I would also love to hear your arguments about Why christianity is true and the only way to salvation rather than the other religions. Preferably another argument than the historical one.

Okay, sure, so what's the point? You don't seem to like the idea of eternal hell. Why not? Can you - a created being - decide what the just punishment is better than the uncreated God? If the uncreated God decided that eternal hell is the just punishment, why would you say it's unjust? Based on what? — Agustino

Objections shouldn’t start with injustice. It will always fall prey to either the opposed moral position or speculation about the nature of hell. As a beginning point, to call an God’s treatment of humanity and hell an injustice isn’t at all convincing. A better window into the failures of Christianity is the question of human weakness.

Is God successful, not in the sense of morality, but with respect to the question overcoming human weakness? We begin with with the question you were asking in another thread: how can human weakness be overcome? How do we get beyond death, pain and suffering which haunts us here on Earth?

Under this measure, Christianity is an abject failure. It cannot overcome human weakness for millions of unbelievers. Indeed, Christianity is constituted by the presence of human weakness, for it specifies the hierarchy of Christian (strong) and non-Christian (weak). If our concern is overcoming the weakness of human death or the suffering instituted by worldly conflict, a Christian world is amongst the greatest tragedies, a natural disaster constituting human weakness of millions of people.

If someone is purely concerned with the question of overcoming human weakness (as opposed to the limits of overcoming human weakness in the world, be they defined by ability or morality), Christianity is a failed cure. Why would anyone concerned only with overcoming human weakness be attracted to Christianity as an ideal? Such a world leaves millions of unbelievers with human weakness. If it really just is human weakness that matters, the ideal solution is one of many possible outcomes where non-believers are also granted the strength of victory over death and sin.

Christianity is only effective at overcoming human weakness for the Christian. It an absolute disaster for any one concerned about the human weakness of everyone, even if it does happen to be just— a tragedy of the order of having to let someone starve to death so another can have food, only multiplied into the millions.

I would also add that except the controversial statement in the epistle to the Hebrews about Jesus being the same today, yesterday and forever, it seems blasphemous to say that God is unchangeable if one takes a look at scripture. He changes all the time. In fact, Only a bad reader would refuse to admit that Jehovah of the five books of Mose is human all too human. And not Only that, he changes all the time. He is not the Aristotelian God that Aquinas is guilty of stealing some ideas from and thereby corrupting the Christian understanding of things all the more. And "Ehyeh ašer ehyeh", is not best translated as "I am that I am", but rather as "I will be present wherever and whenever I will be present", which also obviously implies the opposite : That he Will be absent whenever he chooses to, something he most often seems to have preferred to be. Now, an all-mighty creator, that is impossible to explain away right? I know one can use your language of a God who can create a stone he cant lift and yet lift it... But so? Either creation has come to existence without God deciding it to come to existence, and if so, his omnipotence is gone, because creation happened without his consent. Or he creates the world because he so wishes, but that means he still isnt sovereignly omnipotent, because he then obeys his own wish to create. God cant be the same before and after he creates. If Christians really believe in the law of cause and effect (Perhaps they dont?) then that means that all things MUST happen when they do happen. An all-knowing God who knows all the future would also demand this, no? This seems to imply that God either can never create, or that he is forced to create without interruption.

By the way, I am stunned at the orthldox christian view of free will, which seems exceptionally primitive in many ways. It shows a lacking understanding of the nature of conciousness. Is the following a correct understanding of christianity?

God caused people to disobey him (Rom 11:32). If they do not understand God's message it is because he has made their minds dull (Rom 11:8) and caused them to be stubborn (Rom 9:18). God prevents the Gospel from being preached in certain areas (Act 16:6-7) and he fixes long before it will happen when a person will be born and when he or she will die (Act 17:26). Those who were going to be saved were chosen by God before the beginning of time (ii Tim 1:9 Eph 1:11). If a person has faith and is thereby saved, their faith comes from God, not from any effort on their part (Eph 2:9-10). One may ask "If a person can only do what God predetermines them to do, how can God hold them responsible for their actions?" The Bible has an answer for this question.

But one of you will say to me: "If this is so, how can God find fault with anyone? For who can resist God's will?" But who are you, my friend, to answer God back? A clay pot does not ask the man who made it: "Why did you make me like this?" After all, the man who makes the pot has the right to use the clay as he wishes, and to make two pots from one lump of clay, one for special occasions and one for ordinary use. And the same is true of what God has done (Rom 9:19-22).

