Thought Provoker - Ticket to Heaven?

Originally Posted by NothingSpecial

Well, if the morality was from God, and He decided to add it as an absolute to the universe He created, then no, in our universe, it wouldn't be relative.

It would be just as arbitrary and meaningless, though.

So the majority is allowed to impose its beliefs on the minority?

To an extent, yes.

Murder is only if it's sin.

No, murder is an unlawful killing. God did not kill people in accordance with any law.

If the question is why kill the children? Well, they're still sinners, are they not?

Not noticeably, no.

In addition, do you serious contend that children should be held to the same level of accountability as adults? that a toddler who hits a sibling should be sent to jail for assault?

Don't the Gnostics believe that you have to come to some sort of understanding of God to be saved? Would that then make it impossible for those with mental illnesses to be saved? You'd love that god, really?

I don't know enough about Gnosticism to really say, but I do know that they hold that the OT God was an impostor, thus explaining his actions.

And, to be honest, your version of God doesn't let the mentally ill into heaven either, since quite a few of them are incapable of accepting Jesus as their saviour.

So an infinitely evil can not be punished by an infinite punishment and be just?

A human cannot commit an infinite evil.

Even killing every living person is not infinitely bad.

According to who are these the purposes of Justice?

Canadian Government, and pretty much every philosopher of law.

Well, Christ's Holiness and goodness would be imputed into the sinner, as well having the sinner cleansed. That would, legally, make the man worthy to enter.

That's still not just.

So, you sin, so that one person who deserves to die won't kill another person who deserves to die? I don't think saving the life someone who is evil is enough to insult God.

No one deserves death.

Further, giving someone so much as an extra second free of the eternal torture that you are so sure awaits them would seem to justify any action.

Besides, gives them longer to repent, does it not?

But utilitarianism isn't the goal here.

No? Why shouldn't our goal be to maximize happiness while minimizing suffering? Sounds like a good goal to me.

God's already dealt with evil, so I don't know why you're complaining. He's just letting the world progress as His children, who He has chosen since before the creation of the universe, come to Him.

God has not dealt with evil, because there is still evil in the world. Evil he created, no less.

Originally Posted by John

It would be just as arbitrary and meaningless, though.

Why?

To an extent, yes.

What extent?

No, murder is an unlawful killing. God did not kill people in accordance with any law.

Well, exactly. Sin is violation of the Law. God violated no part of the Law, hence it was not murder.

Not noticeably, no.

But their hearts are evil.

In addition, do you serious contend that children should be held to the same level of accountability as adults? that a toddler who hits a sibling should be sent to jail for assault?

Not at all! A child hitting another child, while still sinning, is just a child, knowing no better. An adult charged with assault is an adult. He should know better.

I don't know enough about Gnosticism to really say, but I do know that they hold that the OT God was an impostor, thus explaining his actions.

I don't know much about it either, unfortunately. I know that Gnosticism was a big enemy of the early church, though.

And, to be honest, your version of God doesn't let the mentally ill into heaven either, since quite a few of them are incapable of accepting Jesus as their saviour.

Well, I guess so, but my point wasn't that my God is more loving than the gnostic god, but rather that there are unlikeable traits (to most people) in both.

A human cannot commit an infinite evil.

Yes he can.

Even killing every living person is not infinitely bad.

Insulting, rebelling against, and offending God, however, is.

Canadian Government, and pretty much every philosopher of law.

Canadians unite!
Well, I'm not here to go against the philosophers of law. I actually plan on being a lawyer, but Canadian law, and philosophers of law, are still very much fallible, and I would agree that the principles of justice work for society, but with God, the law dictates that sinners deserve death, and He passes judgment.

That's still not just.

Why not?

No one deserves death.

The wage of sin is death. Ergo, sinners deserve death.

Further, giving someone so much as an extra second free of the eternal torture that you are so sure awaits them would seem to justify any action.

Besides, gives them longer to repent, does it not?

Well, yes. I don't deny that this issue is debated amongst Christians, I just gave my opinion.

No? Why shouldn't our goal be to maximize happiness while minimizing suffering? Sounds like a good goal to me.

Well, it would be, if God were not in the equation. Glorifying God is far more important than the happiness of man.

God has not dealt with evil, because there is still evil in the world. Evil he created, no less.

