Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

texasdave · Jun 25, 2007, 03:27 pm

banco,
Another well thought out question. You are batting a thousand today. Well, those cultures came from a single source. Noah and his family after the flood. Don't know how far back that was but all cultures seem to speak of it in their histories. They had their chance to follow God at that time. Also, the Bible speaks of Jesus reaching out to those who died before His crucifixion with the Gospel ( during His three days in the grave). They were offered salvation. God is merciful.

ZNFYRH · Jun 25, 2007, 03:33 pm

texasdave

Amazing.

Someone has actually read the book to which you are referring and you tell them they haven't read it.

I find it interesting that instead of responding to the final request of my post, you instead accuse me of lying. Go ahead and find my evaluation on the Internet, if you can. You won't.

I will repeat my assessment. Your source is full of conjecture. It gives information that the author claims are facts. Then it draws conclusions based on those facts. The conclusions are presented as though they are the only obvious and logical conclusions to make, even though there are multiple other conclusions one could derive.

It is not an objective work of science. Instead, it sets out to find information to support it's outlying purpose. There is nothing wrong with that; people do it all the time. They ignore 99 facts that contradict their point of view and hold up the single fact that supports it.

But... when someone puts out a book like this as though their conjecture is scientific fact, it is wrong. You are doing the exact same thing Zhavric does, ironically.

You are citing inference and implying it is fact. So to you I will say the same thing that he evades:

Instead of pointing to the work of someone else (Dawkins, McDowell) what is the evidence that you personally find the most convincing, and how do you think it is valid enough to support your position in this debate?

texasdave · Jun 25, 2007, 03:38 pm

Let's start " in the beginning" with the Big Bang. Your theory for the original cause. Go.

Hylife · Jun 25, 2007, 03:42 pm

Quote:

Quote by: banko

So if we can have a relationship with god, according to some, then why wasn't the bible (word of god) written at the beginning of mankind? We have found fossilized remains of man with no bible around. The north american natives never had a bible, what about the greeks that worshipped Zeus, or egyptians, or aztecs? There is no bible in those cultures. So did god refuse to have a relationship with them? if so then why? How is it that they never even knew about the christian god? Why would your god not want a relationship with them?

First off, there was no need at the beginning of mankind for God to write his word since he walked and talked with people personally. If and when he stopped doing that, he had the people he personally talked to to spread his direct word, as people lived a great deal longer back then.

You then go on to ask why the OT was only given to the Hebrews and not other cultures. The Isrealites were God's chosen people. It's not that he didn't want relationships with everyone else; he had tried. All of God's attempts to interact with his creation ended in rejection and failure. So God had to mold a people after his own heart. God didn't reject those people, they rejected him.

Furthermore, as you can read at the beginning of the book of Romans if you're so inclined, God left signs for people to know him, in nature and on their hearts. (And it is my opinion that, if they realised those signs, that he would reveal the messiah to them, like in the case of the Queen of Sheeba and the Ethiopian with Philip.)

And, to further show his mercy, God revealed his word to all people, first to Jew then to Gentile, after they had ALL rejected him.

ZNFYRH · Jun 25, 2007, 03:45 pm

texasdave

That's not an answer.

You are being evasive, as I expected.

Instead of responding to direct criticism of your position and further supporting it as requested, you shift the burden of proof.

You're entering this debate empty handed with nothing of your own to support your position. Instead, you are repeating someone else's ideas. They put in the thought and you parrot it without actually being able to defend it.

texasdave · Jun 25, 2007, 03:50 pm

ZNFRYH,
Can you give me a first cause for the Big Bang or not? I am giving you evidence right now. I'll give more as we go along. But lets start at the beginning. I say God is the first cause. Now, you tell me your theory and we can each try to back up our own. Go ahead.

**Matt W** · Jun 25, 2007, 03:56 pm

Enough. This has gotten ridiculously off-topic.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE.
Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

ZNFYRH · Jun 25, 2007, 03:59 pm

Edited

texasdave · Jun 25, 2007, 04:04 pm

And then the "Fun Vacuum" shows up.

CoffeeSaint · Jun 26, 2007, 09:53 am

Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner, Texasdave.