In other words, based on Scripture and based on your own typically christian understanding of morality, evil, injustice etc, to out of that make the conclusion that God appears to be unjust, evil, capricious, sadistic and immoral or at best a moral monster doesnt seem far of. And the hypocritical and evil thing seems to be to object it and call it blasphemy. Sure, you might use your typical excuse and say "God is just because he chooses what is just. He is God". Sure. But does he then give us certain rules in what justice and morality etc is, but follows other instincts for himself?

I know you Will object to this, I guess it is a matter of taste; but to me it seems obvious that one of the major and most genius discoveries of Nietzsshe is his understanding of the apostle Paul as a genius in hatred.

If God is unchangeable and eternal and outside of time, then this must mean that Everything that has come in to existence out of him must be either only representation and appearence, or eternally existing outside of time (That again means that this world is just like Schopenhauer understood it, which would give the writers of the upanishads right), otherwise God went from Being the only Being, in to being he who created everything. Or perhaps God WASN'T before he created? Perhaps Stendhal said it best: "God's only excuse is that he doesn't exist".

Nietzsche was mostly right about christianity. His critique has nothing to do about the "Living God", but about christianity as an established religion and as a cultural phenomena.

“When it comes to how we should deal with evil doers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil,” Jeffress said. “In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un.”

Who is the man behind these words? And evangelical pastor and advisor to Trump. A typical example of what Paul's Words can lead to.

Number 2 isn't just an idea. An idea is always an idea OF something (an idea of a circle, an idea of a man, an idea of God, etc.). Number 2 is a being, an entity, which is of a different kind than material entities in this world are. — Agustino

An idea of an idea.

What do you mean that "something isn't true"? Again, you're asking these questions, but you don't take into consideration how truth applies to different types of beings - you presuppose it applies in the same manner. — Agustino

And you presuppose that there are different types of beings based on faith.

Our human experience. — Agustino

Human experience of the transcendent? You can't know that. Pure hamfisting here.

Only if we limit ourselves to the "scientific" world. — Agustino

We're not the ones doing the limiting, the world is.

Irrelevant. Those don't claim to be transcendent as Mithras, the gods, and other spiritual realities claim to be. Instead they are empirical matters, which are indeed a matter of verification. — Agustino

They don't claim? What? So, demons in themselves claim to be transcendent, therefore they are? You've made no sense at all here...

Under this measure, Christianity is an abject failure. It cannot overcome human weakness for millions of unbelievers. Indeed, Christianity is constituted by the presence of human weakness, for it specifies the hierarchy of Christian (strong) and non-Christian (weak). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Where the fuck are you pulling this shit from? Christianity doesn't claim to have a "cure", nor does it use Nietzschean words like strong or weak to categorize people. But if it did, it would claim that we are all weak and in need of Christ. Sin, which is the word you're looking for, is not a curable condition. No Church father has ever claimed the contrary.

"We're not the ones doing the limiting, the world is."

+1

It cannot overcome human weakness for millions of unbelievers. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Why is that Christianity's failure, and not rather the failure of the unbelievers?

If our concern is overcoming the weakness of human death or the suffering instituted by worldly conflict, a Christian world is amongst the greatest tragedies, a natural disaster constituting human weakness of millions of people. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I think Christianity does make death and suffering easier to bear for that matter. As Nietzsche said, he who has a why, can bear almost any how.

Why would anyone concerned only with overcoming human weakness be attracted to Christianity as an ideal? — TheWillowOfDarkness

Because according even to you it works for the believers? >:O So if they become believers it will work for them?

Christianity is only effective at overcoming human weakness for the Christian. — TheWillowOfDarkness

:D

An idea of an idea. — Buxtebuddha

Soon we're going to get to an infinite regress of an idea of an idea, etc. This doesn't really work because obviously the number 2 isn't the same as the idea of the number 2. A circle, isn't the same as the idea of a circle. A circle is a concept, in other words, a relationship between a set of points.

And you presuppose that there are different types of beings based on faith. — Buxtebuddha

No, not at all, I presuppose this by just looking at the world. I don't encounter just physical objects in the world. Emotions for example are neither physical, nor are they ideas, and yet one feels them and encounters them. By the way, please be aware that I'm using "being" in the philosophical sense.

Human experience of the transcendent? You can't know that. Pure hamfisting here. — Buxtebuddha

Why? Human experience of the transcendent is so common - our history is littered with examples of theophanies.

it seems blasphemous to say that God is unchangeable if one takes a look at scripture. — Beebert

God in His essence is both changing and unchanging at one and the same time - obviously. I don't even know why you mention this, as if I didn't already know that the God of the Bible is a transcendent God.

