151. Comment #86284 by roach on November 8, 2007 at 11:43 pm

ADH,

You're crazy dude.

Other Comments by roach

152. Comment #86286 by SteveN on November 8, 2007 at 11:48 pm

Good grief, ADH! That was a bit of an outburst. How you managed to combine so many straw-men and so much sarcasm and cynicism in one post is astonishing. It's a shame that you decided to waste your energies on that rather ridiculous bit of raving instead of answering the simple questions that you have been repeatedly asked in this thread. I can only hope that you are in the grip of a nasty flu-induced fever that has temporarily addled your brain. If not, then I'm afraid you've made yourself look rather evasive, dishonest and not a little foolish. What a pity.

SteveN

Other Comments by SteveN

153. Comment #86292 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 12:09 am

Don't worry Steve I will be back with an answer to those questions. Yes it was an outburst. I just needed to get it out of my system. But indirectly it was an answer to the question about whether I consider chimps to have souls. Why stop at chimps? Does atheism not require you to assign equal value to every species? On a Christian premise it is very clear why there is something special and unique about human beings. On an atheist premise, as has been pointed out, there is nothing special about human beings, so favouring one species over another is, as Singer has said, "specism". OK, my post was over the top, jam-packed with straw men, but that is a question that needs answering. How can the slaughter of millions of Jews be considered any worse than the slaughter of millions upon millions of turkeys? Why do we find the former so much more abhorrent than the latter, if we are just another species? Is it because of our favouritism towards our own spoecies? Or is it because instinctively we know that it is many times more horrendous than the slaguter of turkeys or any other non human species? Don't get me wrong. I abhor cruelty inflicted on animals.

As for my outburst, put it down to my brain being addled by the last throes of a virus. Or to whatever you want to put it down to.

Other Comments by ADH

154. Comment #86293 by Diacanu on November 9, 2007 at 12:12 am

ADH-

On a Christian premise it is very clear why there is something special and unique about human beings.

Yes, higher intelligence.

Yet, curiously enough, there is nothing in religion in praise of intelligence.

Other Comments by Diacanu

155. Comment #86298 by DalaiDrivel on November 9, 2007 at 12:28 am

Oh please,

ADH. I for one am bankiong on you being predictable and never answering the questions asked of you of this thread.

If that's true- just bugger off buddy. We know who and what to write you off as.

You can't quite walk the walk. You can't both believe and clearly state that your children are hell bound.

So bugger off.

You can't even walk the I-just-stumbled-out-of-the-pub drunk-which-was-where-I-got-these-screwed-ideas walk.

I wish you could.

CoretTempRising- you're the man. I had some venting of my own to do.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

156. Comment #86300 by Goldy on November 9, 2007 at 12:32 am

Or what about "The Festival of Light"? That is fairly multi-cultural isn't it? It could be interpreted as celebrating advances in science.

That's Divali, innit? Believe the Hindus have dibs on that. Interestingly, given the Hitlerian outburst, I remember Divali cards being sold with swastikas :-) Always fancied sending one to Germany, heheheheh! Time to reclaim that symbol, methinks.
Don't all these festivals have an older base than the ones they are meant to celebrate? Xmas is not really about the birth of Christ originally...so I'm told. Anyway, it's got pressies and that's good for kids and adults alike :-) No need to bring religion into it! And here in NZ it marks almost the beginning of summer - long hazy days going to the beach and chilled white wine on the balcony - aaaaah!
Not sure about the turkeys - more a duck or goose man myself. Mind you, no Thanksgiving outside the US (and Canada too, eh?) so turkeys are safe. Are Jews comparable to turkeys? Better be careful with the wording there - why single the Jews out. Many gypsies were also gassed. And communists. And indeed others - best not be favourable (wrong word) here.
Hope cold gets better - Jagermeister with hot water and honey is highly recommended. Not sure of the medicinal efficacy but it helps with the sleep :-)
Quick edit - this religious thingy - can we only follow 1? My daughter is 1/2 Chinese and the New Year (Chinese) is kinda important so we follow that too - bad of us? Daughter also likes the red envelopes her grandparents give her...more indoctrination, I'm afraid, but I think I can let that pass too ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

157. Comment #86303 by SteveN on November 9, 2007 at 12:36 am

Well, ADH, I'm glad to see you return to normality. You do seem to have the wrong idea about atheism, though. You say "Does atheism not require you to assign equal value to every species?". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a supernatural entity, nothing more. I personally acknowledge that humans are at the top of the ladder when it comes to powers of reasoning and discourse (from which stems the technology that we now enjoy) but that only gives us a higher 'value' to ourselves. A dolphin might consider us rather useless creatures, with our pathetic flounderings in the sea and inability to echolocate.

