I don't get the whole heaven thing

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, but to say that morality can exist without God, is making a moral statement in itself.

Uh, no, it's a completely true statement. It is quite possible to create a moral code that has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian God. It has been done many, many times.

Is it immoral for God to kill people?

Not according to the Bible. According to my moral code, it is.

[Ben Kenobi]

Christianity's assumes "One ought to do what God says."* On what grounds do you say that? A libertarian believes "One ought not to do something that violates someone else's liberty." A utilitarian believes "One ought to do that which will result in the greatest total happiness." And so on.

This raises a point I tried to address earlier. Would God tell you to do something that is wrong? Christians do not obey God just because he tells people to do something, but because they believe goodness is an essential part of the nature of God. That by following God, they will be doing what is right. The two are intertwined, and cannot be severed. If people believed that God would order them to do wrong, then they would not obey him.

Nope, because heaven is basically a reward for doing good (or what God says is good). Other moralities emphasize doing good for the sake of doing good. Christianity says "do good because in the end it pays off BIG". In that, it really trivializes morality to self-interest.

Why then does Christianity emphasise that you must first trust in God, rather than doing good works in order to be saved? Good works, will not get you into heaven. Ergo, your critique fails because if Christianity did work as you assert, surely they would praise good works as getting you into heaven.

Instead, Christianity teaches something radically different. Rather than the common concept that we should strive for good acts to balance out the bad, found in Islam, and other religions, Christianity insists upon a higher standard. Christ insists upon perfection. No matter how many good works you do, they will not blot out your sins. We can only reach heaven through the grace of God, and by trusting in him, and not in our own works.

(If heaven is not intended as a reward for doing good, then why is it denied to bad people?

It is denied to "bad people", because they fall short of the standard of perfection. They have two choices. Try to reach heaven, on their own merits and fail, or to accept the grace of God.

Secondly, bad people means what? We are all sinners of some sort. Why should any of us be any better people than anyone else. There is no one truly good but God.

[Ben Kenobi]

it's a completely true statement.

morality! = false. When I say something is a meta-ethical claim, it just means that it is a different type of ethical claim from something that is normative. It implies that both are truths, but of different kinds.

It is quite possible to create a moral code that has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian God. It has been done many, many times.

Dude, I just agreed with you. You should try to read what I just wrote.

Not according to the Bible. According to my moral code, it is.

Why is it wrong for people to kill each other, yet it could be right for God to do the same?

Consider this. We do not make ourselves. If God makes us, then he can also unmake us. Why would it be immoral for him to do so?

[St Leo]

You were there I guess.........?
In the mind of the early church fathers, and you saw them thinking: "What if tell them there's a hell....?"

You misphrase something, get a few positive comments, and stick with the idea. A few hundred years later, you've got an entire new concept hammered out. Eh.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This raises a point I tried to address earlier. Would God tell you to do something that is wrong?

He has (according to the Bible) told people to do things that I sure think are wrong.

Christians do not obey God just because he tells people to do something, but because they believe goodness is an essential part of the nature of God. That by following God, they will be doing what is right. The two are intertwined, and cannot be severed. If people believed that God would order them to do wrong, then they would not obey him.

In that case, if God told you to, for instance, kill a child, would you do it? In fact, why do you bother to say you're following God when you're really following some moral code that just happens to be the one that God follows?

Why then does Christianity emphasise that you must first trust in God, rather than doing good works in order to be saved? Good works, will not get you into heaven. Ergo, your critique fails because if Christianity did work as you assert, surely they would praise good works as getting you into heaven.

Except that trusting in God is part of your moral code, so my point stands.

Plus, God is a pretty insecure, self-centered ******* if he sends people to Hell just because they refuse to worship him...

It is denied to "bad people", because they fall short of the standard of perfection. They have two choices. Try to reach heaven, on their own merits and fail, or to accept the grace of God.

That's what I said. They do not obey the Christian moral code. And you've just shown that Heaven IS a reward for meeting this code. Thus, my objection stands, that Christianity really says, "one ought to obey God because it is in one's self-interest".

Secondly, bad people means what? We are all sinners of some sort. Why should any of us be any better people than anyone else. There is no one truly good but God.

Obviously, bad people = does not obey the Christian moral code.

[Ben Kenobi]

In that case, if God told you to, for instance, kill a child, would you do it?

No, because how would I know that God was telling me to kill a child?

In fact, why do you bother to say you're following God when you're really following some moral code that just happens to be the one that God follows?

You think that's what happens during conversion? We just walk into Christianity, and find that everything God does is something we already agree with, right from the start?

There were plenty of things I did not understand, and many things I still do not. That does not make them wrong, but serve as evidence of my own ignorance.

Look at what Christ says about usury, or about the Jubilee years, that call for the forgiveness of debts every 7 years. What do I make of that, and how does this apply to today's world?

God is a pretty insecure, self-centered ******* if he sends people to Hell just because they refuse to worship him...

Hell, is the absence of God. If they do not want God, then where else would they go? Give them what they want, the complete absence of God for eternity. Seems rather merciful to me.

They do not obey the Christian moral code. And you've just shown that Heaven IS a reward for meeting this code.

Then no one goes to heaven, Skywalker. You do not properly understand the expectations of Christ. How can heaven be the reward for 'meeting expectations' when all of us fall short?

"one ought to obey God because it is in one's self-interest".

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, because how would I know that God was telling me to kill a child?

The same way you know God tells you to do anything else.

You think that's what happens during conversion? We just walk into Christianity, and find that everything God does is something we already agree with, right from the start?