He is not the Aristotelian God that Aquinas — Beebert

:s As if Aquinas denied the transcendence and mystery of God... Quite the contrary, he said reason goes only so far, and ascribes properties to God ANALOGICALLY. But of course, you probably critique him without knowing all those subtleties, much like Nietzsche. It's no fun to put up a strawman and then burn it.

Or he creates the world because he so wishes, but that means he still isnt sovereignly omnipotent, because he then obeys his own wish to create. — Beebert

By sovereign we actually do mean someone who can actualise his will if he so desires.

God caused people to disobey him (Rom 11:32). — Beebert

That's not what it says.

"For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."

If they do not understand God's message it is because he has made their minds dull (Rom 11:8) — Beebert

"According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear"

As I've told you many times, this means that God allowed them to persist in their sin. It's metaphorical language. You seem to have started to read the Bible like John MacArthur :P

God prevents the Gospel from being preached in certain areas (Act 16:6-7) — Beebert

False. Rather God prevents certain of the Apostles from preaching there. Why? Because they were meant by God to preach in different places. There were others meant to preach in Asia.

"Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not."

Those who were going to be saved were chosen by God before the beginning of time (ii Tim 1:9 Eph 1:11) — Beebert

Yes, all humans have been predestined to find their joy only in God and by serving God's purposes. Yep, our purpose was predestined and given to us before the world began. We were also predestined to exist, etc.

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will"
"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began"

If a person has faith and is thereby saved, their faith comes from God, not from any effort on their part (Eph 2:9-10). — Beebert

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
Yes, it does come from God, doesn't everything, including your intellect for example come from God?! Where do you think it comes from, the devil?!

"If a person can only do what God predetermines them to do, how can God hold them responsible for their actions?" — Beebert

Nope, that's not what it says in those passages. You cannot cite even one single instance of a man doing what he does because God predetermines him to do so. And even if God predetermined them, He could still hold them responsible so long as they have free will. God predetermined them to have free will too.

And the hypocritical and evil thing seems to be to object it and call it blasphemy. — Beebert

Well it is blasphemy because you're purposefully misinterpreting what holy Scripture says, in a manner that is quite a bit like John MacArthur to tell you the truth.

“When it comes to how we should deal with evil doers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil,” Jeffress said. “In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un.” — Beebert

Well yes, God has endowed them with this power, where else do you think this power is coming from?! :s Oh the devil, you're going to say. Well who endowed the devil with power?

And there's nothing wrong with fighting evil by force.

If God is unchangeable and eternal and outside of time, then this must mean that Everything that has come in to existence out of him must be either only representation and appearence, or eternally existing outside of time (That again means that this world is just like Schopenhauer understood it, which would give the writers of the upanishads right), otherwise God went from Being the only Being, in to being he who created everything. Or perhaps God WASN'T before he created? Perhaps Stendhal said it best: "God's only excuse is that he doesn't exist". — Beebert

Incomplete interpretation.

Really, I'd like to have a discussion with you, but so far you've just been strawmanning and purposefully misinterpreting things so that they fit with the story you want to tell. If you want to have a discussion, please put more effort in deciphering the meaning of what you read in light of Apostolic Tradition. Otherwise it's quite pointless, as you seem to be fixated to interpret things in such a way that they fit the story you want to say, on an a priori basis.

well what is the point with our discussion to start with?

well what is the point with our discussion to start with? — Beebert

I don't know, but you keep raising questions upon questions (which have little to do with one another), and then when I answer a bunch of them, you always ignore the answers, or avoid answering the questions that I'm asking you. Below are just a FEW of the many things which you've never even bothered to answer:

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. — Agustino

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? — Agustino

What have you done to be more precise? — Agustino

No, these are not a progression, but rather three different ways of being in the world. They are "moods" rather than paths. Kierkegaard's ultimate point is that the aesthetic mood is a forgetfulness of the ethical mood, and the ethical mood is a forgetfulness of the religious mood. In-so-far as this relationship holds true, this means that the religious mood does not deny the ethical and the aesthetical, but rather subsumes and incorporates them in itself. Aufheben. — Agustino

What's the use of that? What do you think you'll achieve with it? — Agustino

I would pray that God forgive me and spare me of that fate, but if that's what He wants, then I will accept it, for Him. Afterall, He too died for me, why shouldn't I be willing to suffer for Him if I must? It is not up to a servant to question his Master in the end. — Agustino

Not to mention pretty much my entire previous post..

None of those things are particulary meaningful to answer, you take them out of context. Neither did you answer all my posts. Anyway if you insist on me answering them:

"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."

