the strength to do alone.
What if you stopped being a flippant tool? I'm kind of dissapointed you believe full-on stupid is an improvement over your much more reserved idiocy beforehand. If this is CongMorm unleashed I'm not impressed.
You don't seem to understand the point that hell is an individual's rejection of God. The only person who sends someone to hell is that very same person. I've explained this to you repeatedly yet you don't seem to absorb it. Probably because free action on the part of human beings is antithetical to your myopic sandbox premise where the temptation to do something is the same as doing it. It doesn't fit inside your box so it must be ignored.
Oh, and I'm moving the goalposts again because I'm not inside your comfortable little box, obviously. If temptation = action then obviously free action is a paradox. Good thing it isn't.
I didn't say any of that, you pulled it all out of your ass. I don't move the goalposts Morm, you just can' stay within your own bounds. You constantly put words in your opponent's mouth. You don't really debate at all, you just put up a bunch of troll fodder. But specifically the problem with your scenario is that takes the premise you should be aware of your surroundings and translates a failure to do so as the "Go to Jail" tile in Monopoly. That isn't how it works, you know that isn't what I said, and you're purposefully dragging it to an absurdity because you can't allow for anything I say to be reasonable. Doing so would go outside your box, and anything outside your box is "moving the goalposts." I'm not going to debate on the terms that everything I say must be considered driven to absurdity (and warped on the way there to boot) while you throw around masturbation cracks.
No Morm, as I've explained to you numerous times I am a very flawed human being, and every Catholic is a sinner. The bare bones facts are that religious people actively engage themselves in helping the poor, the needy, the homeless etc. I've seen it with my own eyes and done it with my own hands. If that threatens you it really shouldn't. I'm not riding on a high horse, I'm knocking you off of yours and I just look taller because your ass is on the ground.
Just following the laws the government lays out for you is not being a good person. It is not a sign of morality; It is ammorality at its root. It eventually results in the drive to tear down anything that might be a threat to your own moral self-worth, just so long as the police don't arrest you for it. I don't need to tear down atheism when it's got snarky ingrates like you representing it. You never seem to be happy Morm. Why is that? Why are other people's beliefs so threatening to you that not only must they be taken down, beforehand they must be put on the playing field of your choosing where you have ensured that the rules of the game will lead to a predetermined outcome. Are you God? Because you seem to act like you think he operates.
What you don't understand Morm is that I reject your premise. Not only is your premise flawed, how you handle the premises of other people in regards to your own are not the same. It is not a debate when you have free reign to misinterpret, strawman, and drag the opposing statements to absurdity while calling you out is "moving the goalposts." Get your shit off the 30 yard line, then we'll play ball. I'm not charging up 100 yards while every possession you fire off a field goal.
That's not a good defense: You don't get it and never will. So in other words, following the stringent rules of logic I won't get it? That helps your case.
You are pretty much deflecting every example or question I have. The reason I dislike other peoples beliefs is because I strongly dislike stupidity, opting into ignorance and blatantly dodging logic. I'm not threatened by your arm waving, wand waving harry potter bullshit beliefs. I strive to purge the world of malignant thought. I treat your thought process with the same contempt as I would any child believing in magic, fairy tales or God. It is infantile, a way to avoid the world as it is and comfort yourself into thinking you're doing good by some magical man in the sky that conveniently loves you when clearly not many people are willing to do it. People crave validation, if you need to get it from an imaginary friend you are no better than a lonely 6 year old.
Speaking of free reign to misinterpret, you should have a little meeting with your christian friends and get your stories straight. Each one of you seems to be barking up a different tree and I can't wade through the quagmire of your collective bullshit.
Deck, what happens if someone finds God while in Hell?
Deflections, another classicdeck said:
Umm, under the premise of an omniscient god, I don't. Then again, I don't believe in God, or astrology or other witchcraft, so there you go.
