Let's talk about Satan

[LucyJr]

Intrinsic? I don't believe so.

That to serve God is morally perfect and intrinsically good is christian theology. I don't get you here: are you pointing out to a internal contradiction in christianity or to a external one?
It seems to me that you switch from one to another.

Says who? God? Is it evil because God says it is, or is the evil independent of God?

Neither one or the other.
Exodus 3:14
"God said to Moses, “I am who I am.This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you."

'Must be' is the wrong choice of words I think.

This is what the Bible teaches, wether you like it or not ! And again you switched to an external contradiction with your belief system!

According to who or what?

Good question. According to God. God is the supreme standard of everything.
"God said to Moses, “I am who I am.This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you."

I don't think it's important for you to know. Knowing about me should not change the information you give me in the slightest, and I will not be sidetracked, so I am not going to tell you.

Ok then. Just so you know, i didn't asked for what you presupposed that I asked. But I agree with you! We're trying to have a honest debate here, and as long it won't became nasty, I will enjoy it

I disagree. Extortion does not consider other possibilities as far as I see it. It only requires compliance, or you suffer. That's exactly what this is. I don't know where you get this idea that this is somehow different. Even if God can't do otherwise because God is 'perfect', it's still extortion.

Firstly, you pointed out an supposed internal contradiction in Christianity, namely "Serve me or you will be punished if you refuse!". You say is extortion, and God is immoral. I tried to give an explanation of the nature of God and his relationship with creation, to show you that this is not at all a immoral extortion from God, and moreover, it's not just a choice, it's a moral choice, the most important moral choice that a man must make.
When I said that

The first possibility-serving God- is moraly perfect and is intrinsically good.

you responded

Intrinsic? I don't believe so.

. And again, I said this:

God is the absolute standard of perfection, and the Moral Law flows inherently from His very nature.

Then you responded this:

According to who or what?

Now, both statements that I was making are classical christian teachings. And I posted them in responding to your internal contradiction. When one raises an internal contradiction, one must assume this: "Ok guys, so you believe this and this and this. In believing those things, you have a big discrepancy here, so you are condradicting yourselfs." This is an internal contradiction.
But you aren't doing this. When I say " No, it's okay, look God is this and therefore he must be worshiped, because he is goodness in Himself, so if one choose him, one does a morally perfect choice because he choose good instead of evil" you point out a external contradiction, this is to say something which is supposedly not true outside of christianity.I don't think this is correct! Can you see this?
ps:I'm still learning English, so if you see something which you don't understand, point it out!

 

[sprinkles]

That to serve God is morally perfect and intrinsically good is christian theology. I don't get you here: are you pointing out to a internal contradiction in christianity or to a external one?
It seems to me that you switch from one to another.

It's an external contradiction. You don't get to call something intrinsic in just your brand of theology. If it is truly intrinsic then it should be apparent to all because that is the nature of intrinsic.

It's either entirely intrinsic or not intrinsic. There's no middle for intrinsic. There's no "Intrinsic in Christian theology." It's either in ALL theology or not intrinsic.

Neither one or the other.
Exodus 3:14
"God said to Moses, “I am who I am.This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you."

I don't understand. Explain.

This is what the Bible teaches, wether you like it or not ! And again you switched to an external contradiction with your belief system!

This is actually an internal contradiction because we just got done talking about choice. "Must be" implies that it is mandatory which contradicts the element of choice that you already said is there.

Good question. According to God. God is the supreme standard of everything.
"God said to Moses, “I am who I am.This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you."

So I gather.

Ok then. Just so you know, i didn't asked for what you presuposed that I asked. But I agree with you! We're trying to have a honest debate here, and as long it won't became nasty, I will enjoy it

I hope I don't come across as nasty. Some times I speak a bit strongly. I mean you no harm though.

Firstly, you pointed out an suposed internal contradiction in Christianity, namely "Serve me or you will be punished if you refuse!". You say is extortion, and God is immoral. I tried to give an explanation of the nature of God and his relationship with creation, to show you that this is not at all a immoral extortion from God, and moreover, it's not just a choice, it's a moral choice, the most important moral choice that a man must make.

I don't see that this is a particularly moral choice.

To put this into perspective - I see most of the 10 commandments as a good idea to follow. Don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, and so forth are all moral choices with actual consequences in themselves. I do not see worship as a moral choice as it has no consequence other than offending God.

