[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…I am satisfied with neither of these…
[/quote]
You will never be satisfied with any explanation except nihilism. So embrace it.
Then see if you can enjoy your life. See if you can live a life with purpose.[/quote]
Too bad we can’t up-vote intelligent comments and down-vote stupid ones.
No God = nihilist, lol. Another gem push.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
If Jesus is not who he said he was then he’s an abject fraud. What kind of merit can the teachings of an abject fraud have?
[/quote]
I am unaware of any document composed during the life of Jesus by an actual eyewitness which directly quoted him as saying that he was the incarnation of Yahweh on earth.
You may be in possession of such a document. I would be most interested in seeing it.
The fact of the matter is, though, I would not expect you to believe a claim that George Washington killed a grizzly bear with his bare hands at the age of twenty-five, if my only evidence was a set of documents compiled by amateur historians thirty to seventy years after his death, by people who had likely never met Washington in person, but heard from people who heard from other people that George definitely said that, and that George wouldn’t lie about something like that (and in fact, George never told a lie, as evidenced by the Cherry Tree Incident).
Not only would I not expect you to believe it, but I certainly wouldn’t insist that the fact of George Washington’s greatness is contingent upon acceptance of the belief that he killed a grizzly with his bare hands.
No, we have plenty of verifiable eyewitness accounts of Washington’s words and deeds, not to mention reams of Washington’s own writings in his own hand, and we’re reasonably sure that he never claimed to kill a grizz bare-handed. If presented with an unauthenticated document based on second- and third-hand information written decades after the fact, we are inclined to be skeptical. Particularly about an event that seems utterly improbable.
Why, then, do we lower our standards of journalistic accuracy when dealing with even more improbable claims, about a man for whom no supporting contemporary documentation exists, at an even greater remove from both the event in question, and from the present?
Is it because the stakes are higher? Is it because nobody is at risk of eternal damnation if they don’t swallow the yarn about George and the bear?
I, for one, think George was a pretty cool guy, whether or not he kilt a bar. Ditto for Jesus.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
“And where in the OT is the origin of that? If you cannot find it, perhaps it came from a source other than the OT.”
[/quote]
Yes, perhaps it came from the one who existed before the Old Testament who happens to be the carpenter’s son as well.[/quote]
OK, then. Show me.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The original argument went: in a world governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, evil could not exist. Anything that happens in such a world happens only be the leave of God, who is infinitely powerful and therefore infinitely capable of stopping anything from happening. If God is omnibenevolent, he will not allow evil, or injustice, or “bad” things to happen. (At least to good people) So, if evil exists, then such a God cannot exist.
It would be like a cartoon strip drawn exclusively by a devout Muslim: in the context of the “world” of that cartoon, Muhammad could never be drawn, because the devout Muslim cannot make an image of the prophet. So, if an image of Muhammad showed up in the cartoon “world,” then the other cartoon beings could deduce–they are capable of deduction and thought in this hypothetical–that their creator is not what they thought he was. That is, either not a devout Muslim, or not the sole drawer of the cartoon, or not either of those things.
That was the argument. But, Christians (correctly) made the point that evil is necessary for free will, and free will is “just.”
The problem is that this does not excuse “natural” evil, or “injustice.” A human infant being struck and killed by lightning, for example. Such things have nothing to do with free will, obviously, and they happen all the time. So–how can an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God coexist with natural evil? God knows it will happen, God has the power to stop it, and, being infinitely just, God “wants” to stop it. And yet, He doesn’t stop it.
For me, the inescapable conclusion of this conundrum is that such a God–omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent–does not exist. We all know Jesus. Great dude. It is nonsensical, in my view, to think that He, He of of love and peace, He who asked his father to forgive them, watches infants and small children and innocent women and good men drown, suffocate, burn, and suffer every single day, with the power to intervene (at no inconvenience to Him), without doing anything about it?
In making this point, I draw an analogy. I’ll change it a little here. A man is walking in the woods and he comes upon a human infant at the foot of a muddy hill. Above the infant, and sliding slowly toward it, is an enormous boulder. The man can easily move the child, and it will survive. Instead, he stands there, watching, as the boulder slowly slides down the hill. After a minute, it reaches the infant and crushes it, killing it instantly.