I asked a question seriously- if you have the urge and act on it mentally like in those examples, does it count? Actually, I think you've said a few times some of our laws are based on the bible (correct me if I'm wrong there). Either way, INTENT to commit crime is punishable in many cases so why doesn't God work the same way? Like if you set out to murder someone and then puss out, that's gotta be a negative thing.
So is it the urge that is uncontrolled, then? I ask because if you simply control the action, but are as gay as gay can be, you get into heaven despite being gay, right? Also, I really enjoy how if you are actually gay, you've successfully manipulated your own faith to get into heaven despite wanting it from a guy. Just a hypothetical there, unless you are gay.
You are pretty much deflecting every example or question I have. The reason I dislike other peoples beliefs is because I strongly dislike stupidity, opting into ignorance and blatantly dodging logic. I'm not threatened by your arm waving, wand waving harry potter bullshit beliefs. I strive to purge the world of malignant thought. I treat your thought process with the same contempt as I would any child believing in magic, fairy tales or God. It is infantile, a way to avoid the world as it is and comfort yourself into thinking you're doing good by some magical man in the sky that conveniently loves you when clearly not many people are willing to do it. People crave validation, if you need to get it from an imaginary friend you are no better than a lonely 6 year old.
Speaking of free reign to misinterpret, you should have a little meeting with your christian friends and get your stories straight. Each one of you seems to be barking up a different tree and I can't wade through the quagmire of your collective bullshit.
Deck, what happens if someone finds God while in Hell?
I see a lot of people talking about free will without defining what they mean by it. A lot of people seem to be claiming or taking for granted even that free will is inconsistent with determinism. What I want to know is why. If something is non deterministic then if you rewind time and play a situation back over and over again then you will get different results. Why would it be that the exact same person in the exact same circumstances would not always make the same choice. what could possibly be influencing their decision that makes it different when everything about them and their situation remains the same?
Ok, this just makes it sound like you have urges to engage in it yourself...
And what's so bad about gay sex, anyway? It occurs throughout the animal kingdom... and it's not like it harms anybody. It is in many cases simply an act between two individuals who care about each other. Two consenting adults alone performing a sexual act in the privacy of their bedroom does not strike me as immoral... as opposed to, say, the blatant discrimination against these people exercised by homophobic people (who are, more often than not, very religious Christians).
Ok, where the fuck do you get off saying that Christians are the only people out there helping the poor, homeless, and needy? How dare you?! I'm an atheist, and I volunteer at a hospital, tutor inner city children in math and reading, donate to charity, and I just got back from a service trip to Honduras to provide medical and dental care to people who can't normally afford it. The organization I went down with, Global Brigades, is completely secular, which means you guys definitely aren't the only ones helping out. And many times when I walk by homeless people on the streets of Baltimore and am not in a huge rush to get to class, I go into the supermarket and buy them sandwiches. What have you done lately? Other than teaching religious classes to shove your fucked up ideas down people's throats. Seriously, get off your high horse, because even if you do regularly give to the needy, that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with intrinsic generosity.
And if you're only doing it to please God so that you can get into heaven, doesn't that make it less of a moral decision to do so than someone who just genuinely wants to help people?
Also, for the record, I don't blatantly oppose religion. I think it's stupid for the same reasons outlined by morm, cookie, and brain ITT, but I'd say go for it anyway as long as you aren't interfering with other people's lives. I feel like people should have the right to be morons... as long as they don't try to force other people to believe the same moronic things.
I'm going to ignore the free will debate because I don't believe that free will exists.
I do have a quick question for our religious brethren. How do you reconcile the fact that you masturbate with your religious views?
I ask because the Bible specifies that one type of sin is essentially equivalent to any other type of sin, so I'm wondering why masturbation/divorce is okay while homosexuality/atheism is not.
Edit: Also, any claims that all people have equal opportunity to seek God is complete bullshit. Do you seriously believe that someone born in the dredges of poverty, where they have to commit sins on a daily basis just to survive and assimilate, are given the same opportunity to seek God as anyone else? What about mentally ill people? What about children that die before they can even form any thoughts? What about all the billions of people who lived before Christianity even existed?! Seriously, there is so much wrong with that claim that I am deeply shocked that anyone had the gall to make it.