That's what it is from your description. You've said you obey God because he gives commands that you agree with. Thus, you obey God in the same sense that the king in The Little Prince rules over everything:

"Ah! Here is a subject," exclaimed the king, when he saw the little prince coming.

And the little prince asked himself:

"How could he recognize me when he had never seen me before?"

He did not know how the world is simplified for kings. To them, all men are subjects.

"Approach, so that I may see you better," said the king, who felt consumingly proud of being at last a king over somebody.

The little prince looked everywhere to find a place to sit down; but the entire planet was crammed and obstructed by the king's magnificent ermine robe. So he remained standing upright, and, since he was tired, he yawned.

"It is contrary to etiquette to yawn in the presence of a king," the monarch said to him. "I forbid you to do so."

"I can't help it. I can't stop myself," replied the little prince, thoroughly embarrassed. "I have come on a long journey, and I have had no sleep . . ."

"Ah, then," the king said. "I order you to yawn. It is years since I have seen anyone yawning. Yawns, to me, are objects of curiosity. Come, now! Yawn again! It is an order."

"That frightens me . . . I cannot, any more . . ." murmured the little prince, now completely abashed.

"Hum! Hum!" replied the king. "Then I--I order you sometimes to yawn and sometimes to--"

He sputtered a little, and seemed vexed.

For what the king fundamentally insisted upon was that his authority should be respected. He tolerated no disobedience. He was an absolute monarch. But, because he was a very good man, he made his orders reasonable.

"If I ordered a general," he would say, by way of example, "if I ordered a general to change himself into a sea bird, and if the general did not obey me, that would not be the fault of the general. It would be my fault."

"May I sit down?" came now a timid inquiry from the little prince.

"I order you to do so," the king answered him, and majestically gathered in a fold of his ermine mantle.

But the little prince was wondering . . . The planet was tiny. Over what could this king really rule?

"Sire," he said to him, "I beg that you will excuse my asking you a question--"

"I order you to ask me a question," the king hastened to assure him.

"Sire--over what do you rule?"

"Over everything," said the king, with magnificent simplicity.

"Over everything?"

The king made a gesture, which took in his planet, the other planets, and all the stars.

"Over all that?" asked the little prince.

"Over all that," the king answered.

For his rule was not only absolute: it was also universal.

"And the stars obey you?"

"Certainly they do," the king said. "They obey instantly. I do not permit insubordination."

Such power was a thing for the little prince to marvel at. If he had been master of such complete authority, he would have been able to watch the sunset, not forty-four times in one day, but seventy-two, or even a hundred, or even two hundred times, without ever having to move his chair. And because he felt a bit sad as he remembered his little planet which he had forsaken, he plucked up his courage to ask the king a favor:

"I should like to see a sunset . . . Do me that kindness . . . Order the sun to set . . ."

"If I ordered a general to fly from one flower to another like a butterfly, or to write a tragic drama, or to change himself into a sea bird, and if the general did not carry out the order that he had received, which one of us would be in the wrong?" the king demanded. "The general, or myself?"

"You," said the little prince firmly.

"Exactly. One must require from each one the duty which each one can perform," the king went on. "Accepted authority rests first of all on reason. If you ordered your people to go and throw themselves into the sea, they would rise up in revolution. I have the right to require obedience because my orders are reasonable."

"Then my sunset?" the little prince reminded him: for he never forgot a question once he had asked it.

"You shall have your sunset. I shall command it. But, according to my science of government, I shall wait until conditions are favorable."

"When will that be?" inquired the little prince.

"Hum! Hum!" replied the king; and before saying anything else he consulted a bulky almanac. "Hum! Hum! That will be about--about--that will be this evening about twenty minutes to eight. And you will see how well I am obeyed!"

Given what you've said, your claim to obey God is just as absurd as the king's belief that he is ruler of the universe.

Hell, is the absence of God. If they do not want God, then where else would they go? Give them what they want, the complete absence of God for eternity. Seems rather merciful to me.

So tell me, is Hell a nice place? What's it like there?

Then no one goes to heaven, Skywalker. You do not properly understand the expectations of Christ. How can heaven be the reward for 'meeting expectations' when all of us fall short?

Heaven is clearly a result of meeting expectations - that is, what is expected of you in order to enter Heaven. You yourself have said that to enter Heaven you must trust in God. Thus, trusting in God is the expection one has to meet in order to get in.

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

I bolded a different section than you did. Notice how obeying the commandments is the prerequisite for "entering life" (I assume this means immortality in Heaven, right?), thus, one ought to obey the commandments because they allow one to "enter life". Ergo, one ought to obey the commandments because doing so is in one's self interest.

[Ben Kenobi]

The same way you know God tells you to do anything else.

And how is that?

You've said you obey God because he gives commands that you agree with.

No, I don't, actually. There are things I know I ought to be doing that I do not. Can it be said that I agree with him if I do not understand why?

I obey God, or at least I try to, because I believe Him to know better what is good, than I. That he knows me better than I know myself.

I trust in him because I know that he loves me. Even if I disagree, or do not understand why he wants me to do something, then I always have to fall back on his love.

Given what you've said, your claim to obey God is just as absurd as the king's belief that he is ruler of the universe.

God offers proof of himself, in knowing things that no one else could.

Secondly, I do not claim to obey God properly. No one can. All I can say is why I trust in him.

So tell me, is Hell a nice place? What's it like there?

Go read Milton. He's thought about this longer than I. All that I know is that we do not understand just how large a role God plays in our lives. When he is gone, that will drastically change everything.

yourself have said that to enter Heaven you must trust in God. Thus, trusting in God is the expection one has to meet in order to get in.