Quote:

Quote by: texasdave

There are two reasons for the answer of your question.
1. God did not create hell for people. He created it for those who rebelled against Him in heaven, Satan and his angels. But because God can never go back on His Word, He must allow people to go there who rebel against Him too. God can never lie or break His Word.

So he isn't omnipotent. Interesting.
He wouldn't need to break his Word, Dave. He'd just need to figure a way around it. Maybe he could kill another one of his children in some brutal way so people could get out of hell through the suffering of an innocent. Worked the first time, right?

Quote:

Quote by: texasdave

2. God is life. Heaven is spiritual life. The opposite of God is death. The opposite of heaven is spiritual death,hell. The natural consequence of choosing to not be with God is to be without Him. Refusing God is refusing heaven. Refusing spiritual life is choosing spiritual death. So, hell is a natural spiritual consequence of refusing God. God does not put you there. You put you there, by your own choice. If you choose to go there why would a giving God NOT honor your wish?

Is there suffering in hell, or not? If there is, then the threat of hell is coercion, and the choice of life versus death is not a fair and free choice. If there is not suffering, then it is a free choice and hell is the gift of a generous god -- one I would take him up on, personally.

So is there suffering in hell for people? The angels are on their own; I don't mind if they're in lakes of fire. But will I be in pain in hell? I know the textbook answer is that I will suffer because I will be apart from god; that makes it a threat. Either I should be free to live out eternity separate from god, without suffering, or it is not a free choice and god is a bully. By the way, it's okay if being separate from god is horrifying to you, as long as it doesn't include actual suffering. I don't mind being made a pariah by my choices, as long as my choices are mine.

banko · Jun 26, 2007, 10:06 am

So if god gave us free will and then set up hell for those that went against him isn't that just setting people up for failure? I mean he gave us the ability to choose to not believe in him and in doing so we are going to hell. Just seems like a pretty weird thing an all loving god would do. Why would he want anyone to suffer in hell?

Technosoul · Jun 26, 2007, 10:09 am

Quote:

Quote by: texasdave

isherwood,
God does not put anyone in hell. They choose to go. If you reject relationship with God you get eternal separation from Him because that's what you want. God never takes your free will. Even if your will is to go to hell. The opposite of being with God is hell. It's hell without Him.

So a person living in a tribe deep in the Amazon jungle, who has never seen a white man and never did hear about anything in the Bible - has 'made a choice' to got to hell?

If Isherwood is not with God and by free will does not believe in such a thing then he should be able to tell us what hell is like, according to Texasdave - if being without God is hell.

Hey Isherwood - hows it like down there - is it getting hot yet?

Technosoul · Jun 26, 2007, 10:27 am

Good News.

Having a relationship with Mother Nature is or can be realistic. And you are not punished for not doing so. You do not even need to make a choice because it would ether come about as a natural experience or it will not come about. You can reject nature and stay inside and yell at some gadet that dosen't work right and commuicate with machines.
At least they do not talk back - some of them anyway.

Everyone knows about nature and so no one is left out.

You can eat the flesh and blood of Mother Nature and not be thought of as being canabalistic. And Mother Nature will provide you with green pastures to lay down in, and some milk and honey - realistically.

And the only prayer is the one where you do the listening - the answers blowing in the wind as Dylan once sang. But on a more realistic tone - we can learn from Nature many things - wisdoms as well - through visiual communication which is better because what you see is what you see and so you got no words that need to be interpreted or followed.

Those are the good news gospels from out of the blue.

SoylentGreen · Jun 26, 2007, 01:30 pm

I dunno, With a male god all you have to worry about is the testerone thing and the fact that males are inherently lazy.
But a female god , theres those times in the month and PMT and if you do something wrong she will never let you forget it or forgive you. And if you want to live with her you have to accept the fact that she's always right.

pikatore · Jun 26, 2007, 06:23 pm

Quote:

Quote by: texasdave

ZNFYRH,
You have not read McDowell's book. It is full of archeological evidence. Historicity of ancient documents etc. It is a work respected by many scientists. No, you have not read it. You just read somewhere on the internet where someone was critical of it ( someone else who probably hasn't read it) and you just copied their criticism.

