pianofrieak2

God caused it by creating it. He created non-Christians when he created the universe. Therefore, he caused them to go to hell. But that's not the problem. The problem is that god claims to be good, so either he is hypocritical, or our notions of heaven/hell/god are inaccurate. Good gosh, Ghost has answered this question NUMEROUS TIMES. God knowing what is going to happen does not mean you DID NOT MAKE THE CONSCIOUS DECISION NOT TO BELIEVE. I've already addressed your second question. You keep throwing the word "good" around when you aren't really thinking about what "good" is. How do you know what good is? What's your standard? Now, I'll wait and see what your answer is, but let me readress my question. God is good. He is everything good. But God is also just. Therefore, anything just is automatically good. Because everything just is good, there must be a reward for the good and the bad actions. This is called heaven and hell. The FIRST good one can make is to enter into the covenant between the Father and the Son which cleanses one from all sin (past, present, and future). Questions? See topic by meesa. Now that one is perfect in the eyes of God, one can enter heaven. Those who have even one sin have, as the Bible says, "broken all of the Ten commandments". Therefore, hell is the natural result of sin and separation of God.

I felt meesa's post was appropriate so let me put it here. Just so all you know, my comments are underlined, important statements or subheadings are in bold, included by me). BTW, anesthesia, I wasn't talking about Pascal's Wager. I disagree with it too, but its basic conclusion remains the same. The atheist has the most to lose whereas the Christian loses nothing if they're wrong. Surely you can't disagree with that statement.

Wow, I'm still surprised at my remark about the goodness of God. Yay! I agree. The atheist has the most to lose. He has a 0/100 probability of winning, while a you have a 1/100 probability of winning, assuming there are 100 total denominations, each with varying requirements for getting into heaven. It would be wise for him to abandon his ways and follow the right denomination of the right religion. Therefore, I ask you again, which religion is the right one? Bear, if you really care about finding out which religion is the right one, why do you keep arguing? Seriously. If you DID care, you would see what we have to say, do some outside research, and then find out. Instead of just arguing with us to argue and then asking us why we can't convince you, why don't you actually do what you say. Do some outside research and ask questions when they arise. Your next example is actually really good. Let me explain it to you (since you're probably oh-so eager to hear what I have to say)

Unless your view of "good" is wrong. Your whole argument of God being good is flawed. You say if God was "good" that he would let everyone into heaven. Actually that's wrong. If God was good, then He would be just. Because God is just, only the perfect (sinless) people can get into heaven. Therefore, God IS good by refusing the imperfect into heaven. If he knows what choices I am going to make before I make them, then what free will do I have? Again, what does foreknowledge have to do with the future? You guys totally missed Ghost's comment. He said that you are STILL MAKING THE CHOICE EVEN THOUGH GOD KNOWS WHAT THE CHOICE WILL BE. Altering the future, destiny, etc. are all meaningless because you are still making the choice. As long as you are making the choice, you have free will. No, a mentally challenged person has no capability to understand how the sun works. In contrast, an atheist or agnostic does have the capability to believe in Christianity. The problem is that one cannot believe in something until its internal, illogical convolutions (e.g. predestination) has been sorted out. Of course, that is not likely to happen because religion, unlike science, refuses to modify and improve itself. Truth has no need to "modify itself." Why should I? That question has never been answered by any religion. I know that some religions are different from others, but I do not know which one is correct. bear, the atheist is the one who must defend his religion. The Christian has no need because if he is wrong, he still wins. Whereas the atheist has the most to lose. You are the one who must defend your side, not the Christian. :wink:

Let me clarify. God is good. His nature determines morality, so He's not really moral. He is good, but only He determines what is good and bad. Anything that is unlike God is "bad" while anything that is like God is good. God is love, so love is good. God is truth, so truth is good. Conversely, lying is bad. Etc. While Ghostranger pretty much hit the nail on the head, we are now getting into Calvinism. You're talking about double predestination, but let's not go there. It's too complicated. God's foreknowledge does not take away free will. It is God's free will that enables us to have true love, for robots cannot "love." True love is not forced, which is why God had free will. He wants love. And He gives love. Unconditionally. But because He is righteous, hell exists. If you believe in heaven and God, then you MUST believe in hell, for God is righteous (cannot reward evil) and pure (cannot be in contact with evil). Those who have not accepted Jesus as their perfect sacrifice are tainted with sin whereas followers of Christ have accepted that sacrifice to atone for their sin. When God looks at His followers, He sees His perfect Son's blood. Perfect.

