Hell Is Real And Souls Go There

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
501

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Agreed. But that’s not my question. I’m not questioning that if believing in inherent rights erects a force field. I don’t believe they do, and I’m not bashful in stating that we have certain inherent rights. I’m just asking if you feel the same way.

Or, do you simply not believe you actually posses any rights to that fire arm. Rights that the government is then truly infringing upon when they take it from you?
[/quote]
How can one have an inherent right to something that isn’t inherent? [/quote]

Like universal health care?
[/quote]
Depends on whether or not you believe we have an inherent right to be helped and healed. From a survival of the species standpoint it makes sense.

With a firearm you could make the case for an inherent right to defend yourself, it’s also an instinct just as “health care” is, but the inherent right to something that only recently entered the world is not possible.

502

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

And yet you will not call God evil, despite the fact that He does something which, done by me, would make me evil. You do this simply by saying, “if God does it, then it is not evil.” Which is either a brilliant coup-de-grace, or an utter cop-out, depending upon where one stands.[/quote]

I can’t call God evil, because he would naturally defines what is and isn’t evil.

If you call me letting a child die in an accident evil, then I ask by what authority?

503

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

No, one cannot “prove” the Bible is false, and it would serve no purpose to do so. A believer would still believe, because faith requires no proof. I actually envy people who are able to believe so completely in something without skepticism. It must be a wonderful feeling, one that I have missed out on all my life. [/quote]

You holding that firearm?

Do you believe you have an inherent right to it?
[/quote]

I believe that inherent rights are meaningless without the means to physically defend them. I am alive, but I don’t believe that my right to life is sufficient to prevent someone from killing me. I am free, but my right to liberty by itself doesn’t prevent my enslavement. I may be armed, but my right to remain so exists only insofar as I am able to physically remain in possession of a weapon, and the skills necessary to use it.

In short, while I am a great fan the idea of Jeffersonian rights and the documents penned to uphold them, I have little faith in them being mystical forces that will shield me from harm. I have seen too much evidence, in this country and abroad, to suggest that there are no inherent rights, only the contest of wills. The strong will do what they want, and the weak will endure what they must. Regardless of what who believes is their inherent right. [/quote]
Those pesky Melians. [/quote]

Uh huh. They believed in unalienable rights, and look what happened to them. I can’t count on the Spartans coming to my aid, so I have to be a Spartan myself.
[/quote]

So you make no claim to inherent rights, that can be infringed upon? Even in taking away that firearm?
[/quote]

No, because no claim to inherent rights, in and of itself, will stop someone who wants to disarm, enslave or kill me from doing so. I might personally attempt to prevent this from happening, of course, but that depends entirely on my will and ability, not necessarily on my faith in inherent rights. [/quote]

Agreed. But that’s not my question. I’m not questioning that if believing in inherent rights erects a force field. I don’t believe they do, and I’m not bashful in stating that we have certain inherent rights. I’m just asking if you feel the same way.

Or, do you simply not believe you actually posses any rights to that fire arm. Rights that the government is then truly infringing upon when they take it from you?
[/quote]

I just think that any discussion of rights is as irrelevant in a contest of wills as a discussion of rules in a knife fight.

The fact is that I am alive irrespective of any imagined right to life, free irrespective of any imagined right to liberty, and armed irrespective of any imagined right to bear arms. The facts of my present state are subject to change. It is my responsibility to see that they do not. I’ll defend myself, not because I feel I have the right to do so, but because I wish to remain alive, free and armed.

504

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
My God gives eternal life. All lives are his. We might as well be lower than maggots when measured against him.
[/quote]
I thought we were made in His image? [/quote]

Does not equal to be made as he is. Only in his image. Context throughout the entirety of scripture makes this pretty darn clear.
[/quote]
So we are a reflection of what He is? And aren’t we supposed to follow the example of His Son? I would think that if God loves us then the concept of being measured against him is meaningless. [/quote]

This isn’t really debatable. We’re talking about an omnipresent, omniscient being. Compared to that, we are lower than a maggot is to us.[/quote]
I don’t agree at all with that concept. You make God sound like an elitist snob. If God loves us then he is capable of emotions. We don’t feel superior to those we love.