The evil of His children is dealt with. The evil of the world remains until Judgment day, where the wicked will be given what they deserve, and Justice will be passed.

I'd just like to drop a post while I am at it, but it's not going to go into much depth.
First of all, many of us really need to contemplate about God in an efficient way and not stick to the tempting opinion of our horrifying perception of God's actions and what goes on in the world. Isn't it so simple to just think: "There's no way God exists. If He does, then He is a monstrous tyrannical being that enjoys seeing us suffer. Just take a look at all the bad stuff happening in the Middle East!" But what you should be thinking is that God is not human, and we can merely believe and have faith in Him. We perceive things as unjust and irrational, but we don't know much about God's intentions, and we shouldn't consider God's seemingly horrifying plan as unjust or based on simple whim, much less compare God to humans who are psychopaths or tyrants. Perhaps saying that God is not human and therefore we should spare him for "what He does" is not too rational, but it should be contemplated.
Also, I see all the evil among us as proof of a greater good, but that's a completely different subject.

By the way, I just find it strange that many people around here state morality to be subjective. I'd like to see an argument about it rather than a simple statement, but I hope this doesn't deviate the subject elsewhere.

Originally Posted by NothingSpecial

Why?

A system of laws without any justification? How is that not arbitrary?

It brings up the old dilemma:
Is something moral because God says it is? If so, morality is slave to his whims and is ultimately meaningless.
Or does God say something is moral because the thing is innately good? If so, then what need have we of God? He becomes nothing more than a glorified messenger.

But their hearts are evil.

Which is a meaningless phrase.

No one has an evil heart. Not even Hitler or Stalin. They did evil acts, but there was nothing innate in them that made them do so. (Or rather, there was, but it was not evil. Hitler was insane, as was Stalin, albeit in a different way)

Not at all! A child hitting another child, while still sinning, is just a child, knowing no better. An adult charged with assault is an adult. He should know better.

Yet you have God damning both to Hell.

I don't know much about it either, unfortunately. I know that Gnosticism was a big enemy of the early church, though.

Other way 'round. Gnosticism was a sect that split off from the main church which was crushed by the Roman empire for it's heresy.

Well, I guess so, but my point wasn't that my God is more loving than the gnostic god, but rather that there are unlikeable traits (to most people) in both.

Indeed, but I find the Gnostic one to be much nicer, all things considered.

Yes he can.

Indeed? Name one act that a person can do that will cause an infinite amount of harm while doing no good to anyone involved in any way.

Not even going back in time and preventing the creation of the universe would cause infinite harm.

Insulting, rebelling against, and offending God, however, is.

How is that infinitely bad on any scale? People have insulted me, people have rebelled against me, and people have offended me. Yet I do not see them as infinitely evil for doing so.

Indeed, I appreciate people who rebel against others (how much they should rebel depends, but that's a tangent) because it allows for new ideas and improvements to be introduced.

Why not?

The definition of justice you seem to be using is that everyone gets what's coming to them, in essence. Karma on a grand scale.

Heaven is an infinite reward. Humans cannot do something infinitely good any more than they can do something infinitely evil, so it is unjust.

It is benevolent, yes, but it is not just.

The wage of sin is death. Ergo, sinners deserve death.

Yet that's not what sinners get.

Well, it would be, if God were not in the equation. Glorifying God is far more important than the happiness of man.

Why, 'xactly? God's omnipotent, he has no need of adoration, no need of glory. Man is, by comparison, infinitely more frail, infinitely more fragile, and, as such, infinitely more valuable and deserves infinitely more care and respect.

If God is so jealous, so petty, so insecure that my not singing his adoration with my every thought personally wounds him then I've no use for him. I'll deal with people who, despite having infinitely less, are infinitely tougher.

The evil of His children is dealt with. The evil of the world remains until Judgment day, where the wicked will be given what they deserve, and Justice will be passed.

Why not have judgement day the instant Adam and Eve sinned? Then you have almost no evil in the world.

Originally Posted by John

A system of laws without any justification? How is that not arbitrary?

I was talking about meaningless, not arbitrary.

It brings up the old dilemma:
Is something moral because God says it is? If so, morality is slave to his whims and is ultimately meaningless.
Or does God say something is moral because the thing is innately good? If so, then what need have we of God? He becomes nothing more than a glorified messenger.