I do have a quick question for our religious brethren. How do you reconcile the fact that you masturbate with your religious views?
I ask because the Bible specifies that one type of sin is essentially equivalent to any other type of sin, so I'm wondering why masturbation/divorce is okay while homosexuality/atheism is not.
Edit: Also, any claims that all people have equal opportunity to seek God is complete bullshit. Do you seriously believe that someone born in the dredges of poverty, where they have to commit sins on a daily basis just to survive and assimilate, are given the same opportunity to seek God as anyone else? What about mentally ill people? What about children that die before they can even form any thoughts? What about all the billions of people who lived before Christianity even existed?! Seriously, there is so much wrong with that claim that I am deeply shocked that anyone had the gall to make it.
A question for any religious person in this thread. What exactly is Heaven, and what happens when you go there? According to my school's rabbi when we die our soul reconnects with god. The rabbi heavily implied we lose our memories of our life on this Earth. Does that mean that you forget about your wife/husband/friends/children?
I'm not really gonna get into a religious debate because I really don't give a flying fuck about your opinions. Their your opinions not mine. I have no opinion because I have no proof. I'll find out when I die. However, I do have something for you Deck Knight.
Free will is very real. Why do people give away money in their own pocket to someone they don't know when they were gonna spend that money not 10 seconds later on themselves. Lemme tell you a story.
My best friend Brandan is a pretty cool guy. He's got a good head on his soldiers but I never really saw much selflessness from him even though I knew he was. He was over at my house spending the night and we decided to go up to a nearby hess to get some soda and chips. When we got up there we see this guy sitting next to the sidewalk on his phone. We had quick conversation with him and he tells us he's stranded. His car is out of gas and he doesn't have any money on him. Didn't this guy have a wallet with a card. Especially because there was a bank right next to the hess we were at. I don't know and Brandan didn't know. Tell me why Brandan took his wallet out, took the money we were gonna spend on our chips and Soda, and give it to him without a single reason. The guy would refuse saying he's got a ride but Brandan still gave it to him. He even offered to give some back and Brandan still said no. We left a minute later after having another conversation with him and the very first thing I did was punch him in the arm, with a huge smile on my face.
This guy wasn't poor he had a phone and he had a ride. But he lived far away and his ride wasn't come for some time. Brandan gave him his money with no strings attached knowing that this guy could've been making the whole thing up. How is that not free will? I'll tell you too. He's not terribly selfless either. In fact I'd be willing to say he's a bit selfish. But why'd he do that then? He wanted to. That's free will.
Free will is very real. Why do people give away money in their own pocket to someone they don't know when they were gonna spend that money not 10 seconds later on themselves. Lemme tell you a story.
My best friend Brandan is a pretty cool guy. He's got a good head on his soldiers but I never really saw much selflessness from him even though I knew he was. He was over at my house spending the night and we decided to go up to a nearby hess to get some soda and chips. When we got up there we see this guy sitting next to the sidewalk on his phone. We had quick conversation with him and he tells us he's stranded. His car is out of gas and he doesn't have any money on him. Didn't this guy have a wallet with a card. Especially because there was a bank right next to the hess we were at. I don't know and Brandan didn't know. Tell me why Brandan took his wallet out, took the money we were gonna spend on our chips and Soda, and give it to him without a single reason. The guy would refuse saying he's got a ride but Brandan still gave it to him. He even offered to give some back and Brandan still said no. We left a minute later after having another conversation with him and the very first thing I did was punch him in the arm, with a huge smile on my face.
This guy wasn't poor he had a phone and he had a ride. But he lived far away and his ride wasn't come for some time. Brandan gave him his money with no strings attached knowing that this guy could've been making the whole thing up. How is that not free will? I'll tell you too. He's not terribly selfless either. In fact I'd be willing to say he's a bit selfish. But why'd he do that then? He wanted to. That's free will.