But this is different than earning Grace, or salvation. In order to trust in God, you must first admit that you need his help. It is taking a hand offered to you by God.

[Ben Kenobi]

I bolded a different section than you did. Notice how obeying the commandments is the prerequisite for "entering life" (I assume this means immortality in Heaven, right?), thus, one ought to obey the commandments because they allow one to "enter life". Ergo, one ought to obey the commandments because doing so is in one's self interest.

That brings us right back to our earlier point. How can one live up to the standard of the commandments, such that one will enter the kingdom of heaven?

That's why I bolded the parts I did, because these are the points that Christ is trying to make clear to the rich man. That with men, such things are impossible, but through God, all things are possible.

[trickey]

Ok, I'll have to admit I haven't read through the entire thread, just the first few pages.

Now, it was always my understanding that heaven is our gift to loose. We can't buy our way into heaven. We can only loose the gift of heaven by commiting a mortal sin, and not truthfully repenting before our death.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And how is that?

You're the believer, you tell me.

No, I don't, actually. There are things I know I ought to be doing that I do not. Can it be said that I agree with him if I do not understand why?

The fact that you sometimes violate your moral code doesn't mean anything.

I obey God, or at least I try to, because I believe Him to know better what is good, than I. That he knows me better than I know myself.

Non sequiter.

Plus, how does he "know better what is good"? You can't somehow observe some moral code ingrained into the universe; your moral code is what you believe. It is impossible for you NOT to know what your moral code is. Maybe you haven't thought it out fully, but having a moral code IS knowing it.

I trust in him because I know that he loves me. Even if I disagree, or do not understand why he wants me to do something, then I always have to fall back on his love.

This is random nonsense. "Knowing he loves you" is trusting in him! You trust that he loves you. Plus stop bringing random theological garbage into this. It's simple:

Obey God (trust him, follow his moral code, whatever) = you get into Heaven

Don't obey God (don't trust him, break his moral code, whatever) = you go to Hell

Obviously, Heaven is a good place to be and Hell is a bad (or at least not-as-good) place to be. Thus, obeying God is in one's self-interest. Now, if Heaven is NOT meant as a reward for obeying God, why the hell aren't the disobediant let in?

If you claim the reason is that "Heaven is being in God's presence and trusting him etc" and the rest of that theological garbage (basically boiling down to "heaven is the state of obeying God"), then clearly there is no reason why Heaven would be any better than Hell. Then why was Jesus preaching about it like it was the be-all and end-all?

God offers proof of himself, in knowing things that no one else could.

And that has what to do with anything?

Secondly, I do not claim to obey God properly. No one can. All I can say is why I trust in him.

I never said "properly". You know that I'm not implying perfect compliance, I'm talking about your general belief. The fact that you try to "obey" God. My point is that your (attempted) "obedience" is NOT. Would you say I'm obeying some random guy on the street if he told me to breath and I did?

Go read Milton. He's thought about this longer than I. All that I know is that we do not understand just how large a role God plays in our lives. When he is gone, that will drastically change everything.

You can't even give me a straight answer about a fundamental part of your entire religion. That makes me doubt that there's any coherency at all.

But this is different than earning Grace, or salvation. In order to trust in God, you must first admit that you need his help. It is taking a hand offered to you by God.

You said that if you trust in God, you earn his "Grace". Unless God makes exceptions to this, the two are for all practical purposes one and the same.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're the believer, you tell me.

So then, whatever I claim comes from God, is the truth?

The fact that you sometimes violate your moral code doesn't mean anything.

Not the point. There are some things I'm not really sure of, that I don't understand. How can I properly obey something I don't understand?

Plus, how does he "know better what is good"?

He has greater knowledge than I.

You can't somehow observe some moral code ingrained into the universe;

No, but there are observations that seem to work better. Such as when you do something, that you really don't know why you did this, then see later that it actually works out better than your original plans. I've had that numerous times in my life, where I've taken one path, even though I don't know if it is the best one, and later on it makes much more sense.

And I've seen times where I've gone against this because I want to be in charge, and found myself in a bind.

your moral code is what you believe. It is impossible for you NOT to know what your moral code is.

I didn't say that. All I said is that my moral code cannot be the same as God's, because there are things that I do not fully understand, which is contrary to what you just assumed, that there are no differences between the moral code of a believer, and Christianity.

All this says is that I have my work cut out for me.

This is random nonsense. "Knowing he loves you" is trusting in him! You trust that he loves you. Plus stop bringing random theological garbage into this. It's simple:

I love him, because he has already loved me. That's the key distinction I wanted to make. It's not 'random theological garbage, but the truth.

Obey God (trust him, follow his moral code, whatever) = you get into Heaven

There's a difference between adhering to a moral code, and trusting in God.

Obviously, Heaven is a good place to be and Hell is a bad (or at least not-as-good) place to be. Thus, obeying God is in one's self-interest.

What does it mean to be self-interested? This is the hardest thing for Christians is to acknowledge that their self cannot be in control. 'He who finds his life shall lose it, and he who loses his life for me shall find it.'

You have to submit your self to Christ, which means the death of self-interest. You do things for the glory of God, and not for your own benefit.

Yes, it works out for you in the end, but don't you see how hard this is?

Self-interest is more about doing things for your own benefit, for your own reward here on earth, and not in heaven.

Now, if Heaven is NOT meant as a reward for obeying God, why the hell aren't the disobediant let in?

Because the disobedient would be less happy in Heaven, then they would be in Hell.

Yes, it's a reward, but the reward cannot be 'self-interested.'

then clearly there is no reason why Heaven would be any better than Hell. Then why was Jesus preaching about it like it was the be-all and end-all?