The former, not the latter. But morality isn't slave to His whim, exactly. Morality is God's nature, and I don't think God can change His nature... as it is against His nature.

Which is a meaningless phrase.


No one has an evil heart. Not even Hitler or Stalin. They did evil acts, but there was nothing innate in them that made them do so. (Or rather, there was, but it was not evil. Hitler was insane, as was Stalin, albeit in a different way)

Yes, they do have an evil heart. Heart meaning nature, of course, not blood pumping muscle.
The fact that they were like that is because they were evil, and God restrained them a little less.

Yet you have God damning both to Hell.

Because they both deserve it. Though they deserve it to less extremes. The adult's hell would be much worse than the child's.

Other way 'round. Gnosticism was a sect that split off from the main church which was crushed by the Roman empire for it's heresy.

I believe it was already an enemy of orthodox Christianity way before Roman Catholicism came in, (which was, I think, the late fifth century?)

Indeed, but I find the Gnostic one to be much nicer, all things considered.

Maybe.

Indeed? Name one act that a person can do that will cause an infinite amount of harm while doing no good to anyone involved in any way.

Any insult towards God.

Not even going back in time and preventing the creation of the universe would cause infinite harm.

Well, okay.

How is that infinitely bad on any scale? People have insulted me, people have rebelled against me, and people have offended me. Yet I do not see them as infinitely evil for doing so.

But you aren't God.

Indeed, I appreciate people who rebel against others (how much they should rebel depends, but that's a tangent) because it allows for new ideas and improvements to be introduced.

I would agree, to some extent. Rebellions have often led to society getting better. However, these rebellions were toward corrupt men, not the good God.

The definition of justice you seem to be using is that everyone gets what's coming to them, in essence. Karma on a grand scale.

In a way.

Heaven is an infinite reward. Humans cannot do something infinitely good any more than they can do something infinitely evil, so it is unjust.

Christ, however, can. Imputation. Christ's infinite goodness is imputed to us, while our hell-deserving sin is imputed to Him.

Yet that's not what sinners get.

I'm pretty sure that every human being that lives dies.
Except, of course, certain Old Testament prophets.

Why, 'xactly? God's omnipotent, he has no need of adoration, no need of glory. Man is, by comparison, infinitely more frail, infinitely more fragile, and, as such, infinitely more valuable and deserves infinitely more care and respect.

Man is more frail, fragile, yes. But not valuable. God is of infinite value.
Even if man was of infinite value, sin would make him worth dirt.

If God is so jealous, so petty, so insecure that my not singing his adoration with my every thought personally wounds him then I've no use for him. I'll deal with people who, despite having infinitely less, are infinitely tougher.

That's.. great.

Why not have judgement day the instant Adam and Eve sinned? Then you have almost no evil in the world.

But then Christ has no Glory! Everything the Father does is primarily for the Son, and secondly for us.

Originally Posted by NothingSpecial

I was talking about meaningless, not arbitrary.

What meaning can such rules have, though, that our own moral systems cannot?

The former, not the latter. But morality isn't slave to His whim, exactly. Morality is God's nature, and I don't think God can change His nature... as it is against His nature.

Then he is not the source of morality, but simply relays it?

Yes, they do have an evil heart. Heart meaning nature, of course, not blood pumping muscle.

But what does having an evil nature mean?

See, the common idea of evil seems to be a person who inflicts pain on others simply for the sake of inflicting pain. Some probably do do this, but they're in the minority.

So what is an evil nature, then?

Because they both deserve it. Though they deserve it to less extremes. The adult's hell would be much worse than the child's.

But how can they both deserve infinite torture?

Disrespecting God is hardly an infinitely evil act, indeed, disrespecting a person is probably the least harm you can do to them. I can only imagine the fate of someone who attempted to harm God by the rules you seem to think he uses.

I believe it was already an enemy of orthodox Christianity way before Roman Catholicism came in, (which was, I think, the late fifth century?)

No idea. I do know that it was a smaller sect and was completely destroyed and had all records burned by the Roman empire.

Any insult towards God.

How, though, is that infinitely evil?

But you aren't God.

So?

I would agree, to some extent. Rebellions have often led to society getting better. However, these rebellions were toward corrupt men, not the good God.

And you know God is good how?

