Defining love is difficult - everyone has a different answer. But talk to some old people who have been married for years and are still in love. They will tell you, the truest act of love is love even when you don't feel like it. That is a choice. And this is only the mere love between a man and a woman. Not even the love a mother can have for her child which is far stronger. Why do you think society hates mothers who slap around their kids when they feel like it, but is OK with those who can restrain themselves, even if they feel like beating(as opposed to discipline) the kid? This is a choice again, not blindly doing whatever you feel like. True love is always about choice. "If you love someone, set them free" comes to mind.
If you want to talk about the old and new testament differences, you have to realise, the old testament is man at war with God(remember, I believe God can limit himself), yet God making a plan to end the war peacefully in the future(without violating free will). The new is about man reconciled to God. Thus both God's and our attitude must change. This should hardly be surprising.
Now to get on to Hell, which most people don't really understand. Hell is described as a garbage heap, which like most garbage heaps (including some modern ones), was on fire. And stank. A lot of people, myself included, will go further and say, to paraphrase old Lewis, the gates of Hell are barred from the inside. Those who rebel against God are, alas, successful rebels to the end. Hell is also described as eternal separation from God, which is exactly what a rebel wants. It is a bad place because those there will have nothing to do with God, the source of good.
Love is not possible without a choice. If there is no choice, you are just a robot acting out a play. In which case, why bother at all? What a complete waste of time for God. No sane logical God would create robots. But if we have free will, it now has meaning. You have a choice between A and B. There is no "correct" answer, only consequences of your choices. You are not "supposed" to choose any particular one, but that choice can be an act of love or hate.
Look, you're looking quite deep into Christian theology. If you don't believe, that is fine, but you can't apply your philosophy to an opposed philosophy. You'll see inconsistencies where there are none simply because it is inconsistent with your view. Most systems are self-consistent - as far as that is possible, but only from the inside. I see the universe as consistent with the existence of God, you don't seem to. We both sit inside systems and it takes great effort to see beyond that. You and I have fundamental philosophical assumptions(which are mostly unprovable and untestable on both sides) about the nature of things which make it hard for us to understand each other. It is on these assumptions we build our beliefs. If you and I can see that and agree to disagree, then all is well.:)
Oh, but it is logical (when arguing these things, you must realise that there is an answer for everything...:) ). To repeat summarized from the link you haven't yet read, Love requires free will or it is not love. Free will without consequences is not free. If God desires his creation to love him, he must give them the ability to not love him(i.e. sin). Since God is Love, he may not change love to make it possible without choice - or he would not be self consistent.
Further, and more controversial, if God desires a relationship with people, he must limit himself to facilitate a relationship. If he knows what you are going to say before you say it, that is not much of a conversation is it? Therefore an infinite being limits himself for love because that is what he is. Can God do anything? Yup. Will God do anything? No.
Again, I am not trying to convert anyone. You are free to disagree if you will. The fact that your view is logical does not imply all other views are illogical. We have an untestable(from either side), unprovable philosophical difference of opinions.
It depends if the logical God is Good and Fair or not. If you read the link, you may come to understand my point of view, though I don't expect you to agree with it. It is however logical and rational. The existence of "sin" hinges on the existence of free will - which you are free to reject. But it is a logical, rational and valid viewpoint, as is yours. Who is right? I believe I am, and you believe you are. Proof? There is none for either of us. Can we agree to disagree? I think so.
That is where we disagree. I have referred sibling poster to my answer to the concern of the omnipotence of God, which you are welcome to read or ignore, but which I will not repeat here in full. Basically it boils down to, "do you have free will or not?". This is not a provable science question (practically, so far if ever) and is therefore deep in the realms of philosophy.
Could an infinite being temporarily limit himself to gain what he wanted? The Christian God is considered good which implies that while all knowing and all powerful, there are things he can but will not do. Which leads to more philosophy; is there such a thing as "good" and "evil"? Interesting questions, but when you get to this sort of question, all answers start with "I think". I am certain of what I think, but I can't prove it. As is someone who'll say there is no good or evil. You will have as much trouble with that one as proving or disproving God. So where does that leave the discussion?
I just sat and argued this one out with another poster. I'll refer you there, for my answer.
The long thread starts here. But to say "sin" implies the non existence of God, is, well, interesting logic.
No, not in denial. And I do know quite a few people who have been divorced. I simply don't agree with you (or them) about the nature of love. I also know many happily married couples, some of whom are pushing 50years, as I'm sure you do. Why not ask them what love is? Look for the answer from the people that succeeded, not the ones that failed.
