You said before that Nietzsche believed truth to be ugly... I claim that is what you yourself believe. And now you try to tell me to be strong enough to accept that truth is ugly, while you meanwhile judge Nietzsche for believing such a thing! And now to the height of your lies and hypocrisy: "I believe in the True living God. Hence Truth is beuatiful"... No matter how that truth looks like right? 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"

"I'm not quite sure Nietzsche is that great either. There's a lot of things he was blind to."

I know you Believe so. I am not surprised, you are even more biased than I am. At least I can admit that I love Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky and even esteem them higher than most if not all of the greatest writers and philosophers in history. And they both advocated christianity. But you seem unable to penetrate beyond the words and in to the spirit and psychology of what is written. Because if you did, you would see that if one admits that Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky is great but do not admit that Nietzsche is great, one either lies or does not understand... Also, even if Nietzcshe was "blind" to some things (who isnt? The "great" Apostles apparently thought Christ would come back during their lifetime), it doesnt mean he wasn't great.

"The existence of the power of evil in the human heart and in human history is an undeniable fact." said Ratzinger in 2008. Well the popes would know wouldnt they?

I would Love to hear you say that if you end up in the hell of John of Patmos — Beebert

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.

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

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 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

Sure, since now you're referring to people.

It is obvious that Paul believed himself to be saved and going to heaven while others would go to hell. — Beebert

St. Paul says:

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.

Everyone, including St. Paul, have been working out their salvations with fear and trembling.

Eternal hell isnt a solution to anything. It is primitive and heartless and nothing besides. — Beebert

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.

If so, then we shouldnt speak of him at all. — 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.

the trial of Galileo Galilei — 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.

And that's not the bad part. The bad part is that he published and insisted, even when asked to reconsider and verify, that he is right. He was absolutely wrong, and the Church was right. The Church applied the scientific method in judging Galileo. We were not yet ready to consider the telescope a valid instrument for making the measurements. Of course, Galileo did happen to be right, BUT he had no way of knowing he was right when he came up with it. It was Galileo who was the irrational child stomping his feet, and it was the Church who was rational and applying the scientific method. If you read Feyerabend's Against Method, you will see this particular instance discussed in more detail.

"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

Yep. What's wrong with that? Have you not read what Jesus Christ Himself says?! Matthew 19:28

That is not Paul, John's or anyone else's invention. Jesus Himself said it.

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

Foolish. I don't think Einstein was "noble". Or Galileo for that matter.

I can't even imagine seeing a Paul at some throne judging a Beethoven... — 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?

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

No, they never said they can judge for God.

Wow, what great psychology! I guess even you have to Thank Nietzsche then! — Beebert

Truly.

A bit dishonest though, dont you think? — Beebert

Why so? Nietzsche did have some good points, I never denied it did I?

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

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.

Because if you did, you would see that if one admits that Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky is great but do not admit that Nietzsche is great, one either lies or does not understand... — Beebert

Yes, Nietzsche is great. In comparison to Hume ;) .

"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.

And that's not the bad part. The bad part is that he published and insisted, even when asked to reconsider and verify, that he is right. He was absolutely wrong, and the Church was right. The Church applied the scientific method in judging Galileo. We were not yet ready to consider the telescope a valid instrument for making the measurements. Of course, Galileo did happen to be right, BUT he had no way of knowing he was right when he came up with it. It was Galileo who was the irrational child stomping his feet, and it was the Church who was rational and applying the scientific method. If you read Feyerabend's Against Method, you will see this particular instance discussed in more detail."

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.

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

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.

I am absolutely being honest. Yes, the Church was wrong (ultimately), but it took the right decision at that time. It was the decision that should have been taken by ANY rational person.

"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."

You dont understand my words. And you havent understood Paul, so talking about Scripture is obviously meaningless. Isnt he the predestined to glory? "And if I judge anything, it is a fantasy and not a True living God. That is obvious based on your understanding of God"... I hope you actually did understand what I meant here. I havent judged God according to you. I havent set myself up against God like Lucifer according to you, when you claim that it is just your own wish to dominate a discussion. Because you judge, and you claim God to be beyond language. You also claim that Nietzsche never attacked the True God. What makes you fantasize that I do?

You dont understand my words. And you havent understood Paul, so talking about Scripture is obviously meaningless. Isnt he the predestined to glory? — 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.

What makes you fantasize that I do? — 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.

It was not what the Church did, or mostly, it wasn't the reason they did what they did. It took then 400 years to admit Galilei was right for one thing. It wanted to dominate. They couldnt condemn what they didnt have any justification for claiming it was false. "Galilei isnt scientific, hence he is wrong", is that how they reasoned according to you? And is that even a good reason for condemning someone and threstening the person with death? Hence, they lied.

"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."

Very true! But that God might as well be... You know

"Yep. What's wrong with that? Have you not read what Jesus Christ Himself says?! Matthew 19:28"

The historical Jesus or?...

But that God might as well be... You know — Beebert

?

It was not what the Church did, or mostly, it wasn't the reason they did what they did. — 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.

And is that even a good reason for condemning someone and threstening the person with death? — 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?

The historical Jesus or?... — 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 fallacy behind this reasoning is so obvious I dont even need to explain it to you. To start with: You didnt answer my post that already answered to more than half of what you say here. 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.

"Why? You are judged based on moral considerations"

Faith? Or Works? Or both?

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

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.

Faith? Or Works? — Beebert

Both. There is no faith without works, and no authentic works without faith.