If you don't mind me asking, how did you reach the conclusion that God would not be a person, but rather an idea? And how is people believing in a personal God justification for hating them? You said you hate organized religion, but is the belief in a personal God the only reason why you do? You say that people should have their own ideas and morals - what if their idea is that a personal God exists and their morals are that we should obey it? Nice point, Astra. Well made. It's ironic how intolerant the people who claim tolerance are.

OK, hazardmaster, this is fun debating with you, but you're (no offense) ridiculous. You keep asking these questions of "how do we know" and I tell you. Then, you say "how do you know that?". We can argue about the nature of knowledge, the absolute nature of truth, and debate modernism v. postmodernism but it all ends up as moot. BTW, I'm not going to quote you because no one knows what we're talking about if I quote you. Just pay attention to what I say. The Bible says heaven and hell exist. I know they exist because I believe the Bible to be 100% true in all cases, and the Bible says it exists. It doesn't exist because I believe it to be true. After all, it would still exist even if I didn't believe in it, but that's how I know it to be true. Let me be perfectly honest with you: It doesn't matter what you believe because truth is independent of what people believe about it. Gravity exists whether or not I believe it to be true. Truth is truth. God is truth. Your statement about "I have the right to and will" is what love is all about. God wants you to have choice, which you do, because love can only exist in choice. Whether or not you believe is your decision, but I wouldn't make it too lightly. This statement I will quote. It's not a random book; It's a children's Bible. You're exaggerating (sp?) to put up more of a fight. I'm sorry, hazard, but that was the most ridiculous response I've heard in my entire debating here in the OT forums. A children's Bible has pictures. The reason the editors of the book put a white man with a brown moustache dressed in white clothing is to make Jesus more like a Father to the kids. After all, God is our heavenly father. It makes him become more personal, a very good trait in my opinion. I'm exaggerating? Hardly. I'm giving you the reason behind it. This statement I also will quote: Prove those eyewitnesses told the truth. I can't prove they lied, either. But what's unproven I will not believe in. Why? Why would you not believe an eyewitness? Why would you keep doubting everything? If you doubt everything, you don't believe in anything! I have no idea why you are being so stubborn, ridiculous, and doubting to everything. If I believed your statement, I might as well say, "How do I know your thoughts to be true?" When you say Jesus can't be both fully man and fully human, I say that the Bible says it and it must be true for Jesus to do what the Bible said He did. I can't explain it because it doesn't make sense in our universe of 4 dimensions. (More according to string theory but physical world is what I'm getting at). As for your point about rats trying to operate a computer, I will tell you the history of Christianity. First off, Christianity grew and grew because the people showed what they believed. They lived it. Then the church got in power, but, as we all know, power corrupts. The church was corrupted (really, the leaders were corrupted). Then, Martin Luther came and eliminated the need for clergy to tell us what to believe. The church began to lose its power over people, and natural leaders rose up to compete with the church. That's not a bad thing, for God said we need government, family, and the church. Eliminating one of those is bad. The church has lived in its decaying state for too long. Too long have Christians been ignorant. Now, the church is educating its people in philosophy, theology, ethics, bioethics, and all kinds of beliefs. It is finally rising up to its duty. And you still have an old-fashioned view of the church. That view may be prevalent where you live but it is changing. You also need to see the new view of the church. As you hopefully can see, I'm trying to give you some information. Whether you choose to listen to it is none of my concern. I've already said why I believe the other spiritual realm exists and has more power than our physical realm. You can ask questions all you want, but in the end, you are stuck. You can't disprove the spiritual realm with physical instruments. So let me turn your question around: How do you know the spiritual realm doesn't exist? "You talk but you don't explain. Back yourself up."

