What's the problem? I would be punished by the Living God, not by man, and probably if God decides to punish me, then I absolutely deserve it, and would wish no different. God is the very standard of justice and truth. He is no man.I would Love to hear you say that if you end up in the hell of John of Patmos — Beebert
How can it be unjust when God is the very criteria by which justice is decided? :s So let's see, you're going to judge God for throwing anyone in hell based on HIS OWN CRITERIA - how does that make any sense? What you're doing here is that you're raising yourself above God - much like Lucifer - and casting down judgement upon his creation. Why? Because of your weakness - you cannot accept that it is so. It is pure ressentiment and nothing else. And you form a morality which is above and beyond God himself, which you then use to judge God. That's nonsense.The question is rather: How can one be so blind as to not see that not a single doctrine is more cruel than this one, that it is the opposite of "justice"? — Beebert
Sure, since now you're referring to people.The hatred that has blossomed in the heart of someone who demands and longs for this must be so great that it has no end and no cure; that is, it must be as infinite as the hell they Believe in — Beebert
St. Paul says:It is obvious that Paul believed himself to be saved and going to heaven while others would go to hell. — Beebert
Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
If we were to have a punishment of torturing someone then we would be a cruel and violent nation. Why? "Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord" You don't seem to understand the distinction between creature and Creator. Yes, it would be immoral for us creatures to set up hell. The same isn't true for God.Eternal hell isnt a solution to anything. It is primitive and heartless and nothing besides. — Beebert
Why? We speak to share God's mysteries. Mysteries by their very nature transcend the understanding, but are not therefore false. Furthermore, we speak to praise God - the fact that God is beyond all classifications and understanding illustrates God's greatness and supremacy. He is not in the pocket of a tiny little Einstein.If so, then we shouldnt speak of him at all. — Beebert
It was right for Galileo to be tried. He had absolutely no proof that the telescope, the new instrument which he used to make his measurements even measured accurately. He was using this instrument to measure the heavens, an instrument for which there was no empirical backing whatsoever. It's like me coming up with a new instrument, and then like a child insisting that I am right, and the whole scientific community is wrong in requesting further study of the instrument before the conclusions based on its measurements can be accepted.the trial of Galileo Galilei — Beebert
Yep. What's wrong with that? Have you not read what Jesus Christ Himself says?! Matthew 19:28"Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world
shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?"
?!?!?! What? Shall the Saints, a John of Patmos etc. judge the world? — Beebert
Foolish. I don't think Einstein was "noble". Or Galileo for that matter.And yet, in reality the foolish have been like the "learned"(Aquinas, the whole Catholic Church) and the noble (an Einstein, a Galilei etc) have been like a child. — Beebert
Why? You are judged based on moral considerations, not musical and compositional skill. You can be an unrepentant rapist who nevertheless writes the greatest music. So what?! You think that somehow that excuses you?! :s You're excused from having to follow moral rules because you're "great"? What kind of nonsense is this?I can't even imagine seeing a Paul at some throne judging a Beethoven... — Beebert
No, they never said they can judge for God.The blindness among those who do not see that it is he who wrongly considers himself to be saved that condemns others to hell and come up with dogmas to tell how one is damned and who is damned and not. This IS cruelty beyond all other cruelties. — Beebert
Truly.Wow, what great psychology! I guess even you have to Thank Nietzsche then! — Beebert
Why so? Nietzsche did have some good points, I never denied it did I?A bit dishonest though, dont you think? — Beebert
Sure, but your biggest problem is dealing with your anxiety. You will conquer your anxiety by being strong - by being okay with the idea of you yourself going to hell. It's a possibility that all of us have to take into consideration. Any one of us may end up in hell. We work out our salvation with fear and trembling.And if I judge anything, it is a fantasy and not a True living God. That is obvious based on your understanding of God — Beebert
The Church back in the day was doing what the scientific community is doing today (because most of the scientists were also priests, because priests were mostly the ones who had access to the required education). The scientific community also "trials" people today. If you get trialed and thrown out, your papers won't be accepted for publication anymore. It's the same thing.Be consequent here, and stop being stupid. If you say that the Church was right because it was scientific, then surely you must remain honest based on your convictions and admit it was wrong. It was wrong to start with to even pretend to have the authority to trial someone for a discovery, no matter how true it was. — Beebert