This is exactly what an omniscient and omnipotent being is doing every single time an innocent human life is prematurely lost because of natural evil. I say that this disproves the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God.
Two (probably ultimately related) responses were offered up in refutation of this. The first was essentially, “God works in mysterious ways.” The second was that anything God does is just, so, when an infant has been allowed by God to die by lightning strike, no injustice has been done–because God let it happen, and God is infinitely just and infinitely good.
I am satisfied with neither of these. Each has huge problems, so far as I’m concerned. However, the argument tends to move in circles from there.[/quote]
Nice summary. You strike me as really wise for your years.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
“And where in the OT is the origin of that? If you cannot find it, perhaps it came from a source other than the OT.”
[/quote]
Yes, perhaps it came from the one who existed before the Old Testament who happens to be the carpenter’s son as well.[/quote]
OK, then. Show me.[/quote]
Show you what?
[/quote]
Show me where in the Old Testament there is a place like Hell, where souls go (see thread title) or show me where the One who existed before the Old Testament described such a place.
If you respect the text enough to insist on its infallible and historical truth–especially about the creation of the cosmos–then you should be able to respect the text enough to find a reference to Hell. The Devil’s Advocate cannot find it alone.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Nice summary. You strike me as really wise for your years.
[/quote]
That’s very kind of you to say.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…I am satisfied with neither of these…
[/quote]
You will never be satisfied with any explanation except nihilism. So embrace it.
Then see if you can enjoy your life. See if you can live a life with purpose.[/quote]
Why do so many believers try to act as if non believers aren’t enjoying life? I seriously hear this all the time from some of my religious friends. I’m extremely happy and satisfied with my life. I closed my eyes and tried to talk to someone when I was younger. I never heard anything in return. I just did the same thing. Silence again.
It really sounds like believers try hard to convince themselves that no one else can leave a happy and successful life without coming to the same conclusion as they did.
I don’t know smh personally, but from my interactions with him on here I would guess he enjoys his life and views it as having a purpose.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…I am satisfied with neither of these…
[/quote]
You will never be satisfied with any explanation except nihilism. So embrace it.
Then see if you can enjoy your life. See if you can live a life with purpose.[/quote]
Too bad we can’t up-vote intelligent comments and down-vote stupid ones.
No God = nihilist, lol. Another gem push.[/quote]
Nihilism is the inevitable conclusion of no God.[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…I am satisfied with neither of these…
[/quote]
You will never be satisfied with any explanation except nihilism. So embrace it.
Then see if you can enjoy your life. See if you can live a life with purpose.[/quote]
Too bad we can’t up-vote intelligent comments and down-vote stupid ones.
No God = nihilist, lol. Another gem push.[/quote]
Nihilism is the inevitable conclusion of no God.[/quote]
Care to elaborate? I would like to understand your reasoning behind that conclusion
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Once again this thread is escaping my limited abilities to keep up with it. I’m interested in the first part and not really the last. For the purposes of this one I think we both can say lets assume God exists. Can you unpack this? I don’t follow the first inescapable conclusion.[/quote]
Sure thing.
The original argument went: in a world governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, evil could not exist. Anything that happens in such a world happens only be the leave of God, who is infinitely powerful and therefore infinitely capable of stopping anything from happening. If God is omnibenevolent, he will not allow evil, or injustice, or “bad” things to happen. (At least to good people) So, if evil exists, then such a God cannot exist.
It would be like a cartoon strip drawn exclusively by a devout Muslim: in the context of the “world” of that cartoon, Muhammad could never be drawn, because the devout Muslim cannot make an image of the prophet. So, if an image of Muhammad showed up in the cartoon “world,” then the other cartoon beings could deduce–they are capable of deduction and thought in this hypothetical–that their creator is not what they thought he was. That is, either not a devout Muslim, or not the sole drawer of the cartoon, or not either of those things.
That was the argument. But, Christians (correctly) made the point that evil is necessary for free will, and free will is “just.”