I can get behind this to some extent in that worshiping God should imply a moral standard that God commands, but the worship itself is not the moral portion. In this case one picks up the moral portion of it along the way. If God did not set a moral standard then the worship alone would be empty, and probably even evil.

Now, both statements that I was making are classical christian teachings. And I posted them in responding to your internal contradiction. When one raises an internal contradiction, one must assume this: "Ok guys, so you believe this and this and this. In believing those things, you have a big discrepancy here, so you are condradicting yourselfs." This is an internal contradiction.
But you aren't doing this. When I say " No, it's okay, look God is this and therefore he must be worshiped, because he is goodness in Himself, so if one choose him, one does a morally perfect choice because he choose good instead of evil" you point out a external contradiction, this is to say something which is suposedly not true outside of christianity.I don't think this is correct Can you see this?
ps:I'm still learning English, so if you see something which you don't understand, point it out!

I understand this as I've outlined above. It's not entirely alien to me. I don't have a problem with God either.

However there is still a problem here as you say it is a choice, then you say God must be worshiped. This is a contradiction, however now I'm not sure if this just comes down to your English or not.

 

[CogentPursuit]

I have faith that people are at least grown enough to handle more than one line of discussion.

I never said I like it either. This is not for my amusement. I have better things to do for that.

They can handle it, but should they have to?

Many christian related threads get hijacked by the God moral delimma. This is nothing new. It is a burden to read through such posts to get to the intended topic. It does not bother me except that it takes away from the integrity of the forum and the threads therin when things like this continue to occur.

 

[LucyJr]

It's an external contradiction.

Then we can leave that aside. In pointing out internal contradictions, you are assuming that the belief system of Christianity it's correct, at least for the sake of the argument. This is to say you can not refute an internal contradiction based on a external contradiction, you can refute it only based on another internal contradiction whithin that system of belief. Why? Because you are trying to show that Christianity is self refutable, it has inconsistency within its very system. That's why pointing out external contradiction in this context it's totally irrelevant.
And of course, I don't run from answering to this question. If you want, we can debate on this, but separate from were we are now.Maybe start a new thread !

So I gather.

I don't understand.

This is actually an internal contradiction because we just got done talking about choice. "Must be" implies that it is mandatory which contradicts the element of choice that you already said is there.

I don't used the word in a "mandatory" sense - worshiping God is a good thing in itself, and I know you have problems seeing this, but be patient, as I try to explain why. So, let's say I want to comit a crime: kill a child. I know that kiling him would be morally evil. Also I know that chosing not to kill him is morally good. So I somehow know that I must not to kill him. This is what I'm meaning by "must". I equate "must" with "the right thing to do". Must is what is morally good. So in saying "God must be worshiped" I'm actually saying that it is morally good to worship God. And this is almost the same thing with what were debating before. God says "Serve me or not". This is a moral choice, as important as any other moral choice, if not much more important.
Now, the question arises: It is really morally perfect and intrinsically good to worship God? I think the answer is pretty simple, yes.

Now, why in Christianity is morally good to serve God? Because God is the absolute standard of goodness!

Remember you have asked this:

Says who? God? Is it evil because God says it is, or is the evil independent of God?

And I answered that neither of these two. God, by his very nature, is the standard of all standards, even of moral standards.
It's not the case that God wills something because is good, nor the case that something is good just because God wills it. Classical theism and Christianity holds this: God wills something because He is good ! He is The Good by his very nature. That is the nature of God in Christianity.
So the real choice is this: If you choose God, you choose good, you choose what is morally intrinsic good. If you reject God, you choose the reverse.
Now about the punishments: let's get back to the child analogy. If I kill that child, the law will punish me, will imprison me. In some countries, they will even kill me. Why? Because I did something what was morally wrong, evil. I could assume that I was forced to do good because of the law? I could accuse the police that law forced me? It's the same thing with God.

In this case one picks up the moral portion of it along the way. If God did not set a moral standard then the worship alone would be empty, and probably even evil.

Like I said, God did not set a moral standard. Morality is not because God said so, it is because God is who He is! This is called the metaphysical necessity of goodnes of God.
Exodus 3:14
"God said to Moses, “I am who I am.This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you."