I still think I'm wasting my time, but here it goes. First of all, heaven is a wonderful place. It's a place God created to be worshipped and to reward those who chose Him. Hell is the exact opposite, where God punishes those who do not choose Him. Because God is everything good, the absence of Him is everything bad and terrifying and evil. If you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior and give Him full reign of your life, then you are "saved" and have entered into the covenant between Jesus and His Father when He died on the cross. Your salvation is now sealed. If you choose to live your own way (which is being rebellious and sinful), then you have chosen to live without God. That is your choice and results in the place we call hell. No offense, but why would you want God in your realm? It would mean he could be tainted by the sin of this world. It would mean He isn't big enough to have His own realm. Besides, He can still interact in our realm even though He's in the spiritual realm. You can refuse to believe in God. Isn't that the wonderful thing? Freedom of choice is the best thing God has given us, for without it there is no true love. And love is what Jesus died for. Because this point is so irrelevant, let me just say one thing: Jesus has a dark brown moustache with white skin. How arabic is that? Not at all. Be careful of the deceptive pictures in children's books! One word: EYEWITNESSES WHO WROTE DOWN THEIR ACCOUNT. [qipte]Jesus's birth: How can Jesus be both fully God AND fully man? It makes no sense. It goes against what you said in your previous paragraph: If he was fully God, he couldn't die. You may retaliate saying "I said he was fully God AND fully man" or something like that. But like I said previous, how is that possible? It stills does not answer my question: how could he have even been born from a virgin birth? nd if he was going to be both man and God, God would have needed to breed with a human? Hey, you're getting it! Jesus had to be fully man to die and fully God to redeem the world. He HAD to be both. Otherwise, He could not do what He said He did. However, just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true. Heck, no one UNDERSTANDS quantum mechanics or the super-string theory, yet we believe it to be true. :shock: Jesus would never have created a theology that no one would understand. After all, He said we are to be like children. Why would we be incapable of understanding and yet have them be our paradigms? I'd recommend pming me for other options. God is God. Remember, God is not limited by time or space. After all, He is everywhere in time. Omnipresent and omniscient and all-powerful. This other realm has other species: Angels and Demons. Satan is a fallen angel, and he has no power other than that given to Him by God. Do not place God and Satan on an equal playing field. He is merely a pawn used for God's purposes. I picture Satan as the dog in sheep herding. The dog goes around nipping and the sheep's legs to keep them together and in line. Yet, he is nothing without the master. The master herder could get rid of him in a second if he really wanted to. Satan is there to prove our devotion, keep us following God's will, and give us the option of choice. Yes, this other realm can give you divine powers. I've actually healed somebody. For real. I'm not being holier-than-thou or any of that crap. And I'm not talking about televangelists or Christian tv. I'm talking about the real deal. But, really, it was all God anyway. I was just merely a vessel. :wink:

So God is irrelevant to us, so why do you care about it so much? What is "spiritualÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Wow, you guys still ask this question even though it's been answered before. Well, let me tell you. Again. 1. God is spiritual. 2. Spiritual is not materialistic. 3. God by nature is uncreated. Otherwise there would be something bigger than God. 4. Thus, God is outside the realm of time AND OF MATTER. Hence, your argument doesn't even exist according to reality. For one thing, there are many versions of God. Hindus, Muslims, Judaism, Christianity, Wiccans, pagans, etc. Having Christianity talk about different views of God is an important piece but should not be surprising. It should be expected, for God is kind of a hard topic. Jesus was born of a virgin birth because if He was human, he couldn't redeem the world. If he was fully God, he couldn't die. Thus, Jesus HAD to be fully God and fully man. Besides, the Bible says that the sins of the father are transferred onto the children. If God was His father and His father had no sin, then Jesus had no sin nature. :wink: A big flaw in Christianity I believe is how would somebody record what happened? Answer that? It's called eyewitnesses. For one thing, nobody knows what color skin they had. Maybe they were made black and then when they moved to Denmark and upper Europe, their skin turned white and pale. Who knows? Your premise is refuted, so your conclusion cannot have any support. :) God is spiritual. Not materialistic. Thus, you have to use scientific instruments to prove God. You can't use scientific instruments to prove God. It's, like Ghostranger said, "trying to prove the atom by theology." Um...if you could come back, what's the point? Then it's not real punishment because you have the option of coming back. You're almost right in the heaven-hell thing, but since you don't care, I'm not going to tel you about it. It's like speaking to deaf ears, as the Bible says. That's real scientific. Nice logic. How do we know your story is true? Wrong. Just use some brains, here, buddy. It was in the Middle East. Thus, the OT was written in Hebrew. The NT (New Testament) is written in Greek. That's why there are so many denominations of Christianity...the weird translations and beliefs about God from the translations. And I believe the Chinese thing since they have around 1.5 billion people.

