heaven and hell?

[luke07930]

[billie]

You've already stated you don't believe in God. Your mind's made up. So why are you really here?

[luke07930]

You've already stated you don't believe in God. Your mind's made up. So why are you really here?

As I have said you believers push Christianity into the public domain, this affects all of us. It must be questioned.................................

[TheProcess]

process, I have answered your statements, if you don't like the answer, then I have nothing left for you. You ask me why God would do something? I don't know why you would do something, so how can I speak for God?

Why should this be the case?

again, you ask questions that I answered. We inherited the condition form Adam, think of it as a spiritual birth defect.

The question was whether God would really behave in that way, whether it would be a sensible thing to do. Your response along the lines of, "God can do what he likes", isn't answering the question.

again, asked and answered. Just because you don't find it satisfactory doesn't mean that it wasn't answered. I would infer that this was the way God's justice could be satisfied. Look at Genesis 15. God makes promises to Abraham by swearing on Himself. Why? Because there is no higher authority, and He can't go against His own righteousness.

You could have reincarnation perhaps.

See, here is a perfect example of my not answering you like you are answering me. I reject your premise, but don't claim you didn't answer the question. Give me proof that reincarnation exsists. Are you going to use anectdotal evidence? personal testimony? If you are, then you are hardly in a position to claim that the case for Christ can't use the same

You seem to trying to argue from what IS the case, when what is at issue is what OUGHT to be the case. Should God have made Adam in that way?

I think you asked why, not what ought to be. If the question is what ought to be, then I go back to the question about do you have the prerequisite wisdom to make that decision? I would imagine you, nor anyone else except God, does. And if you think you do, could you please post your resume so that I may judge you worthy, since you seem to think that is a human beings role here

No, you haven't been giving relevant answers to the questions. I could go into the detail of it, but I don't think there is much point with someone like yourself.

[Prodigalson123]

Luke, I'm not sure why you think that not only can you ask for a debate, but also frame the parameters of the debate. Are you so naive that you don't think that scriptures, that the religion is based on, will be the core of the response when issues are brought up? If you want to discuss the validity of Christiantiy, my suggestion would be to look at other posts in this category to see some of the arguments. If you want to have a discussion, then maybe not telling people how to answer would be a first step. Debating is the presentation of ideas, then the logical examination of those ideas. Thus far all you've spoken about is why would God send good people to Hell? The answer was given to you, there are none righteous, no not one. Religions that believe that they can get to heaven by actions are, by definition, self-righteous. No matter the persuasion of the individual, everyone I've met is flawed and imperfect. Why does the concept that God would allow those who conform to His requirement (which is belief in His provididng a way to Him, his son Jesus Christ) then seem so out of the realm of possible? Do you at least admit it is possible? I also find it humorous how people like to state that this or that predated Christianity as if that in and of itself disqualifies the ethic. It doesn't predate God no matter the philosophy. Now the real matter is how do we prove God was before everything? How do you prove He wasn't? So, since the whole topic is grandiose, lets start with something small. I'm happy to have the discussion with you as long as it stays civil, and not insulting. Ask me a specific question and I will endeavor to answer you honestly, but....scripture will be part of it but we can dissect the verse to see if there is validity, ok?

What I'm saying is that using scripture proves nothing. and this is where I disagree. You take the credibility of the individual who is speaking, and thus you measure what they said from there. I'm not interested in physical sciences. Don't know why, but they really never interested me. But I am into the law, and usually look at things as from a legal case point of view. When you have conflicting testimony, then you go to credibility. Jesus claims he is God, and that His words are from a divine nature. If that is true, then lets look at the probability of that. He has fulfilled 109 prophecies that the "messiah" would fulfill, statistically it is impossible for one man to fulfill those. He even said that if you don't believe his words, believe his works. Things that were done in public, not hidden, and not only for a sympathetic audience. The Pharisees were anything but sympathetic, and they don't refute the miracles. The Jewish historian Josephus didn't refute any of the acts, and he was the premier historian of his age. So, if you look at the credibility, then there is not one shred of evidence to the contrary that the acts or the claims that Jesus made were wrong. He died on the cross in a very public manner, and he was seen by 500 people at one time after, what can you say to that other then an opinion that you don't believe? If the court needs a couple of witnesses to corroborate some evidence, then why does the eyewitness of 12 men, 2 women and a crowd of 500 not suffice? The only logical reason would be that you refuse to believe. Did you know that Magellans expedition around the world was testified to by the 18 surviving sailors from his expedition. Only 1 man chronicled that trip in writing, yet you probably believe the account to be true. Why then would you discount the account of 514 people?

It is so rare that anyone quotes scripture that even starts to prove anything to a nonbeliver. For the simple reason that scripture is written by believers for believers.

If I'm asking where is the logic in burning a gentle human being and forgiving a violent believer, telling me its gods will doesn't explain it. If I ask for evidence of god or proof that your rules are really the will of god, quoting Christian rules at me doesn't clarify anything. Not a thing. You continually speak of gentle, innocent, kind unbelievers. I think your debate isn't genuine, it's about you futhering your agenda. If you think that natives are innocent, then you should look at the history of the clans of scotland against each other, look at the tribes of Africa and how they waged war on each other. Look at the racial hatred in the former Yugoslavia, and the genocide perpetuated there. And, take a look at how the Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus have been butchering each other in India, Pakistan and the far east. The true evidence is, mankind is a barbaric, murdering, self-centered, self-serving race. You may place kind and gentle attributes on a certain group of people, but your being dishonest to look at a species and state that the good has outweighed the bad. There has been something like 200 years that a war hasn't raged somewhere on the globe in the history of recorded time, how can you claim that a species that has, at best, a 90% warfare ratio is a good group?