Eternal salvation seems a pretty big deal. Again, you don't acknowledge the blessings in your own life, that God has provided, so you do not fear their loss.

My point is that your (attempted) "obedience" is NOT. Would you say I'm obeying some random guy on the street if he told me to breath and I did?

That comes back to the point you so casually dismissed. We follow Christ, because he offers evidence in favour of being God. He is not 'some random guy' because throughout the gospels, he tells people details that no one else would know of their own lives. He understands our suffering, and offers forgiveness for those who are willing to accept.

You can't even give me a straight answer about a fundamental part of your entire religion. That makes me doubt that there's any coherency at all.

Is hell pleasant? What do the scriptures say of hell? Hell is described as the total absence of the presence of God, lasting for eternity.

You said that if you trust in God, you earn his "Grace". Unless God makes exceptions to this, the two are for all practical purposes one and the same.

How can you earn what is given freely?

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by trickey
Ok, I'll have to admit I haven't read through the entire thread, just the first few pages.

Now, it was always my understanding that heaven is our gift to loose. We can't buy our way into heaven. We can only loose the gift of heaven by commiting a mortal sin, and not truthfully repenting before our death.

We are born into sin and require faith in order to be reconciled to God.

[Robert Plomp]

Berzerker:

Why? Does not a moral sense require intelligence? Animals seemingly lack this intelligence (although I'd be hardpressed to say animals do more evil than us ), and people (most anyway) don't.

Animals lack the intelligence to think that they can know what is good and what is evil. We think we can, and that's why we try. But we lack enough knowledge to come up with a good moral code, hence, in all centuries and all nations people have never agreed on the one and only good moral code.

And what purpose does any moral code have? In the end we all die, and all moral things we have done appeared to be nothing. In one million years there's no difference between hitler and mother teresa. They both will be gone and forgotten, and so are their deeds.

People help each other because they feel good about their deeds... No God is required...

That's true. We long to make people happy because it makes us happy, since we would be happy if other people would try to make us happy.
But from what comes that desire to be happy?

What purpose has our happyness if we'll all be gone and forgotten in 1000 years? What's the difference between me living on happily for 50 years or shooting a bullet through my brains today? There is no difference.

But I believe that things we do HAVE lasting values, and that's why we long to live in happyness.
Things would make no sence if we would live for today. Than we would live like animals.

But we do not, for some reason we care.

In fact, I'm a bit more impressed by the atheist who does good without the expectation of some heavenly reward or fear of a God angered by evil deeds...

So am I.

It makes me wonder: WHY WHY WHY would any atheist give up his live to serve starving children in Africa?
I think there is only one reason: his deeds have lasting value. If his deeds would die with him and the children he helped there is no reason why he would perform these deeds. They would be empty and he'd better go home and party on for the rest of his life.

Telling people they should do good deeds because they will be rewarded or punished takes even more away from the act of doing good than the "selfish" feeling of enjoyment one has from helping others...

True. Moral Code is the key to happyness.
If we would know the right moral code and we would all stick to it, we could have paradise right here.

It would be insane to perform to any moral code because you will be rewarded for it. The moral code is the reward itself. It's living in pure harmony.

If we would only know the true moral code......
Does anybody think that we'll ever find it out?

Why does life have no value or sense for the atheist? I value life because I enjoy living, it's pleasurable... Rather sensible if you ask me...

pherhaps they do not agree with me that it has no value. But in the end it does have no value imho.

What value does any life have if no-one remembers it? As I said before, what's the difference between living and dying in 50 years or living and dying in one day.
Life only has value if it would not end.

Life is the thing that keeps all things together. No good will exist without life. Thus if life stops, the goods things will stop as well. And if value is connected to life as well, and it is since how can we value anything if we do not exist, than the value will be gone as soon as we're death.

Who's going to give any value to your life in 1000.000 years? NOBODY. Thus is has no value in 1000.000 years. Thus it has no value from the moment you're death. Thus there's no difference between death in 1 second or death in 50 years.

He died because he pissed off some religious fundies who didn't like the competition.

That's thrue from their perspective.
But from God's perspective he died to take the burden of sin.

Right as opposed to wrong. Why do you assume God invented it?

I do not assume God invented it.
I assume that God created us, and He knew how we would be 100% perfect. How we would be ultimately happy.

But we thought that we knew what is good for us better ourselves. We thought we knew ourselves better than God does. And now we say that "The only way to be ultimately happy" is a moral code.

And people even claim that living to the moral code will be rewarded. But why would God reward living to the moral code? Why would God create a game, in which some people will be rewarded and some not?

That's a human-type invented God.
All religions come with a code, and the code will be rewarded. Pherhaps with budhism as an exception, but in fact that's not a religion, it's more a philosophy.

But christianity doesn't come with a code. Christianity shows that we are broken. And when people say: "I am not broken" God shows how we should be. He shows us the "factory design" of humans, and He says: "See, you ARE broken"

Now it's up to you, do you A. believe you are broken and B. if so, do you think you can remake yourself and C. if not, do you want God to remake you?

Can you answer those questions in your reaction?

If you answer question A. with 'no', that means that you'll stay as you are. Broken forever. And God doesn't want broken people to be among remade people on the new earth. Thus He'll cast you away.

If you answer question A. with 'yes' and B. with 'no' you can try to fix yourself. I think that will never work, thus the result will be like if you answered A. with 'no'.
You're still broken thus God will not allow you on the new earth.

Only if you want God to fix you, you will be perfect. And if you're perfect you do'nt have to live up to the moral code since the 'moral code' is incorperate with you. But it appears not to be a moral code. A moral thing is a good thing in itself. But living to the 'factory design' is not a good thing in itself. It's just the way you are most happy.