I hope I don't come across as nasty. Some times I speak a bit strongly. I mean you no harm though.

I am glad that we can have a good discussion .

 

[sprinkles]

Then we can leave that aside. In pointing out internal contradictions, you are assuming that the belief system of Christianity it's correct, at least for the sake of the argument. This is to say you can not refute an internal contradiction based on a external contradiction, you can refute it only based on another internal contradiction whithin that system of belief. Why? Because you are trying to show that Christianity is self refutable, it has inconsistency within its very system. That's why pointing out external contradiction in this context it's totaly irrelevant.

I disagree. Internal consistency has value in comparison to external consistency. Something being internally consistent does not make that thing externally true. If this were the case then you cannot compare religions as you would have to assume all of them are correct within their framework and would not be able to choose one religion against the other, or compare religion to what works for you in reality.

I'm not assuming it is correct. You do not need to assume that an entire set of propositions are correct and in fact you cannot assume that, because if you assume that the framework is correct then all propositions become true. Instead I'm verifying what is taught, seeing that it is consistent, and actually saying that I find it to be wrong.

I cannot continue this discussion as long as you hold this idea because it is entirely incompatible.

Edit:
And actually no, I'm not trying to show that it is self refutable either. That is a futile practice. In theory anything can be made to not be self refutable so you cannot depend on self refutation.

 

[sprinkles]

They can handle it, but should they have to?

Many christian related threads get hijacked by the God moral delimma. This is nothing new. It is a burden to read through such posts to get to the intended topic. It does not bother me except that it takes away from the integrity of the forum and the threads therin when things like this continue to occur.

I've given this some consideration and my response is that life integrity takes precedence over forum integrity.

I'd imagine this is why such a phenomenon occurs. This is important to people because entire ways of living hinge on it, so of course people will speak up to find their place.

Yes it is a burden but it's nothing in comparison to not knowing where to go or what to believe, and receiving 'guidance' from people who you aren't even sure that you can trust.

Finding what works for you is a big deal with very serious implications.

 

[LucyJr]

I disagree. Internal consistency has value in comparison to external consistency.

I disagree. If it would have value, it wouldn't be an internal contradiction, it would be an external one.This is to say, that is why is an internal contradiction.

Something being internally consistent does not make that thing externally true.

I didn't said that, nor I do believe that. That would be fallacious.

If this were the case then you cannot compare religions as you would have to assume all of them are correct within their framework and would not be able to choose one religion against the other, or compare religion to what works for you in reality.

Well, comparating religions would be finding incossistency between them, this is meaning outside of them. Morever, internal contradictions when comparing religions does not exist, nor when you compare a religion with atheism, because one must switch the comparation to reality. This is to say you search for internal contradiction within the system of reality.

I'm not assuming it is correct. You do not need to assume that an entire set of propositions are correct and in fact you cannot assume that, because if you assume that the framework is correct then all propositions become true.

Firstly, this is a logical fallacy. Assuming one set of proposition to be true does't make anyone of them true. A lot of christians assume that Christianity is true, does that make Christianity true? A lot of aitheists assume that God does not exist. Does that mean God don't exists?Also, a lot of christians assume that atheism is false. Does that make atheism false?
Secondly, when someone points to an internal contradiction - which by the way, it wouldn't be internal if one does not assume that the other set of propositions would be true except that contradiction - someone necessarely presuppose that the other truth claims of that system of belief are true.
To make this clear: when you say God it's forcing us to worship Him, you assume many things: you assume that the God of the Bible exists- because if He wouldn't exists, He wouldn't force us, you assume there is hell, and its treatening existence is fearful for anyone, because if it were not, we would be so happy. Can you see this?
You don't believe that the Christian God exists, arent't you? If you would believe this, you would be a christian. Nor do you believe in hell, am I right? All these things you assume to be true to point out an internal contradiction in Christianity. You say something like this: "Aha so you believe this and this. Ok, well within you very beliefs, here is a big discrepancy. How comes this and this, assuming that you guys belief all this???"

Moreover, when you point out an external contradiction from Christianity you don't make anything surprising, because you are not a christian, so the whole Christianity is actually contradicting with your belief system. Can you see this ?

And actually no, I'm not trying to show that it is self refutable either. That is a futile practice.

