What doesn't make sense to me is that he says that God loves us and that he doesn't want anyone to go to hell, so why create hell in the first place? Or since God is all-powerful, why not just destroy it now?
Hell was created as a punishment for fallen angels, before the creation of humans. (It's somewhere in the book of Isaiah, too tired to look up where.)
Maybe it's because every argument has been refuted or nullified many times, and the current arguments are just variations on the old ones. It gets annoying after a time, you know.
I think I didn't express myself clearly in my post.
It's not a question of believing or not believing something, or proving or refuting something. It's about respecting and listening to other people.
These, what I could call "atheism activists", are not content with simply having their own views of the world and leaving everyone else have their own opinion, but they actively pursue preaching their atheist views to others (for example via youtube videos, which I admit are sometimes very thought out and clever, although usually fall into straw men argumentation nevertheless). The actively attack christianity and anyone who believes in that "nonsense". They insult people by calling them delusional and believers of fantasies.
They rationalize their activism and their direct attacks as some kind of counter-movement of religious preaching. However, by doing that they are only doing the exact same thing they accuse religious people of doing. They are preaching their own views, and they do not respect people nor listen to them, but rather just insult them and their views. Regardless of whether they are right or not in their views, from a behavioral point of view they are in no way better than religious lunatics.
The worst thing is that they claim they use rationality, logic and science to argument their views in these videos and other material. However, most often than not they are just distorting what christianity is teaching so badly, that they make a mockery of it (which is the very definition of straw man argumentation). In my opinion if you need to distort and ridicule what the others are saying in order to promote your own views, you are no better than the lunatics, no matter how much you preach "rationality" and "logic".
I find it hypocritical that they do the exact same things they accuse religious people of doing. When they are confronted with this, they will rationalize it with a "but christians do it too", as if that was a rational excuse.
The "10 question" video, for which I posted a link to my response, is a perfect example of this. It sounds all logical and rational... to the ears of a layman who doesn't know too much about the Bible and christianity. It lures the viewer into logical traps, which the viewer might not realize. If the viewer is already biased towards atheism and anti-christianity, the video is music to his ears. He will swallow it whole, without even thinking about it. Yet, the video is full of distortion, exaggeration, fallacious argumentation and outright lies about christianity. In this respect it's no different from all those whacky conspiracy theory videos about the Moon landings or 9/11: Might sound convincing to a layman, but are nothing but distortion and lies.
I have no problem with atheists. I'm a big skeptic myself about all that is non-scientific and which cannot be measured. I do not believe in aliens, ghosts, supernatural mind powers or anything like that, for the simple reason that there just is no credible evidence. I could very well have deep and interesting conversations with atheists, in both scientifical and philosophical subjects, as long as the atheist is willing to talk and listen, rather than just preaching his views on others, like those videos do.
So why would God create hell if he knew it would burn all humans for all eternity. If he is all-knowing, all-powerful, he should've forseen that to happen.
He could've created one for the fallen angels and one for the humans.
Edit: Not all, sorry, but the people who don't believe in god or are sinners etc. You know what I mean.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
Warp wrote:
(long post)
Great, you figured out that some people are just assholes.
It's very hard to make a video that criticizes something that has a lot of meaning for people without being at least a little condescending. The people making videos on YouTube are just regular people. They're not some highly trained masters of unbiased reporting. Some videos will be better than others, some will be dishonest, others respectful.
Have you seen the "banana proof" video (if not search:banana proof)? How can you possibly not just make fun of that? It's not even necessary, the clip works as a joke without any modification. Do you envision a serious discussion following the "banana proof" video where everyone respects each others' opinion? The "peanut butter proof" is similar but not as funny. My point is that in some cases there's really nothing to discuss, and you just want to make fun of the person. You can't expect a serious discussion about the divine-ness of bananas. Anyway, there are probably some legitimate discussions of religion somewhere, but I sure haven't found them. It's always the exact same arguments back and forth and it's been discussed a million times already. Both sides have all types of people and both sides *know* they're right.
So I very much understand why people (on both sides) get frustrated and start insulting the other person. There's often nothing else because both sides are immune to the others' arguments, because it's not a real discussion, it's just jerking off. But you can't just expect either side to just shut up. People actually care and they think they can convince the ones they're talking to. It's called a dialog.
So why would God create hell if he knew it would burn [sinning] humans for all eternity. If he is all-knowing, all-powerful, he should've forseen that to happen.
He could've created one for the fallen angels and one for the humans.