If I ask a Muslim how he can claim that the Koran is the word of Allah and he replies ''you must surrender to Allah, I will show you the truth of the Qu'ran'' and quotes a piece of scripture.

'Do you not see that Allah is He Whom do glorify all those who are in the heavens and the earth, and the (very) birds with expanded wings? He knows the prayer of each one and its glorification, and Allah is Cognizant of what they do. (The Light 24.41)'

Does this prove anything? Is it constructive to the debate? Does it answer my question?

If you ask me to explain the Buddhist teaching of no self/emptiness and I say ''it is because Lord Buddha says it is so, you must obey'' The Dharmapada saysI would ask you to prove the virtue of that individual. I would ask you to show how that person comported themself to a level above the rest of us. If you could do that, then we would go on to the next series of questions, and then we would be moving along beyond the pedantic argument you claim is "logic"

''All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.''

Do you now see the logic in no self/emptiness??

No, it is not constructive debate. It is preaching, not debate.

When Christians and Muslims quote their books to argue a point they make the assumption that just because they endow their book with the authority of undisputed truth, others will as well.

Atheists are totally scepical about the authority of the Bible and the Koran. So dont use the bible to defend youre faith.I refuse to conform to your standard. If you don't like that then we will agree to disagree. But you can't tell someone that they can't use resources. You might reject them, but that is more a reflection on you then the debater.

Use proof, evidence, logic.I did, now we will see what your response is

If you don't do this we can only assume that youre faith is just that and nothing else.

no logic, no proof, no evidence just blind faith.

If this is the case then you should keep youre beliefs out of politics, out of education and off the battlefield, until you can bring something more substantial to the table than a book and superstition.

As you requested, I will ask you a question...................

if god really loves us and doesnt enjoy troturing souls for all eternity, why didnt he have a prophet and messiah in every town and village across the planet, from Papua New Guinea and Borneo to Australia and Africa??? Or was he quite happy to fry those poor souls until the white man conquered their countries???Isn't that a racist comment? Are the Mediterranean countries considered white? Jesus was a Jew from Palestine, is He white? Paul and the apostles who went out to convert the world were....wait for it.....Jews from Palestine. Hhmm seems that the white man wasn't the original missionaries. But onto a more reasonable question. Does the fact that the OT believers were allowed into heaven not resonate on you that....if you haven't heard of Christ, then there must be another method that God uses to judge a person? Abraham wasn't able to meet Jesus, and yet he is in heaven. Stated in both the OT and the NT. How might this be possible? Because his faith was counted to him as righteousness. His faith in God, and his behavior. So there is a way for those poor innocent kind gentle souls that you seem so connected to and care for to be judged.

Surely an all powerfull, mercifull god would have been able to do this. According to you guys his message is ''I LOVE YOU'' ''BELIEVE IN ME OBEY OR BE TOTURED FOR ALL ETERNITY''

If so he would have used his power and ubiquitous nature to tell all in such a way that could not be argued with, Then he could rightfully say ''I TOLD YOU SO'' I know that your logical mind will go into convulsions at the idea that I'm gonna quote scripture, but here goes:

Romans 1:18-23

18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;

19. because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them.

20. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

21. because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.

22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23. and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

So....the apostle Paul, who btw was versed in theology, philosophy, was as literate as any man at the time. Was educated in multiple languages, was a talented debater, went through the school of rhetoric, was a pharisee, schooled in religious politics. He claims that God has provided plenty of proof of himself. It's called natural revelation. Seeing the majesty of the world, the awesome power of nature, the complexity of the stars, ans the elements speak to the fact that God is present. That there is an innate right/wrong knowledge in all men. Again, there is no record of Paul being delusional, no record of him not being sane, not being rationale, not being trustworthy.

But on the flimsy evidence he supposedly left us and the totally inefficiant way he used of spreading his urgent message tells me, if you guys are right about the lake of fire and then he is not loving and he enjoys torture.

Or of course you could also come to a more logical conclusion!!! Your definiton of logical is to be cynical and think you have made some sort of point by saying people aren't logical. But....this coming from someone who claims peace and love are important to a person and dropping questionable words right out of the gate.

That there is no truth in it what so ever.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Prodigalson123

[luke07930]

Luke, I'm not sure why you think that not only can you ask for a debate, but also frame the parameters of the debate. Are you so naive that you don't think that scriptures, that the religion is based on, will be the core of the response when issues are brought up? If you want to discuss the validity of Christiantiy, my suggestion would be to look at other posts in this category to see some of the arguments. If you want to have a discussion, then maybe not telling people how to answer would be a first step. Debating is the presentation of ideas, then the logical examination of those ideas. Thus far all you've spoken about is why would God send good people to Hell? The answer was given to you, there are none righteous, no not one. Religions that believe that they can get to heaven by actions are, by definition, self-righteous. No matter the persuasion of the individual, everyone I've met is flawed and imperfect. Why does the concept that God would allow those who conform to His requirement (which is belief in His provididng a way to Him, his son Jesus Christ) then seem so out of the realm of possible? Do you at least admit it is possible? I also find it humorous how people like to state that this or that predated Christianity as if that in and of itself disqualifies the ethic. It doesn't predate God no matter the philosophy. Now the real matter is how do we prove God was before everything? How do you prove He wasn't? So, since the whole topic is grandiose, lets start with something small. I'm happy to have the discussion with you as long as it stays civil, and not insulting. Ask me a specific question and I will endeavor to answer you honestly, but....scripture will be part of it but we can dissect the verse to see if there is validity, ok?