Now, atheists do not believe, as you do, in the 'soul' as an actual entity separate from the body. We might use it to conveniently describe the 'sum total of all our thoughts, memories and feelings' but nothing else. We tend to find the theist's "we are unique because we have a God-given soul" attitude both arrogant and foolish. Remember, there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a soul, and modern neuroscience is getting ever closer to understanding the feeling of 'self'.

As I stated in a previous post, being human, I will find more 'value' (whatever that means) in a human life compared to that of a turkey, for example. I'm sure a turkey would not agree. You seem to think that the 'worth' of a human is based entirely on the possession of a soul, and that atheists therefore see no more worth in a human life than that of a bacterium. This is nonsense, of course.

Now, I have tried to help you understand as clearly as possible how I see things. There are many here who are genuinely interested in understanding your point of view. How about reciprocating by answering the simple questions you have been asked. The longer you delay, the more it looks as though you don't yourself understand what you believe, I'm afraid.


Get well sooon,


SteveN

Other Comments by SteveN

158. Comment #86305 by mejdrich on November 9, 2007 at 12:49 am

Don't worry Steve I will be back with an answer to those questions.

Well, do you what want to do, but if a little conversational pressure got under your skin that easily, it may not worth your or our time.

Good luck getting over your illness.

Other Comments by mejdrich

159. Comment #86307 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 1:01 am

OK, let's set these trivialities aside. Once again, forgive my outburst. It happens to all of us now and again does it not?

Regarding the questions on Hell. It is true that I have used the words "separation from God" rather than "Hell" in relation to my own kids. It was perceptive of whoever pointed that out. But eternal separation from God is Hell, and vice versa. Hell is the absence of God - the most horrible thing about it is that God will be eternally absent. It is the destiny of all those who wilfully reject God. As I said before, the door will be shut on the inside. God would rescue from Hell anyone who called on his name, but those who die having rejected God all their lives will be no more inclined to accept his mercy after death than before. In fact they will be infinitely less inclined. Hell is and will be eternally self-inflicted. Needless to say, I will do everything I can to encourage my kids, and everyone else I know, to open their minds and hearts to the Truth, and to make God rather than themselves the Arbiter of their lives and destinies. I don't believe that Hell consists literally of fire. I believe that this is a metaphor for the self-inflicted torment - the Self entrenched in its own distortions for all eternity.

CS Lewis depicted it vividly in The Last Battle. The Door into the new transfigured and yet still material Narnia was flung open. THe Dwarves, however, remained bolted (on the inside) inside their own dungeon, determined that they would not be taken in by this nonsense about a renewed universe. "The Dwarves are for the Dwarves" was their battle-cry. They were not sent to Hell. They had shut themselves inside it! Obviously I don't want my kids, or anyone else, to end up in that state. But I have no control over their choices, nor to I want to have any such control. They are free agents, as all of you are.

Other Comments by ADH

160. Comment #86308 by Goldy on November 9, 2007 at 1:06 am

Doesn't God know all of this in advance? If your kids reject him, isn't that, using a Lawrence of Arabia phrase, already "written"? Pissy God if this be true to accept that for all eternity...

Other Comments by Goldy

161. Comment #86309 by Diacanu on November 9, 2007 at 1:08 am

CS Lewis could spin a heckuva yarn, but it isn't evidence.
*Shrug*

Neither are his apologetics.
Even he admitted he could argue you up to the edge of the cliff, but you had to take the leap of faith.
So, that to me bursts the whole bubble of the apologetic endeavor.
It's rationalization of something that is in itself by its own admission an act of unreason.

Other Comments by Diacanu

162. Comment #86310 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 1:15 am

ADH

I suppose that for the moment there is not much we can do by way of stopping people from celebrating their disgusting religious rituals in their own homes. But soon consideration will be given to the poisonous effects of these rituals on the innocent children in the household. If subjecting children to these beliefs really is child abuse (which it obviously is) then someone somewhere will surely find a way of doing something about it.

I don't think anyone here is challenging the fact various celebrations and rituals may be worthwhile. What is under attack is that any such rituals need to be connected to beliefs that are unfounded or manifestly flawed [See my post 93].

On the subject of hell christian theology has traditionally taught the fixation of the will at death, hence why when it comes to it you're either in heaven or hell and you don't swap. Thus C.S. Lewis and his doors bolted from the inside is meaningles because they couldn't be unbolted.