Possible reasons I can think of (since I don't recall an explicit answer for that question being written in the Bible):
― God is not really in the torturing business, and he doesn't want to create any more hells than is necessary.
― The sin originates from those fallen angels, and their legacy goes with them.
― That alone should be enough deterrent that nobody would willingly go there.
Hell was created as a punishment for fallen angels, before the creation of humans. (It's somewhere in the book of Isaiah, too tired to look up where.)
but why do they (or anyone) need or deserve eternal punishment? i know punishment can be useful to make people change their ways, but in hell they can't change anything anymore, so eternal punishment seems pointless. i think it would be better to just make them 'not exist'. but maybe that's what you think hell is, because you once said that hell might be non-existence. i've met people who say that they would rather go to hell than to stop existing.
Blublu wrote:
My point is that in some cases there's really nothing to discuss, and you just want to make fun of the person.
some of my beliefs are so strange that i can't expect people to take them seriously, but i enjoy talking about them because it's fun when people make fun of them, because i'm convinced that they are the truth. sometimes even i make fun of my beliefs.
it's strange that both sides (atheists and theists) think they have the truth. i'm on neither side, and i also think i have the 'truth'. i think both atheists and theists is partially correct.
People actually care and they think they can convince the ones they're talking to. It's called a dialog.
maybe the point of discussion is not to convince people, but to share beliefs and ideas. i think it's interesting to know what people believe.
Basically they are absolutely and completely convinced of their atheistic views, and there's absolutely nothing you can do to make them listen to anything else. They might pretend to listen in a friendly and open way, but the underlying reason is always the same: They listen to your responses only to try to find flaws and counter-arguments to them, not because they are honestly interested in what you have to say nor open to alternative ideas.
So let's criticise them in return for the thousandth time, we know that always does wonders!
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
My point is that you're not helping the situation in the slightest. Yet, I remember you bringing this issue up before here on the forums (I think it was in this same thread, even), and also in your personal blog.
I know it's not cool, there are many other things out there that are not cool either, but constantly rambling about them won't make them cooler, unfortunately. What it will do, however, is increasing attention aimed at them, and multiplying the amount of mutual animosity. Doesn't sound like what you want, right?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I know it's not cool, there are many other things out there that are not cool either, but constantly rambling about them won't make them cooler, unfortunately.
*sigh* Constantly? If I remember correctly, I have written about this subject twice in this forum in the past 4 years. I wouldn't call that "constantly".
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Americans, as a rule, don't give 2 shits about the politics of other countries. (surveys have shown most Americans are hard pressed to name even a single foreign leader), so it would be reasonable to assume that the same is true abroad, but several people I know who live in Australia make constant reference to the election. (By declaring that Obama is the better choice, though because they can't even vote, I'm not sure why they bother to analyze the situation)
I suppose this could be answered by anyone outside of north America, but I was wondering how much people (on an individual scale) from outside this continent care about American politics. I would think very little, but my Aussie pals have made me wonder.
I suppose this could be answered by anyone outside of north America, but I was wondering how much people (on an individual scale) from outside this continent know(or care) about American politics. I would think very little, but my Aussie pals have made me wonder.
I think most people in Finland could tell the name of the current USA president, and maybe 20% of voting age people could name one of the currently racing candidates.
But as for leaders of other countries...
If you asked people who is the president of England, they would probably say Tony Blair and only later recall that England has a monarchy.
I don't even know the name of the king of Sweden. Oh, wait, does Sweden have a president today? Well, Norway then. Olaf something? Or Harald?
I had to verify from Wikipedia that Sweden really is still a kingdom (and the king is Carl XVI Gustaf).
I suppose this could be answered by anyone outside of north America, but I was wondering how much people (on an individual scale) from outside this continent care about American politics. I would think very little, but my Aussie pals have made me wonder.
Personally I'm not so much interested in the internal politics or the USA that I would actively read information about current events.
However, I do not have a completely neutral opinion on the USA and Americans. The main reason for this is the overly negative opinion Europeans (and some other people) have had about Americans for the last 6 years. This has, rather ironically, shifted my opinion about Americans towards the positive side. I have been interested in what is *good* about the Americans and their culture (as well as having the opinion that many of the negative views expressed of them are severe exaggerations).
I suppose this is in part because I detest the current America-hating mentality in Europe and want to rebel against it. However, that's only part of it. I do honestly believe that the American culture is *not* as bad as they (ie. Europeans) would like me to believe. Sure, they have their quirks, some even detrimental, but who doesn't? They do have their great aspects too.