God does want to FIX EVERYBODY. He doesn't want to cast anybody away. But you can not expect God to let broken people enter the new earth and spoil things overthere again.

If there is a God, the "invention" of morality was hardwired into us.

True. We do 'remember' the factory design more or less. We disagree on how it was, and we for sure lost most of it. But we still have it somewhere, and most people agree that humanity does not live up to the design.

We try to tweak the design, to improve it, to rewrite parts etc. etc. But in the end it will not work.
We don't know it, and since we're broken we cannot rewrite it. How can a broken machine fix another broken machine? And if he can't fix another broken machine, how can he fix itself?

As long as this "commandment" recognises that acts like murder prevents the victim from doing as they like and therefore the act of murder violates this commandment, that seems quite moral to me (as opposed to the alternative anyway).

Now we lost the original factory design about ourselves, moral codes come into sight. Human moral codes.
And those codes do surely improve live on earth for as long as it lasts. But it's silly to think that living up to any of these broken moral codes will be rewarded by God.

It's not a game. And if it would be a game, why would God judge us upon broken rules?

Paul says in the Bible that the law of Moses (the commandments are part of that) came to show that we are sinners (= broken)
And that we cannot fix ourselves by living to the law. And that the law even breaks us more, since we are broken and cannot live up to the law, but tend to break the law.

paul continues to say that that's not bc of the law, sínce that's a good law. Though it's not a good law for broken people. In fact the law of moses is a law for broken people, though broken people still cannot live to it.

The law of moses is NOT the original design.
But for the purpose of telling broken people that they are broken it's a good law.
Read the letter to the romans, chapter 6/7.

If that makes you happy, aren't you following the commandment you just indicted in your last sentence?

A wheel rolls since that's the purpose of the wheel.
What am I going to do? Tell the wheel to roll, and if it rolls I'm going to tell him that he's happy because he listened to my commandment?

CyberShy: How can you decide on what is moral or not, if you hardly know the facts, the results, the circumstances and the things that would have happened if the act would not have happened?

Berzerker: Why am I responsible for knowing all that?

Well, if you judge God, you should know all those things. How can any judge be a fair judge if he doesn't know everything about the case?

Thus, if you say: "God is immoral" you should know all the facts, otherwise your statement is hollow.

Are you suggesting God was moral when he wiped out virtually all land life in a flood because of some allegedly immoral people?

To my standarts: no. But I know that my standarts are incomplete and fallable.
To God's standards: obviously not.

As Ben Kenobi said: if God creates people, He's allowed to remove them as well.
And there's much more reasons, and I do not know 0.1% of them.

Do you?

Did that "solution" solve the problem of immoral people? Nope...

Indeed not. But for that He gave another solution.
This was an 'in-universe' solution, a broken solution (death = broken) for a broken situation. Like any law is a broken-solution for a broken-situation. It's a temporarily solution. An in-universe solution.

And if God created us, then immorality was a product of God's actions.

God gave us a choise. Is that immoral?
And how can we judge if that is immoral if we don't know the facts around that decisions.

Why did God slaughter the first born of Egypt? Because of Pharaoh's hardened heart and desire to screw Moses and the Hebrews!

seven times God gave pharaoh the choise to let the israelistes go, the 8th, 9th and 10th time he hardened the hart of pharao.

I can, God didn't issue the orders. People then did what people do now, they claimed God ordained their crimes.

You have an opinion on something that happened 3000 years ago, based on your own idea on how it was?
That's quiet interesting!

But you do have a clue or you wouldn't have reached the correct conclusion.

My conclusion is that we have no clue.
I have one clue, and that is that we have no clue.
Oh wait, I have another clue, and that is that God has all clues. That's why I trust God.

Did not Jesus tell his disciples that they were like God and that they would achieve even greater good than Jesus himself?

When we are 'remade' we will.

Did not Jesus tell people to judge others but to do so wisely and without hypocrisy?

We have to live our lives in this broken world.
Jesus gave us things to do during this life as well.
But those 'rules' are not to get into heaven or anything.

Wisdom and consistency is what we need, not divine omniscience or words allegedly written by "God".

We need to be renewed.

How moral was God when he was bragging to Satan about how good Job was only to accept a bet that put Job through a mess of pain just to prove a point?

God gave everything to Job, and satan claimed Job loved God for that Reason. God knew that that was not the case, and He proved it.
Why is it immoral for God to give things to Job and to take things from Job. Job himself thought it was the moral thing for God to do.

You have a different opinion than Job, 4000 years later? While you do'nt know God, you do'nt know Job, you hardly know the circumstances in which it happened....

quiet impressive!

more to come later!

CyberShy

[TheStinger]

What happens to beleif in God if super intelligent beings from far away come along with no such belief in their entire history. They would surley indicate that God doesn't exist otherwise some of them would surely beleive int he same craetor of all of us.

[Elok]

Well Kucinich, I think I already said it's not so much a punishment as a way to keep the sinners from ruining it for the people in heaven. Sin is a disease, and if you refuse the medicine you have to be quarantined. Quarantine's not fun, but it's not fair to demand that the entire universe stretch to accomodate your problems, is it?

Also, the idea of righteousness for its own sake is innately theistic. Under any system of doing good, there has to be a protocol for determining what "good" is. In religions, good is generally the will of a higher power. In others, like for example Molly Bloom's pet Secular Humanism, it's an extension of sociological theory or some such. Good leads to what's best for the group as a whole, even if it sucks for the individual. Problem is, while good for goodness' sake sounds nice, it's quite obviously contrary to human nature. Following an order without individual justification of some sort is not the kind of thing people do normally. You might as well suggest that we improve the environment by not eating. It's a fallacy. Furthermore, "be good just because" sounds like the kind of brainwashing most atheists ostensibly protest...