505

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Is the bull elephant immoral or evil? Is his creator evil for letting him perpetrate this crime against child elephants? Does the universe care about the crime of elephant child rape?[/quote]

So you’re saying the evil–the reality of it being evil–of child rape is a fairy tale. I think.

Edit: And so there is no evil or moral wrong in me supporting banning guns, too. Obviously.
[/quote]

Not a fairy tale, just a human societal construct. The universe doesn’t care if a bull elephant mates with a juvenile female, or an adult man mates with a female child. WE do, though. Human society… and I should say Western society, believes that child rape is a very bad thing indeed. But it makes not one iota of difference to the universe.

Nor does banning guns. The universe will continue to expand for the next several billion years regardless of what the legislature decides about the legality o assault weapons.

506

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Is the bull elephant immoral or evil? Is his creator evil for letting him perpetrate this crime against child elephants? Does the universe care about the crime of elephant child rape?[/quote]

So you’re saying the evil–the reality of it being evil–of child rape is a fairy tale. I think.

Edit: And so there is no evil or moral wrong in me supporting banning guns, too. Obviously.
[/quote]

Not a fairy tale, just a human societal construct. The universe doesn’t care if a bull elephant mates with a juvenile female, or an adult man mates with a female child. WE do, though. Human society… and I should say Western society, believes that child rape is a very bad thing indeed. But it makes not one iota of difference to the universe.

Nor does banning guns. The universe will continue to expand for the next several billion years regardless of what the legislature decides about the legality of assault weapons. [/quote]
We also do not have the same morality as those who were written about in the Bible or those who actually wrote it. If morality was some inherent thing then how do we explain its mutability?

507

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Pat, you know as well as anyone that one cannot “prove” a negative.

All one can do is attempt to verify a claim of veracity with evidence supporting it, and failing that, conclude that the initial claim was false.

SMH can no more “prove” that the whole Bible is false than you could prove that elves and pixies and the gods of Asgard don’t exist. Absence of evidence of elves and pixies and Asgardian gods not equalling evidence of their absence, after all.

What SMH can do, and likely does, is view extraordinary claims such as those found in the Bible with no evidence supporting them, such as nine-hundred year old men, a planet stopping its entire rotation for several hours so that a battle on a dusty field may continue in sunlight, or five loaves of bread and two fish increasing parthenogenically so that they were able to feed a crowd of five thousand people, with a degree of skepticism and incredulity.

You’re not stupid, Pat. Not a caveman by any stretch, which probably adds to SMH’s amazement: that you find it so easy to believe the entirety of the implicit claims of the Bible without evidence, going so far as to say that they have been proven, by virtue of their being in the Bible, and that you find it just as amazing that anyone would not believe them.

No, one cannot “prove” the Bible is false, and it would serve no purpose to do so. A believer would still believe, because faith requires no proof. I actually envy people who are able to believe so completely in something without skepticism. It must be a wonderful feeling, one that I have missed out on all my life. [/quote]

Well said V. I agree even on the point of being somewhat envious. My skepticism won’t allow me to believe just like my skepticism won’t allow me to think the Holocaust didn’t happen or 9/11 was done by the government. Even being raised as a Methodist I reached a point where I said, I think this all sounds like a load of crap.

It’s not really something I feel like I could change even if I wanted to.

508

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Is the bull elephant immoral or evil? Is his creator evil for letting him perpetrate this crime against child elephants? Does the universe care about the crime of elephant child rape?[/quote]

So you’re saying the evil–the reality of it being evil–of child rape is a fairy tale. I think.

Edit: And so there is no evil or moral wrong in me supporting banning guns, too. Obviously.
[/quote]

Not a fairy tale, just a human societal construct. The universe doesn’t care if a bull elephant mates with a juvenile female, or an adult man mates with a female child. WE do, though. Human society… and I should say Western society, believes that child rape is a very bad thing indeed. But it makes not one iota of difference to the universe.