"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."

Who knows? Surely only those who God has revealed this to would know it. Otherwise you base Everything on human ideas and might as well call anything justice. Dont you know how language evolves? Without revelation, why not say "God is the very standard of injustice and falsehood. He IS injustice and falsehood"

Who knows? Surely only those who God has revealed this to would know it. — Beebert

Yes, but we do have access to revelation. You need grounds for questioning something, and such grounds are in this case missing.

Without revelation, why not say "God is the very standard of injustice and falsehood. He IS injustice and falsehood" — Beebert

Because that is absurd, we would never form that conception of God.

So? That is because you dont understand that Truth can be ugly. You are too short-sighted. Yet according to me you are the one who proclaims ugly truth. But then you defend it by saying "No one can question God". 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.

" we would never form that conception of God."

Are you saying we have invented a Conception of God where God is Beautiful truth for the righteous while the damned shall too consider their eternal torture as something wonderful and Beautiful because it is decided by the Beautiful God? So you say: "We would never form a disastrous conception of God, because God is Truth and Truth is just, lovely, beuatiful, Good" and at the same time "God can do what he wants. He can torture you without you having the right to question him because God is good." What the hell are you talking about? You know what, you reason in an unrespectable and unacceotable way not worth wasting time on. 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. 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. So hell for me! I take it! Now: Why not declare war against God and mankind in the meantime like Lucifer himself? You said before that Nietzsche believed truth to be ugly... I claim that is what you yourself believe. And now you try to tell me to be strong enough to accept that truth is ugly, while you meanwhile judge Nietzsche for believing such a thing! And now to the height of your lies and hypocrisy: "I believe in the True living God. Hence Truth is beuatiful"... No matter how that truth looks like right? 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"

Christianity makes criminals worse than they already are and create enemies.

"Yes, but we do have access to revelation. You need grounds for questioning something, and such grounds are in this case missing."
I would claim the opposite.

The thing is that you claim, based on your tradition, that God actually does send people (according to Scripture the majority) to hell, while I claim God does not. But you then say I question God, while in reality, I question your hideous tradition based on lust for revenge dressed up as morality. Your conception of morality is my definition of cruelty. Why have the hindus and the buddhists Only reserved hell to the absolutely "cruelest"? And yet, their hell is never eternal. Why is this? What justification for the Christian concept? "It is based on history" you will proudly claim. So? I wasn't there. Why not as well believe it is a lie? Most of history is a lie. And the liars have more often than not been the Ones who has formad history. I have had a revelation that made me sure hinduism as proclaimed in the upanishads to be true. Why not Believe that then?
Also, you reason as if everything must be of the first rank in order to be causa sui. Origin out of something else is a questioning of "God", a blasphemy (yet you claim like a professional liar that I can't question christianity without revelation, But apparently I can blaspheme without revelation). The rational, the unchanging, the good, the true, the moral. These cannot have become and must therefore be causes, is that so? Why?

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'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). — Beebert

No, I take it that God is transcendent, and hence beyond good and evil for God is Creator.

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

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.

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

Right, God alone can judge, but you've already decided you're probably damned :s Do you even believe what you're saying?

Why not declare war against God and mankind in the meantime like Lucifer himself? — Beebert

Why would I do that? I respect, love and admire God.

You said before that Nietzsche believed truth to be ugly... I claim that is what you yourself believe. — 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.

No matter how that truth looks like right? — Beebert

It looks ugly to you, I don't see anything ugly in the unrighteous being punished by the Living God.

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

Again, beyond reason =/ irrational.

Christianity makes criminals worse than they already are and create enemies. — Beebert

You are projecting once again.

Your thoughts are all over the place, and it's impossible to discuss like this. Please pick a specific subject/topic and let's discuss it.

The thing is that you claim, based on your tradition, that God actually does send people (according to Scripture the majority) to hell — 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 rational, the unchanging, the good, the true, the moral. These cannot have become and must therefore be causes, is that so? Why? — Beebert

:s Never said this. God is the Creator of both good and evil - of both pairs of the duality.

Not to mention that your thoughts are the absolute height of stupidity - you believe you may be damned, and therefore you propose suicide or worse as the answer! As if another wrong can somehow remedy the situation or make it better! No, of course it can't but you, out of spite and resentment, dream up these monsters. Because you're damned, you might as well make the world hell for yourself and others, because why not? You're damned anyway, what do you care? Doesn't that sound selfish even to you?

And not just this, but you believe you MAY be damned. Of course there's a small chance maybe - say 0.1% - that you're not damned. But you don't even want to play that chance. Instead, you prefer to screw all your chances of salvation, because why not, 0.1% is too small for you to accept! Only 100% will do!

That is very selfish but so what? You invite me to it. And if you werent a typical Engineer in your dryness you would have understood that I am making thought experiences rather than actually seriously considering to make the world a hell for all.

"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."
Who are we? Historically you Christians seem to have understood it quite well. Do you then at least have any idea of what it means?

Your thoughts are all over the place, and it's impossible to discuss like this. Please pick a specific subject/topic and let's discuss it."

actually they are not

Who are we? — Beebert

Everyone else.

Do you then at least have any idea of what it means? — Beebert

No, I'm not sure if eternal = infinite temporal duration.

That is very selfish but so what? You invite me to it. And if you werent a typical Engineer in your dryness — Beebert

Of what use is this insult?

"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."

Omg what made you draw that conclusion from what I said?