Feelings change quite rapidly - we are people after all. Who loves more? The person who does things for their spouse only when they feel like it, or the one who does things even when they don't feel like it. You tell me.
OK. I'm pretty sure I see your point of view now. Took me a while.:) I won't try and change your mind about the existence of God. Though, I suspect we disagree on his character and goals. To be honest, I have not met many people like you. But you've probably met people like me, so I won't bore you with a retelling of what you've probably heard many times before.
You probably had it harder than I do, I still have family and friends. I have to worry about their safety sometimes, but the moral support is nice.
In any case, you are right. Often I get exactly what I need, though at times thats what I pray for - things like a place to stay or food. Though recently things have been going better.
In any case, you just see events, I see cause and effect. I guess we just see the world differently.
Fear? I don't fear lack of free will - hence as a Christian I don't fear to give it up.
Now you ask me to prove free will and I never even offered to prove God. This is becoming interesting. But alas, there is as much proof for free will as there is for your worldview. Is the universe completely deterministic? Ask a quantum physicist. Or rather don't go to the quantum physicists for advice, for they will tell you both yes and no. Here is a challenge to match the one you gave me: Explain to me the complete workings of the universe down to the smallest particle/energy unit and present a set of laws that will unify it all. Now test this theory in the case of a simple human decision, and thus prove or disprove it. No, I am not shifting the burden of proof - it is right where it belongs; on both sides.
Basically the difference between you and I, is when confronted with the question "Is there more than this*", you say no, I say yes. Both believe we have evidence. Does this make either of us irrational? Not really.
By the way, your concept of the Christian God seems to be rather one sided and frankly nonsensical.
You're welcome to disagree. Personally, I'd say yeah, you don't choose to fall in love. But you do choose to remain that way. At least in the Christian domain, the ultimate demonstration of love is considered Christ choosing to love enough to be killed.
Perhaps you misunderstand me. Its not that I was a particularly bad person(as people judge), but more that I live in a particularly dangerous environment. I can be detained, tortured, beaten or killed without consequences for the police/thugs who would do such to me. I have escaped riots and thieves. I can easily run out of money and go hungry and any number of real dangers you may or may not have encountered. Such circumstances combined with my faith have changed me into something I never saw myself becoming - and I believe I am a better person for it. And yes, I had to be open to it.
I find myself at the conclusion that either it is true and prayers are answered, or I have been incredibly lucky and have lead a "charmed" life. Heck I even have internet - even if it is slow. If you were to look at my life, you would probably find random chance an acceptable explanation, but having lived my life, I do not. I trust God with my life in a very real and practical way. And yet, here in Zimbabwe, my story is a minor one amoung thousands.
This being said, I accept your view as valid even if I disagree. As I say, perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.
And so, our convoluted path brings us right back to where we started. To answer; the gates of Hell are barred from the inside. Those who rebel against God are, alas, successful rebels to the end. There is no love without free will. Free will without consequences is not free. If God desires his creation to truly love him, with all that that implies, he must allow them to choose other paths that end badly. Otherwise we are just robots acting out a program. And yes, an all powerful God (as you pointed out earlier) can create true free will - and he may choose not to violate it. Are the rules that give you the freedom to call the rules unfair unfair? That was a poorly constructed sentence, but I'm too lazy to think of another way to say it...:)
Anyhow, I am not trying to convert you here. I do not believe I can. This is all moot anyway since you do not(?) believe in God. However perhaps you understand that my perspective is both logical and rational? As, I'm sure, is yours. Perhaps on that basis, we can respect each others differences?
Thanks. Though, speaking honestly, I find my Christianity a very real and practical experience. I have an idea you would've lost that bet, but then, I am speaking from within Christianity, and you from outside. We just have to agree to disagree, which is fine.
Perhaps what he most greatly desires is to save at least some of them? Breaking his own rules would be a form of self inconsistency for any "god" you care to dream up, and by the generally accepted Christian rules, the wages of "sin" is "death". No exceptions. No excuses.
Actually, I know a great number of people who read the bible. And very few of them believe God is a 10 year old kid. But then we are most likely in different parts of the world, so YMMV.
Uhuh. And the ability and desire to do something implies it must be done even if it goes against a greater desire? "I want to spend my money on sweets, but if I don't I can buy that video game which will give me hours of fun..."
I don't know anyone who believes in God that thinks he is a 10 year old kid who can't make hard choices or abide by rules, even if they are of his own making.
The concept of God which you attack is illogical and untrue. The accurate concept is much harder to attack. That being said, a fair number of people who profess belief in God have this concept of him, so fair enough.
Fair enough. I am not trying to convert anyone, merely clarify. You are free to disagree with me.
