"Sometimes the thinker does, and those ultimately end up being the thinkers I'm most interested in. Think for example about Thomas Aquinas, or Kierkegaard (even Socrates from what we're told)."

I dont know where you have gotten this idea from. Especially regarding Kierkegaard. You should read his biography by Peter Thielst for example, who was Regine Olsen's relative. You value human beings and demand things thereafter in a way that Christ did NOT. Period.

"Well, I know you'll disagree, but to me, preaching belief in eternal Hell and condemning sexual immorality count as good things, not bad. People generally tend to take sexual immorality too lightly, so such preaching is more than welcome."

Especislly if it turns out that there is no eternal hell right? Your problem is perhaps not that you lack fantasy, but that you lack understanding and subtlety. Also, in opposition to what especially the Chruch have thought at least in the past but apparently still; it has always been the conscientious and NOT the conscienceless who have had to suffer so incredibly much from the oppression of Hellfire preachers and the fears of Hell, especially when they were at the same time people of imagination. As a consequence, life has been made most miserable precisely for those who had need of joy and cheerfulness etc. Not only cheerfulness for their own recovery from themselves, but so that mankind might take pleasure in them and take joy in their gifts of imagination etc. In other words, the Church has caused more lost souls than saved ones, to use christian language. They have more often been an arc of damnation and destruction than the opposite, destroying sensitive people's lives. And those people who desired by means of these evil condemnations to gain the highest enjoyment of their oppresion because they hate what they call "the immoral" are perhaps the most wicked people to have ever lived. May I ask you, who do you consider to be the greatest sinner in Tolstoy's Anna Karenina?

Of course, I agree! Why did you direct that text to me? I completely agree that striving to acquire understanding is better than prolonging your life. Why? Because that IS a purpose, that IS something to get out of life. To strive towards understanding WHY we suffer, what is the truth(like in buddhism that there is no true Self, that no phenomenas have independent or enduring existence etc) in this case. Fact is,; Buddha was creative. And for sure, if Buddha is to be believed, he was neither bitter nor angry at infidels and immoral People. He didnt hate burglars etc. That is for sure.

"So what? There's not much to get out of life anyway."

Aha! I Think I am staritng to understand the underlying impulses that causes you to be a moral freak...Anyway, to your defence, not many "christians" would disagree. But if you feel this way about this life; dont expect joy in your heaven! Really, if you havent acquired the ability to see that this life actually does have something worthy, those you send to hell Will probably find more joy there than you ever will in heaven. They probably at least have imagination.
It seems like if you were honest with yourself, what makes you the way you are is that you think life is unendurable if there is no God. Or that is still dishonest. Rather, the truth seems to be that your life can not be endured if its foundation lacks a moral purpose in a metaphysical sense! Therefore there must be a God who punishes the immoral, right? There MUST be vengeance! Otherwise, life failed! The truth is that you who are accustomed to the moral ideas you hold so dearly do not desire a life without them, because as you say, this life gives you not much! Perhaps slicing the head of burglars is the greatest joy it can offer? Though the question here is: Would you slice the head of your wife if she attacked another man, unprovocked and greedy because she wants his money? That your metaphysical morality is necessary to you and for your preservation I can understand, I dont know what you have been through... But why become a tyrant because of it? Why strive to kill your passions and sins so much that you become the greatest hater against sin, passions and sinners possible? Dont you fear that you then are still controlled by passions etc? What happened to the love preached by Buddha or your savior?

"K. knew that if he had married he would have to abandon his devotion to God and to philosophy."

Correction:

K. knew that if he had married he would have to abandon his devotion to philosophy

"Oh yeah, and he cheated on his wives too!"

Oh so you finally realized/discovered that did you?

"I'm exactly the same as you. If I find out something like that about a thinker, I'm much less tempted to investigate deeper what s/he said. If it couldn't help him live a good, moral life, why should I expect it to help me?"

Like with Nietzsche and Dostoevsky right?
That you can not see that your judgements are cruel beyond Words is fascinating.

"Any kind of significant immorality (killing innocent people, cruelty, vindictiveness, adultery and fornication, etc.) "

What about the worst of all immorality? That of being a self-righteous and moral monster? "Killing innocent people"... Do they exist in your universe? "Cruelty and vindictiveness"... Please, please! I believe you should follow Buddha's advice and research your own cruelty and vindictiveness

Maybe I am wrong but perphaps willowofdarkeness is indirectly answering to Agustino's other thread where he made the point that human weakness is a good argument for the existence of the Christian God? Though this is just a wild shot, since I stopped following what was argued in that thread quite early on.