This idea, that meaningful existence (in heaven) could continue with the will fixated is incoherent. See also my post 95, hell as separation from god is also an incoherent idea.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

163. Comment #86311 by Bonzai on November 9, 2007 at 1:27 am

If Hell is just a separation from God aren't we atheists already in hell? So what is the big deal?

Other Comments by Bonzai

164. Comment #86314 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 1:34 am

"Doesn't God know all of this in advance? If your kids reject him, isn't that, using a Lawrence of Arabia phrase, already "written"?"

No it is not already written. God may know what their choice is going to be. But he has not foreordained it. There will be moments in their lives (as I believe there is in everyone's) when God will encounter them, come close but without forcing himeslf on them. Only the individual him or herself knows what form these moments have taken in their lives. When I mentioned "encounter with God" in a previous post on this thread someone suggested that, given such an encounter, we would have no choice but to surrender. But the encounters that I'm speaking of are not coercive. There is always a choice. As Oscar Wilde said in DE PROFUNDIS, "Everyone has an Emmaus Road experience in their lives". This is a reference by the way to the encounter with the risen Christ recorded in Luke 24. We read that the two people concerned did not recognise Jesus at first, and he "made as if to continue on his way". This is a beautiul story, and a beautiful illustration of how these encounters occur.

I admit that there are moments when I wonder: "Is this really true? Am I deluded?" But looking back over my life, the experiences of God have been so real that I cannot gainsay them, and nor can anyone else. I'm not talking about warm and fuzzy feelings of security. I'm not only talking in fact about merely subjective experience. I particularly remember when I was at university in Belfast in 1981, when the "troubles" were at their worst. An event was organised in the Students Union involving an ex-IRA activist (I think he had been on the blanket protest) and an ex-Loyalist paramilitary. THey told their respective stories of how their encounter with Christ had come about. Both of them said that only a few months before that day they would have killed each other, had they had the opportunity. Now they had a profound love for each other which transcended the political positions which they nevertheless still adhered to. There have been other times since then when I have seen the transformative love of God bringing forgiveness where there had only been bitterness and hatred.

What I also can't help wondering is whether there are never any moments when you guys wonder whether you are not in fact "deluded". Do atheists never have moments of uncertainty? moments when you have to, so to speak, press your fingers into your ears to keep out the voice of God?



Other Comments by ADH

165. Comment #86315 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 1:37 am

The proximate cause of impenitence in hell is God's refusal of every grace and every impulse for good. It would not be intrinsically impossible for God to move the damned to repentance; yet such a course would be out of keeping with the state of final reprobation. The opinion that the Divine refusal of all grace and of every incitement to good is the proximate cause of impenitence, is upheld by many theologians...

from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

So not "locked from the inside" at all "souls" stay in hell because god wants them to even though he could act differently.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

166. Comment #86317 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 1:40 am

"On the subject of hell christian theology has traditionally taught the fixation of the will at death, hence why when it comes to it you're either in heaven or hell and you don't swap. Thus C.S. Lewis and his doors bolted from the inside is meaningles because they couldn't be unbolted."

Yes, in effect the will is "fixed" at death. But it is the WILL of the impenitent that is fixed. They are fixed in their impenitence. The door is bolted on the inside in the sense that it is the impenitent themselves who insist on being left in that state.

Other Comments by ADH

167. Comment #86322 by Goldy on November 9, 2007 at 1:45 am

The door is bolted on the inside in the sense that it is the impenitent themselves who insist on being left in that state.

But this is known from all eternity by God - why does he play these wee games then? The impenitent don't insist - it is "written" to re-use a phrase. God knew it and he knows it, apparently. Do the impenitent have a will in this matter?

Other Comments by Goldy

168. Comment #86323 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 1:46 am

Scripture and tradition speak again and again of the fire of hell, and there is no sufficient reason for taking the term as a mere metaphor. It is urged: How can a material fire torment demons, or human souls before the resurrection of the body? But, if our soul is so joined to the body as to be keenly sensitive to the pain of fire, why should the omnipotent God be unable to bind even pure spirits to some material substance in such a manner that they suffer a torment more or less similar to the pain of fire which the soul can feel on earth? The reply indicates, as far as possible, how we may form an idea of the pain of fire which the demons suffer. Theologians have elaborated various theories on this subject. . .