Christ, however, can. Imputation. Christ's infinite goodness is imputed to us, while our hell-deserving sin is imputed to Him.

Which is still not just.

As I said, it may be benevolent, it may be good, but it is not just.

I'm pretty sure that every human being that lives dies.
Except, of course, certain Old Testament prophets.

Indeed, people die, but Christian theology denies the idea of Death. You die, but you are not dead. Death is not the wages of sin, eternal torture is. Apparently.

But then Christ has no Glory! Everything the Father does is primarily for the Son, and secondly for us.

So, his main concern is glorifying himself, we come second.

That's narcissistic, at the very least.

Originally Posted by John

A human cannot commit an infinite evil.

A human can commit a definite evil, though.

No one deserves death.

No one can say who deserves death.

No? Why shouldn't our goal be to maximize happiness while minimizing suffering? Sounds like a good goal to me.

The theory is that you can't properly attain both maximum happiness and minimum suffering.

God has not dealt with evil, because there is still evil in the world. Evil he created, no less.

There is good in the world.

Which is still not just.

What is just? I cannot say that a lack of consequence would be just, and yet I cannot think of another suitable consequence for willingly and unrepentantly committing evils than being expelled from a paradise where no evil is allowed (or not being permitted).

Originally Posted by Mr. Lexxi Aileron

A human can commit a definite evil, though.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by that.

No one can say who deserves death.

Heh, forgive me my hubris for restating that no one deserves it.

How would you quantify that, anyway? "You committed 0.8 Hitler's worth of evil, so you deserve death. You, however, only committed 0.05 Hitler's, so you get to live."


Anyways, to say that someone deserves death makes many, many, many assumptions about morality, justice, and similar. It also implies that someone who does bad things cannot ever do good things or, at least, stop doing bad ones, which is not a judgement I'd ever make.

The theory is that you can't properly attain both maximum happiness and minimum suffering.

Doesn't mean that you can't strive to work towards doing so.

There is good in the world.

Indeed. But that does not do anything to the evil.

What is just? I cannot say that a lack of consequence would be just, and yet I cannot think of another suitable consequence for willingly and unrepentantly committing evils than being expelled from a paradise where no evil is allowed (or not being permitted).

Well, your version of Hell is rather different from NS's. Yours is, if I'm recalling correctly, essentially limbo.

His is rather more infernal.

Originally Posted by John

What meaning can such rules have, though, that our own moral systems cannot?

Well, our moral systems are fallible, and contradict His moral system, which is the true morality. Especially since He made this universe, therefore it is His, and His morals apply above ours.

Then he is not the source of morality, but simply relays it?

No, He is the source.

But what does having an evil nature mean?

That humans are naturally inclined to evil. Explaining this is really hard.
I guess it means you're born a sinner, therefore you sin. It's in your nature?
Please forgive me, but it's kind of hard to explain.

See, the common idea of evil seems to be a person who inflicts pain on others simply for the sake of inflicting pain. Some probably do do this, but they're in the minority.

Well, the common idea of evil is wrong, as the common man, who thinks he is good, is evil. Everyone does what is right in their own eyes, and since most people have the same opinion of what is right, they have created a little form of creed saying that evil is 'a person who inflicts pain on others for the sake of inflicting pain'.

But how can they both deserve infinite torture?

Because they're both sinners, are they not?

Disrespecting God is hardly an infinitely evil act, indeed, disrespecting a person is probably the least harm you can do to them. I can only imagine the fate of someone who attempted to harm God by the rules you seem to think he uses.

No, you really can't. Also, though one sin is enough to send you to hell, think of this: man, throughout his entire life, has only ever sinned. Sin is this putrid, disgusting, horridly evil act. Man has never done anything but sin, apart from Christ. Even an act that would appear righteous would have some kind of selfish desire behind it. Each of these is an act of utter hatred towards God, the only person who actually deserves not to be sinned against. A man like that, such as you, or me, surely deserves eternal damnation.

No idea. I do know that it was a smaller sect and was completely destroyed and had all records burned by the Roman empire.

Not all records, exactly. There are a few, such as the gospel of Thomas, that have partially made it out alive.

How, though, is that infinitely evil?

God is infinitely good.
Question, if the choice was either heaven or hell, where would you have God put sinners? (Please, don't say "purgatory" or "limbo". I'm talking about if there were only those two options.)