Okay, good for you! Except I did answer this one. I answered what was meaningful to reply on here, that "God is the very standard of justice and truth" as the reason for you wishing eternal torture if you deserve it. Though you know right, that all people deserve this according to Christian dogma?

"I don't know, but you keep raising questions upon questions (which have little to do with one another)"

Give examples please.

"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?"
No I dont, I am rather looking for what motivates you to believe christianity out of everything, out of all religions? I asked this question before, but LO! You didnt answer it! (I wanted another argument than the historical one)


"What have you done to be more precise?"
I doubt I want to share that with you anymore. If I choose to, that time will come when it comes.


"No, these are not a progression, but rather three different ways of being in the world. They are "moods" rather than paths. Kierkegaard's ultimate point is that the aesthetic mood is a forgetfulness of the ethical mood, and the ethical mood is a forgetfulness of the religious mood. In-so-far as this relationship holds true, this means that the religious mood does not deny the ethical and the aesthetical, but rather subsumes and incorporates them in itself. Aufheben."

Here I saw no reason to reply since there was nothing to say except "Okay I see".

"What's the use of that? What do you think you'll achieve with it?"
Sorry, I dont remember what this is even about. Provide me with the context please.

"I would pray that God forgive me and spare me of that fate, but if that's what He wants, then I will accept it, for Him. Afterall, He too died for me, why shouldn't I be willing to suffer for Him if I must? It is not up to a servant to question his Master in the end."

What shall I even answer to this(which you also took out of question)? "Okay I see" once again. What kind of nonsense are you doing here, seriously?

I Think Btw that you avoided to answer basically three posts in a row that I wrote. Nay more! Wow... Nietzsche proves himself to be right when I observe your behavior.

Examples? You keep answering what fits you But avoid other things. How can one discuss like this? And what is our goal with discussing? My goal is to fool you, dominate, display that I am better, that I can go against things I despise, and most of all; that I can just spit out frustrations and boredom in text. You judge me as immoral in my motives? Now I ask you; what is your motive? To help me? To convert me? To prove yourself right? Or what?

"If the uncreated God decided that eternal hell is the just punishment, why would you say it's unjust? Based on what?"
Why? What do you mean? If he decides so I can accept that there is not much to do about it. But that is or. Based on our language it would be subjective to call it just/unjust. Just=What I want. Unjust=What I dont want. That is often how banal we are. But if we were honest, we would probably say "It is neither just or unjust. It is what it is"
Based on the same reason why you wouldnt enjoy it if I came to your door and tortured you in various ways."

I cant find you answering this one.

Or these:

"Now two questions:
1. On what bases do you value what is just and unjust? What is derrived from your own banality and what is derrived from the True living God?
2. Considering the first question and granted that you answer it honestly; what would you say if God tortured everyone because he found it to be fun and just? If he, because he is justice, creates mankind just in order to play with it, deceive it and torture it endlessly without saving anyone? Would you agree with calvinists that it is just? Just in what way then? You dont know the mind of God, so isnt it better to look at it from a human Perspective?"

"You see, one of my points is that it is not working to defend God morally from a human perspective, because for one thing, slave minds and selfish Peoples without courage are often actually those who subject to the authority of the church, while those who oppose its claims and are braver than me and say "I accept the idea of hell but not God himself, nor his creation", might oppose it all because they dont care about whether they end up in hell or not. To not care where you end up; is that a virtue according to you?"

"I would also love to hear your arguments about Why christianity is true and the only way to salvation rather than the other religions. Preferably another argument than the historical one"

What happened to answering these?

I Think Btw that you avoided to answer basically three posts in a row that I wrote. Nay more! Five! Wow... Nietzsche proves himself to be right when I observe your behavior. — Beebert

Yes, I am aware of that. I haven't answered them because they bring up points which are not relevant to the discussion we were having. I can address, for example, why I think Christianity is true, but it wouldn't be very relevant to our discussion here or the thread.

My goal is to fool you, dominate, display that I am better, that I can go against things I despise, and most of all; that I can just spit out frustrations and boredom in text. — Beebert

And having that as a goal you expect us to be able to have a meaningful conversation? :P

Now I ask you; what is your motive? To help me? To convert me? To prove yourself right? Or what? — Beebert

My goal is to understand your position, and show you where it is and where it is not compatible with Christianity as I understand it, especially as it relates to Nietzsche.

it would be subjective — Beebert

I disagree with this. If everything is subjective, then we cannot have a discussion with each other, because a discussion presupposes we will both strive to attain some objective standard and truth.