I don't even know the name of the king of Sweden. Oh, wait, does Sweden have a president today? Well, Norway then. Olaf something? Or Harald?
I had to verify from Wikipedia that Sweden really is still a kingdom (and the king is Carl XVI Gustaf).
I bet you don't know what kind of government Canada has, and who is their top leader. Well, at least most people don't know, for some reason.
I bet you don't know what kind of government Canada has, and who is their top leader. Well, at least most people don't know, for some reason.
That's because Canada isn't a real country.
Bisqwit wrote:
I had to verify from Wikipedia that Sweden really is still a kingdom (and the king is Carl XVI Gustaf).
Yeah but the only reason I see that we are still keeping him is for "the lulz", as he has a knack for making hilarious statements and bloopers. A while back after a trip to Saudi Arabia and meeting with their leader he stated that it was one of the most free countries he had ever been to.
Well, you didn't quote the part of my post that said:
Baxter wrote:
I was also wondering what assumptions about God were made in this movie that you disagree with
There's one fundamental flaw in the argumentation of many anti-christianity people: They seem to think that making good deeds should somehow compensate for your crimes (against God).
Why do they think like that? Not even secular criminal law works like that.
For example, suppose that someone has committed murder and he is (justly) found guilty of it, and sentenced for life to jail. Imagine this person would defend himself with: "But look at all the *good* things I have done! I have donated money to charity, I have helped the poor and needy, I have helped my neighbors when they were in need, I have always cared about my parents, who are old and sick, I have always been good and helpful to my friends in the time of their need, I have never stolen anything, I have made any crime before this... Surely all these good deeds should compensate for this one sin?"
Sure, it's great that he has done all those good deeds, but they don't matter: He still goes to jail. He has committed a crime, and he has to pay for it. That's how criminal law works, and people generally accept that as the way it should be. Nobody expects the murderer to go free if he has done enough good deeds during his life.
Why do they expect God to judge differently than this? Why do they expect that enough good deeds should compensate for their sins? It doesn't work like that in court, and it doesn't work like that with God.
Of course atheists will argument that, in their opinion, they haven't done anything that deserves such a harsh punishment. However, they are driven by their own human conception of what is "morally right" and "fair". They assume that they know what ultimately is morally right, and what deserves harsh punishment and what not. They don't even contemplate the possibility that there might be a bigger picture, that they might be wrong.
I'm just going to pop in here and say that you're painting with an awfully broad brush here, Warp. There are plenty of atheists who don't behave the way you're saying atheists behave. Originally I kept quiet because you were talking about a specific subset that you had had discussions with, but now it looks like you're talking about the entire group in your last paragraph.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
For example, suppose that someone has committed murder and he is (justly) found guilty of it, and sentenced for life to jail. Imagine this person would defend himself with: "But look at all the *good* things I have done! I have donated money to charity, I have helped the poor and needy, I have helped my neighbors when they were in need, I have always cared about my parents, who are old and sick, I have always been good and helpful to my friends in the time of their need, I have never stolen anything, I have made any crime before this... Surely all these good deeds should compensate for this one sin?"
Sure, it's great that he has done all those good deeds, but they don't matter: He still goes to jail. He has committed a crime, and he has to pay for it. That's how criminal law works, and people generally accept that as the way it should be. Nobody expects the murderer to go free if he has done enough good deeds during his life.
Actually, it's not unknown for courts of law to consider mitigating factors in establishing sentences. Sure, they won't set someone free usually but perhaps sentence them to life in prison instead of the death penalty. So perhaps they are a bit more forgiving than God? ;)
What really gets me is not that good works won't compensate for sin in general, but that someone who performs only good works by Christian standards with the exception of "taking Jesus into his or her heart" is still sent to Hell. Seems kind of mean to me. I'm all for the message except for this detail.
Speaking of the message:
"...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:24-25 and Luke 18:24-25
This seems to be one of the most overlooked passages in practice, at least where I am... Yesterday I saw a very expensive car (Mercedes) with a "vanity" license plate (one that costs extra money and can say what you wish) that proclaimed "THE LORD" and a frame that said "God is my savior". Again, I'm happy with people who would write that on a t-shirt they hand made, but the juxtaposition of wealth with this made me blanch. Is this common elsewhere? Do I live with particularly hypocritical people (it is California so I can't discount that notion)?
Well, you didn't quote the part of my post that said:
Baxter wrote:
I was also wondering what assumptions about God were made in this movie that you disagree with
There's one fundamental flaw in the argumentation of many anti-christianity people: They seem to think that making good deeds should somehow compensate for your crimes (against God).