"If you want to believe in a personal creator God, based on your personal spiritual experiences, it's perfectly reasonable for you to do so, and you can ignore the arguments as to why there is no God, which are as flawed as the ones in favour."

+1

Your arguments dont seem more solid than the those made by a logical positivist. Why do you assert that your reason is infallible and can interpret the world as it really is by itself? That logical statements made by our fallible language can derrive at such mystical conclusions as proof for a personal creator? Why havent you ever even questioned the idea that Perhaps the whole idea of cause and effect is an illusion etc? Would you agree if someone Said that the law of cause and effect can only be applied to things that doesnt have independent and continuing being? I guess you would. Would you also agree that there then cant be any causal relationship between between entities that exist by their own power independent of the environment?

One last thing you can ponder on in silence:
Let us say that the burglur actually kills your wife. Perhaps you werent there. Will you hate him, perhaps even look him up and take revenge? Or will you forgive him, as your savior demands?

Your Will to power really makes you insist on having the last Word doesnt it?
"Quite the opposite, there is something about loving my wife and having to protect her even if it means sacrificing myself to do so."

Huh? Where the hell did that come from? What does that have to do with the spirit of the written Word in the Sermon on the Mount? What does hating a burglur have to do with protecting your wife? I dont have a problem with you protecting her as a christian, I have a problem with claiming to hate a burglur and wanting to slice his head off(and probably rejoicing over thinking about his misfortunate fate in the afterlife.) NOW I really Will not answer you more in this discussion. But I Will be kind and let you have the oppurtunity to have your will to power satisfied by having the last Word if you wish.

So you once again havent understood the spirit behind the words about loving you enemies etc? Well... I say this for the last time: The discussion is over.

Havent you read the Sermon on the Mount? Or even Paul when he tells Christians not to repay evil with evil and hate? The dishonest thing is that you pretend that you are a Christian and love Christ. Nothing else.

"For I have the right to hate him because he's advocating immorality"

I choke! I choke! A ressentimental hater in the house! Please! Fresh air! Hypocrite...

Because you call yourself Christian and blame me because I oppose things in the bible. And you also debate for this methaphysical morality where God will punish evil But you are too blind to see that repaying evil with evil is according to your faith in itself evil. And not Only that : You want not Only to repay evil with evil; You also Hate the evildoer. I am really done now. I dont want to talk to someone with as unsophisticated views as yours.

Regarding Nazis and Romans 13:
http://theopoet4camp.blogspot.se/2010/03/hitler-and-nazis-use-of-romans-13_12.html?m=1

Good, and if enlightened means what you claim; then I dont want that. I wonder who of us is right about the Words of Christ though.
Regarding Nietzsche; at least he was honest, you seem to be the opposite of that

"Of course I will hate the burglar - that's why I'd cut his head off and save my wife!"
You are not enlightened. You are not Christian. You dont love your enemies. You are exactly what Nietzsche blamed Christians for being and that is Why you dislike him. Discussion over.

What is it in that post where I Change my mind? :S you know what, this is pointless. We cant keep on wasting time like this. Let us either choose a direction or drop it all

So you decide what discussion we have? I say that we have completely different motives here. To me, the most important question is: Why christianity and not Another religion?

Will you Hate the burglar or feel compassion?

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

"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.

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.

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.

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?

"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.

"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?

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?

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.

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?

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

"Saint Augustine put it -" Si Comprehendis non Deus est" - i.e. if you understand Him , then he is not God. "

And yet this sadist called Augustine did Everything be could to "understand" this God with the help of a book, so that he could imagine him condemning as many People as possible to hell from before the foundation lf the world(before the foundation of the world... What an illogical contradiction in terms in this case)

"P3. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;"

Well this is a grotesque leap from the former statement in the formula that the universe has a cause. Why not as well say "If the universe has a cause, that cause must be an effect of an effect of an effect" or "If the universe has a cause, that cause must be random" or Whatever other stupid thing one might invent in one's stupid and proud head? I by the way claim that one can question that the universe even has a cause. And Why must this creator be personal? Why not say that he must be mindless and stupid and without any power because he was FORCED to create?

"changeless"
Especially this is stupid. If he creates and is a cause, "he" becomes the the one who created.

There are so many other things worthy to question

"The Kalam argument provides strong evidence"

This would probably even make Immanuel Kant laugh, despite his belief in synthetic judgements apriori or whatever. For one thing, to even be able to even claim that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause;" is true, one needs experience. But explain to me why this statement is even true?
Also, if God is all those things Kalam said he is (timeless etc), does that mean then that from God's point of view, the world has eternally and timelessly existed? If not, isnt he then changing?

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

+1

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.

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".

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.

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.

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?