What I'm saying is that using scripture proves nothing. and this is where I disagree. You take the credibility of the individual who is speaking, and thus you measure what they said from there. I'm not interested in physical sciences. Don't know why, but they really never interested me. But I am into the law, and usually look at things as from a legal case point of view. When you have conflicting testimony, then you go to credibility. Jesus claims he is God, and that His words are from a divine nature. If that is true, then lets look at the probability of that. He has fulfilled 109 prophecies that the "messiah" would fulfill, statistically it is impossible for one man to fulfill those. He even said that if you don't believe his words, believe his works. Things that were done in public, not hidden, and not only for a sympathetic audience. The Pharisees were anything but sympathetic, and they don't refute the miracles. The Jewish historian Josephus didn't refute any of the acts, and he was the premier historian of his age. So, if you look at the credibility, then there is not one shred of evidence to the contrary that the acts or the claims that Jesus made were wrong. He died on the cross in a very public manner, and he was seen by 500 people at one time after, what can you say to that other then an opinion that you don't believe? If the court needs a couple of witnesses to corroborate some evidence, then why does the eyewitness of 12 men, 2 women and a crowd of 500 not suffice? The only logical reason would be that you refuse to believe. Did you know that Magellans expedition around the world was testified to by the 18 surviving sailors from his expedition. Only 1 man chronicled that trip in writing, yet you probably believe the account to be true. Why then would you discount the account of 514 people?

It is so rare that anyone quotes scripture that even starts to prove anything to a nonbeliver. For the simple reason that scripture is written by believers for believers.

If I'm asking where is the logic in burning a gentle human being and forgiving a violent believer, telling me its gods will doesn't explain it. If I ask for evidence of god or proof that your rules are really the will of god, quoting Christian rules at me doesn't clarify anything. Not a thing. You continually speak of gentle, innocent, kind unbelievers. I think your debate isn't genuine, it's about you futhering your agenda. If you think that natives are innocent, then you should look at the history of the clans of scotland against each other, look at the tribes of Africa and how they waged war on each other. Look at the racial hatred in the former Yugoslavia, and the genocide perpetuated there. And, take a look at how the Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus have been butchering each other in India, Pakistan and the far east. The true evidence is, mankind is a barbaric, murdering, self-centered, self-serving race. You may place kind and gentle attributes on a certain group of people, but your being dishonest to look at a species and state that the good has outweighed the bad. There has been something like 200 years that a war hasn't raged somewhere on the globe in the history of recorded time, how can you claim that a species that has, at best, a 90% warfare ratio is a good group?

If I ask a Muslim how he can claim that the Koran is the word of Allah and he replies ''you must surrender to Allah, I will show you the truth of the Qu'ran'' and quotes a piece of scripture.

'Do you not see that Allah is He Whom do glorify all those who are in the heavens and the earth, and the (very) birds with expanded wings? He knows the prayer of each one and its glorification, and Allah is Cognizant of what they do. (The Light 24.41)'

Does this prove anything? Is it constructive to the debate? Does it answer my question?

If you ask me to explain the Buddhist teaching of no self/emptiness and I say ''it is because Lord Buddha says it is so, you must obey'' The Dharmapada saysI would ask you to prove the virtue of that individual. I would ask you to show how that person comported themself to a level above the rest of us. If you could do that, then we would go on to the next series of questions, and then we would be moving along beyond the pedantic argument you claim is "logic"

''All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.''

Do you now see the logic in no self/emptiness??

No, it is not constructive debate. It is preaching, not debate.

When Christians and Muslims quote their books to argue a point they make the assumption that just because they endow their book with the authority of undisputed truth, others will as well.

Atheists are totally scepical about the authority of the Bible and the Koran. So dont use the bible to defend youre faith.I refuse to conform to your standard. If you don't like that then we will agree to disagree. But you can't tell someone that they can't use resources. You might reject them, but that is more a reflection on you then the debater.

Use proof, evidence, logic.I did, now we will see what your response is

If you don't do this we can only assume that youre faith is just that and nothing else.

no logic, no proof, no evidence just blind faith.

If this is the case then you should keep youre beliefs out of politics, out of education and off the battlefield, until you can bring something more substantial to the table than a book and superstition.

As you requested, I will ask you a question...................

if god really loves us and doesnt enjoy troturing souls for all eternity, why didnt he have a prophet and messiah in every town and village across the planet, from Papua New Guinea and Borneo to Australia and Africa??? Or was he quite happy to fry those poor souls until the white man conquered their countries???Isn't that a racist comment? Are the Mediterranean countries considered white? Jesus was a Jew from Palestine, is He white? Paul and the apostles who went out to convert the world were....wait for it.....Jews from Palestine. Hhmm seems that the white man wasn't the original missionaries. But onto a more reasonable question. Does the fact that the OT believers were allowed into heaven not resonate on you that....if you haven't heard of Christ, then there must be another method that God uses to judge a person? Abraham wasn't able to meet Jesus, and yet he is in heaven. Stated in both the OT and the NT. How might this be possible? Because his faith was counted to him as righteousness. His faith in God, and his behavior. So there is a way for those poor innocent kind gentle souls that you seem so connected to and care for to be judged.

Surely an all powerfull, mercifull god would have been able to do this. According to you guys his message is ''I LOVE YOU'' ''BELIEVE IN ME OBEY OR BE TOTURED FOR ALL ETERNITY''

If so he would have used his power and ubiquitous nature to tell all in such a way that could not be argued with, Then he could rightfully say ''I TOLD YOU SO'' I know that your logical mind will go into convulsions at the idea that I'm gonna quote scripture, but here goes:

Romans 1:18-23

18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;

19. because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them.

20. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

21. because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.

22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23. and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

So....the apostle Paul, who btw was versed in theology, philosophy, was as literate as any man at the time. Was educated in multiple languages, was a talented debater, went through the school of rhetoric, was a pharisee, schooled in religious politics. He claims that God has provided plenty of proof of himself. It's called natural revelation. Seeing the majesty of the world, the awesome power of nature, the complexity of the stars, ans the elements speak to the fact that God is present. That there is an innate right/wrong knowledge in all men. Again, there is no record of Paul being delusional, no record of him not being sane, not being rationale, not being trustworthy.

But on the flimsy evidence he supposedly left us and the totally inefficiant way he used of spreading his urgent message tells me, if you guys are right about the lake of fire and then he is not loving and he enjoys torture.

Or of course you could also come to a more logical conclusion!!! Your definiton of logical is to be cynical and think you have made some sort of point by saying people aren't logical. But....this coming from someone who claims peace and love are important to a person and dropping questionable words right out of the gate.

That there is no truth in it what so ever.

Please can you seperate youre arguments from my quotes and I will reveal the problems with youre arguments, but the way you have pasted it all thogether like that makes it very difficult to tell apart and I have to keep re reading it.

But I will give you a taste of the kind of response you will recieve once you paste youre answers so I can see them.

You say that in law we work back from the credibility of the person who is testifying. Then you use St Pauls claims that Jesus was god and then the prophecies and miracles of this so called devine creator to back up his credibility, if I where a lawyer I would have to say anyone who made such a claim is either mad, trying to bring the debate into disrepute or he is god in which case I need proof from independent witnesses not from people who are riding on the same delusion as St Paul and Jesus. I need proof from people without faith, not prphecies written at the begginnig of a fictional novel and fullfilled prophecies at the end of the same novel. This would not stand up in court. In the absense of that proof of, we can only look at the logic of what this self proclaimed god tells us, look at his dogma, rules and so called wisdom and see if they really are wise or make any sense att all. as far as I can see he talks nonsense. And so do you.

I will get to you throwing words like racist into the dabate in good time, but surely it is god who saw no urgency for Africans, Australians, Asians and Chinese to learn of his plan to torture them. Not me. Using the logic of law that makes youre god the racist.

[luke07930]

18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;

19. because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them.

20. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

21. because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.

22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23. and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

There is no wisdom in the passages written above, these are obviosley devices for getting people to obey and not question, they prove nothing and have no validity in this debate, just read them. One of them even says in a roundabout way that if you try to question Christianity even as a believer you will become vain and youre heart will darken. Wow the manipulative nature of it is obvious and beyond the pale..

All these passages do is back up my premise that god and hell are just tools that the church uses to get people to obey, I say again it has no place in logical debate between two men if one man says to the other my debate is right because it has the authority of god and god trumps everything, then adds that according to my religion man is vile and un christ like so his argument no matter how logical is flawed.

I say youre religion is flawed because it needs the blind faith of believers. Anything that needs you to switch youre brain to mono and and say things are true because you believe they are true will always fall short in the face of the enquiring mind of man..

[Prodigalson123]

Luke, I'm not sure why you think that not only can you ask for a debate, but also frame the parameters of the debate. Are you so naive that you don't think that scriptures, that the religion is based on, will be the core of the response when issues are brought up? If you want to discuss the validity of Christiantiy, my suggestion would be to look at other posts in this category to see some of the arguments. If you want to have a discussion, then maybe not telling people how to answer would be a first step. Debating is the presentation of ideas, then the logical examination of those ideas. Thus far all you've spoken about is why would God send good people to Hell? The answer was given to you, there are none righteous, no not one. Religions that believe that they can get to heaven by actions are, by definition, self-righteous. No matter the persuasion of the individual, everyone I've met is flawed and imperfect. Why does the concept that God would allow those who conform to His requirement (which is belief in His provididng a way to Him, his son Jesus Christ) then seem so out of the realm of possible? Do you at least admit it is possible? I also find it humorous how people like to state that this or that predated Christianity as if that in and of itself disqualifies the ethic. It doesn't predate God no matter the philosophy. Now the real matter is how do we prove God was before everything? How do you prove He wasn't? So, since the whole topic is grandiose, lets start with something small. I'm happy to have the discussion with you as long as it stays civil, and not insulting. Ask me a specific question and I will endeavor to answer you honestly, but....scripture will be part of it but we can dissect the verse to see if there is validity, ok?

What I'm saying is that using scripture proves nothing. and this is where I disagree. You take the credibility of the individual who is speaking, and thus you measure what they said from there. I'm not interested in physical sciences. Don't know why, but they really never interested me. But I am into the law, and usually look at things as from a legal case point of view. When you have conflicting testimony, then you go to credibility. Jesus claims he is God, and that His words are from a divine nature. If that is true, then lets look at the probability of that. He has fulfilled 109 prophecies that the "messiah" would fulfill, statistically it is impossible for one man to fulfill those. He even said that if you don't believe his words, believe his works. Things that were done in public, not hidden, and not only for a sympathetic audience. The Pharisees were anything but sympathetic, and they don't refute the miracles. The Jewish historian Josephus didn't refute any of the acts, and he was the premier historian of his age. So, if you look at the credibility, then there is not one shred of evidence to the contrary that the acts or the claims that Jesus made were wrong. He died on the cross in a very public manner, and he was seen by 500 people at one time after, what can you say to that other then an opinion that you don't believe? If the court needs a couple of witnesses to corroborate some evidence, then why does the eyewitness of 12 men, 2 women and a crowd of 500 not suffice? The only logical reason would be that you refuse to believe. Did you know that Magellans expedition around the world was testified to by the 18 surviving sailors from his expedition. Only 1 man chronicled that trip in writing, yet you probably believe the account to be true. Why then would you discount the account of 514 people?