Nor does banning guns. The universe will continue to expand for the next several billion years regardless of what the legislature decides about the legality of assault weapons. [/quote]
We also do not have the same morality as those who were written about in the Bible or those who actually wrote it. If morality was some inherent thing then how do we explain its mutability? [/quote]

It is a happy coincidence that God has by and large the same moral convictions as the religious and political leaders at any given juncture of history.

509

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Pat, you know as well as anyone that one cannot “prove” a negative.

All one can do is attempt to verify a claim of veracity with evidence supporting it, and failing that, conclude that the initial claim was false.

SMH can no more “prove” that the whole Bible is false than you could prove that elves and pixies and the gods of Asgard don’t exist. Absence of evidence of elves and pixies and Asgardian gods not equalling evidence of their absence, after all.

What SMH can do, and likely does, is view extraordinary claims such as those found in the Bible with no evidence supporting them, such as nine-hundred year old men, a planet stopping its entire rotation for several hours so that a battle on a dusty field may continue in sunlight, or five loaves of bread and two fish increasing parthenogenically so that they were able to feed a crowd of five thousand people, with a degree of skepticism and incredulity.

You’re not stupid, Pat. Not a caveman by any stretch, which probably adds to SMH’s amazement: that you find it so easy to believe the entirety of the implicit claims of the Bible without evidence, going so far as to say that they have been proven, by virtue of their being in the Bible, and that you find it just as amazing that anyone would not believe them.

No, one cannot “prove” the Bible is false, and it would serve no purpose to do so. A believer would still believe, because faith requires no proof. I actually envy people who are able to believe so completely in something without skepticism. It must be a wonderful feeling, one that I have missed out on all my life. [/quote]

Well said V. I agree even on the point of being somewhat envious. My skepticism won’t allow me to believe just like my skepticism won’t allow me to think the Holocaust didn’t happen or 9/11 was done by the government. Even being raised as a Methodist I reached a point where I said, I think this all sounds like a load of crap.

It’s not really something I feel like I could change even if I wanted to. [/quote]

Seconded, very well said, and an apt description of my view of things. And I, too, have experienced times–especially in the wake of loss–when I was envious of the devout.

510

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I can’t call God evil, because he would naturally defines what is and isn’t evil.
[/quote]

I ask you: Can God take bodily form and then rape every living human from the smallest infant to the oldest man, without committing evil? If He did this, would it be just?

[The answer to your second question is somewhere in my last post, the one about me having the possibility of objective morality but not being able to prove it to you, just as you cannot prove yours to me.]

511

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

If I chose to allow an infant to die an accidental death, having the ability to stop the tragedy without inconvenience and yet refused to do so, you would call me evil. (I hope.)

[/quote]

You hope because you yourself claim that it would be evil. By what authority though? This moral ‘law,’ completely incapable of being tested by the scientific method, must have a law-giver. One with a will. A cold, dumb, universe doesn’t care if you pull that child from a burning car. So if you believe in the law, it follows that you must accept the will that wrote the law.

512

[quote]pat wrote:

You honestly believe that if one thinks that child rape is ok, that makes it ok? Or if society thinks it’s ok to rape and kill children, then it’s ok? What about the kids, don’t their opinions count?

[/quote]

Dude is totally on board with vacuuming out those same babies because of what the dictionary says… I doubt he has a problem with much as long as society says it is okay.

513

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
It is my responsibility to see that they do not. I’ll defend myself, not because I feel I have the right to do so, but because I wish to remain alive, free and armed. [/quote]

That’s fine. But we might disarm you completely because we wish to live in that society. Or enslave that or this people. Or equalize your income with every other citizens. We might allow gays to marry. We might not. None of which is right or wrong.

514

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Pat, you know as well as anyone that one cannot “prove” a negative.

All one can do is attempt to verify a claim of veracity with evidence supporting it, and failing that, conclude that the initial claim was false.

SMH can no more “prove” that the whole Bible is false than you could prove that elves and pixies and the gods of Asgard don’t exist. Absence of evidence of elves and pixies and Asgardian gods not equalling evidence of their absence, after all.