For your infinite regression, note that it is not the rules that restrain God, it is that his character restrains him from breaking them. If he broke the rules, people could claim "unfair! Why should we have to follow rules you don't!". As it is, they can't. Which is moot anyway, since you don't believe in God - again your choice. As long as you don't attack me for my choices, its fine. Heck I don't even mind reasonable debate.
You misunderstand. The infinite "punishment" is entirely your choice. Not what God wants at all. God is not a terrorist. He simply is consistent enough to follow all his own rules. If you chose the red door, he will let you walk through it. Why hate him for being consistent even though he'd like for hell not to exist? Or the fact that you'll be "punished" for your own actions? Come on. The picture of Hell is a trash heap. In fact many go a step further and say its a place full of highly successful rebels. The gates are barred from the inside..
GP makes a good point, but I disagree with him. God must prove his existence or it is not logical to believe in him. But that proof is not what you think it is and is not a scientific thing and thus not relevant to the discussion.
I am not asking you to believe. Just do me a favour, and know what you're talking about before attacking other people's beliefs. Show a bit of respect. Or if you don't want to understand(that is fine too), just let it be.
I don't really care about Karma - I'm here for the technical discussions, so I won't post anon.
Exactly. Except one implies the other. I chose immigrate to emphasize the choice of destination. My usage is correct, since the chances of me being in the same country as the poster are practically zero. Be careful, your narrow world view is showing - there are more countries in the world than the one in which you stand. Some people from places other than America actually post on slashdot! Wow! (And yes, I know it is(just like the majority of posters) US centric).
Depends on the scale of impact your subject had on the world at the time. Its no quite logical to compare Christ to Kennedy. Kennedy was not a religious figure, let alone considered to be God (a higly contoversial claim and therefore hotly debated). Your analogy doesn't quite hold up. In that light I'd tend to disagree with you.
Slashdot Mirror
Though we have now covered most of this ground (again), here is that link. You may feel like reading it to better understand my point of view. But I feel you still don't see what I am saying, so:
Defining love is difficult - everyone has a different answer. But talk to some old people who have been married for years and are still in love. They will tell you, the truest act of love is love even when you don't feel like it. That is a choice. And this is only the mere love between a man and a woman. Not even the love a mother can have for her child which is far stronger. Why do you think society hates mothers who slap around their kids when they feel like it, but is OK with those who can restrain themselves, even if they feel like beating(as opposed to discipline) the kid? This is a choice again, not blindly doing whatever you feel like. True love is always about choice. "If you love someone, set them free" comes to mind.
If you want to talk about the old and new testament differences, you have to realise, the old testament is man at war with God(remember, I believe God can limit himself), yet God making a plan to end the war peacefully in the future(without violating free will). The new is about man reconciled to God. Thus both God's and our attitude must change. This should hardly be surprising.
Now to get on to Hell, which most people don't really understand. Hell is described as a garbage heap, which like most garbage heaps (including some modern ones), was on fire. And stank. A lot of people, myself included, will go further and say, to paraphrase old Lewis, the gates of Hell are barred from the inside. Those who rebel against God are, alas, successful rebels to the end. Hell is also described as eternal separation from God, which is exactly what a rebel wants. It is a bad place because those there will have nothing to do with God, the source of good.
Love is not possible without a choice. If there is no choice, you are just a robot acting out a play. In which case, why bother at all? What a complete waste of time for God. No sane logical God would create robots. But if we have free will, it now has meaning. You have a choice between A and B. There is no "correct" answer, only consequences of your choices. You are not "supposed" to choose any particular one, but that choice can be an act of love or hate.
Look, you're looking quite deep into Christian theology. If you don't believe, that is fine, but you can't apply your philosophy to an opposed philosophy. You'll see inconsistencies where there are none simply because it is inconsistent with your view. Most systems are self-consistent - as far as that is possible, but only from the inside. I see the universe as consistent with the existence of God, you don't seem to. We both sit inside systems and it takes great effort to see beyond that. You and I have fundamental philosophical assumptions(which are mostly unprovable and untestable on both sides) about the nature of things which make it hard for us to understand each other. It is on these assumptions we build our beliefs. If you and I can see that and agree to disagree, then all is well. :)
Oh, but it is logical (when arguing these things, you must realise that there is an answer for everything...:) ). To repeat summarized from the link you haven't yet read, Love requires free will or it is not love. Free will without consequences is not free. If God desires his creation to love him, he must give them the ability to not love him(i.e. sin). Since God is Love, he may not change love to make it possible without choice - or he would not be self consistent.