We don't know if he is, but probably he is. He had a direct encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, and many things were revealed to him, compared to most other Christians.You dont understand my words. And you havent understood Paul, so talking about Scripture is obviously meaningless. Isnt he the predestined to glory? — Beebert
If you believe your own words with regards to hell to be true, then you at least intend to attack whom you perceive the real God to be.What makes you fantasize that I do? — Beebert
?But that God might as well be... You know — Beebert
How do you know? Feyerabend is a scholar (and an atheist by the way). He thought the Church acted rationally. And I think so too. The evidence is absolutely in their favor. They may have wanted to dominate (who knows what they really wanted), but the facts are such that they had a right to act the way they did.It was not what the Church did, or mostly, it wasn't the reason they did what they did. — Beebert
Back in that day yes, because there was no other way to prevent them from publishing their works. Today no, because we have scientific journals, and if you don't get published in the relevant journals you will be ignored by the scientific community anyway. It was a more barbaric way of police-ing what happens. Wasn't Nietzsche the one who said that as societies develop, their punishments get lighter or something to that effect, but only because the societies get stronger and have stronger means of preventing harm?And is that even a good reason for condemning someone and threstening the person with death? — Beebert
You misunderstand. God is incomprehensible, BUT we do know that He is the standard of justice and truth, for there is nothing higher than God. Therefore you cannot judge God by the human idea of justice and eternal punishment, that is foolish, since you already know that God is the very standard of justice and truth.But let me start: God's justice is beyond our comprehension of justice you claim over and over again. I dont know this God. Therefore I judge what I know, and Based on that, the human idea of eternal punishment being justice is more reprehensible than any crime ever committed. — Beebert
Both. There is no faith without works, and no authentic works without faith.Faith? Or Works? — Beebert
Yes, but we do have access to revelation. You need grounds for questioning something, and such grounds are in this case missing.Who knows? Surely only those who God has revealed this to would know it. — Beebert
Because that is absurd, we would never form that conception of God.Without revelation, why not say "God is the very standard of injustice and falsehood. He IS injustice and falsehood" — Beebert
No I'm not. To say God is beyond reason isn't to say God is IRRATIONAL. Hence it's not meaningless at all. Beyond reason isn't the same as irrational.But you are blind because you take it for granted that God is good (and yet beyond goodness). You are basically just saying meaningless things. — Beebert
No, I take it that God is transcendent, and hence beyond good and evil for God is Creator.But you are blind because you take it for granted that God is good (and yet beyond goodness). — Beebert
No, this doesn't follow at all. Trying to put the blame on me for your own immoral thoughts isn't going to work. You have convinced yourself of that, which is nothing but foolishness.And you have convinced me that if I one day am "brave" enough to accept that your monster God will torture me forever, I am justified to go rape and kill everyone I see. — Beebert
Right, God alone can judge, but you've already decided you're probably damned :s Do you even believe what you're saying?Because God alone can judge, and I am probably damned because I refuse to accept what I believe to be a reprehensible understanding of the world. — Beebert
Why would I do that? I respect, love and admire God.Why not declare war against God and mankind in the meantime like Lucifer himself? — Beebert
No I'm not saying it is ugly at all. That's your misinterpretation. I've already told you that God IS the very standard by which beauty (and truth and justice, etc etc.) are judged by.You said before that Nietzsche believed truth to be ugly... I claim that is what you yourself believe. — Beebert
It looks ugly to you, I don't see anything ugly in the unrighteous being punished by the Living God.No matter how that truth looks like right? — Beebert
Again, beyond reason =/ irrational.The Only conclusion to Draw from your understanding and reasoning of God is "There is no point in neither reasoning with eachother nor trying to understand" — Beebert
You are projecting once again.Christianity makes criminals worse than they already are and create enemies. — Beebert
We don't understand what "eternal" means in "eternal hell". You seem to understand it so very well, the rest of us not so much.The thing is that you claim, based on your tradition, that God actually does send people (according to Scripture the majority) to hell — Beebert
:s Never said this. God is the Creator of both good and evil - of both pairs of the duality.The rational, the unchanging, the good, the true, the moral. These cannot have become and must therefore be causes, is that so? Why? — Beebert
Everyone else.Who are we? — Beebert
No, I'm not sure if eternal = infinite temporal duration.Do you then at least have any idea of what it means? — Beebert
Of what use is this insult?That is very selfish but so what? You invite me to it. And if you werent a typical Engineer in your dryness — Beebert
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.