The problem is that this does not excuse “natural” evil, or “injustice.” A human infant being struck and killed by lightning, for example. Such things have nothing to do with free will, obviously, and they happen all the time. So–how can an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God coexist with natural evil? God knows it will happen, God has the power to stop it, and, being infinitely just, God “wants” to stop it. And yet, He doesn’t stop it.
For me, the inescapable conclusion of this conundrum is that such a God–omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent–does not exist. We all know Jesus. Great dude. It is nonsensical, in my view, to think that He, He of of love and peace, He who asked his father to forgive them, watches infants and small children and innocent women and good men drown, suffocate, burn, and suffer every single day, with the power to intervene (at no inconvenience to Him), without doing anything about it?
In making this point, I draw an analogy. I’ll change it a little here. A man is walking in the woods and he comes upon a human infant at the foot of a muddy hill. Above the infant, and sliding slowly toward it, is an enormous boulder. The man can easily move the child, and it will survive. Instead, he stands there, watching, as the boulder slowly slides down the hill. After a minute, it reaches the infant and crushes it, killing it instantly.
This is exactly what an omniscient and omnipotent being is doing every single time an innocent human life is prematurely lost because of natural evil. I say that this disproves the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God.
Two (probably ultimately related) responses were offered up in refutation of this. The first was essentially, “God works in mysterious ways.” The second was that anything God does is just, so, when an infant has been allowed by God to die by lightning strike, no injustice has been done–because God let it happen, and God is infinitely just and infinitely good.
I am satisfied with neither of these. Each has huge problems, so far as I’m concerned. However, the argument tends to move in circles from there.[/quote]
[quote]krillin wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…
If I’m going to burn in hell for not believing that Jesus was divine–or, at least, no more divine than anybody else–then…
So, if the conditional clause is fulfilled, then it really doesn’t matter what I say in the consequent clause. Unless, of course, you think I’ll be punished all the harder for what I’ve said here…in which case, while you’re right that it’s unwise of me to say it, He deserves the censure all the more, so far as I’m concerned.[/quote]
You are off the proverbial hook.
And I get to play the Devil’s Advocate. (The pun is intended.)
(Let’s leave the New Testament out of this discussion for a moment–it’s cosmology and dicta are interwoven with Hellenist and Persian notions.)
Where, in the Old Testament, does it command people to believe anything? My answer is, “nowhere.”
Belief is not the same as action, obedience, etc. Since lack of belief (of some dictum) by someone is not commanded, it is not punishable.
Next: Where, in the Old Testament, is there a description of a Hell?
Nowhere. Oh, dear readers, do not bother trotting out references to “sheoul” or to “Gehenna.” These were simply the over-interpreted terms for a pit (or grave) and the valley outside Jerusalem where the garbage was burned. (Hell and an afterlife were concepts which pre-exilic Israelites implicitly abhorred because they were notions nurtured by hated Egyptians, Chaldees, Assyrians.)
So, smh, there is no thoughtcrime, and belief (or lack thereof) is not punishable by exile to a place that does not exist–at least not until after Alexander’s armies came visiting a desolate backwater of the Persian empire. [/quote]
Your statement (Dr. skeptix) about hell not being in the Old Testament interested me, and the only place I can think of that may suggest an everlasting hell is Isaiah 66:24, when he talks about how the faithful will look out and see the dead bodies of those who have transgressed, where “their worm will not die, and their fire will not be quenched.” A few times in this chapter, the fire refers to God’s judgment and wrath; and if it is something that is undying and unquenchable, it could suggest a picture of God’s wrath unending and continually being poured out on those who have died.
Now I know from other threads that you have a very good knowledge of the Hebrew and are extremely familiar with the Old Testament. I ask as a serious question, what do you think the worm and the fire refer to in this text looking into the original hebrew and such? Admittedly, this text is not an extremely clear and straighforward support of hell in the Old Testament but I’d like to hear your take.[/quote]
Isaiah, I am told, is a text redacted from three sources. There used to be Proto-Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and now the scholars subdivided the last chapters to “Trito-Isaiah.” These last chapters are probably post-exilic texts, and indeed this particular chapter includes terms also included in parts of Ezekial and Jeremiah that also have a “late classic Hebrew” vocabulary.