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm (Part VI)

Other Comments by BaronOchs

169. Comment #86324 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 1:47 am

BaronOchs, thanks for the link. I am not a Catholic so I'm not clued in as to their theology on Hell. Have a look at this link.

http://www.ex-atheist.com/Hell.html

Or this excerpt from a debate between WIlliam Lane Craig and Dr Bradly"

"Thus, in a sense, God doesn't send anybody to "hell. His desire is that everyone be saved, and He pleads with people to come to Him. But if we reject Christ's sacrifice for our sin, then God has no choice but to give us what we deserve. God will not send us to hell--but we will send ourselves. Our eternal destiny thus lies in our own hands. It is a matter of our free choice where we shall spend eternity.

Now if this scenario is even possible, it follows that no inconsistency has been demonstrated between God's being all-loving and some people's going to hell. For given that God has created us with freedom of the will, it follows that He cannot guarantee that all persons will freely give their lives to Him and be saved. The Bible makes it very clear that God desires every person to be saved, and by His Spirit He seeks to draw every person to Himself. The only obstacle to universal salvation is therefore human free will. It's logically impossible to make someone freely do something. God's being all-powerful doesn't mean that He can do the logically impossible. Thus, even though He is all-powerful, God cannot make everyone freely be saved. Given human freedom and human stubbornness, some people may go to hell despite God's desire and efforts to save them."

Other Comments by ADH

170. Comment #86326 by Diacanu on November 9, 2007 at 1:49 am

ADH-

What I also cant help wondering is whether there are never any moments when you guys wonder whether you are not in fact "deluded".

Nope.

Do atheists never have moments of uncertainty? Moments when you have to, so to speak, press your fingers into your ears to keep out the voice of God.

Hmmm, nope.
I'll admit, I have transcendent moments in my artistic creativity that make it feel like I'm part of some energy flow of nature.
But does it tell me to do things, or judge me, or tie into some sort of theistic mythology structure?
Nope, not in the least.

No God, no Jesus, no Moses, no crosses, no angels, no Devils.

I'm more of a spaceships and robots and dinosaurs person.

Sorry.

Other Comments by Diacanu

171. Comment #86328 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 1:51 am

...if it is true that indifference to God has eternal consequences, that it results in eternal separation from God (whether conscious separation or by virtue of ceasing to exist), then I believe that it would be a serious case of child abuse if I did NOT make that very clear.
_______

I have heard this rationalization many times from religious believers. Some say if they knew that a building would be bombed, that they would warn others, etc. Conflation of reality with unreality yet again (rationalizing as fast as you can so you can keep the wheels of your cognitive dissonance oiled enough that you do not become deaf from its clanging).

Buildings, bombs, factual knowledge are certainly the admirable basis for warning folks of danger. Hell, God, there is no proof of their existence, with the improbability of their existence being quite high. Your obsession with warning your children about something that does not exist is similar to a paranoid bloke going on and on about someone following them. Your premise is wonky; you do not focus on that aspect. Who cares if your chosen action makes sense--warning your children of danger--if your premise is founded on no factual knowledge. Sigh.

As previous discussions with religious believers show, ADH will continue to oil his clanging machinery with rationalizations as fast and as repeatedly in a circular oiling frenzy as he can.

Other Comments by Logicel

172. Comment #86329 by Bonzai on November 9, 2007 at 1:52 am

ADH

But if we reject Christ's sacrifice for our sin..

Since you told us you're not a creationist, you don't believe in Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden so what exactly is our sin? What do we need Christ to sacrifice for?

I asked you this question in a previous post, but apparently you only answered the easy part that you are not a creationist.

Other Comments by Bonzai

173. Comment #86330 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 1:52 am

What I also cant help wondering is whether there are never any moments when you guys wonder whether you are not in fact "deluded". Do atheists never have moments of uncertainty? Moments when you have to, so to speak, press your fingers into your ears to keep out the voice of God.

I can honestly say, for myself, no. I have warm fuzzy feelings, and a sense of being guided by various thoughts, but those are in my own head. What I don't understand is why people assume that these thoughts and feelings are external - perhaps you could help me with that?

Also, don't you think you are possibly diminishing what people can achieve, when they make peace with each other and transcend their history and culture, by claiming this is God's work, and not theirs?

By the way... hope your flu is better!

Other Comments by steve99

174. Comment #86332 by Goldy on November 9, 2007 at 1:55 am

God's being all-powerful doesn't mean that He can do the logically impossible

Errrr...isn't there a wee inconsistency here?

The Bible makes it very clear that God desires every person to be saved

so God, in his infinite wisdom

God has created us with freedom of the will

which

God cannot make everyone freely be saved

Hmmmm

Given human freedom and human stubbornness, some people may go to hell despite God's desire and efforts to save them

Ergo humans are more powerful than God.