So?

You aren't infinitely good, and they aren't infinitely indebted to you. Therefore, you can't possible give them infinite punishment.

And you know God is good how?

God's morality is the standard of good. Therefore, whatever God's morality is, is good. God doesn't change, so the morality is absolute and unchanging.
If God was different, good would be different. But He's not, so it isn't.

Which is still not just.

As I said, it may be benevolent, it may be good, but it is not just.

Why? Is it not just, in this country, for someone to pay bail?

Indeed, people die, but Christian theology denies the idea of Death. You die, but you are not dead. Death is not the wages of sin, eternal torture is. Apparently.

Well, in Revelation, it describes two deaths. I'm sure you know this:
First death: soul leaves the body
Second death: Soul enters the Lake of Fire.
That's what it means by "the wage of sin is death".

So, his main concern is glorifying himself, we come second.

That's narcissistic, at the very least.

Actually, though it is God glorifying Himself, if looked upon deeper: Everything the Father does is for the Son, and everything the Son does is done in respect to the Father, and the Holy Spirit glorifies them both.

Originally Posted by NothingSpecial

Well, our moral systems are fallible, and contradict His moral system, which is the true morality.

How do you know it is the true morality?

No, He is the source.

Then why is his morality any less arbitrary and fallible than ours?

Because they're both sinners, are they not?

Which is, apparently, just another way of saying that they're both human.

No, you really can't. Also, though one sin is enough to send you to hell, think of this: man, throughout his entire life, has only ever sinned. Sin is this putrid, disgusting, horridly evil act. Man has never done anything but sin, apart from Christ. Even an act that would appear righteous would have some kind of selfish desire behind it. Each of these is an act of utter hatred towards God, the only person who actually deserves not to be sinned against. A man like that, such as you, or me, surely deserves eternal damnation.

No, since sins are not an act of utter hatred, and humans can do good. Or was all that stuff Jesus did just for show? All that helping the poor and sick was just a game?

Not all records, exactly. There are a few, such as the gospel of Thomas, that have partially made it out alive.

Indeed, but they had to be recovered from being buried in a cave.

God is infinitely good.
Question, if the choice was either heaven or hell, where would you have God put sinners? (Please, don't say "purgatory" or "limbo". I'm talking about if there were only those two options.)

Heaven. Both are equally unjust, but one is maliciously so, while the other is benevolent.

So it comes down to: Do you want to needlessly harm people forever, or needlessly let them live in paradise?

You aren't infinitely good, and they aren't infinitely indebted to you. Therefore, you can't possible give them infinite punishment.

Indeed, but disrespecting me is still the least harmful thing one can do.

Why? Is it not just, in this country, for someone to pay bail?

A closer analogy would be: Is it not just, in this country, for someone to bribe their way out of prison?

Actually, though it is God glorifying Himself, if looked upon deeper: Everything the Father does is for the Son, and everything the Son does is done in respect to the Father, and the Holy Spirit glorifies them both.

Which makes it recursively Narcissic, not really an improvement.

Originally Posted by John

How do you know it is the true morality?

Because, should the God of the bible exist (Which is not what we're arguing), He is described as the standard of morality, therefore, His morality would be the true one.

Then why is his morality any less arbitrary and fallible than ours?

Because, while we're fallible, He is not.

Which is, apparently, just another way of saying that they're both human.

...Yes.

No, since sins are not an act of utter hatred, and humans can do good. Or was all that stuff Jesus did just for show? All that helping the poor and sick was just a game?

Jesus lived on earth in the way His people were to live. His people are supposed to give to the sick and poor, and help others, but not because those others are good people.
Also, sins are, in fact, acts of utter hatred, towards God, no less. That's infinitely worse than hatred towards wicked men. (Not that I'm condoning hatred towards men).

Indeed, but they had to be recovered from being buried in a cave.

Yeah.

Heaven. Both are equally unjust, but one is maliciously so, while the other is benevolent.

Neither are unjust. And let the record show that the sinner in heaven would probably try to kill himself, as he'd hate it there. Because God's there. And he hates God.

So it comes down to: Do you want to needlessly harm people forever, or needlessly let them live in paradise?

If the deserve the former, then they should get the former.

Indeed, but disrespecting me is still the least harmful thing one can do.

Very true, however, though it may not be so bad if it's towards you, it would be if it were towards God.