THis chapter also is the tract of prophets which is recited when the Sabbath coincides with the New Moon and serves as a counterpoint to Numbers 28:9-15, which describes the sacrifices requisite on the New Moon.
The points: God does not prefer sacrifices to obedience and righteousness. With the return of the exiles will come the cleansing of Jerusalem of the disobedient, who are condemned to decay in Gehenna, by worm and fire; it is the garbage heap, and they are not even fit for the grave. But it is not hell.
You and Varqanir make good points; is this chapter of Isaiah a vision of eternity or of a prophesied single event? I read it as follows: obedience and righteousness are eternal, from Sabbath to Sabbath and from New Moon to New Moon, and idol worshippers are to be held in contempt (v24 has a very particular word for disgrace or contempt, often mistranslated as “abhorrence.”) and are consigned to burn in the garbage and be eaten by worms. Some will read this as “eternal damnation,” but I do not read it as the punishments of Hell.
Varq asks about the eschatology of Assur-Babylonia. I would not know, and I did not get very far in elementary Ugaritic. These last chapters of Isaiah seem so far from pagan belief–note the disdain for idols and their worshippers–that I think Babylonian heresies are not easily read into this text.
In short, if God (or a gods, fine) exist, they define what is good.
If no existence, then what are we using to judge god(s), exactly? We can’t use opinion, because like choosing a favorite color, it’s just that. An opinion.
If God does not exist, then not only is it not evil for God to not act, it isn’t evil for anyone to not act. A man could be dying right there in your front yard, needing nothing more than for you to administer the epi-pen he dropped. And you’d have no moral obligation to him at all. It wouldn’t be evil to turn around, go inside, and turn the TV on. It would just a personal decision. So in a worldview that doesn’t include this deity, how does one turn around and judge its moral character?
If the worldview is that this deity exists, then whatever it does/wills is the good.
I’ll try to check in tomorrow. Long day.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The evil isn’t the accident, it’s the sentient being who witnesses the accident and chooses to watch it rather than stop it.
I’ll reply to the other section tomorrow.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
In short, if God (or a gods, fine) exist, they define what is good.
If no existence, then what are we using to judge god(s), exactly? We can’t use opinion, because like choosing a favorite color, it’s just that. An opinion.
If God does not exist, then not only is it not evil for God to not act, it isn’t evil for anyone to not act. A man could be dying right there in your front yard, needing nothing more than for you to administer the epi-pen he dropped. And you’d have no moral obligation to him at all. It wouldn’t be evil to turn around, go inside, and turn the TV on. It would just a personal decision. So in a worldview that doesn’t include this deity, how does one turn around and judge it’s moral character?[/quote]
I don’t NEED God to want to save that man’s life. Why do you assume I walk around not giving a shit about anything because I choose not to believe in your God? I help out people on a daily basis. I volunteer with kids. I don’t need a higher power to do this. Many agnostics, atheists, etc don’t “need” God to be good.
But if God does exist, and wants hell to exist and wants my cousin to be tortured in a lake of fire for all eternity because he’s gay it’s A-OK cause “God” gets to pick what it is that is good? Why is he without judgement again? If the God that is in the Bible as described by many believers allows someone like Gandhi to be tortured for all eternity then I will judge him right now…he’s a dick.
[quote]H factor wrote:
I don’t NEED God to want to save that man’s life.[/quote]
That’s not what I was saying…
But, so? It doesn’t matter if you do or don’t. Neither action would be evil or good. It’d just be an action.
[quote] Why do you assume I walk around not giving a shit about anything because I choose not to believe in your God? I help out people on a daily basis. I volunteer with kids. I don’t need a higher power to do this. Many agnostics, atheists, etc don’t “need” God to be good.
But if God does exist, and wants hell to exist and wants my cousin to be tortured in a lake of fire for all eternity because he’s gay it’s A-OK cause “God” gets to pick what it is that is good? Why is he without judgement again? If the God that is in the Bible as described by many believers allows someone like Gandhi to be tortured for all eternity then I will judge him right now…he’s a dick. [/quote]
Well, that’s just like, your opinion, man.