Exactly - these "calculations" would take forever and are simply impractical. That's why I prefer dutiful morality systems like Kantianism, even though i don't totally agree with that one. What is kantianism?

I don't know about that; how about the emotional stress from something attempting to kill them, that is quite detrimental to the victim and everyone around them. WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the difference between thinking about killing someone and physically preparing to kill someone (without going through with it); both solely live inside your domain. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t prosecute someone before they commit a crime. There is nothing wrong with consequentialism, much like deontology; both have gaping flaws but both have uses nonetheless. Utilitarianism taken literally is silly; if you did take it literally then you should go to the nearest hospital and give away your organs to everyone (the number of lives you save could easily make up for your single life). Utilitarianism is all about predictions. You are predicting the good and bad outcomes of your act, but what happens if your predictions are wrong? Of course, no one knows everything. And everyone is limited by their own experiences. Limitations. God doesn't have too many of those. :)

His analogy still works. God is a spiritual being. Spiritual is in another realm than material. Hence, God is not a material being even though He can create material things. God, after all, is pretty powerful. :wink:

If God created all things, then He is outside of nature. By definition, He is spirit which is not materialistic and can never be recognized using physical instruments. Can He not exist in a different, spiritual, dimension? If scientists believe in 26 dimensions as a part of the superstring theory, then why not more in other dimensions? What started the collisions of universes associated with string theory? Einstein's theory of special relativity proves that time, space, and matter all had a starting point of which case nothing but a non-material being can create. The bigger question is which God to choose from. No, they're not the same, as you can read the past 37 pages. :wink:

After talking with one of my atheistic friends (who's wicked smart!!!), he said he believed in utilitarianism for morals. No suprise there...gotta believe in something. But, anyway, this isn't a debate against atheists. He simply brought up this interesting point on utilitarianism. How that's the best way to determine morality and all that. BTW, for all of you that don't know what utilitarianism is, it basically determines morality (what's right and wrong) by saying whichever option of your choice has the most good for the most people. That's a quick definition. Anyway, I then went to another Christian friend who said utilitarianism is outdated. *GASP* He said that robots are much more efficient than humans, and showed how machines and factories are going into China and India because operating machinery requires no special skills and those people will work for very cheap. 10 cents an hour! I suppose this question is most likely gravitating towards philosophy majors, those interested in theology, and, of course, atheists who believe in a certain type of morality even if it is nihilism. If not utilitarianism, then what? Just wondering! :)

I'm really sorry to hear about Joey. Is there anything I can pray for you about?

Please at least sound somewhat mature. :?