Are you saying we should'nt believe everything we read?

texasdave · Jun 27, 2007, 07:55 pm

coffee,
God did think of a way around hell for us. He came to earth in the body of a man named Jesus of Nazareth and He died in our place for our sins. All we have to do is accept that free gift. But again, if you refuse that gift God will not force it on you because He respects your choice.

texasdave · Jun 27, 2007, 08:00 pm

Technosoul,
You raise an interesting question. The person in the jungle is known by God just as you and I are. God knows the heart of everyone. He knows if you will ever accept Him since He can see in the future. He also knows if the man in the jungle would accept Him. So, if God knows that man's heart is open then He WILL send the message of Christ to him somehow. Don't worry. If you are really worried about that man in the jungle, you could always be a missionary right? Or support a missionary.

texasdave · Jun 27, 2007, 08:04 pm

coffee,
The suffering of hell is not coercion. If I tell you that hitting yourself in the head with a hammer will cause you suffering does that make your decision NOT to hit yourself coercion? Of, course not. It just illustrates the better choice. You can still hit yourself if you want to. Your choice. Same with heaven and hell.

pikatore · Jun 27, 2007, 09:54 pm

But here is a big question.

You say that God wouldn't reveal himself in an obvious manner to the world because he wants us to have a choice.

But in WHAT way would God be removing our choice? Revealing himself would simply make the right choice (which i assume you think that it is to believe that god exists) more obvious than remove the choice altogether.

The people who deny or be skeptical his existence then would be the silly ones. Until then, all you have is words. And words alone can only be truly followed if they are followed without question - something my mind very rightly and logically screams at me to avoid doing.

**Jack** · Jun 27, 2007, 10:00 pm

Quote:

Your choice.

Not when god gives you the hammer and created you to desire to hit yourself with it. That's why that whole line of reasoning is so silly.

Back to the topic of a relationship with god (remember the OP, anyone?)

How would you theists classify your relationship with your god? Is it as friends, lovers, slave/master, father/child...?

Jun 25, 2007, 03:33 pm	#62 (permalink) (top)
ZNFYRH Volcanic Erupter Posts: 4,375	texasdave Amazing. Someone has actually read the book to which you are referring and you tell them they haven't read it. I find it interesting that instead of responding to the final request of my post, you instead accuse me of lying. Go ahead and find my evaluation on the Internet, if you can. You won't. I will repeat my assessment. Your source is full of conjecture. It gives information that the author claims are facts. Then it draws conclusions based on those facts. The conclusions are presented as though they are the only obvious and logical conclusions to make, even though there are multiple other conclusions one could derive. It is not an objective work of science. Instead, it sets out to find information to support it's outlying purpose. There is nothing wrong with that; people do it all the time. They ignore 99 facts that contradict their point of view and hold up the single fact that supports it. But... when someone puts out a book like this as though their conjecture is scientific fact, it is wrong. You are doing the exact same thing Zhavric does, ironically. You are citing inference and implying it is fact. So to you I will say the same thing that he evades: Instead of pointing to the work of someone else (Dawkins, McDowell) what is the evidence that you personally find the most convincing, and how do you think it is valid enough to support your position in this debate? IT'S A BOY!!

Jun 25, 2007, 03:45 pm	#65 (permalink) (top)
ZNFYRH Volcanic Erupter Posts: 4,375	texasdave That's not an answer. You are being evasive, as I expected. Instead of responding to direct criticism of your position and further supporting it as requested, you shift the burden of proof. You're entering this debate empty handed with nothing of your own to support your position. Instead, you are repeating someone else's ideas. They put in the thought and you parrot it without actually being able to defend it. IT'S A BOY!!

Jun 25, 2007, 03:59 pm	#68 (permalink) (top)
ZNFYRH Volcanic Erupter Posts: 4,375	Edited IT'S A BOY!!

Jun 26, 2007, 10:06 am	#71 (permalink) (top)
banko Igneous Magma Posts: 226	So if god gave us free will and then set up hell for those that went against him isn't that just setting people up for failure? I mean he gave us the ability to choose to not believe in him and in doing so we are going to hell. Just seems like a pretty weird thing an all loving god would do. Why would he want anyone to suffer in hell? For every man who lives without freedom, the rest of us must face the guilt ---Lillian Hellman, The Watch on the Rhine, 1941