Think of it this way: when parents tell their kids, "pick up your toys or you won't get ice cream," they are almost certainly doing it so they can laugh as their offspring jump through hoops for their amusement. After all, they have the power to pick up the stupid toys themselves and save the kids a lot of grief. Wouldn't parents who REALLY loved their children give them ice cream no matter how they behaved, instead of forcing them to conform to some stupid arbitrary set of standards to get a reward? Huh? Huh?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So then, whatever I claim comes from God, is the truth?

Evasion, evasion, evasion. You can choose one of two options:

1) it's somehow possible to tell when God is telling you things, and obviously I, as an atheist, am not responsible for figuring it out

2) it's NOT possible to tell when God is telling you things, and thus your entire religion is false

Not the point. There are some things I'm not really sure of, that I don't understand. How can I properly obey something I don't understand?

You don't have to understand it. Your moral code is a function, which takes some action and returns a "morality" (how moral or immoral something is). You don't have to understand its function in order to use it.

Anyways, though, I don't care if you "properly" follow it - you're TRYING to follow it.

He has greater knowledge than I.

Circular.

I'm asking, how does he know MORALITY better then you, considering that you, BY DEFINITION, know the whole of what you consider to be morality (as that is in fact the prerequisite for you to consider something your morality).

No, but there are observations that seem to work better. Such as when you do something, that you really don't know why you did this, then see later that it actually works out better than your original plans. I've had that numerous times in my life, where I've taken one path, even though I don't know if it is the best one, and later on it makes much more sense.

And I've seen times where I've gone against this because I want to be in charge, and found myself in a bind.

None of which has to do with morality. That's just effectiveness.

I didn't say that. All I said is that my moral code cannot be the same as God's, because there are things that I do not fully understand, which is contrary to what you just assumed, that there are no differences between the moral code of a believer, and Christianity.

All this says is that I have my work cut out for me.

All this says is, you don't, in fact, obey God. Not only do you not obey God perfectly, but you don't even obey God at all. You obey your moral code. You cannot in any way call yourself Christian.

I love him, because he has already loved me. That's the key distinction I wanted to make. It's not 'random theological garbage, but the truth.

That has WHAT to do with what it was responding to?

There's a difference between adhering to a moral code, and trusting in God.

Not inasmuch as trusting in God is part of your moral code (or at least God's).

What does it mean to be self-interested?

To act so as to maximise your pleasure (not in the epicurean sense - perhaps "enjoyment" is a better word).

You have to submit your self to Christ, which means the death of self-interest. You do things for the glory of God, and not for your own benefit.

In which case Heaven as a reward is total nonsense, as striving to get into Heaven would automatically nonsense.

Self-interest is more about doing things for your own benefit, for your own reward here on earth, and not in heaven.

Actually, your self-interest DOES extend into the "supernatural".

Because the disobedient would be less happy in Heaven, then they would be in Hell.

Ah! So it's not a reward! God is just giving everyone the best possible experience in the afterlife, and some people have different tastes!

Why, then, would anyone bother preaching to trust in God? it would be like me trying to convince people who'd tried (and hadn't enjoyed) rowing to keep rowing so that they could have the experience.

How can you earn what is given freely?

Perhaps "merit" is a better word than "earn". But here's an example - you earn grades, even though they are given freely.

[Ben Kenobi]

Evasion, evasion, evasion. You can choose one of two options:

Not evasion, but merely trying to direct the conversation down more profitable lines.

Why do you presume the worst of me?

1) it's somehow possible to tell when God is telling you things, and obviously I, as an atheist, am not responsible for figuring it out

Thus the dilemma. How can I show you how God works, if you do not believe God exists? You must first acknowledge the existence of God before we can discuss whether or not God can talk to people, and how he does so.

2) it's NOT possible to tell when God is telling you things, and thus your entire religion is false

It is possible, there are plenty of examples in the bible. However, you don't even believe in God, so these folks must be delusional.

So I have no choice but to ask you, what sort of evidence would you believe? If I were to make a case for God, what evidence would you prefer?

You don't have to understand it. Your moral code is a function, which takes some action and returns a "morality" (how moral or immoral something is). You don't have to understand its function in order to use it.

Yes I do. If I merely do something without understanding, than I am merely an automaton with programming. You would not believe something 'just because' so why should I?

What is a part of my moral code has to be limited to what I understand. If I do not understand, how can it be said that I really believe?

Secondly, I do not need to understand something perfectly in order to believe in something, but I must understand enough so that I it makes sense.

Circular.

I'm asking, how does he know MORALITY better then you, considering that you, BY DEFINITION, know the whole of what you consider to be morality (as that is in fact the prerequisite for you to consider something your morality).

Morality is extrinsic and universal. These are meta-ethical questions again. You assume a positivistic morality, that does not apply to everyone, and must be retained inside of ourselves. What are your justifications for believing in a morality that can only be personal?

None of which has to do with morality. That's just effectiveness.

Read Cybershy's posts. What morality can be said is what works best for the human machine. What is moral, is what works best for people.

All this says is, you don't, in fact, obey God. Not only do you not obey God perfectly, but you don't even obey God at all. You obey your moral code. You cannot in any way call yourself Christian.

Funny. Cyber PMed me to congratulate me for becoming a Christian based on that last post. I had to tell him thanks, but I've been one for awhile. Odd that the two of you would come to opposite conclusions based on the identical evidence.