What SMH can do, and likely does, is view extraordinary claims such as those found in the Bible with no evidence supporting them, such as nine-hundred year old men, a planet stopping its entire rotation for several hours so that a battle on a dusty field may continue in sunlight, or five loaves of bread and two fish increasing parthenogenically so that they were able to feed a crowd of five thousand people, with a degree of skepticism and incredulity.

You’re not stupid, Pat. Not a caveman by any stretch, which probably adds to SMH’s amazement: that you find it so easy to believe the entirety of the implicit claims of the Bible without evidence, going so far as to say that they have been proven, by virtue of their being in the Bible, and that you find it just as amazing that anyone would not believe them.

No, one cannot “prove” the Bible is false, and it would serve no purpose to do so. A believer would still believe, because faith requires no proof. I actually envy people who are able to believe so completely in something without skepticism. It must be a wonderful feeling, one that I have missed out on all my life. [/quote]

Well said V. I agree even on the point of being somewhat envious. My skepticism won’t allow me to believe just like my skepticism won’t allow me to think the Holocaust didn’t happen or 9/11 was done by the government. Even being raised as a Methodist I reached a point where I said, I think this all sounds like a load of crap.

It’s not really something I feel like I could change even if I wanted to. [/quote]

Seconded, very well said, and an apt description of my view of things. And I, too, have experienced times–especially in the wake of loss–when I was envious of the devout.[/quote]

I doubt most believers haven’t had moments of skepticism about it all. The skepticism may be blamed on the devils work or brushed over by faith, but it’s still there. Personally, and of coarse I could be wrong, I feel that many deny their skepticism because they are so invested in their religion and in too deep to turn back. Imagine a 60 year old man who worked in the church for a number of years and raised 5 children to believe. It would be extremely difficult to change at that point no matter how skeptical. But once you do turn away, there is no going back.

515

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

If I chose to allow an infant to die an accidental death, having the ability to stop the tragedy without inconvenience and yet refused to do so, you would call me evil. (I hope.)

[/quote]

You hope because you yourself claim that it would be evil. By what authority though? This moral ‘law,’ completely incapable of being tested by the scientific method, must have a law-giver. One with a will. A cold, dumb, universe doesn’t care if you pull that child from a burning car. So if you believe in the law, it follows that you must accept the will that wrote the law.
[/quote]

I’ve already explained to you that I don’t claim the universe to be cold and dumb.

And the “I hope” had to do with your worldview. As in, I hope you will not deny this fact which must absolutely be admitted. Again, this is not about objective externalities but about the contradictions of your own internal, closed system. If it makes it better, disregard “I hope,” because you’re right that what I believe has nothing to do with you, or this. You would indeed call me evil in such a case.

Edit: And I can hope for a particular set of moral principles to be “true” without claiming to know that they are.

Now, the question about God raping people–

516

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Pat, you know as well as anyone that one cannot “prove” a negative.

All one can do is attempt to verify a claim of veracity with evidence supporting it, and failing that, conclude that the initial claim was false.

SMH can no more “prove” that the whole Bible is false than you could prove that elves and pixies and the gods of Asgard don’t exist. Absence of evidence of elves and pixies and Asgardian gods not equalling evidence of their absence, after all.

What SMH can do, and likely does, is view extraordinary claims such as those found in the Bible with no evidence supporting them, such as nine-hundred year old men, a planet stopping its entire rotation for several hours so that a battle on a dusty field may continue in sunlight, or five loaves of bread and two fish increasing parthenogenically so that they were able to feed a crowd of five thousand people, with a degree of skepticism and incredulity.

You’re not stupid, Pat. Not a caveman by any stretch, which probably adds to SMH’s amazement: that you find it so easy to believe the entirety of the implicit claims of the Bible without evidence, going so far as to say that they have been proven, by virtue of their being in the Bible, and that you find it just as amazing that anyone would not believe them.

No, one cannot “prove” the Bible is false, and it would serve no purpose to do so. A believer would still believe, because faith requires no proof. I actually envy people who are able to believe so completely in something without skepticism. It must be a wonderful feeling, one that I have missed out on all my life. [/quote]

Well said V. I agree even on the point of being somewhat envious. My skepticism won’t allow me to believe just like my skepticism won’t allow me to think the Holocaust didn’t happen or 9/11 was done by the government. Even being raised as a Methodist I reached a point where I said, I think this all sounds like a load of crap.