Further, and more controversial, if God desires a relationship with people, he must limit himself to facilitate a relationship. If he knows what you are going to say before you say it, that is not much of a conversation is it? Therefore an infinite being limits himself for love because that is what he is. Can God do anything? Yup. Will God do anything? No.
Again, I am not trying to convert anyone. You are free to disagree if you will. The fact that your view is logical does not imply all other views are illogical. We have an untestable(from either side), unprovable philosophical difference of opinions.
It depends if the logical God is Good and Fair or not. If you read the link, you may come to understand my point of view, though I don't expect you to agree with it. It is however logical and rational. The existence of "sin" hinges on the existence of free will - which you are free to reject. But it is a logical, rational and valid viewpoint, as is yours. Who is right? I believe I am, and you believe you are. Proof? There is none for either of us. Can we agree to disagree? I think so.
That is where we disagree. I have referred sibling poster to my answer to the concern of the omnipotence of God, which you are welcome to read or ignore, but which I will not repeat here in full. Basically it boils down to, "do you have free will or not?". This is not a provable science question (practically, so far if ever) and is therefore deep in the realms of philosophy.
Could an infinite being temporarily limit himself to gain what he wanted? The Christian God is considered good which implies that while all knowing and all powerful, there are things he can but will not do. Which leads to more philosophy; is there such a thing as "good" and "evil"? Interesting questions, but when you get to this sort of question, all answers start with "I think". I am certain of what I think, but I can't prove it. As is someone who'll say there is no good or evil. You will have as much trouble with that one as proving or disproving God. So where does that leave the discussion?
I just sat and argued this one out with another poster. I'll refer you there, for my answer. The long thread starts here. But to say "sin" implies the non existence of God, is, well, interesting logic.
This discussion is getting absurdly long..
No, not in denial. And I do know quite a few people who have been divorced. I simply don't agree with you (or them) about the nature of love. I also know many happily married couples, some of whom are pushing 50years, as I'm sure you do. Why not ask them what love is? Look for the answer from the people that succeeded, not the ones that failed.
Feelings change quite rapidly - we are people after all. Who loves more? The person who does things for their spouse only when they feel like it, or the one who does things even when they don't feel like it. You tell me.
OK. I'm pretty sure I see your point of view now. Took me a while. :) I won't try and change your mind about the existence of God. Though, I suspect we disagree on his character and goals. To be honest, I have not met many people like you. But you've probably met people like me, so I won't bore you with a retelling of what you've probably heard many times before.
Quite an interesting conversation though.
You probably had it harder than I do, I still have family and friends. I have to worry about their safety sometimes, but the moral support is nice.
In any case, you are right. Often I get exactly what I need, though at times thats what I pray for - things like a place to stay or food. Though recently things have been going better.
In any case, you just see events, I see cause and effect. I guess we just see the world differently.
* "this" being what we can see/measure and determine with repeatable experiments about the universe.
Fear? I don't fear lack of free will - hence as a Christian I don't fear to give it up.
Now you ask me to prove free will and I never even offered to prove God. This is becoming interesting. But alas, there is as much proof for free will as there is for your worldview. Is the universe completely deterministic? Ask a quantum physicist. Or rather don't go to the quantum physicists for advice, for they will tell you both yes and no. Here is a challenge to match the one you gave me: Explain to me the complete workings of the universe down to the smallest particle/energy unit and present a set of laws that will unify it all. Now test this theory in the case of a simple human decision, and thus prove or disprove it. No, I am not shifting the burden of proof - it is right where it belongs; on both sides.
Basically the difference between you and I, is when confronted with the question "Is there more than this*", you say no, I say yes. Both believe we have evidence. Does this make either of us irrational? Not really.
By the way, your concept of the Christian God seems to be rather one sided and frankly nonsensical.
You're welcome to disagree. Personally, I'd say yeah, you don't choose to fall in love. But you do choose to remain that way. At least in the Christian domain, the ultimate demonstration of love is considered Christ choosing to love enough to be killed.
In any case, I can agree to disagree.
Perhaps you misunderstand me. Its not that I was a particularly bad person(as people judge), but more that I live in a particularly dangerous environment. I can be detained, tortured, beaten or killed without consequences for the police/thugs who would do such to me. I have escaped riots and thieves. I can easily run out of money and go hungry and any number of real dangers you may or may not have encountered. Such circumstances combined with my faith have changed me into something I never saw myself becoming - and I believe I am a better person for it. And yes, I had to be open to it.