Hmm...shopping cart, eh? That's not too bad but 4 months is a long time. About the speeding ticket...that's 33 mph over!! My parents would have killed me if I ever did that. So I don't feel sorry for you about that. Geez...2 months for going 33 over? That's not bad at all as compared to 4 months for hitting a shopping cart!! Still, be nice to your parents. Honor them. All that good stuff. :D

The government doesn't care...it's the colleges who do. (and, of course, you for bragging rights). Basically, they're a tricky subject. In my opinion, you need them to determine aptitudes but they can be wrong. For instance, on the SAT (I work at a college prep place), I have found that the best way to score high is to take classes and learn how to do the problems. If you don't do that, then it's extremely difficult to do well. (It is possible but unlikely). As for the ACT, it is a more straightforward test. The SAT has all kinds of tricks and traps to get you to miss problems. That's why they're completely different tests. For most of those standardized tests, I do extremely well. I honestly think their numbers are messed up though...on one test I took it said I was better than 98% of all college-bound juniors (92% as a sophomore). Now, no offense, but that's just screwed up. It's like the government. You gotta have it but you can always complain about it. :wink:

That thing about Hitler sounds terrible, but when we are all compared to the perfect Christ, we're all terribly stained with our sins. Yes, even Mother Theresa. That's why His grace reaches to everyone, including those we have trouble associating it with. BTW, allow me to make a correction to your statement? By saying you must follow in Jesus Christ's teachings, it seems that you're becoming closer to the works-based part. I believe that works must always accompany true belief (for Jesus said you can judge a tree by its fruit), but be careful about straying from the grace. Grace is the only reason why we even have hope. Without grace, we live in a hopeless world of tolerance. Without Christ, we are all just animals with no purpose in living. This is why we must tell others about Jesus. They're dying without Him. "Grace is what makes Christianity different from every other religion. They all have a list of requirements in order to be accepted. Christianity does not do this. Instead, it offers you grace, which allows you to have a relationship with God in spite of the fact that you do not deserve it." ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅIn the world it is called tolerance but in hell it is called despair. The sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, enjoys nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, but remains alive because there is nothing which it would die for.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Actually, as a fellow Christian, I couldn't disagree more. Christianity is completely different from all other religions. After all, they all require works to get into heaven. Islam-good greater than bad=heaven Hinduism-good=reincarnated until heaven Buddhism-don't believe in heaven but believe in good works Christianity-Works are useless...salvation comes only through belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world.

Don't worry about Weezcake, he's a PCS (poor college student). :P Actually, 5 courses for $65 isn't bad at all. 13 bucks a person isn't bad for a date or something...to go with your friends is kinda expensive but doable. I'm surprised he puts that much technology and still charges that low. I thought for sure it'd be a lot more. Anyway, that's kinda cool! :)

Good gosh, man! If you're going to have a viewpoint, please at least back it up. What are you talking about? No he doesn't... he doesn't need to write 30 paragraphs on the subject just because you like to. I'm not asking that he give me 30 paragraphs on his reasonings why. But saying "that doesn't sound so bad" with nothing else is, well, lame. If he even described what he thought wasn't as bad would help. (Which, by the way, was referring to us purposefuly giving animals the AIDS virus or tumors...) A little proof never hurt anyone. :wink:

Good gosh, man! If you're going to have a viewpoint, please at least back it up. Animal testing is, as the name sounds, testing on animals. What do they test? The animal's limits. How much poison/cosmetics in the eye or wherever they're testing, can they take? It gives the animals pain which is quite obvious. Testing without pain is an oxymoron and only exists in the naive minds. I'm not trying to be harsh, but when people say, "let's test on animals if they don't feel pain" just bothers me. That is reality. So please, people, stop being so unrealistically optimistic. WARNING: THIS FOLLOWING VIEWPOINT IS FROM THE BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE SO YOU MAY IGNORE IT IF YOU SO WISH. I, personally, don't have a problem with it. Animals don't have souls while us humans do. God gave us dominion over the animals, and if we can help save human lives by sacrificing animal lives, then I say go for it. I do not advocate killing animals for no reason, but neither do I donemn hunting. We have the dominion, so I think it is fine. If you choose not to is also perfectly fine.

I completely disagree. While I don't know if I support the producers making money (maybe giving it to charity or something), I don't mind them making it. I believe that people in their apathetic mindsets HAVE forgotten and need to be reminded. Just like I'm glad the Passion was made...we've been reminded of it so much that it has lost its meaning until something drastic brings it back into our minds. Sorry to be the black sheep of the fold, here, but that's just my view.