Well I don't know about you, but if I manage to show an internal contradiction wich is valid in atheism for example, that would make atheism self refutable, which eman atheism would contradict itself. You say, futile practice - I say good practice. I think is just comes down to preference.
And yes, I agree with you that we shouldn't continue, if this is not nailed down.

 

[LucyJr]

The problem with Hell is an ethical problem related to religions in which portrayals of Hell are ostensibly cruel, and are thus inconsistent with the concepts of a just, moral and omnibenevolent God. The problem of Hell revolves around four key points: Hell exists in the first place, some people go there, there is no escape, and it is punishment for actions or inactions done on Earth.
The concept that nonbelievers of a particular religion face damnation is called special salvation. The concept that all are saved regardless of belief is referred to as universal reconciliation. The minority Christian doctrine that sinners are destroyed rather than punished eternally is referred to as annihilationism or conditional immorality.
There are several major issues to the problem of Hell. The first is whether the existence of Hell is compatible with justice. The second is whether it is compatible with God's mercy, especially as articulated in Christianity. A third issue, particular to Christianity, is whether Hell is actually populated, or if God will ultimately restore all immortal souls (universal reconciliation) in the world to come.
Criticisms of the doctrines of Hell can focus on the intensity or eternity of its torments, and arguments surrounding all these issues can invoke appeals to the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence of God. In some aspects, the problem of Hell is similar to the problem of evil, assuming the suffering of Hell is something God could have prevented; The discussion regarding the problem of evil may then also be of interest for the problem of Hell.
The punishment of Hell is disproportionate to any crimes that could be committed, an overkill. Because human beings have a finite lifespan, they can commit only a finite number of sins, yet Hell is an infinite punishment.
Another argument against the justice of Hell is that humans are not culpable for their sins, since sinning is unavoidable to them. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Epistle to the Romans, 3:23).
Oh but what about our “free will”?
An Omniscient God would be aware of the future choice of the individual human's free will, to accept or reject God, prior to the creation of the individual human. This Omniscient God would then exercise his/her own free will in choosing to create a human that he/she knows, a priori, would be condemned to eternal torture. God could, in this circumstance, simply choose not to create the human. Such a choice would be incompatible with God's infinite mercy or omnibenevolence.
Some modern theorists claim that, even if Hell is seen as a choice rather than as punishment, it would be unreasonable for God to give such flawed and ignorant creatures as ourselves the responsibility of our eternal destinies.
In other words - God would not allow one to be eternally damned by a decision made under the wrong or flawed circumstances.
Well you could say that once a person finally and competently chooses to reject God, out of respect for the person's autonomy, God allows them to be annihilated. The fact that one must believe in God or be subject to eternal damnation or annihilation, even if the choice is completely made by a person, is often perceived as a scare tactic that inevitably forces or scares one into having to believe in God, and God would seem corrupt and evil in saying, "You can believe in me or not, but if you do not, you will either suffer for all eternity in Hell or else be destroyed or obliterated out-of-existence". The argument runs flaw in that as a matter of fact, God does not say "you can believe in me or not”. This rebuttal seems to work against itself by implying that since God does not give any other option, humans have no choice but to believe in God to enter Heaven; this view would ultimately brand God as evil for demanding worship on the threat of eternal damnation or annihilation.

Usualy, the problem that people have with hell is either an emotional problem or an intelectual problem, which is more rare. I'm assuming you posted here the intelectual problem. To respond, I'll first ask you a questions:
Do you think is highly improbable that hell exists given the Christian God, or do you believe it's logically impossible that a hell could coexist with the Christian God?

 

[sprinkles]

I disagree. If it would have value, it wouldn't be an internal contradiction, it would be an external one.This is to say, that is why is an internal contradiction.

I didn't said that, nor I do believe that. That would be fallacious.

From my view you did say it, but maybe you didn't mean to, or maybe I didn't understand you.

Well, comparating religions would be finding incossistency between them, this is meaning outside of them.

Well! You were just telling me you can't do that.

This is to say you can not refute an internal contradiction based on a external contradiction, you can refute it only based on another internal contradiction whithin that system of belief.

Explain to me how you did not say what you did say.

Morever, internal contradictions when comparing religions does not exist, nor when you compare a religion with atheism, because one must switch the comparation to reality. This is to say you search for internal contradiction within the system of reality.