It is so rare that anyone quotes scripture that even starts to prove anything to a nonbeliver. For the simple reason that scripture is written by believers for believers.

If I'm asking where is the logic in burning a gentle human being and forgiving a violent believer, telling me its gods will doesn't explain it. If I ask for evidence of god or proof that your rules are really the will of god, quoting Christian rules at me doesn't clarify anything. Not a thing. You continually speak of gentle, innocent, kind unbelievers. I think your debate isn't genuine, it's about you futhering your agenda. If you think that natives are innocent, then you should look at the history of the clans of scotland against each other, look at the tribes of Africa and how they waged war on each other. Look at the racial hatred in the former Yugoslavia, and the genocide perpetuated there. And, take a look at how the Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus have been butchering each other in India, Pakistan and the far east. The true evidence is, mankind is a barbaric, murdering, self-centered, self-serving race. You may place kind and gentle attributes on a certain group of people, but your being dishonest to look at a species and state that the good has outweighed the bad. There has been something like 200 years that a war hasn't raged somewhere on the globe in the history of recorded time, how can you claim that a species that has, at best, a 90% warfare ratio is a good group?

If I ask a Muslim how he can claim that the Koran is the word of Allah and he replies ''you must surrender to Allah, I will show you the truth of the Qu'ran'' and quotes a piece of scripture.

'Do you not see that Allah is He Whom do glorify all those who are in the heavens and the earth, and the (very) birds with expanded wings? He knows the prayer of each one and its glorification, and Allah is Cognizant of what they do. (The Light 24.41)'

Does this prove anything? Is it constructive to the debate? Does it answer my question?

If you ask me to explain the Buddhist teaching of no self/emptiness and I say ''it is because Lord Buddha says it is so, you must obey'' The Dharmapada saysI would ask you to prove the virtue of that individual. I would ask you to show how that person comported themself to a level above the rest of us. If you could do that, then we would go on to the next series of questions, and then we would be moving along beyond the pedantic argument you claim is "logic"

''All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.''

Do you now see the logic in no self/emptiness??

No, it is not constructive debate. It is preaching, not debate.

When Christians and Muslims quote their books to argue a point they make the assumption that just because they endow their book with the authority of undisputed truth, others will as well.

Atheists are totally scepical about the authority of the Bible and the Koran. So dont use the bible to defend youre faith.I refuse to conform to your standard. If you don't like that then we will agree to disagree. But you can't tell someone that they can't use resources. You might reject them, but that is more a reflection on you then the debater.

Use proof, evidence, logic.I did, now we will see what your response is

If you don't do this we can only assume that youre faith is just that and nothing else.

no logic, no proof, no evidence just blind faith.

If this is the case then you should keep youre beliefs out of politics, out of education and off the battlefield, until you can bring something more substantial to the table than a book and superstition.

As you requested, I will ask you a question...................

if god really loves us and doesnt enjoy troturing souls for all eternity, why didnt he have a prophet and messiah in every town and village across the planet, from Papua New Guinea and Borneo to Australia and Africa??? Or was he quite happy to fry those poor souls until the white man conquered their countries???Isn't that a racist comment? Are the Mediterranean countries considered white? Jesus was a Jew from Palestine, is He white? Paul and the apostles who went out to convert the world were....wait for it.....Jews from Palestine. Hhmm seems that the white man wasn't the original missionaries. But onto a more reasonable question. Does the fact that the OT believers were allowed into heaven not resonate on you that....if you haven't heard of Christ, then there must be another method that God uses to judge a person? Abraham wasn't able to meet Jesus, and yet he is in heaven. Stated in both the OT and the NT. How might this be possible? Because his faith was counted to him as righteousness. His faith in God, and his behavior. So there is a way for those poor innocent kind gentle souls that you seem so connected to and care for to be judged.

Surely an all powerfull, mercifull god would have been able to do this. According to you guys his message is ''I LOVE YOU'' ''BELIEVE IN ME OBEY OR BE TOTURED FOR ALL ETERNITY''

If so he would have used his power and ubiquitous nature to tell all in such a way that could not be argued with, Then he could rightfully say ''I TOLD YOU SO'' I know that your logical mind will go into convulsions at the idea that I'm gonna quote scripture, but here goes:

Romans 1:18-23

18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;

19. because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them.

20. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

21. because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.

22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23. and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

So....the apostle Paul, who btw was versed in theology, philosophy, was as literate as any man at the time. Was educated in multiple languages, was a talented debater, went through the school of rhetoric, was a pharisee, schooled in religious politics. He claims that God has provided plenty of proof of himself. It's called natural revelation. Seeing the majesty of the world, the awesome power of nature, the complexity of the stars, ans the elements speak to the fact that God is present. That there is an innate right/wrong knowledge in all men. Again, there is no record of Paul being delusional, no record of him not being sane, not being rationale, not being trustworthy.

But on the flimsy evidence he supposedly left us and the totally inefficiant way he used of spreading his urgent message tells me, if you guys are right about the lake of fire and then he is not loving and he enjoys torture.

Or of course you could also come to a more logical conclusion!!! Your definiton of logical is to be cynical and think you have made some sort of point by saying people aren't logical. But....this coming from someone who claims peace and love are important to a person and dropping questionable words right out of the gate.