I find myself at the conclusion that either it is true and prayers are answered, or I have been incredibly lucky and have lead a "charmed" life. Heck I even have internet - even if it is slow. If you were to look at my life, you would probably find random chance an acceptable explanation, but having lived my life, I do not. I trust God with my life in a very real and practical way. And yet, here in Zimbabwe, my story is a minor one amoung thousands.
This being said, I accept your view as valid even if I disagree. As I say, perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.
And so, our convoluted path brings us right back to where we started. To answer; the gates of Hell are barred from the inside. Those who rebel against God are, alas, successful rebels to the end. There is no love without free will. Free will without consequences is not free. If God desires his creation to truly love him, with all that that implies, he must allow them to choose other paths that end badly. Otherwise we are just robots acting out a program. And yes, an all powerful God (as you pointed out earlier) can create true free will - and he may choose not to violate it. Are the rules that give you the freedom to call the rules unfair unfair? That was a poorly constructed sentence, but I'm too lazy to think of another way to say it... :)
Anyhow, I am not trying to convert you here. I do not believe I can. This is all moot anyway since you do not(?) believe in God. However perhaps you understand that my perspective is both logical and rational? As, I'm sure, is yours. Perhaps on that basis, we can respect each others differences?
Thanks. Though, speaking honestly, I find my Christianity a very real and practical experience. I have an idea you would've lost that bet, but then, I am speaking from within Christianity, and you from outside. We just have to agree to disagree, which is fine.
Cheers
Perhaps what he most greatly desires is to save at least some of them? Breaking his own rules would be a form of self inconsistency for any "god" you care to dream up, and by the generally accepted Christian rules, the wages of "sin" is "death". No exceptions. No excuses.
Actually, I know a great number of people who read the bible. And very few of them believe God is a 10 year old kid. But then we are most likely in different parts of the world, so YMMV.
Hmmm. Could that mean if they cash it they can't sue you, but if they don't cash it they have the option to sue you?
IANAL, but that sounds sinister to me...
Uhuh. And the ability and desire to do something implies it must be done even if it goes against a greater desire? "I want to spend my money on sweets, but if I don't I can buy that video game which will give me hours of fun..."
I don't know anyone who believes in God that thinks he is a 10 year old kid who can't make hard choices or abide by rules, even if they are of his own making.
The concept of God which you attack is illogical and untrue. The accurate concept is much harder to attack. That being said, a fair number of people who profess belief in God have this concept of him, so fair enough.
Sorry to hear it didn't work out. I live my proof. But you'll chalk that up to insanity or something.
I guess I misunderstood your post. I react when I see Christianity misrepresented, which is not always a good thing to do. Sorry.
Fair enough. I am not trying to convert anyone, merely clarify. You are free to disagree with me.
For your infinite regression, note that it is not the rules that restrain God, it is that his character restrains him from breaking them. If he broke the rules, people could claim "unfair! Why should we have to follow rules you don't!". As it is, they can't. Which is moot anyway, since you don't believe in God - again your choice. As long as you don't attack me for my choices, its fine. Heck I don't even mind reasonable debate.
That is not relevant to this discussion, but if you want to know, message me.
You misunderstand. The infinite "punishment" is entirely your choice. Not what God wants at all. God is not a terrorist. He simply is consistent enough to follow all his own rules. If you chose the red door, he will let you walk through it. Why hate him for being consistent even though he'd like for hell not to exist? Or the fact that you'll be "punished" for your own actions? Come on. The picture of Hell is a trash heap. In fact many go a step further and say its a place full of highly successful rebels. The gates are barred from the inside..
GP makes a good point, but I disagree with him. God must prove his existence or it is not logical to believe in him. But that proof is not what you think it is and is not a scientific thing and thus not relevant to the discussion.
I am not asking you to believe. Just do me a favour, and know what you're talking about before attacking other people's beliefs. Show a bit of respect. Or if you don't want to understand(that is fine too), just let it be.
I don't really care about Karma - I'm here for the technical discussions, so I won't post anon.
Exactly. Except one implies the other. I chose immigrate to emphasize the choice of destination. My usage is correct, since the chances of me being in the same country as the poster are practically zero. Be careful, your narrow world view is showing - there are more countries in the world than the one in which you stand. Some people from places other than America actually post on slashdot! Wow! (And yes, I know it is(just like the majority of posters) US centric).
Well, before the Zimbabwe dollar finally died, it was about US$1*10^-30 to 1...
Your government is inescapable.
Immigrate.
Depends on the scale of impact your subject had on the world at the time. Its no quite logical to compare Christ to Kennedy. Kennedy was not a religious figure, let alone considered to be God (a higly contoversial claim and therefore hotly debated). Your analogy doesn't quite hold up. In that light I'd tend to disagree with you.