Contradictions do not disappear. It is false to say contradictions do not exist when comparing religions. They do not suddenly vanish when you change your scope because the doctrines of religion exist in reality.

If you find a contradiction in Atheism, that contradiction does not stop existing when you change your focus to something else. There's no reality switching either. This is an abstraction above and within reality - superimposed with reality because you're discussing it in reality.

Firstly, this is a logical fallacy. Assuming one set of proposition to be true does't make anyone of them true.

Assuming the propositions are true and valid leads to assuming that the conclusion is true. This is a fundamental rule of logic.

If you're looking for the actual truth of the conclusion then you cannot assume that any propositions are true or false, you must test them to find their validity.

A lot of christians assume that Christianity is true, does that make Christianity true?

Are you telling me you don't know? Or are you telling me that it might not be?

A lot of aitheists assume that God does not exist. Does that mean God don't exists?

No it doesn't. So why assume?

Also, a lot of christians assume that atheism is false. Does that make atheism false?

No it doesn't. So why assume?

Secondly, when someone points to an internal contradiction - which by the way, it wouldn't be internal if one does not assume that the other set of propositions would be true except that contradiction - someone necessarely presuppose that the other truth claims of that system of belief are true.

No. Not necessarily. If I say I ate cheese, then I say I ate bacon, then I say I did not eat bacon I will have contradicted myself about bacon. You do not have to assume it is true that I ate cheese in order to see the contradiction with bacon.

To make this clear: when you say God it's forcing us to worship Him, you assume many things: you assume that the God of the Bible exists- because if He wouldn't exists, He wouldn't force us, you assume there is hell, and its treatening existence is fearful for anyone, because if it were not, we would be so happy. Can you see this?

Yes I necessarily make the assumption that God exists. That does not mean I necessarily make the assumption that the Bible is correct about God, or that God is truthful about what God says, or anything of the sort. You are grasping at straws.

You don't believe that the Christian God exists, arent't you?

I don't know. I think this God could possibly exist. And I think Christianity could be wrong about this God.

Just like if one person claims that Bob is 20 feet tall, and another claims that Bob is only 7 feet tall, they're both talking about the same Bob, and maybe one of them has it wrong. Do you understand?

If you would believe this, you would be a christian. Nor do you believe in hell, am I right?

I believe hell is wrong. If it exists it is still wrong and I will gladly go there if I deserve it.

All these things you assume to be true to point out an internal contradiction in Christianity.

Not necessarily.

Moreover, when you point out an external contradiction from Christianity you don't make anything surprising, because you are not a christian, so the whole Christianity is actually contradicting with your belief system. Can you see this?

Yes, I do see it. I'm willfully engineering it so of course I see it!

Well I don't know about you, but if I manage to show an internal contradiction wich is valid in atheism for example, that would make atheism self refutable, which eman atheism would contradict itself. You say, futile practice - I say good practice. I think is just comes down to preference.
And yes, I agree with you that we shouldn't continue, if this is not nailed down.

Some things are self refutable and this is one of the things you first look for, but you cannot depend on it because not all things are self refutable. It's called getting your story straight - people do it all the time.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

Also it is just my opinion that all systems are probably wrong to some degree or another, so it is entirely valid to compare internal contradictions for external ones to see which one makes more sense to you based on how close it is.

Basically you can find one more consistent than another, a comparison which you could not make if you ignored internal consistency while making external comparisons.

 

[LucyJr]

Explain to me how you did not say what you did say.

Explain to me how you did not say what you did say.

Are you saying I contradicted myself? Can you show me?

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

Also it is just my opinion that all systems are probably wrong to some degree or another, so it is entirely valid to compare internal contradictions for external ones to see which one makes more sense to you based on how close it is.

Basically you can find one more consistent than another, a comparison which you could not make if you ignored internal consistency while making external comparisons.

You would do that for your personal philosophy, for developing your own worldview. But when you try to find bugs in a system, this thing won't work.

 

[LucyJr]

From my view you did say it, but maybe you didn't mean to, or maybe I didn't understand you.

No, I didn't say that. To one who does not believe in Christianity, the whole Christianity worldview is false, so it is a huuuuuuge contadiction with his own belief system. But in finding internal contradiction, one must assume/pretend that the whole system is
good, except that very little contradiction he thinks he found it.

Assuming the propositions are true and valid leads to assuming that the conclusion is true. This is a fundamental rule of logic.

