No Hell and everyone gets saved

by JP Cusick Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:57 pm

First topic message reminder :

The Bible does not really teach of any burning HELL as the word in the Bible only means the grave or garbage dump where they use to throw dead bodies.

Many religions beside Christianity has taught people this wrong barbaric idea as their religious doctrine, but it is not real.

1) Any God that burns people for any reason is not only a monster but a criminal and a sinner and an evil entity.

2) Burning people is not "forgiveness" as it is rather the opposite of forgiving.

3) Burning people is not "love" as it is rather the opposite of love.

4) Putting any person into a Hell, link, is not justice and such an evil idea can not be justice.

5) To "love" means no pain and no more hurting for anyone, as per: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." KJV. Revelation 21:4.

God is love, link here = 1 John 4:8, and God does not hurt people, and that means no one ever goes to any hell.

Everyone is a sinner at various degrees and depth, and there is no one as righteous.

Nobody goes to some fire and torment of any hell, and the saying of "Hell on earth" in this lifetime now is far more accurate.

In the end everyone gets saved and not even one sinner nor one evil sheep gets lost or left out because salvation is for all of mankind.

Jesus said "Love thy enemies" just as God loves His enemies, Matthew 5:43-48, so love does not burn people and love does not hurt people, and that means not even those that are sinners and enemies.

See 1 Corinthians 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." So the person is being "SAVED" by the "FIRE" and not hurt by it.

The plan is to have a great salvation, and it would not be great if some people were excluded.

Just FYI.

by Dan Fante Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:01 am

JP Cusick wrote:
Heretic wrote:No hell and everyone gets saved, sounds like a no brainer and I suspect it might be.

If everyone gets saved there is sort of no point to a lot of things. I'll try and put them in a list.

1. No need for sin or sinlessness.
2. No need for the Garden of Eden.
3. No need for hell Hell.
4. No need for a distinct Heaven.
5. No need for prophets.
6. No need for a messiah.
7. No need for holy wars.
8. No need for churches or temples.
9. No need for ministers.
10. No need for tithes.
11. No need for sacrifice.
12. No need for service.
13. No need for scriptures.
14. No need for services.
15. No need for hate.
16. No need for love.
17. No need for salvation.
18. No need for sermons.
19. No need for need.
20. No need for TV Evangelists.

The list could go on and on - I'm sure all of you have your own suggestions

Heretic
That is correct that there is no need in and of itself.

People only need such things when we ever want to know the truth, when we want to be free, and to be strong.

People can live without happiness and without love, but when they decide they want better then comes the need.

Do you think your position can best by described as "no need for need" or "a need for no need"?

by timeout Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:54 am

Shirina wrote:I always said that certain places like northern Europe must be almost completely free of sin since those places rarely receive any major natural disasters. The irony, though, is that those nations are very secular heh heh.

So I guess, if one were to follow the logic, the best way to get natural disasters to stop is to become an atheist.

i'm tempted to blame all the theists for all of the disasters because they are all worshipping the wrong god(s) and the flying spaghetti monster is getting very pissed off with them.

by JP Cusick Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:11 pm

Shirina wrote:I always said that certain places like northern Europe must be almost completely free of sin since those places rarely receive any major natural disasters. The irony, though, is that those nations are very secular heh heh.

So I guess, if one were to follow the logic, the best way to get natural disasters to stop is to become an atheist.

There is a big distinction between the USA and Europe and Asia and the rest of the world, because of this:

The United States & Britain in Prophesy, chapter 9.

Exclamation

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:50 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
Shirina wrote:I always said that certain places like northern Europe must be almost completely free of sin since those places rarely receive any major natural disasters. The irony, though, is that those nations are very secular heh heh.

So I guess, if one were to follow the logic, the best way to get natural disasters to stop is to become an atheist.
There is a big distinction between the USA and Europe and Asia and the rest of the world, because of this:

The United States & Britain in Prophesy, chapter 9.

That's hilarious, truly hilarious, I couldn't read it all, as it was hurting my eyes to read it. Here's a snippet I found particularly funny:

"Take a map of Europe. Lay a line due NORTHWEST of Jerusalem across the continent of Europe, until you come to the sea, and then to the islands in the sea! This line takes you directly to the British Isles! Of proof that our white, English-speaking peoples today - Britain and America - are actually and truly the birthright tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh of the "lost" house of Israel there is so much we shall have space for but a small portion in this book."

Laughing

I kid you not....

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:53 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
Shirina wrote:I always said that certain places like northern Europe must be almost completely free of sin since those places rarely receive any major natural disasters. The irony, though, is that those nations are very secular heh heh.

So I guess, if one were to follow the logic, the best way to get natural disasters to stop is to become an atheist.
There is a big distinction between the USA and Europe and Asia and the rest of the world, because of this:

The United States & Britain in Prophesy, chapter 9.