I obey God, because I have confessed my own sinfulness and my brokenness, and have acknowledged that he is the only one who can help me.

Of what Christianity teaches, some I understand, but I have much to learn.

Christianity is not about learning Christ's teachings to the letter, but rather about submitting oneself to Christ.

Much of what I believed before being Christian, I have had to discard. And surely, there will be other things as well.

That has WHAT to do with what it was responding to?

Everything, with respect to motivations, which is the core of the post. You insist I am motivated by my desire to go to heaven, while I am providing an alternative you have not considered.

Not inasmuch as trusting in God is part of your moral code (or at least God's).

Skywalker, have I always trusted in God? If not, then when I trusted God, then and only then, did it become part of my moral code.

To act so as to maximise your pleasure (not in the epicurean sense - perhaps "enjoyment" is a better word).

How do you maximise pleasure? Through indulging oneself here on Earth?

If you do not believe in God, then that is the only way you can maximise your pleasure. You cannot assume that one will benefit from heaven without first acknowledging the existence from God.

In which case Heaven as a reward is total nonsense, as striving to get into Heaven would automatically nonsense.

Precisely.

Actually, your self-interest DOES extend into the "supernatural".

Only by submission to Christ. Hence, heaven has nothing to do with self-interest. For if I were self-interested there would be no motivation to submit myself to Christ.

Ah! So it's not a reward! God is just giving everyone the best possible experience in the afterlife, and some people have different tastes!

No, the best possible experience is with him. Those who reject him, are allowed to bear the consequences of their decision. I am sure that initially, people will be happier in Hell, but once they have met God, they will want to trade places.

Why, then, would anyone bother preaching to trust in God? it would be like me trying to convince people who'd tried (and hadn't enjoyed) rowing to keep rowing so that they could have the experience.

Because we understand the blessings that God has offered us, and weep for those who do not do so. We want them to enjoy the fruits of heaven for eternity.

Perhaps "merit" is a better word than "earn". But here's an example - you earn grades, even though they are given freely.

We do not merit the grace of God, because all of us fall short. It is like a test. One, that none of us can pass. To continue this analogy, the only grade we merit is failure, since we are all sinners.

[Robert Plomp]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Nope. Christianity is not ALL about morality; it's just a significant fraction of your holy text and beliefs are concerned with morality.

There are two things.
1. The 'theory', the believe system.
2. the results to someones life.

The important thing, thing it all is about is #1.
As in a relation. If a girl is in love with me, and I'm in love with her, there's only one thing that counts, and that's that we love each other and want to live with each other.

But as soon as we do live with each other, it will have results in our lives. First of all, we live both in the same home, we will do things to please each other. We'll try to avoid things the other hates, etc. etc.

But #1 is still the thing it is all about.
So is it with christianity. It's all about the 'theory', the believe system.
And all what comes with #2 might be important, but it's not that important. In fact, most of it should be the natural thing to do, when #1 is a fact.

But I do agree with you that CyberShy isn't making sense. He seems to be taking something like theiosis-the concept of oneness with god-and removing the more difficult moral aspect from it, to turn it into some kind of Far East mysticism attained by self-discovery alone

You clearly didn't get it.
But you are right about the fact that it does compare with 'far east mysticism' at some points.
These mysticisms oftenly admit that humans are doing wrong by default, and should turn to the good side.
Mostly they admit that this hardly can done in one life.
That's why they invented reincarnation.

But after the so-called reincarnation of 100s of generation we see that not much has changed.

Nope, because heaven is basically a reward for doing good (or what God says is good). Other moralities emphasize doing good for the sake of doing good. Christianity says "do good because in the end it pays off BIG". In that, it really trivializes morality to self-interest.

Like we've said multiple times in this thread: it's not.
You clearly have not understood us, nor have you understood the Bible.

If heaven is not intended as a reward for doing good, then why is it denied to bad people?

It's not denied to bad people.
Where did you get the idea that heaven is denied to bad people?

Would it be denied to a good person who was only good in order to get into heaven?

If someone would be perfectly good, he would get into heaven. Only Jesus was that perfect.
People who do good to achive heaven are not looking down upon in the Bible. Jesus even gives suggestions to a person who asks Him how to get in heaven.

The thing is that we can't live that perfect. And indeed, our thoughts count as well.

But in the end, you should read it as: "You cannot get into heaven because you're imperfect" rather than: "Because you sinned you can't get into heaven"
Heaven is perfect, how can it stay perfect if it's inhabited by imperfect people?

We need to be made perfect.
And in order to be made perfect, we need to understand that we're imperfect. That's what the law and the 10 commandments do.

And God will make everybody perfect.
Thus in fact, sinners / imperfect people can get into 'heaven' (the new earth, as explained already)

on one hand, Christianity reduces morality to self-interest, on the other, God is arbitrarily cruel.

Well, what's wrong with self-interest?
But in fact, it's not only self-interest. It's mutual-interest.
I want to be with God, since I love Him. And He wants to be with me, since He loves me. He'll make me perfect for that reason.

He's not cruel, since He'll make everybody perfect who asks Him.

Is it immoral for God to kill people?

Not according to the Bible. According to my moral code, it is.

Is it moral to your code to terminte the life of terminal ill people, who are suffering badly, and who ask for it?

CyberShy: You were there I guess.........?
In the mind of the early church fathers, and you saw them thinking: "What if tell them there's a hell....?"

St Leo: You misphrase something, get a few positive comments, and stick with the idea. A few hundred years later, you've got an entire new concept hammered out. Eh.

The thing is only that we have enough evidence that the Bible didn't got centuries to let people misphrase things. You could be right if we would have found the earliest scriptures in 400AD, and only a few of them.