That there is no truth in it what so ever.

Please can you seperate youre arguments from my quotes and I will reveal the problems with youre arguments, but the way you have pasted it all thogether like that makes it very difficult to tell apart and I have to keep re reading it.

But I will give you a taste of the kind of response you will recieve once you paste youre answers so I can see them.

You say that in law we work back from the credibility of the person who is testifying. Then you use St Pauls claims that Jesus was god and then the prophecies and miracles of this so called devine creator to back up his credibility, if I where a lawyer I would have to say anyone who made such a claim is either mad, trying to bring the debate into disrepute or he is god in which case I need proof from independent witnesses not from people who are riding on the same delusion as St Paul and Jesus. I need proof from people without faith, not prphecies written at the begginnig of a fictional novel and fullfilled prophecies at the end of the same novel. This would not stand up in court. In the absense of that proof of, we can only look at the logic of what this self proclaimed god tells us, look at his dogma, rules and so called wisdom and see if they really are wise or make any sense att all. as far as I can see he talks nonsense. And so do you.

I will get to you throwing words like racist into the dabate in good time, but surely it is god who saw no urgency for Africans, Australians, Asians and Chinese to learn of his plan to torture them. Not me. Using the logic of law that makes youre god the racist.

Luke, I'm not going to waste hours on this, my answers are in differant color, if you can't see that, then there we have it. I stated that there were 514 witnesses, do you really delude yourself to think that of the 500 witnesses, they were all believers already? But even if they were, how does that make a difference to the fact that it happened? Are you in the legal profession? You obviously aren't if you think that someone must be neutral to the facts to be credible. I stated that Josephus, the premier Jewish historian of the day, who isn't a believer, didn't discredit the claims that were made about the miracles. I already stated that the pharisees, who were Jesus' enemy, didn't discredit his miracles. So.....what say ye to that? But i notice you haven't answered the questions I pose to you., Don't waste time by posting an answer about text color and/or your inability to read it comfortably instead of responding to the "debate" you seemed to ask for. If you are a debator, then act. If not then we can let the thread die quietly.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Prodigalson123

[luke07930]

Luke, I'm not sure why you think that not only can you ask for a debate, but also frame the parameters of the debate. Are you so naive that you don't think that scriptures, that the religion is based on, will be the core of the response when issues are brought up? If you want to discuss the validity of Christiantiy, my suggestion would be to look at other posts in this category to see some of the arguments. If you want to have a discussion, then maybe not telling people how to answer would be a first step. Debating is the presentation of ideas, then the logical examination of those ideas. Thus far all you've spoken about is why would God send good people to Hell? The answer was given to you, there are none righteous, no not one. Religions that believe that they can get to heaven by actions are, by definition, self-righteous. No matter the persuasion of the individual, everyone I've met is flawed and imperfect. Why does the concept that God would allow those who conform to His requirement (which is belief in His provididng a way to Him, his son Jesus Christ) then seem so out of the realm of possible? Do you at least admit it is possible? I also find it humorous how people like to state that this or that predated Christianity as if that in and of itself disqualifies the ethic. It doesn't predate God no matter the philosophy. Now the real matter is how do we prove God was before everything? How do you prove He wasn't? So, since the whole topic is grandiose, lets start with something small. I'm happy to have the discussion with you as long as it stays civil, and not insulting. Ask me a specific question and I will endeavor to answer you honestly, but....scripture will be part of it but we can dissect the verse to see if there is validity, ok?

What I'm saying is that using scripture proves nothing. and this is where I disagree. You take the credibility of the individual who is speaking, and thus you measure what they said from there. I'm not interested in physical sciences. Don't know why, but they really never interested me. But I am into the law, and usually look at things as from a legal case point of view. When you have conflicting testimony, then you go to credibility. Jesus claims he is God, and that His words are from a divine nature. If that is true, then lets look at the probability of that. He has fulfilled 109 prophecies that the "messiah" would fulfill, statistically it is impossible for one man to fulfill those. He even said that if you don't believe his words, believe his works. Things that were done in public, not hidden, and not only for a sympathetic audience. The Pharisees were anything but sympathetic, and they don't refute the miracles. The Jewish historian Josephus didn't refute any of the acts, and he was the premier historian of his age. So, if you look at the credibility, then there is not one shred of evidence to the contrary that the acts or the claims that Jesus made were wrong. He died on the cross in a very public manner, and he was seen by 500 people at one time after, what can you say to that other then an opinion that you don't believe? If the court needs a couple of witnesses to corroborate some evidence, then why does the eyewitness of 12 men, 2 women and a crowd of 500 not suffice? The only logical reason would be that you refuse to believe. Did you know that Magellans expedition around the world was testified to by the 18 surviving sailors from his expedition. Only 1 man chronicled that trip in writing, yet you probably believe the account to be true. Why then would you discount the account of 514 people?

It is so rare that anyone quotes scripture that even starts to prove anything to a nonbeliver. For the simple reason that scripture is written by believers for believers.

If I'm asking where is the logic in burning a gentle human being and forgiving a violent believer, telling me its gods will doesn't explain it. If I ask for evidence of god or proof that your rules are really the will of god, quoting Christian rules at me doesn't clarify anything. Not a thing. You continually speak of gentle, innocent, kind unbelievers. I think your debate isn't genuine, it's about you futhering your agenda. If you think that natives are innocent, then you should look at the history of the clans of scotland against each other, look at the tribes of Africa and how they waged war on each other. Look at the racial hatred in the former Yugoslavia, and the genocide perpetuated there. And, take a look at how the Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus have been butchering each other in India, Pakistan and the far east. The true evidence is, mankind is a barbaric, murdering, self-centered, self-serving race. You may place kind and gentle attributes on a certain group of people, but your being dishonest to look at a species and state that the good has outweighed the bad. There has been something like 200 years that a war hasn't raged somewhere on the globe in the history of recorded time, how can you claim that a species that has, at best, a 90% warfare ratio is a good group?