Why do they think like that? Not even secular criminal law works like that.
For example, suppose that someone has committed murder and he is (justly) found guilty of it, and sentenced for life to jail. Imagine this person would defend himself with: "But look at all the *good* things I have done! I have donated money to charity, I have helped the poor and needy, I have helped my neighbors when they were in need, I have always cared about my parents, who are old and sick, I have always been good and helpful to my friends in the time of their need, I have never stolen anything, I have made any crime before this... Surely all these good deeds should compensate for this one sin?"
Sure, it's great that he has done all those good deeds, but they don't matter: He still goes to jail. He has committed a crime, and he has to pay for it. That's how criminal law works, and people generally accept that as the way it should be. Nobody expects the murderer to go free if he has done enough good deeds during his life.
Why do they expect God to judge differently than this? Why do they expect that enough good deeds should compensate for their sins? It doesn't work like that in court, and it doesn't work like that with God.
Of course atheists will argument that, in their opinion, they haven't done anything that deserves such a harsh punishment. However, they are driven by their own human conception of what is "morally right" and "fair". They assume that they know what ultimately is morally right, and what deserves harsh punishment and what not. They don't even contemplate the possibility that there might be a bigger picture, that they might be wrong.
Let me first state that I have no idea what your post has to do with what you quoted from me at the top.
Secondly, you should note that "anti-christianity people" as you call them, and I assume you mean anti-theists, are not the same as atheists (check wikipedia if you want to know the difference).
To answer your question: "Why does an atheist think that making good deeds should somehow compensate for your crimes (against God)?"
The answer is simple. An atheist per definition doesn't believe in God, and therefore doesn't think that not believing in God is a crime. They don't expect to be compensated for their sins, as they don't believe that there will be any kind of judgement.
As for your comparison with secular criminal law, there are differences:
- A murderer knows he broke the law, and even if he did lots of other good deeds, he knows he has done something wrong. An atheist doesn't think he did something wrong by not believing in God, which is the fundamental difference, and which is why an atheist could/would/might consider himself a good person. This is not the same for the murderer.
- The outcome of the trial will not depend on what religion the suspect holds or doesn't hold.
- Even if a murder was committed, the secular criminal law does will not let the criminal be tortured (let alone for eternity).
And lastly, about atheists not contemplating that they might be wrong... it seems that most religions are mutually exclusive. The question "What if you're wrong?" applies to everyone, no matter what point of view you have about it.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
Warp wrote:
There's one fundamental flaw in the argumentation of many anti-christianity people: They seem to think that making good deeds should somehow compensate for your crimes (against God).
Yeah, exactly...
Christian people have a weird judging system: all you have to do is repent, accept Jesus and blah blah blah and you just booked your room in heaven... regardless of anything you've done!
Warp wrote:
"I have done! I have donated money to charity, I have helped the poor and needy, I have helped my neighbors when they were in need, I have always cared about my parents, who are old and sick, I have always been good and helpful to my friends in the time of their need, I have never stolen anything,
BUT you don't believe in God? Hah, to hell with you, infidel!
If you're a bad guy, changed NESVideos into TASVideos, and have done all kinds of horrible things but at the last moment you accept the idea, it's OK.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
What really gets me is not that good works won't compensate for sin in general, but that someone
who performs only good works by Christian standards with the exception of "taking Jesus into his or her heart" is
still sent to Hell. Seems kind of mean to me. I'm all for the message except for this detail.
Speaking of the message:
<...> Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:24-25 and Luke 18:24-25
This seems to be one of the most overlooked passages in practice, at least where I am...
As Jesus left that place, a man came running after him, and kneeled before him, and asked: Rabbi, what should I do that I may inherit eternal life?
Jesus answered: You know the commandments. Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour your father and mother.
And the man answered and said unto him: Rabbi, all these have I observed from my youth.
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him: There's still one thing that you lack: go and sell everything you have, and distribute to the poor, and you will have a treasure in the Heaven. And come, take up the cross, and follow me.
The man became sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he was quite rich.
And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples: How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answered again, and saith unto them: Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
And Jesus said, looking upon them: With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
I talked about this passage briefly in an earlier post of mine, but I shall elaborate.
The matter of salvation is not about doing good things or about believing in some deity.
For when you do good things, you do them under your own judgement. There's a saying, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and another, saying: no good deed goes unpunished. Our understanding of things is limited. Where we have the best intentions, we may sometimes do more harm than we do good. And often, our motives for doing good things are tainted: we do favors to get people do good things to us in return, or we want people to see us a as a good person, something to look up to.