@KurashiDragon
What is your point? you addressed your post at deck knight yet deck knight did not ever say that free will wasn't real. then you gave an anecdote about your friend being unexpectedly compassionate as poof of free will, that doesn't even make sense. Especially since you did not define what you mean by free will.
What is your point? you addressed your post at deck knight yet deck knight did not ever say that free will wasn't real. then you gave an anecdote about your friend being unexpectedly compassionate as poof of free will, that doesn't even make sense. Especially since you did not define what you mean by free will.
The bible repeatedly says that not all sins are equal, and while they are all offenses, some are worse than others. It's even said that hell will be 'better' for some than others.
Also, who says masturbation/divorce are okay? While the bible never specifically addresses masturbation, I think we can place it under a general category of 'sin'. God loves the love between a man and a woman. There's a whole book in the bible that's basically a love song (Solomon's). It's a sin whenever we abuse or misuse one of God's gifts (which applies to everything, not just sex), because it, in a sense, views the gift as a purpose in itself and puts it in a place of importance above God.
While there are specific circumstances where divorce is allowed, God would always prefer we attempt reconciliation first. In cases of domestic abuse, verbal or physical, the bible doesn't address this as an issue of the law, but says clearly and repeatedly that we are obliged to protect the oppressed and reprimand the abuser.
Well, nothing in the bible suggests you lose your identity or your memories. Someone please correct me if I get something wrong, as I'm just going off of memory right now from what I've read. Heaven is where God's throne is, and it's big enough to accommodate Him, us, and the myriad of angels and other creatures. The book of Enoch actually has some very interesting things to say about heaven, but obviously, to the Christian, shouldn't be taken as canon.
At Christ's second coming all those who were with Him in heaven come down with Him and establish the Kingdom of God. After a thousand years, Satan gives his last push at the battle of armageddon and then judgment comes. This chapter (or book) of eternity is closed, and we face the next great adventure as God's eternal sons and daughters, created in the image of God, once mere animals, now higher than the angels.
Something neat that Jesus said after His resurrection was that He was going to go to prepare a place for us. Whatever heaven is, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him." Nothing in the most fantastical sci fi or fantasy movie comes close. Whatever heaven is, it's going to be awesome, and I really want you guys to come with.
So, just out of curiosity, what makes you think that a book written by a group of men thousands of years ago when no scientific concepts were understood states the absolute truth about everything?
And before you say that all those men were in perfect consensus with each other and that this adds credibility to it, well, they weren't.
Do you go on anything other than faith?
Sorry, I just really hate this argument.
Why call God "omniscient" if it's different from the human definition of omniscience? You may as well say "God has asdhkgbgbvjsr", because it means the exact same thing.
Ok now with that in mind I have another question. I have a friend with highly devout Christian parents. She is an atheist. Now lets assume their daughter dies before them. She rejected god and thus would go to hell. Nearly all Christians agree that hell is a pretty awful place. So now what happens to the parents when they go to Heaven? They have the memories of their daughter. They would know she was suffering in hell, eternally separated from them and god. Wouldn't this ruin heaven for them?
So, the promise of being rewarded with God's love should be put before everything else... including your own children... and other people's rights... and actual logic...
Seriously, Wikey, your post just makes Christians sound like the most selfish, heartless people. For the atheist/agnostic, it's all about loving the people that matter in this life, because it's the only one you'll ever get (most likely). For the Christian, god comes first, before anyone else, but only because he demands it that way... how can you not see that if such a god existed, he would be an egomaniacal tyrant? How is doing everything ONLY for god's love a good thing at all???
Yo I do not give a swimming shit about what you guys think because I did not think those thoughts and I do my best to never think. I am not going to get into this debate. However, I would like to get into this debate with Deck Knight because he said something that I thought about, it was just a trick to get him off his game when I said I never thought about it. HOO HAH.
- Status