Based on the same reason why you wouldnt enjoy it if I came to your door and tortured you in various ways." — Beebert

You are a human being, not the living God, so there is no comparison here. You're not my Creator. I have to keep repeating this same distinction a BILLION times because you don't seem to read what I write carefully. You - a creature - cannot do what God - the Creator - can do. You are bound by the Law, God isn't.

2. Considering the first question and granted that you answer it honestly; what would you say if God tortured everyone because he found it to be fun and just? If he, because he is justice, creates mankind just in order to play with it, deceive it and torture it endlessly without saving anyone? Would you agree with calvinists that it is just? Just in what way then? You dont know the mind of God, so isnt it better to look at it from a human Perspective?" — Beebert

It's His Creation. If He wants to end it one day, who are we to say He can't? :s Indeed, it would be unjust for us to tell God what He should and shouldn't do with His creation.

1. On what bases do you value what is just and unjust? What is derrived from your own banality and what is derrived from the True living God? — Beebert

Reason, revelation, faith, conscience - a multitude of factors goes into judging what is just and unjust.

Now you should consider answering those points/questions I referred to above, as they are actually directed at the discussion we were having, and are relevant, unlike many of these additional points you bring without even finishing what we were previously discussing.

"Well yes, God has endowed them with this power, where else do you think this power is coming from?! :s Oh the devil, you're going to say. Well who endowed the devil with power?

And there's nothing wrong with fighting evil by force."

If you Believe that this sick evangelical pastor is right (because he pretends to be christian or what? How biased and dishonest if so), something is seriously wrong. You would like it if Trump started war? Brilliant... You think these statements are smart? My... The question isnt what God has or hasn't endowed people with, you answer to something completely different than the spirit of my post intended to say. The question was: Do you see what Paul 's sentences lead to? What has that to do with God now? "Because God wrote the bible"? Please, not YET... Now regarding fighting evil with force ... Doesnt sound very enlightened does it? I think both Buddha and Jesus would disagree with you. Wasn't it Jesus who said "Do not resist evil"?

"Well it is blasphemy because you're purposefully misinterpreting what holy Scripture says, in a manner that is quite a bit like John MacArthur to tell you the truth."

Purposefully? Sure, I might misinterpet. But why do you call it purplsefully? Well... MacArthur is a devil, so I Guess that makes me one too.

The question was: Do you see what Paul 's sentences lead to? — Beebert

>:O >:O >:O And this passage:

"What belongs to greatness. Who will attain anything great if he does not find in himself the strength and the will to inflict great suffering? Being able to suffer is the least thing; weak women and even slaves often achieve virtuosity in that. But not to perish of internal distress and uncertainty when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of the suffering -- that is great, that belongs to greatness"

Gave great comfort to Heinrich Himmler who headed the SS and came up with the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem :) . I don't think I have to tell you who wrote them. See what Nietzsche's sentences lead to?! >:O

Really these are childish arguments.

Please, not YET... Now regarding fighting evil with force ... Doesnt sound very enlightened does it? — Beebert

Of course you fight evil with force, what do you think?! Are you crazy? You'll sit around "loving" the burglar who is killing your wife, or grab the sword and cut his head off?!

Wasn't it Jesus who said "Do not resist evil"? — Beebert

Yes, in a different context.

The matter is about the internal movements once again that causes one to act in a specific way. You really believe that Trump and his insane advisor wants to fight evil with force for the sake of Good and justice?
Will you Hate the burglar or feel compassion?

The matter is about the internal movements once again that causes one to act in a specific way. — Beebert

That's not what you said the first time. So what happened, did you change your mind, or?

You really believe that Trump and his insane advisor wants to fight evil with force for the sake of Good and justice? — Beebert

I do believe that Kim Jong Un is evil and should at one point or another be fought with force. He has enslaved all of North Korea and forces his people to live deluded and in horrible conditions. I'm quite sure that for Trump though it's about his (or America's) ego.

Well Paul was once again a great Comfort for the Nazis . But sure, you are correct that the argument might be said to be childish.

Well Paul was once again a great Comfort for the Nazis — Beebert

No, he actually wasn't. He told them they're headed for hell. You know, there's a reason the Nazis loved Nietzsche, but didn't like Christianity so much.

I agree about Kim Jong Un. But I am 100000 percent sure that Trump will not solve the problems But cause more. If an evil Force tries to destroy an evil force you will get more evil.

"No, he actually wasn't. He told them they're headed for hell. You know, there's a reason the Nazis loved Nietzsche, but didn't like Christianity so much."

The Nazis loved Romans 13. That is what I talked about.

"That's not what you said the first time. So what happened, did you change your mind, or?"
What time?

Will you Hate the burglar or feel compassion?