Jun 27, 2007, 09:54 pm	#79 (permalink) (top)
pikatore A Celestial Monkey Location: In England Posts: 1,580	But here is a big question. You say that God wouldn't reveal himself in an obvious manner to the world because he wants us to have a choice. But in WHAT way would God be removing our choice? Revealing himself would simply make the right choice (which i assume you think that it is to believe that god exists) more obvious than remove the choice altogether. The people who deny or be skeptical his existence then would be the silly ones. Until then, all you have is words. And words alone can only be truly followed if they are followed without question - something my mind very rightly and logically screams at me to avoid doing. "Cheese is a kind of meat, a tasty yellow beef" - Mighty Boosh Economic Left/Right: -0.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.38

Jun 25, 2007, 03:27 pm	#61 (permalink) (top)
texasdave BANNED Location: Texas Posts: 731	banco, Another well thought out question. You are batting a thousand today. Well, those cultures came from a single source. Noah and his family after the flood. Don't know how far back that was but all cultures seem to speak of it in their histories. They had their chance to follow God at that time. Also, the Bible speaks of Jesus reaching out to those who died before His crucifixion with the Gospel ( during His three days in the grave). They were offered salvation. God is merciful.

Jun 25, 2007, 03:38 pm	#63 (permalink) (top)
texasdave BANNED Location: Texas Posts: 731	Let's start " in the beginning" with the Big Bang. Your theory for the original cause. Go.

Jun 25, 2007, 03:50 pm	#66 (permalink) (top)
texasdave BANNED Location: Texas Posts: 731	ZNFRYH, Can you give me a first cause for the Big Bang or not? I am giving you evidence right now. I'll give more as we go along. But lets start at the beginning. I say God is the first cause. Now, you tell me your theory and we can each try to back up our own. Go ahead.

Jun 25, 2007, 04:04 pm	#69 (permalink) (top)
texasdave BANNED Location: Texas Posts: 731	And then the "Fun Vacuum" shows up.

Jun 26, 2007, 10:27 am	#73 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	Good News. Having a relationship with Mother Nature is or can be realistic. And you are not punished for not doing so. You do not even need to make a choice because it would ether come about as a natural experience or it will not come about. You can reject nature and stay inside and yell at some gadet that dosen't work right and commuicate with machines. At least they do not talk back - some of them anyway. Everyone knows about nature and so no one is left out. You can eat the flesh and blood of Mother Nature and not be thought of as being canabalistic. And Mother Nature will provide you with green pastures to lay down in, and some milk and honey - realistically. And the only prayer is the one where you do the listening - the answers blowing in the wind as Dylan once sang. But on a more realistic tone - we can learn from Nature many things - wisdoms as well - through visiual communication which is better because what you see is what you see and so you got no words that need to be interpreted or followed. Those are the good news gospels from out of the blue.

Jun 26, 2007, 01:30 pm	#74 (permalink) (top)
SoylentGreen Volcanic Erupter Posts: 2,565	I dunno, With a male god all you have to worry about is the testerone thing and the fact that males are inherently lazy. But a female god , theres those times in the month and PMT and if you do something wrong she will never let you forget it or forgive you. And if you want to live with her you have to accept the fact that she's always right.

Jun 27, 2007, 07:55 pm	#76 (permalink) (top)
texasdave BANNED Location: Texas Posts: 731	coffee, God did think of a way around hell for us. He came to earth in the body of a man named Jesus of Nazareth and He died in our place for our sins. All we have to do is accept that free gift. But again, if you refuse that gift God will not force it on you because He respects your choice.

Jun 27, 2007, 08:00 pm	#77 (permalink) (top)
texasdave BANNED Location: Texas Posts: 731	Technosoul, You raise an interesting question. The person in the jungle is known by God just as you and I are. God knows the heart of everyone. He knows if you will ever accept Him since He can see in the future. He also knows if the man in the jungle would accept Him. So, if God knows that man's heart is open then He WILL send the message of Christ to him somehow. Don't worry. If you are really worried about that man in the jungle, you could always be a missionary right? Or support a missionary.

Jun 27, 2007, 08:04 pm	#78 (permalink) (top)
texasdave BANNED Location: Texas Posts: 731	coffee, The suffering of hell is not coercion. If I tell you that hitting yourself in the head with a hammer will cause you suffering does that make your decision NOT to hit yourself coercion? Of, course not. It just illustrates the better choice. You can still hit yourself if you want to. Your choice. Same with heaven and hell.