A closer analogy would be: Is it not just, in this country, for someone to bribe their way out of prison?

Is it? (Well, I was talking about someone else paying your bail, because you don't have enough money, but I guess the principle's the same).

Which makes it recursively Narcissic, not really an improvement.

As Narcissistic as a father giving his son a toy.

Originally Posted by NothingSpecial

Because, should the God of the bible exist (Which is not what we're arguing), He is described as the standard of morality, therefore, His morality would be the true one.

Doesn't follow that his description is accurate, though.

Because, while we're fallible, He is not.

How could anything know that something is infallible?

Think about it, if God is fallible then he could mistakenly think he is infallible. It would be a genuine belief, but no less wrong.

Jesus lived on earth in the way His people were to live. His people are supposed to give to the sick and poor, and help others, but not because those others are good people.

But why bother to do good things if they do not matter to God? Why should I give to the poor if God will send me to hell regardless? (Assuming, of course, that we're only moral out of fear of God.)

Also, sins are, in fact, acts of utter hatred, towards God, no less. That's infinitely worse than hatred towards wicked men. (Not that I'm condoning hatred towards men).

No, the morality of the victim is almost meaningless when it comes to how bad a crime is.

Further, how can babies commit an act of utter hatred? Hatred requires intent, knowledge of the thing that is hated, and many other things that no infant has.

Further, as I've said, I do not hate God, for I do not think he exists. If I sin it is not out of hatred of him, but simply because it seems like the right/moral/best/etc. thing to do.

Neither are unjust. And let the record show that the sinner in heaven would probably try to kill himself, as he'd hate it there. Because God's there. And he hates God.

Indeed? I think you fundamentally misunderstand the mindset of non-believers.

I'd be fine with most interpretations of most Gods, I wouldn't see them as perfect, but they'd be nice enough. Most non-believers are, if anything, more appreciative of such deities than I would be.

I know of no one who is a "Hollywood Atheist", who is rebelling against God and intentionally committing sins as a giant sort of "F-you!" gesture.

If the deserve the former, then they should get the former.

But no one deserves hell. Note it was "Needless eternal pain" vs. "Needless eternal bliss."

Very true, however, though it may not be so bad if it's towards you, it would be if it were towards God.

The harm that sin does to God is, proportionally, less than any harm that can be done to me. That stands to reason, really, given the described nature of God.

It's the same principle that says that stealing $100 from Bill Gates is less immoral than stealing $100 from a homeless person.

God has more to lose, and so the trivial harm that a sin does is proportionally less (especially given how most sins don't harm him in any real way._

So how is raping a woman a worse crime against God than against the woman?

Is it? (Well, I was talking about someone else paying your bail, because you don't have enough money, but I guess the principle's the same).

Clearly bribing your way out of a prison sentence is not just. That is what your version of Heaven is, though, you get your good buddy to pull some strings with the judge so he'll drop the case against you.

As Narcissistic as a father giving his son a toy.

Save that the son is him. So you just have this big circle, with each member telling the next how awesome they are. And each member being the same person.

How is that not Narcissic?

Originally Posted by John

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by that.

If a human has committed an act which he knows or even believes to be an evil and is unrepentant, that would constitute a definite evil. As far as I can tell definite evils, along with an unwillingness to change immoral or malicious behavior, is the main barrier between mankind and God.

Heh, forgive me my hubris for restating that no one deserves it.

I suppose perhaps I wouldn't say either that people deserve it, rather that they choose it. Evil is spiritual suicide.

How would you quantify that, anyway?

It's not so much quantitative as qualitative. The theoretical formula is as follows (taken from the source found here):

In order for a sin to be mortal, it must meet three conditions:

* Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
* Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner [as to the sinfulness of the act]
* Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner [despite the previously described knowledge]

Sins of "grave matter" are sins that are violations of one or more of the Ten Commandments. The list given on this page is comprehensive, but in some cases fails to point out that many of the things it lists- atheism, despair, voluntary doubt of faith, etc- refer to specific kinds of the thing being described. Some atheists may inadvertently find themselves in contact with God in their daily doings and not realize it despite rejecting the concept of deity on principle, for example.

Doesn't mean that you can't strive to work towards doing so.

Can you do so without vice? If so, I commend you.