Nope, I don't think so. It's only when propositions are true the conclusion is true, not when someone assumes that propositions are true.

Contradictions do not disappear. It is false to say contradictions do not exist when comparing religions. They do not suddenly vanish when you change your scope because the doctrines of religion exist in reality.

Yes, you are right here. But they only exists within that system, because it is an internal contradiction. They even give it a name to not confuse it with an external one.

If you find a contradiction in Atheism, that contradiction does not stop existing when you change your focus to something else. There's no reality switching either. This is an abstraction above and within reality - superimposed with reality because you're discussing it in reality.

Again, I didn't said that. I said that internal contradictions don't exists when the system is compared to something external, in the sense that it will not have any value, because is it in its nature-internal contradiction-to be part of a system. That internal contradiction in Atheism won't be really a contradiction with an internal contradiction from Christianity, and neither it will be a contradiction with an external contradiction from Christianity. Internal contradiction means something within that system of belief.

No. Not necessarily. If I say I ate cheese, then I say I ate bacon, then I say I did not eat bacon I will have contradicted myself about bacon. You do not have to assume it is true that I ate cheese in order to see the contradiction with bacon.

I don't know how to reply at this for now. I'll reply later.

Yes I necessarily make the assumption that God exists. That does not mean I necessarily make the assumption that the Bible is correct about God, or that God is truthful about what God says, or anything of the sort. You are grasping at straws.

Why you make necessarilly the assumption that God exists? Because you believe that a God exists, but not the God of Christianity?
I know about all the other things you not are not making assumptions, and I think you make a logical mistake here. If you point a internal contradiction in Christianity, you must presuppose/assume/pretend that all Christianity is true, except that internal contradiction. If you don't suppose that it's all true, then you can't say you found a internal contradiction, but just a contradiction. Even in that general contradiction, yuo will assume some things.

I don't know. I think this God could possibly exist. And I think Christianity could be wrong about this God.

Same with me. But I think the reverse: that you are wrong.

I believe hell is wrong. If it exists it is still wrong and I will gladly go there if I deserve it.

At first view, I would say you find yourself into an odd position, and you are contradicting yourself, but then again, I don't know what is your view on the moral law.

Not necessarily.

For that specific reason to demonstrate an internal contradiction, you did, trust me. Anybody would do that, by necessity.

Some things are self refutable and this is one of the things you first look for, but you cannot depend on it because not all things are self refutable. It's called getting your story straight - people do it all the time.

I don't get it.

 

[Skarekrow]

Usualy, the problem that people have with hell is either an emotional proble or an intelectual problem, which is more rare. I'm assuming you posted here the intelectual problem. To respond, I'll first ask you a questions:
Do you think is highly improbable that hell exists given the Christian God, or do you believe it's logically impossible that a hell could coexist with the Christian God?

Both logically...(as logical as an illogical, idealogical, and mythological thought can be argued) and easily improbable....not “highly improbable” but easily improbable.
According to some, God's infinite dignity requires that any transgression against him warrants an infinite punishment... An omnipotent being, by definition, cannot be harmed. Therefore, by condemning souls to an eternal damnation, God would be punishing souls for actions that had no effect on him.

Another issue is the problem of harmonizing the existence of Hell with God's infinite mercy or omnibenevolence.
There are two problems - the first which grants that God could indeed convert the heart of every sinner and yet leave the freedom of the will in its integrity. In the Thomistic tradition, God grants sufficient grace for salvation to all people, yet it only effects salvations for some. Secondly as I wrote above, if God is Omniscient, then the fact that he created us, knowing we would sin, knowing Hitler would be Hitler, etc...and then knowing that said person would be condemned to Hell, would be incompatible with the attributes given to God, i.e. - mercy or omnibenevolence. Why then wouldn’t God simply not create that person?
Even if Hell is seen as a choice rather than as punishment, it would be unreasonable for God to give such flawed and ignorant creatures as ourselves the responsibility of our eternal destinies.
Then you have to take into account that a person is not always correct in their thinking, such as when someone is depressed....certainly God would know that you were depressed when you shot yourself in the head, so then why further punish someone in Hell for such a thing done under flawed circumstances? Once again it make’s Hell unreasonable.
Even if someone denies God under favorable circumstances, given the choice to be tortured in Hell or not, and suppose that God respected your decision enough to allow you to burn for eternity. This is still no choice....this is an ultimatum, a scare tactic to force someone to do what you want them to....to force someone into believing in God. That would corrupt God. Since humans would have no other choice but to believe in him in order to enter Heaven, then God would be corrupt for demanding worship.
I guess if I am anything, I would be considered a Universalist when it comes to the Christian beliefs that I have.(I have many other beliefs as well I might add)
Universal Reconciliation is the belief that NO ONE will be “left behind”, that all will receive salvation. To me, this makes the most logical sense, as does it make sense in my heart. I don’t believe God to be a vengeful God...I don’t even think people who did horrible wicked things in this life will be punished. I think we will all go to “heaven” because I believe that I am to learn something here...as is everyone else...I think it is different for each person...but I think that one day it will all enter into a sort of “collective consciousness” separate, yet one. Those things that were committed in hatred, or evil...were committed by all of us in a way, no one is truly separate although I do think we have individual “souls”. I think those acts will mean nothing as we move on into the next realm....this was pre-school, before our next step.