It’s not really something I feel like I could change even if I wanted to. [/quote]

Seconded, very well said, and an apt description of my view of things. And I, too, have experienced times–especially in the wake of loss–when I was envious of the devout.[/quote]

I doubt most believers haven’t had moments of skepticism about it all. The skepticism may be blamed on the devils work or brushed over by faith, but it’s still there. Personally, and of coarse I could be wrong, I feel that many deny their skepticism because they are so invested in their religion and in too deep to turn back. Imagine a 60 year old man who worked in the church for a number of years and raised 5 children to believe. It would be extremely difficult to change at that point no matter how skeptical. But once you do turn away, there is no going back. [/quote]

Very true. It’s almost like a placebo type effect. When you believe it works it often works. This is a big reason why religion has often placed the emphasis on not questioning.* Not all believers, but a hallmark of religion over time has been based on “trusting” God.

Reminds me of that quote from the movie Luther: “You wait in vain for a disputation over things that you are obligated to believe.”

517

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I can’t call God evil, because he would naturally defines what is and isn’t evil.
[/quote]

I ask you: Can God take bodily form and then rape every living human from the smallest infant to the oldest man, without committing evil? If He did this, would it be just?

[The answer to your second question is somewhere in my last post, the one about me having the possibility of objective morality but not being able to prove it to you, just as you cannot prove yours to me.][/quote]

Of course he could. Thankfully he doesn’t.

Of course the objective moral laws you have faith in–which you admit (and I salute you)–could also make evil good, and good evil. But your faith isn’t in a non-falsifiable moral law that allows you to rape any and every thing that’s ever walked or crawled. You have faith in one that doesn’t. Familiar?

But what I’m getting at is that your objective moral laws by definition determine the “good” or “evil” of actions, and/or thoughts, of a self aware creature. Which means some judgement has been made by some law-giver, some author, as to what is “good” and “evil” for those creatures. Since they’re (those moral laws) objective, this will must be the final standard.

You believe in laws we can’t see under the microscope or through a telescope. Laws that judge us, but aren’t determined by us. You believe that these laws are above human opinion (being objectively good or evil). You understand that a cold, dumb, universe knows nothing of this.

So, if even begrudgingly, you must suspect that such moral laws would have to have a will behind them. An intelligence. And it would have to have final authority over our own will (since our opinion isn’t the final say in what is good or evil).

518

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
It is my responsibility to see that they do not. I’ll defend myself, not because I feel I have the right to do so, but because I wish to remain alive, free and armed. [/quote]

That’s fine. But we might disarm you completely because we wish to live in that society. Or enslave that or this people. Or equalize your income with every other citizens. We might allow gays to marry. We might not. None of which is right or wrong.
[/quote]

I refer you to the Melian dialogue in Thucydides’ history, which Zecarlo and I alluded to.

“Right”, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power. Right is what you can do, and what you can get someone else to accept.

My only response to what you said above is “you might indeed, unless someone stops you.”

519

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

My only response to what you said above is “you might indeed, unless someone stops you.”[/quote]

They haven’t yet. And likely won’t. Bye-bye 2nd amendment. No loss, as it was merely a fairy tale.

520

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Edit: And I can hope for a particular set of moral principles to be “true” without claiming to know that they are.

[/quote]

If you don’t hold to knowing that my allowing a child to burn to death in a car fire is morally wrong, then why would you know it to be wrong for a deity?

If you only hope for moral laws, but don’t know (the way the devout do) what they actually are, what foundation are you claiming to morally judge the action or inaction of a deity? You hope?

What if you were to hope that you’re not morally obligated to risk even a minor burn on your thumb to save the life of even a child?

You make no claims to which is right or wrong.

I apologize. I misunderstood and thought you DID claim that some actions are objectively right or wrong, outside of OUR personal opinion. Not just that you hoped your particular opinion was right. My bad.