Indeed. But that does not do anything to the evil.

That is a matter of perspective, I'd say. We see examples every day of good working against the products of evil. So already that "does something" to the evil.

Unless your idea of what needs to be "done" to the evil is to do away with it completely, but I can hardly say that that's a compatible option with human freedom (especially since you seem so outspoken against destroying anyone who disobeys).

Well, your version of Hell is rather different from NS's. Yours is, if I'm recalling correctly, essentially limbo.

Perhaps it would be better described as essentially Earth without God. But admittedly you'd have to have a comprehension of what that would mean in theory to for that to have the remotest meaning for you, and I'm ill-equipped to explain it.

Although I suppose since you believe Earth is bad enough that an all-good God couldn't have been responsible for it, perhaps you should imagine that world, but without the good that we can say does exist.

Originally Posted by John

Doesn't follow that his description is accurate, though.

I guess that is part of faith, then.

But why bother to do good things if they do not matter to God? Why should I give to the poor if God will send me to hell regardless? (Assuming, of course, that we're only moral out of fear of God.)

Well, God commands it of everyone, would be the first reason. You should want to, is the second. Also, I would think that faith and repentance are necessary to please God, as without those, your good deeds are just as much sin as anything else. "Even our greatest works are as filthy rags before God". This word here, filthy rag, refers to a menstrual rag. In OT times, that was pretty filthy.

No, the morality of the victim is almost meaningless when it comes to how bad a crime is.

But why? I think I've asked this before, but honestly, I can't remember.
Sorry.

Further, how can babies commit an act of utter hatred? Hatred requires intent, knowledge of the thing that is hated, and many other things that no infant has.

No, the hatred is part of man's nature. He gets it as soon as he is born. Actually, I'd go so far as to say it attains a hatred of God as soon as it's conceived.

Further, as I've said, I do not hate God, for I do not think he exists. If I sin it is not out of hatred of him, but simply because it seems like the right/moral/best/etc. thing to do.

Doesn't matter if you believe in Him or not. Before I was saved, I honestly believed I loved Him, but now I know that I don't. The situation is not exactly the same, but still.

Indeed? I think you fundamentally misunderstand the mindset of non-believers.

I wouldn't say I do. You yourself admitted to hating the OT God, if He existed.

I'd be fine with most interpretations of most Gods, I wouldn't see them as perfect, but they'd be nice enough. Most non-believers are, if anything, more appreciative of such deities than I would be.

I doubt that, but I'll take your word for it.

I know of no one who is a "Hollywood Atheist", who is rebelling against God and intentionally committing sins as a giant sort of "F-you!" gesture.

I sure do.

But no one deserves hell. Note it was "Needless eternal pain" vs. "Needless eternal bliss."

But it's neither. It's "Necessary eternal punishment".

The harm that sin does to God is, proportionally, less than any harm that can be done to me. That stands to reason, really, given the described nature of God.

But an act of evil is not measured by how much harm it does to wicked men, but how offensive it is to a good God.

It's the same principle that says that stealing $100 from Bill Gates is less immoral than stealing $100 from a homeless person.

See above, though I'd agree that stealing from the homeless is less immoral than stealing from Bill Gates.

So how is raping a woman a worse crime against God than against the woman?

Though I'm in no way condoning rape, as I think it's a disgusting, almost unforgivable act, the woman would deserve something bad like that happening a lot more than God deserves crimes against Him.

Clearly bribing your way out of a prison sentence is not just. That is what your version of Heaven is, though, you get your good buddy to pull some strings with the judge so he'll drop the case against you.

Something like that. On the cross, Jesus said, "it is finished", which at that time, the word used in Greek, was used as a transaction term. "Payed in full". Your fine is payed, you're free to go. The fine, however, was the Wrath of God.

Save that the son is him. So you just have this big circle, with each member telling the next how awesome they are. And each member being the same person.

How is that not Narcissic?

The Son is not the Father, is not the Holy Spirit, but they're all One. Three separate Persons.

Originally Posted by Mr. Lexxi Aileron

*snip*

Not much to say, really, aside from the actual existence of a deity our views are pretty similar. I'd certainly have little issue with worshipping your God should I think he existed.

Perhaps it would be better described as essentially Earth without God. But admittedly you'd have to have a comprehension of what that would mean in theory to for that to have the remotest meaning for you, and I'm ill-equipped to explain it.