 

[CogentPursuit]

I don't get it.

The idea is that when you have a moral standard or rule you live by and you then choose ingnore that standard for whatever reason, you become contradictory to yourself. A person cannot say they are a humanitarian and then own a slave. God cannot say he is love and that he is merciful and just, and create eternal punishment for a finite sin.

 

[sprinkles]

You would do that for your personal philosophy, for developing your own worldview. But when you try to find bugs in a system, this thing won't work.

This is all about worldview, otherwise it's nothing to me.

There's no pragmatic use for me to debug a system that doesn't concern me. I've got better things to do.

No, I didn't say that. To one who does not believe in Christianity, the whole Christianity worldview is false, so it is a huuuuuuge contadiction with his own belief system. But in finding internal contradiction, one must assume/pretend that the whole system is
good, except that very little contradiction he thinks he found it.

I disagree on both counts.

Nope, I don't think so. It's only when propositions are true the conclusion is true, not when someone assumes that propositions are true.

Wrong. That is not how logic works. If it had to be the way you describe, then you could never have a hypothetical. For example if a story says "The earth spun backwards this day. Steve saw the sun rise from the west. Steve was awake at the time." you can infer that if the earth spun backwards then Steve would see that, and if Steve sees it then Steve is awake.

None of this is actually true. But if for the sake of argument you consider the premises to be true, then the conclusion must also be considered true as well. This is how it works.

Yes, you are right here. But they only exists within that system, because it is an internal contradiction. They even give it a name to not confuse it with an external one.

Internal contradictions are not special in any way. If you catch a murderer, it does not matter if the contradiction is in the story of how they didn't do it, or if the contradiction is from DNA evidence. Both lead to the same end.

I'm skipping ahead now because some of this is pointless.

Why you make necessarilly the assumption that God exists?

So that I will not make a choice based on the chance of God not existing. I will not say "God doesn't exist, so I don't have to worry about rejecting it."

I assume that it exists and reject it to its face.

I know about all the other things you not are not making assumptions, and I think you make a logical mistake here. If you point a internal contradiction in Christianity, you must presuppose/assume/pretend that all Christianity is true, except that internal contradiction. If you don't suppose that it's all true, then you can't say you found a internal contradiction, but just a contradiction. Even in that general contradiction, yuo will assume some things.

I still think you are incorrect and this is pointless.

I don't get it.

It means that people can be convincing liars and give you a story that you will believe, is entirely consistent internally, but is completely false. So you cannot depend on internal consistency.

 

[CogentPursuit]

It means that people can be convincing liars and give you a story that you will believe, is entirely consistent internally, but is completely false. So you cannot depend on internal consistency.

Seems I made a fool of myself but that's what I get for jumping in.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]

You're so much better at this than I am. I'm way too emotionally connected to make a whole lot of sense like you do, but I'm trying to fix that.

 

[CogentPursuit]

I still think you are incorrect and this is pointless.

She is right for the most part but seems to be ignoring that if too many walls are are damaged or the foundation is cracked the integrity of the building becomes suspect. Eventually a strong wind may just knock it down.

 

[sprinkles]

Seems I made a fool of myself but that's what I get for jumping in.

Don't worry about it. What you said is also valid and was worth saying IMO.