Other Comments by Goldy

175. Comment #86334 by Goldy on November 9, 2007 at 1:57 am

Moments when you have to, so to speak, press your fingers into your ears to keep out the voice of God.

Doctors have called it tinnitus. If it is God's voice, I do wish he would leave me alone sometimes.

Other Comments by Goldy

176. Comment #86335 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 2:00 am

"It is quite superfluous to add that the nature of hell-fire is different from that of our ordinary fire; for instance, it continues to burn without the need of a continually renewed supply of fuel. How are we to form a conception of that fire in detail remains quite undetermined; we merely know that it is corporeal." (cathen again)

Allright I'll stop now. I still don't understand this ADH. Why couldn't I develop my desire for "God's presence" after death? In which case it would no longer be my choice to remain separate from god yet the doctrine that hell is eternal says I'm there and that is that. In fact is there anything prior to (or of higher uhh pedigree) C.S.Lewis in anyway echoing this "locked from the inside" view of hell? As for heaven the fixation of the will has traditionally been taken to apply to souls in heaven as well. God doesn't give you a honeymoon period so you can decide if the other guys got a bit more swing.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

177. Comment #86338 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 2:14 am

ADH, perhaps you might find the following site interesting:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions

You can formulate questions, and a stable of atheist writers will answer, without legions of them challenging you. It is a site where people can learn more about how atheists think. Some of the writers are from here, the Dawkins site.

As for wondering if I am wrong about my atheism, whenever a theist points out a gap in our knowledge, I am filled with excitement and anticipation of us trying to figure out the problem. So, not doubt, just enthusiasm and interest in our continuing efforts to grasp our reality. At this point, unless proven otherwise, religion no longer provides much oompf in that direction--it once did, before science was developed.

And I have never heard God speak to me; and such God speech that others have claimed to have heard, has never been proven. My efforts in praying has only resulted in hilarious laughter on my part.

Other Comments by Logicel

178. Comment #86339 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 2:16 am

Or perhaps let me put the dillemna I feel regarding these ideas:

1) God is the source of all good things. Therefore by enjoying or valuing anything in life we are covertly showing a desire for God.

or

2) God is good but this has nothing to do with other good things like the good taste of ice cream or the company of a loved one etc.

If one is true then pretty much everyone desires the presence of god in some way and hence could qualify for heaven. If two is correct then perhaps indeed only the devout make it to heaven, but all those things (ice cream, loved ones etc) that have nothing to do with god's presence can continue in hell, which isn't such a bad place. Of course the answer may well be god actively prevents this, fine, but then he is not a moral being.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

179. Comment #86344 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 2:45 am

I don't know BaronOchs. All I can say is that whether or not there is deprivation of all kinds of pleasure, the damned will, even when damned, perversely prefer to be where they are than to be with God. I recommend another great book by CS Lewis: "The Great Divorce". He vividly portrays what Hell feels like to the damned and what it looks like to the saved. And what "heaven" feels like to the saved and looks like to the damned.

Other Comments by ADH

180. Comment #86345 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 2:46 am

ADH wrote: There have been other times since then when I have seen the transformative love of God bringing forgiveness where there had only been bitterness and hatred.
______

And I have experienced times when I have seen the transformative love of a good hot meal, well prepared, bringing forgiveness where there had only been bitterness and hatred.

Other Comments by Logicel

181. Comment #86350 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 3:11 am

Maybe I have derailed this thread for long enough. But I have been pressed for an answer to some tough questions. I hope I have done that. If I haven't, if there are any questions remaining - before I "bugger of" as I've been told to do, please remind me of what they are. I'll be happy to answer them as best I can.

In the meantime let me leave you with this link

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/hell.htm

Other Comments by ADH

182. Comment #86353 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 3:27 am

ADH this is probably as good a place to conclude on Hell, unless you've anything more to say. My final comment on it is how can you possibly know the damned will prefer to remain in hell? We are back to the central problem of religious claims without any backing.

I don't personally think you have been a derailment or that you should bugger off. It makes life and these threads more interesting if there are people who disagree. In a civil and reasonable way that is, unlike Wee Flea etc!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

183. Comment #86359 by irate_atheist on November 9, 2007 at 4:13 am

ADH -

You may still be curious to know why you cannot make us believe what you claim to be true. It's very simple:

Assertion in place of evidence, opinion in place of facts and imagination in place of reality.

We've heard it all before and we recognise it for what it is.