But the fact is that we have many many many scriptures already in 400AD, that are very very faithfull to each other. And we have even much older scriptures.

God has (according to the Bible) told people to do things that I sure think are wrong.

Do you think it's possible that you might be wrong about your opinion on that, but you have that opinion bc you lack the complete knowledge on the situation, the circumstances and the things that were prevented, and I don't know what...?

Or are you 100% sure that your moral opinion on the matter is true?

In that case, if God told you to, for instance, kill a child, would you do it?

I think I wouldn't
I'd rather sin for not listening to God than kill a child because I got a voice in my head which apparrantly was not God.

In fact, why do you bother to say you're following God when you're really following some moral code that just happens to be the one that God follows?

In my opinion the moral code that comes with the Bible is the only way to become really happy, as a person and as a society.
I don't listen to God because it's God who says so, but because I see and believe it is the right thing to do?

Except that trusting in God is part of your moral code, so my point stands.

Since when is trusting someone a part of a moral code?

That's what I said. They do not obey the Christian moral code. And you've just shown that Heaven IS a reward for meeting this code.

This has been adressed several times, but it keeps coming back. Heaven is not a reward.
Heaven, no: THE NEW EARTH (the Bible says not that anyone will go to 'heaven') will be perfect.
Only perfect beings will get into heaven.
Nobody is perfect, that's why God makes us perfect.

If you say you're not perfect, you can stay the way you are, but the concequence is that you can't get into heaven.

Thus, my objection stands, that Christianity really says, "one ought to obey God because it is in one's self-interest".

That's because you want that opinion to be true.
You're not truely reading what we write, you're more reading into our postings, and bending everything in such a way that it fits with your holy opinion.

Obviously, bad people = does not obey the Christian moral code.

people who try to follow the so called christian moral code are still bad people, according to christians.
Christians say: all people are equal sinner.
Both christians and non-christians.

Thus, you obey God in the same sense that the king in The Little Prince rules over everything

God is not like the king in your story (which is a good story btw)
Since God has oftenly showed me in person, and to the entire world, that everything does obey to His commands.

Take 1948, after 1900 years of exile Israel is refounded and the Jews are getting back. As been forsaid 3000 years ago.
Both the exile and the return were forsaid.

The Bible says that Jerusalem will be a big problem in the end of times, all countries will have an opinion on it, and everyone who intervenes with it will 'cut itself'

The Bible says that in the end of times knowledge will significantly grow.

And there's much more.
Not to mention all those prophecies that have been fullfilled by Jesus.

And like I said, as I experienced in my own life.

So tell me, is Hell a nice place? What's it like there?

No, it's without God.
It's like my house when my wife is not there and everything that reminds me to her will not be there. And she'll never return. I would hate it.

Hell is worse, since the impact of God on happyness is much bigger than the impact of my wife. Eventhough she's a godess and the love of my life.

But if I tell my wife to go, she'll go.
And if you tell God to go, he'll go.

Thus, trusting in God is the expection one has to meet in order to get in.

You have to be renewed, and ask God for that.
So you must trust God to be able to renew you.
The expection to get into the new earth is: being perfect.

If you know another way, take that other way.
But I tell you, there is no other way.

But first: do you admit that you're imperfect?

I bolded a different section than you did. Notice how obeying the commandments is the prerequisite for "entering life" (I assume this means immortality in Heaven, right?), thus, one ought to obey the commandments because they allow one to "enter life". Ergo, one ought to obey the commandments because doing so is in one's self interest.

Jesus shows that no-one is perfect, by showing that no-one keeps the commandments.
The commandments, the law, has been given to show that we're imperfect.
Anybody who claims to be perfect can test himself, do I match with the law?

What happens to beleif in God if super intelligent beings from far away come along with no such belief in their entire history. They would surley indicate that God doesn't exist otherwise some of them would surely beleive int he same craetor of all of us.

Another *what if* question.
*if* that happens I will most obviously stop believing in God.

You can choose one of two options:

1) it's somehow possible to tell when God is telling you things, and obviously I, as an atheist, am not responsible for figuring it out

2) it's NOT possible to tell when God is telling you things, and thus your entire religion is false

It's #3: you're broken and do for that reason not understand what God asks from you. You're responsible for being broken, since you can ask God to fix you. And since you're responsible for being broken you're responsible for doing wrong as well.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by CyberShy
No, it's without God.
It's like my house when my wife is not there and everything that reminds me to her will not be there. And she'll never return. I would hate it.

Hell is worse, since the impact of God on happyness is much bigger than the impact of my wife. Eventhough she's a godess and the love of my life.

But if I tell my wife to go, she'll go.
And if you tell God to go, he'll go.

nice analogy - I will have to remember that one.

[Elok]

This thread is too huge for little lazy me to answer, but as to Kucinich's "rowing" analogy, the idea is that sinners are people who have slowly convinced themselves to more or less dislike everything they are presented with, because it is not entirely theirs, done entirely their way. The sinner is an innately unhappy person unless the world constantly shifts to accomodate his/her desires. Which usually involves making others unhappy.

Think about the stereotypical evil of our time, the Crooked Corporate CEO. They don't want money for what can be done with it; people who have accumulated massive wealth have massive wealth because they can't or won't put what they have to meaningful use. There's no point in getting more money except for the imagined glory to be had over the peasant folk below. This is an exaggerated and extreme example, but I'm pulling things out of my rear here...

[Docfeelgood]

Originally posted by Kucinich


I'm an atheist, I'm just posing an interesting question. It's fun

[Rogan Josh]

c'mon doc - give him a break - he's only 14.