Well I posted too soon, as this next snippet is even funnier:

"Britain's Hebrew Names

A most interesting fact is the Hebrew meaning of the names of the British people. The house of Israel is the covenant people. The Hebrew word for "covenant" is Beriyth, or berith. After Gideon's death, Israel followed the false pagan god Baal. In Judges 8:33 and 9:4, the word "covenant" is used as a proper name coupled with the name "Baal." This is quoted in the English text, Authorized Version, without being translated, as "Baalberith," meaning (margin) "idol of the covenant."

The Hebrew for "man" is iysh, or ish. In English, the ending "-ish" means "of or belonging to (a specified nation or person)." In the original Hebrew language vowels were never given in the spelling. So, omitting the vowel "e" from berith, but retaining the "i" in its anglicized form to preserve the "y" sound, we have the anglicized Hebrew word for covenant, brith.

The Hebrews, however, never pronounced their "h's." Many a Jew, even today, in pronouncing the name "Shem," will call it "Sem." Incidentally, this ancient Hebrew trait is also a modern British trait. So the Hebrew word for "covenant" would be pronounced, in its anglicized form, as brit.

And the word for "covenant man," or "covenant people," would therefore be simply "BRIT-ISH." And so, is it mere coincidence that the true covenant people today are called the "BRITISH"? And they reside in the "BRITISH ISLES"!"

Hells bells....this has to be a wind-up??? lol!

by Dan Fante Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:08 pm

Proper, full-on, batshit crazy that stuff.

by stuart torr Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:18 pm

What the hell is he going on about lads? he has lost me.

by polyglide Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:37 pm

Humans make there own heaven or hell on earth.

God, through Jesus, promises those who believe in him will have a better life.

He does not promise that every prayer will be answerd in the positive or the negative, to assume that to answer a prayer means you will have all you ask for is nonsense, God will answer a prayer in the manner beffiting the contents of the prayer and the circumstances.

by stuart torr Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:34 pm

No god. no heaven. no hell. no jesus. I'm very happy thank-you

by Dan Fante Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:52 pm

polyglide wrote:
He does not promise that every prayer will be answerd in the positive or the negative, to assume that to answer a prayer means you will have all you ask for is nonsense

This seems like a straw man argument. Who is making the assumption that every prayer will be answered by God? Given the arguments you seem to be attempting to counter are coming from people who don't believe in God, it's a given they wouldn't assume all their prayers would be answered.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:56 pm

stu wrote:What the hell is he going on about lads? he has lost me.

Check out the link in his post, it's hilarious, though not meant to be obviously. lol!

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:59 pm

polyglide wrote:Humans make there own heaven or hell on earth.

God, through Jesus, promises those who believe in him will have a better life.

He does not promise that every prayer will be answerd in the positive or the negative, to assume that to answer a prayer means you will have all you ask for is nonsense, God will answer a prayer in the manner beffiting the contents of the prayer and the circumstances.

There really is little point preaching to Atheists as if they don't know what your religion claims, there is no evidence to support the claims. Start there.....

by stuart torr Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:20 pm

Hello Sheldon, well as Shirina says we cannot say anything against the poster, as there is only one of him not counting polyglide of course? I am afraid I only got past the first 10-15 lines before laughing, so the link that was posted, was absolutely ludicrous.

by Shirina Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:27 pm

polyglide wrote:He does not promise that every prayer will be answerd in the positive or the negative, to assume that to answer a prayer means you will have all you ask for is nonsense, God will answer a prayer in the manner beffiting the contents of the prayer and the circumstances.

So, at the end of the day, the results are the same as if you hadn't prayed at all.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:31 pm

Shirina wrote:
polyglide wrote:He does not promise that every prayer will be answerd in the positive or the negative, to assume that to answer a prayer means you will have all you ask for is nonsense, God will answer a prayer in the manner beffiting the contents of the prayer and the circumstances.
So, at the end of the day, the results are the same as if you hadn't prayed at all.

Remarkable coincidence that. Wink

Or is god hiding?

and if so why??

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:33 pm

polyglide wrote: God will answer a prayer in the manner beffiting the contents of the prayer and the circumstances.

So why does god ignore the prayers of devout parents and let their children die, often in agony?

by Shirina Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:53 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:So why does god ignore the prayers of devout parents and let their children die, often in agony?

This has always been the fatal flaw of the idea of prayer.

A section of my family is devout Christian and they pray for every trivial little thing. What I find remarkable (and remarkably stupid) is ... well ... let's take an actual example:

One day my aunt broke down, so she called a tow truck. And while waiting for the tow truck to arrive, she prayed that the truck would arrive and that the garage towing her car would have the right replacement part. Of course the truck came and the garage had the part and fixed her car.

When she came visiting that very night, she kept praising the Lord and thanking him for the tow truck and the replacement part. I had to leave the room lest I start another religious family feud.