Have a good weekend, fellow primate.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

184. Comment #86360 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 4:19 am

ADH wrote: ...please remind me of what they are. I'll be happy to answer them as best I can.
________

ADH, yes, please answer this excerpt from my comment #25:

Faith, for me, means belief without evidence. Therefore, with faith, you can believe in anything, even beliefs that can lead to violence, murder, etc. How do you impart to your children the dangers of believing without evidence? How do they identify the kind of faith that will not do themselves and others harm?

Other Comments by Logicel

185. Comment #86366 by phasmagigas on November 9, 2007 at 4:37 am

its funny how there is that slippery slope between what we accept as normal and as crazy. warning kids about hell, hmm, if one does that to your own kids in an effort for them to be good is seen as one thing but if you take it further (and i cannot see why all hell believers dont do this) you stand on street corners with a placard. now i dont see any difference between one and the other in terms of aims (the warning)but the majority of people pass off the guy with the placard as a nutcase, and understandibly so. I could give more respect to the placard holder as at least hes willing to stand up there and make himself look foolish and take the scorn from believers and non believers alike.

Funny how middle of the road believers scorn others, eg christians who see literal creationists as nutters, to those moderates i say 'tell that to them'.



Other Comments by phasmagigas

186. Comment #86367 by phasmagigas on November 9, 2007 at 4:52 am

i welcome ADH on here, id rather read the discourse between ADH and others rather than between DG and others.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

187. Comment #86370 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 5:05 am

"Therefore, with faith, you can believe in anything, even beliefs that can lead to violence, murder, etc. How do you impart to your children the dangers of believing without evidence? How do they identify the kind of faith that will not do themselves and others harm?"

If your faith is in faith then maybe you can believe in anything. Faith in Jesus Christ precludes recourse to violence of any kind as a means of propagating it, or of achieving any other end. The Christian faith is warranted, not by warm fuzzy feelings, but by the evidence of the transformative impact that it has in the lives of individual believers and in society. It is also warranted by the eye-witness accounts of Christ's life offered by the four gospels, culminating in the accounts of his resurrection. Needless to say, you will all write off these accounts as the result of a Vatican conspiracy aimed at filtering out all the competing "gospels". Nevertheless, documentary evidence does not support this contention.

Jesus said "my kingdom is not of (ie from) this world. If it were my servants would fight (ie take up arms, use violence)" Where Christians have taken up arms and used violent methods to foist their message on those who did not want it they have done so in blatant defiance of Jesus' words. Their violence is therefore unwarranted, but the Christian message itself is not.

Other Comments by ADH

188. Comment #86371 by SteveN on November 9, 2007 at 5:08 am

To ADH..

Sorry to carry on about hell after you asked to drop the subject, but I have two small additional points:

You wrote (in #163) "God would rescue from Hell anyone who called on his name, but those who die having rejected God all their lives will be no more inclined to accept his mercy after death than before." Well, I can assure you that if, after my death, I find myself to my profound shock to be sitting in a lake of fire, I will most certainly be asking God to rescue me. Who the hell (sorry) wouldn't? We atheists reject the concept of God because there simply is no evidence to suggest the existence of deities. Finding myself in hell would quite enough evidence, I can assure you.

Second, you say that all the talk of fire and brimstone is just a metaphor for the separation from God. Now, as pointed out by walk in #99, the bible is quite clear about this:

In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

"In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."

Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."

There is no way you can honestly claim that these passages are just a metaphor for 'separation from God'. I think that theologens over the last 2000 years or the present pope (that nice man who recently reminded all his flock that hell is a real place of suffering for those who 'sin') might have spotted that one. Your rationalisation is a typical but extreme example of 'it can't be true because I don't want it to be true'. Basically, you're inventing a new bible to fit your own personal wishes. I personally choose to interpret 'FURNACE OF FIRE' to mean 'a nice pub with free beer and good food, but no jukebox'. Hey, that's actually a good name for a pub! Maybe I'm right and that's why nobody asks God to be rescued from hell.

Cheers


SteveN

Other Comments by SteveN

189. Comment #86372 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 5:18 am

The Christian faith is warranted, not by warm fuzzy feelings, but by the evidence of the transformative impact that it has in the lives of individual believers and in society.

Lives and societies have and can be "transformed" by all sorts of things. I'm sure christianity has had a strong positive effect in many instances, as well as other cases were it has been . .less benign. Nothing however that merits the suggestion something that is supernatural simply must be at work.