If I ask a Muslim how he can claim that the Koran is the word of Allah and he replies ''you must surrender to Allah, I will show you the truth of the Qu'ran'' and quotes a piece of scripture.

'Do you not see that Allah is He Whom do glorify all those who are in the heavens and the earth, and the (very) birds with expanded wings? He knows the prayer of each one and its glorification, and Allah is Cognizant of what they do. (The Light 24.41)'

Does this prove anything? Is it constructive to the debate? Does it answer my question?

If you ask me to explain the Buddhist teaching of no self/emptiness and I say ''it is because Lord Buddha says it is so, you must obey'' The Dharmapada saysI would ask you to prove the virtue of that individual. I would ask you to show how that person comported themself to a level above the rest of us. If you could do that, then we would go on to the next series of questions, and then we would be moving along beyond the pedantic argument you claim is "logic"

''All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.''

Do you now see the logic in no self/emptiness??

No, it is not constructive debate. It is preaching, not debate.

When Christians and Muslims quote their books to argue a point they make the assumption that just because they endow their book with the authority of undisputed truth, others will as well.

Atheists are totally scepical about the authority of the Bible and the Koran. So dont use the bible to defend youre faith.I refuse to conform to your standard. If you don't like that then we will agree to disagree. But you can't tell someone that they can't use resources. You might reject them, but that is more a reflection on you then the debater.

Use proof, evidence, logic.I did, now we will see what your response is

If you don't do this we can only assume that youre faith is just that and nothing else.

no logic, no proof, no evidence just blind faith.

If this is the case then you should keep youre beliefs out of politics, out of education and off the battlefield, until you can bring something more substantial to the table than a book and superstition.

As you requested, I will ask you a question...................

if god really loves us and doesnt enjoy troturing souls for all eternity, why didnt he have a prophet and messiah in every town and village across the planet, from Papua New Guinea and Borneo to Australia and Africa??? Or was he quite happy to fry those poor souls until the white man conquered their countries???Isn't that a racist comment? Are the Mediterranean countries considered white? Jesus was a Jew from Palestine, is He white? Paul and the apostles who went out to convert the world were....wait for it.....Jews from Palestine. Hhmm seems that the white man wasn't the original missionaries. But onto a more reasonable question. Does the fact that the OT believers were allowed into heaven not resonate on you that....if you haven't heard of Christ, then there must be another method that God uses to judge a person? Abraham wasn't able to meet Jesus, and yet he is in heaven. Stated in both the OT and the NT. How might this be possible? Because his faith was counted to him as righteousness. His faith in God, and his behavior. So there is a way for those poor innocent kind gentle souls that you seem so connected to and care for to be judged.

Surely an all powerfull, mercifull god would have been able to do this. According to you guys his message is ''I LOVE YOU'' ''BELIEVE IN ME OBEY OR BE TOTURED FOR ALL ETERNITY''

If so he would have used his power and ubiquitous nature to tell all in such a way that could not be argued with, Then he could rightfully say ''I TOLD YOU SO'' I know that your logical mind will go into convulsions at the idea that I'm gonna quote scripture, but here goes:

Romans 1:18-23

18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;

19. because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them.

20. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

21. because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.

22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23. and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

So....the apostle Paul, who btw was versed in theology, philosophy, was as literate as any man at the time. Was educated in multiple languages, was a talented debater, went through the school of rhetoric, was a pharisee, schooled in religious politics. He claims that God has provided plenty of proof of himself. It's called natural revelation. Seeing the majesty of the world, the awesome power of nature, the complexity of the stars, ans the elements speak to the fact that God is present. That there is an innate right/wrong knowledge in all men. Again, there is no record of Paul being delusional, no record of him not being sane, not being rationale, not being trustworthy.

But on the flimsy evidence he supposedly left us and the totally inefficiant way he used of spreading his urgent message tells me, if you guys are right about the lake of fire and then he is not loving and he enjoys torture.

Or of course you could also come to a more logical conclusion!!! Your definiton of logical is to be cynical and think you have made some sort of point by saying people aren't logical. But....this coming from someone who claims peace and love are important to a person and dropping questionable words right out of the gate.

That there is no truth in it what so ever.

Please can you seperate youre arguments from my quotes and I will reveal the problems with youre arguments, but the way you have pasted it all thogether like that makes it very difficult to tell apart and I have to keep re reading it.

But I will give you a taste of the kind of response you will recieve once you paste youre answers so I can see them.

You say that in law we work back from the credibility of the person who is testifying. Then you use St Pauls claims that Jesus was god and then the prophecies and miracles of this so called devine creator to back up his credibility, if I where a lawyer I would have to say anyone who made such a claim is either mad, trying to bring the debate into disrepute or he is god in which case I need proof from independent witnesses not from people who are riding on the same delusion as St Paul and Jesus. I need proof from people without faith, not prphecies written at the begginnig of a fictional novel and fullfilled prophecies at the end of the same novel. This would not stand up in court. In the absense of that proof of, we can only look at the logic of what this self proclaimed god tells us, look at his dogma, rules and so called wisdom and see if they really are wise or make any sense att all. as far as I can see he talks nonsense. And so do you.