And what good does believing in some deity do to you?
God requires us not to just believe in him, but to live in close communion. God is a living persona, that has a will and words that do not stay in the Bible. To keep out of sin, we must be willing to follow God's will – no matter what we may have to sacrifice.
In this passage, Jesus saw the old man was quite serious about following God's will, but he also knew that there was one thing that went even ahead of God. That was his priced possessions. To make that point painstakingly clear, he told that man that he should sell everything that he has, and give the money to the poor. The man was not ready to do that.
It is very easy for people to become attached to their possessions. The more you have, the more attached you are. Sure, if you're a college student whose possessions fit in a single shopping bag, you may have no problem with that particular request of Jesus, but when you're a 60 years old, with a long history as a respected businessman, who has collected treasures such as valuable motorcycles for decades, and taken pride in showing them to your guests, and Jesus asks you to forget all that and follow him, how are you going to respond?
That, is what Jesus means with that it is really hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
One of the laws set by God is "thou shalt have no other gods before me". Anything that goes before the Creator, is a god for you.
Matt 7:21-23 wrote:
"Not every person that says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them: I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
Make no mistake, God does not categorically deny us possessions. It is well possible to "enter the kingdom of God" and yet be wealthy. But the thing is, following God's will should be absolutely the first priority.
God has different plans for each person – I'm still discovering mine – and he is not malicious. He wants to utilize us in a way that best gives us satisfaction yet fulfills his will.
Following God's will is best compared to an urge to scratch the itching skin. Once God puts something on your mind, it will start popping up and does not leave you alone, until you go and do it. It is not a command in a boombox human voice, but it is like an obsession. One can choose to quiet it though, and eventually it will subside. This is called hardening. Once you stop listening to God's voice, you may eventually begin to wonder whether you heard it in the first place at all, because the world's wisdom does not acknowledge God. On the other hand, people who are prone to God's voice, will do it eagerly, and without hesitation. These people usually often end up as pastors, or missionaries, or in some other service role in a congregation. God's voice carries not only commands; it also carries feelings. You will feel love unlike anything in the world, and all that which comes with the love: From joy and compassion to sadness and hate. When something happens that is God's will, you will feel joy, and when someone has pain or is defying God's will, you will feel compassion and sadness. When you do something that is not God's will, you will feel guilt and sadness. All of these you can choose to ignore, and it will subside, and God's spirit will leave you, and you may start wondering if it ever existed. Prayer life, on the other hand, will do the take you closer to God's spirit, even so far as to "fill" you with it.
God's voice is so subtle, that you may sometimes start wondering whether it is just your own idea or if it's really from God (which is actually a good thing to do). At those points, it helps to go to a congregation where God's gifts are active (or lacking that option, just read the Bible from an arbitrary location). If the thing really was from God, it usually happens that the message is confirmed to you with crystal clarity, but still without disclosing it to anyone else.
But before any of that can happen, sin must be solved, and that is where Jesus comes in. The penalty for sin is death. In the old testament, animals were sacrificed to God for people's sins. When Jesus died on the cross, he fulfilled the role of the sacrificial "lamb". One must acknowledge that in order to receive acquittal of their sins. Failure to do that means that you still carry the burder of sin with you, and that you do not carry the "mark" of the Messiah with you.
(Someone will probably ask about the baptism here, so I'll say shortly, that the baptism is the first point of choice in your life where you choose whether you profess following Jesus. Deciding not to take the baptism is akin to denying the name of Jesus, and Matt. 10:32-33 tells more about that.)
I'm just going to pop in here and say that you're painting with an awfully broad brush here, Warp. There are plenty of atheists who don't behave the way you're saying atheists behave.
You might have missed it, but I was talking exclusively about those videos (and other material) that "atheism activists" have created to directly attack and insult christianity and everyone who believes in it. I was not talking about atheists in general. Moreover, I mentioned in one post that I don't have any problem with atheists in average.
Yeah, exactly...
Christian people have a weird judging system: all you have to do is repent, accept Jesus and blah blah blah and you just booked your room in heaven... regardless of anything you've done!
BUT you don't believe in God? Hah, to hell with you, infidel!
This is exactly the kind of argumentative nature I was talking about in my earlier post. This is not a conversation about what people believe in, this is just an argument about what "makes sense" and what doesn't.
This subject is boring. I regret I got lured into participating in it.