Although I suppose since you believe Earth is bad enough that an all-good God couldn't have been responsible for it, perhaps you should imagine that world, but without the good that we can say does exist.

Ah, but do you not believe that, due to free will, humanity can do good without God just as humanity can do evil without him?

Originally Posted by NothingSpecial

I guess that is part of faith, then.

But why have faith? Faith needs to be earned, and as far as I can tell God has done nothing to earn it.

But why? I think I've asked this before, but honestly, I can't remember.
Sorry.

Because how bad a crime is is determined by how much harm was done.

A virtuous person is not harmed significantly more by a crime than a heathen.

No, the hatred is part of man's nature. He gets it as soon as he is born. Actually, I'd go so far as to say it attains a hatred of God as soon as it's conceived.

Then it is not of their own volition and, as such, cannot truly be hatred nor should they be punished for it.

Do you truly think that 85% of the world's population would be religious if we all had a built-in, burning hatred of God?

Doesn't matter if you believe in Him or not. Before I was saved, I honestly believed I loved Him, but now I know that I don't. The situation is not exactly the same, but still.

I cannot hate something I do not think exists.

I wouldn't say I do. You yourself admitted to hating the OT God, if He existed.

Indeed, but since he doesn't, I don't.

I doubt that, but I'll take your word for it.

See above, I take little issue with Lexxi's version of God. I disagree with some of his things, but overall he's not a bad sort.

But an act of evil is not measured by how much harm it does to wicked men, but how offensive it is to a good God.

Why, though?

Something like that. On the cross, Jesus said, "it is finished", which at that time, the word used in Greek, was used as a transaction term. "Payed in full". Your fine is payed, you're free to go. The fine, however, was the Wrath of God.

It is very unjust, though, which is my point.

The Son is not the Father, is not the Holy Spirit, but they're all One. Three separate Persons.

It matters little, they are all the same thing and individuals, it doesn't change anything, i't still just a Narcissic.

Originally Posted by NothingSpecial

But it's neither. It's "Necessary eternal punishment".

Yeah, punishing millions of babies for all eternity is very necessary.

Originally Posted by John

Ah, but do you not believe that, due to free will, humanity can do good without God just as humanity can do evil without him?

Theoretically, I suppose.

I believe that God-like/God's grace is for all practical purposes necessary to be perfect, which is why it's necessary to be in a state in which we possess such grace to dwell in the perfect paradise: heaven.

Originally Posted by John

But why have faith? Faith needs to be earned, and as far as I can tell God has done nothing to earn it.

Why not? I'd say He has.

Because how bad a crime is is determined by how much harm was done.

A virtuous person is not harmed significantly more by a crime than a heathen.

I would agree that how much harm was done is definitely a factor, but I'd still hold that whom the act was against is another factor.

Then it is not of their own volition and, as such, cannot truly be hatred nor should they be punished for it.

But it is of their own volition, don't you see. They've chosen every act they've ever done.

Do you truly think that 85% of the world's population would be religious if we all had a built-in, burning hatred of God?

Of course I would! Actually, I'd even go so far as to say that many people turn to be religious because they had such a hatred of God. If you believe in another god, or that God is different, then you don't worry anymore! So many people in north american churches today don't even know who the God of the Old Testament is! They just read the New Testament, and even then, they conform it to a modern-day humanist context, making their christianity more of an idolatry then an actual Christianity.

I cannot hate something I do not think exists.

Exactly.

See above, I take little issue with Lexxi's version of God. I disagree with some of his things, but overall he's not a bad sort.

Fair enough.

Why, though?

Actually, I made a mistake here. I didn't want to say that how much harm it causes in a person is irrelevant, but the fact that it insults God is much, much worse, because He's God: The only one who deserves not to be sinned against.

It is very unjust, though, which is my point.

Yes, it is! Those who's sins are not covered are going to receive their just punishment, and those who's sins are payed for are pretty much clean, making them worthy to enter in through the gates of heaven.

It matters little, they are all the same thing and individuals, it doesn't change anything, i't still just a Narcissic.

Very well, then. I'd rather you think God's narcissic because I preach Him as He is, than you think He's some happy old man who looks like Santa Clause because I watered Him down to man's standards, as so many TV evangelical Joel Osteen's do.