I will get to you throwing words like racist into the dabate in good time, but surely it is god who saw no urgency for Africans, Australians, Asians and Chinese to learn of his plan to torture them. Not me. Using the logic of law that makes youre god the racist.

Luke, I'm not going to waste hours on this, my answers are in differant color, if you can't see that, then there we have it. I stated that there were 514 witnesses, do you really delude yourself to think that of the 500 witnesses, they were all believers already? But even if they were, how does that make a difference to the fact that it happened? Are you in the legal profession? You obviously aren't if you think that someone must be neutral to the facts to be credible. I stated that Josephus, the premier Jewish historian of the day, who isn't a believer, didn't discredit the claims that were made about the miracles. I already stated that the pharisees, who were Jesus' enemy, didn't discredit his miracles. So.....what say ye to that? But i notice you haven't answered the questions I pose to you., Don't waste time by posting an answer about text color and/or your inability to read it comfortably instead of responding to the "debate" you seemed to ask for. If you are a debator, then act. If not then we can let the thread die quietly.

I'm back for a while and seeing that you cant be bothered to seperate youre text from mine it seems like its me who will have waste hours sifting through the txt.

from what I think you are trying to say is that the New Testament verifies all of old testament prophecies and these 514 witnesses you talk of cant all be wrong. Well the New Testament doesnt do anything of the sort and how can one piece of fiction prove another to be true this twisted logic only works if you are a believer and endow these books with the outrageous claim that they come from the creator of the universe. And as for these witnesses they are may not all be Christian but they are still superstitous iron age people.

Infact you state one of these so called witnesses as being a Jew as if this proves that even non believers realised the truth of Christianity. I would hardly call a religious Jew a non believer, a religious Jew of the iron age would not be using an open mind, logic and reason to come to his conclusions. He was obviously coming to his conclusion with his already ingrained and eroneous beleif that we are governed by a jealous, proud,vengefull creator.

As for youre claims of proof, Iam currently reading the bible, old and new testaments and the koran. So far I have found nothing that is conclusive proof that would convince anyone who wasnt of the faith in the truth of these books.

In fact if there was proof I would become a Christian and so would all the Muslims of the world that hasnt happened so youre proof is obviously very flimsy and wouldnt stand up to cross examination in court.

This stands for all monotheistic faith, if you had proof you wouldnt need faith at all, obviously all this talk of hellfire for non believers is just a way of crushing people who insist on using logic and the inquiring mind to question youre religion, its a way of coercing people to obey their elders and the scripture.

The Old Testament is a vile and cruel fantasy of hatred and jealous rage if we are to take youre god at his word we should Kill adulterers, kill people from other religions, kill non believers, kill people who work on the sabath, kill homosexuals, kill lesbians, kill wizards, kill a bride if she is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night. kill youre children if they are disobedient, kill mediums, kill fornicaters. The list goes on.

The Christan Teaching that all humans are nasty, cruel, evil, sexualy deranged creatures that only a belief in Christ can save from their disgusting primal urges is just a sick premise to live youre life by, I base my ideas about human nature as being kind and compassionate from experience. I have travelled the world and know people from Africa to America and the majority of people at there base are good generous and loving.

If they where so evil and nasty I'm sure I would have been, robbed, raped and murdered many times over, but most people just offer to share their food with me.

Where all the war comes from is a lack of resourses, land and ideologies about racial purity or religious purity, yep thats right religion is just like Stalinism and Nazism because it demands total submission to dogma, This kind of belief structure can cause war, Christianity included.

Anyway I take extreme offence at the Christian view that humans without Christ are vile sinners, how dare you talk about my mum like that, not to mention the billions of people who arent christian and the billions who have died without a belief in youre jealous god.

Its ok for you to use the bible as a resourse in a debate but to use it as some sort of empirical proof cuts no ice intelectualy. It proves nothing, zilch.....

As for the virtue of the Buddha I would say to you I cant prove to you anything because all we have is some old scriptures but I would say is his teachings are unique, wise and conductive to an enquiring mind.

His teachings predominantly dont contradict science and in many cases are backed up by science and his virtue has nothing to do with whether his teachings work to free you from self inflicted anguish or not.

I dont need to know if my mechanic is virtous in order for him to fix my car.

As for you flinging the racism word in to the mix again, its youre god who chose only to speak to the middle east and slowly let his urgent message spread creapingly slowly while all those northern European souls, African souls, Aboriginal souls, Chinese souls, Japanese souls, Indian souls etc etc he tortured for all eternity for not being Christian. How does that make me racist unless you are implying that I'm god.

Absolutely the fact that you believe the Old Testaments murdering sadists are in heaven kind of muddies the waters, all it prove is that youre religious certanties are very uncertain.

And as for Abraham and his behavior the man who almost slit his sons throat and burnt him alive being virtious I think not. If he was real (which I doubt) he was a child abuser not a rightous man but a religious maniac of the first order. And if he was real and all of youre contradictory books are right then god is a twisted being and heaven is full of some very nasty people.

To wrap up all of the scrpiture you quote at the end bring nothing to the debate apart from proving my point about religions manipulative nature. Any religion that fears logical thinking so much that it has to resort to saying that god declares that anyone who doesnt agree with this religion and uses logic to combat it is nothing but a creeping beast with a dark heart only fit for the fires of hell is obviously is terrified of the inquiring mind and so it should be...

Laters''Its good to be back

PS;That was difficult to do next time please seperate youre txt from mine or I wont answer

[Guest PastorHickery]

I think the belief that people will go to hell just because they are from a different culture where a different religion is prominent is quite disturbing and primitive.

That's saying 90% of people from asian countries will go to hell. Also, 90% of people from middle-eastern countries, etc..