There are perfectly earthly reasons for the effectiveness cultural or religious traditions can have. This would remain the case even if christianity had been more efficacious than it has in fact been.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

190. Comment #86374 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 5:29 am

Steve, when I said it was a metaphor I did not mean to gild the lilly. I don't mean that that makes it any better than if it were real fire. If you access the link I provided to what Peter Kreeft has written on the subject you will get some idea of what I mean. Fire is a metaphor for destruction: the destruction of our humanity. Hell will be populated by ex-humans - the ashes, so to speak, of the humanity that they once had and could still have had if they had so chosen. Heaven is a flourishing of our humanity, as it will be restored to its proper submission to God while Hell will be the "self"-inflicted destruction of humanity.

Other Comments by ADH

191. Comment #86380 by BaronOchs on November 9, 2007 at 5:45 am

From Kreeft:

Hell and heaven make life serious. Heaven without hell removes the bite from life's drama. C. S. Lewis once said that he never met a single person who had a lively faith in heaven without a similar belief in hell. The height of the mountain is measured by the depth of the valley, the greatness of salvation by the awfulness of the thing we're saved from.

I'm surprised christians do not find that problematic. The goodness of god, which souls in heaven are supposed to celebrate and participate in, is supposed to be an absolute goodness. Good in and of itself. So heaven should not need a corresponding bad place (or state) in comparison to which it is good.

To re-iterate, either the souls in hell are there of their own choice, in which case they could choose to leave. or they're there because god wants to keep them there regardless of their choices (or perhaps by fixing their wills), in which case they're not there by choice but are imprisoned there by god. Which raises questions about the goodness of god. You can't have it both ways.

[And I could turn that into a there their and they're fill in the blanks exercise!]

Other Comments by BaronOchs

192. Comment #86386 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 5:57 am

Good question BaronOchs. I'll need to think about it a bit more rather than just rhyme off a pat answer. But this is my first, maybe not definitive, attempt at an answer. Heaven and hell are complementary realities as regards our inner depiction of them. Heaven will not need hell in order to be heaven. If God could prevent everyone from ending up in that terrible state of eternal imprisonment within the "self" he would. But he will not override human choice. You might say that contradicts the attribute of Omnipotence. But God cannot create a free agent and at the same time make him or her "unfree". A contradiction does not cease to be a contradiction just because you stick the words "God can" before it.

We also need to remember that Hell was not concieved for the punishment of humankind, but for the punishment of "the devil and his angels".

By the way, you also say that no one who finds themselves there will want to remain there. Jesus told a story about someone like that. He was a rich man below whose window lay a down-and-out reduced to feeding himself with the crumbs that fell from the former's table. When the rich man died he ended up separated from the poor man, but not by the distance of window to ground - an unbridgeable chasm now separated the two: "poor old Lazarus" having become God's friend and the rich man in hell. THe rich man (interestingly unnamed in the story) pled for Lazarus to be allowed to "visit" his family so that they would not end up in the same state. He was told that if they refused to believe the words that they had heard concerning the danger they were in neither would they believe even if they were provided with such empirical proof as the appearance of Lazarus to their senses. An interesting reflection on just how decisive "empirical" proof would be for those whose ears were already closed to the Truth.

Other Comments by ADH

193. Comment #86387 by SRWB on November 9, 2007 at 6:00 am

ADH,

When I mentioned "encounter with God" in a previous post on this thread someone suggested that, given such an encounter, we would have no choice but to surrender. But the encounters that I'm speaking of are not coercive. There is always a choice.

You missed my point. The point was (is) that if an "encounter" actually happened then how could one logically and realistically not choose to "surrender" to God's will? It was never about coercion – it's about making a decision and choice based on being faced with real hard evidence .

He (CS Lewis) vividly portrays what Hell feels like to the damned and what it looks like to the saved. And what "heaven" feels like to the saved and looks like to the damned.

And CS Lewis knows this because…? Did he spend much time in either place while still alive? Or is this just conjecture on his part after speaking with a large sample group that had spent time in both? In all seriousness, this sort of theological twaddle is one of the main reasons why religion should eventually be consigned to the garbage can of history.

Other Comments by SRWB

194. Comment #86390 by keith on November 9, 2007 at 6:09 am

ADH,

Why wouldn't there be any Christmas trees? Are you under the impression that Jews knew about Christmas trees, mistletoe and holly in Nazareth? These are all things from the original celebration that your lot stole from us centuries ago. And as for doing without turkey, does it say in the bible, 'Thou shalt celebrate the birth of our Lord with Turkey, a bird that will be found in fifteen centuries' time in a place that lies as yet undiscovered which shall be called America'? No, I don't think it does. Even if we ditch all the rubbish like the mawkish nonsense about 'Likkle baby Jesus', we can still graft on the good stuff like giving presents and putting on a bit of myhrr, something I like to do every year.

Other Comments by keith

195. Comment #86392 by SteveN on November 9, 2007 at 6:09 am

ADH wrote:

Steve, when I said it was a metaphor I did not mean to gild the lilly. I don't mean that that makes it any better than if it were real fire. If you access the link I provided to what Peter Kreeft has written on the subject you will get some idea of what I mean. Fire is a metaphor for destruction: the destruction of our humanity.

My point is that there is no reason whatsoever, apart from your own personal wishes, to doubt that the passages in the bible are meant to be read literally and are referring to real, actual, fire in which people are meant to suffer in physical, agonising pain for eternity. This has been, and continues to be, Christian dogma for centuries. Can you not see that you are simply 'making stuff up' when you say things like 'Fire is a metaphor for destruction: the destruction of our humanity'. Don't you feel just a little uncomfortable 'spinning' the unequivocal words of Jesus to fit your own personal agenda?

Keep taking the aspirin!


SteveN

Other Comments by SteveN

196. Comment #86396 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 6:20 am

No prob coretemprising. I was just tying to answere some questions I'd been asked. I'll exit and let you get the thread back on track. No hard feelings I hope.

Other Comments by ADH

197. Comment #86397 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 6:23 am

ADH wrote: Hell will be populated by ex-humans - the ashes, so to speak, of the humanity that they once had and could still have had if they had so chosen. Heaven is a flourishing of our humanity, as it will be restored to its proper submission to God while Hell will be the "self"-inflicted destruction of humanity.
______

WTF is an ex-human? I wish to be a cat, hope your God will oblige.

So you will flourish SUBMITTING yourself to God? Sounds kinky.

I get an image of a weaker animal groveling on their belly in front of another animal with sharper claws and teeth. I watch this kind of submissive behavior when hanging out with my cats, and muse about how us primates have this aspect also. But it takes a theologian to translate this fact of our evolution, that we try to placate the aggressor, with this astoundingly ridiculous scenario that in order to maintain our humanity we need to grovel and submit. You can't make this stuff up--oh, wait a minute, you just have!

Other Comments by Logicel

198. Comment #86400 by keith on November 9, 2007 at 6:25 am

Why, when I read ADH's comments do I have the guilty temptation to phone my mates and tell them that, 'Hey, we've got a genuine mad bloke on the thread at the moment!'? I say guilty temptation because in the same way we have learned not to laugh at 'The Bearded Lady', 'The Elephant Man' and 'The Flying Midget', I feel we shouldn't really make fun of the religiously mad. Still, sometimes it's hard not to when you hear the funny things they say about what God's like and what heaven's like and what hell's like, as though they somehow knew. No, stop it. That's enough. Don't mock the afflicted.

Other Comments by keith

199. Comment #86401 by RascoHeldall on November 9, 2007 at 6:27 am

Goldy wrote:

Errrr...isn't there a wee inconsistency here?

It isn't really, to be fair. If you accept the premise that God gave us free will, loves all humans but is arrogant and insecure enough to reward them on the basis of how much they suck-up to him, then it's logically consistent. (King Lear, anyone?)

The problem is that the larger proposition that God gave us free will is of course nonsensical – if God 'planned' evolution, then every decision our ancestors ever made would have had to have been predestined to ensure that the human race evolved to its present form. To suggest that absolute free will can co-exist with divine pre-planning of nature is logically incoherent.

If creationists are honest about one thing, it is the dichotomy between their religion's claims and the facts of the matter. They at least realise that if their religion is to have any basis in reality then evolution by natural selection must be false, that the two postulates are as mutually-incompatible as it's possible to be. That they choose to ignore the encyclopaedic body of evidence supporting evolution over the pathetic claims of their religion speaks volumes about their psychology and intellectual capacity, but at least they are consistent. The moderates' dishonesty - in trying to pretend that the claims of science and religious mythology can somehow co-exist as long you keep saying they do - is in many ways more aggravating.

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

200. Comment #86403 by SRWB on November 9, 2007 at 6:32 am

While some (most?) of us agree with coretemprising's general disdain for the ideas of posters like ADH, I don't agree that we are "cozying up to" such people. The whole idea is to challenge them to see the flaws in their thinking. I don't just want this to be a site, for those of who don't believe, for mutual admiration and resounding agreement (not that it is!). How better to develop and test arguments than against the faithful who show up here?

Other Comments by SRWB