First, there's the idea that God intervened on an issue that really didn't need the expectation of divine help. It's not as if tow trucks only come for praying Christians or that automotive parts are only available to praying Christians. I know a lot of atheists, including myself, who found themselves in the same predicament and never uttered a prayer yet the tow truck came for them, too, and the garage fixed their cars without any issues.

But it's the second part that galls me. It takes colossal hubris and monumental arrogance to assume that God would even bother to help my aunt with something so banal and trivial. I find the whole idea of God answering prayers asking for a tow truck to be unforgivably insulting to people who prayed over a dying child, to people being attacked by murderers and rapists, to those prisoners stepping into the gas chambers at Auschwitz, to the people who felt the floor give way under their feet on 9/11, to those 1st grade children butchered in Sandy Hook by a mad gunman, and the countless millions who prayed for something meaningful and yet had their God turn away from them.

It really takes first class brainwashing not to see the vindictive nature of the god they worship. When it really counts, God is nowhere to be found. But when they need to find a dropped contact lens, or get a promotion at work, or to get over a cold, God seems right there to answer those prayers. Now, you and I know that God doesn't actually exist, but only that first class brainwashing could ever deny them the reality that they worship a rather miserable excuse for a god concept. Because not one answered prayer is a miracle ... just a collection of things that would have happened irrespective of how many prayers are sent aloft.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:00 pm

This is precisely correct, theists unashamedly cherry pick the prayers that are "answered" and ignore the far greater, and much more deserving prayers that are not. What benevolent god would bother itself with trivia while a child dies, often in pain and misery. My question was of course loaded, as any objective person wouldn't need to ask the question, as the truth is obvious.

by Shirina Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:05 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:as the truth is obvious.

Apparently it isn't else we wouldn't have to debate with theists. Wink

by stuart torr Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:10 pm

I use to hear this kind of thing all the time Shirina living in a religious family except myself, hence the reason I left home at a young age. Living with a family that would not listen to reason of any kind at all use to give me headaches. They would always come up with some stupid answer that god did it or he answered our prayers look stu, at such times I had to find my deaf ear.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:01 pm

Shirina wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:as the truth is obvious.
Apparently it isn't else we wouldn't have to debate with theists.

Ah, but I said any objective person, and though I don't wish to tar them all with the same brush, it has always seemed obvious to me that objectivity is the antithesis of faith. Smile

by Bellatori Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:09 pm

polyglide wrote:God, through Jesus, promises those who believe in him will have a better life.

I am sure that those huge numbers of Christians living in squalor and abject poverty in South America and Africa must find that terribly consoling. Theirs is a better life. Looking on from outside I would say it is a classic long con.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:27 pm

Bellatori wrote:
polyglide wrote:God, through Jesus, promises those who believe in him will have a better life.
I am sure that those huge numbers of Christians living in squalor and abject poverty in South America and Africa must find that terribly consoling. Theirs is a better life. Looking on from outside I would say it is a classic long con.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Not to mention the Christians who have lived and died in abject poverty all over the world throughout history...and of course the tardiness of this Christian god is also worthy of remark, given he's only put in an appearance in the last two to three thousand years of the 150000 ish years humans have lived suffered and died.

by stuart torr Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:48 pm

Even here in the UK Sheldon and Bellatori. I'm afraid my home was falling down, until the local council finally took notice of my persistant phone calls regarding the repairs that needed doing. during that time I'VE MANAGED TO SAVE UP ENOUGH MONEY TO DECORATE THE DAMN PLACE so it at least looks decent for any visitors. Despite my fits high b/p headaches etc that I am on medication for I will succeed in doing it cos the council don't give a shit.[edit] Well that is that, doors and framework etc all glossed at last, walls come next!! but I think I will have a day off tomorrow, but you never know I might just get bored and start them. lol!

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Jun 11, 2015 9:36 pm

JP Cusick wrote:Apparently lots of people find it repulsive that everyone gets saved even horrible evil people like Hitler, Stalin, George Bush, and all scoundrels, but that is the plan.

I figure that same reasoning is why people cling to the barbaric idea of a literal "Hell" simply because everyone being saved is so repulsive to the unenlightened mentality.

Actually when we take away their power and their evil then they too are just lost souls as are we all.

Plus I do not expect you or myself or anyone to believe in the "ancient superstitions" as I am referring to things far beyond that stuff.

The problem with this is it removes any reason for the credulous to check their behaviour in this life, indeed it would pretty much remove any meaning this life has. If Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot can get in then why worry about behaving at all? Also I'm not sure I'd want to spend eternity with people like that. As for being beyond superstition that depends on your perspective obviously.

OED defines superstition as follows:

Definition of superstition in English:
noun
1 Excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural

and religion is defined as:
noun
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:

I realise theists often baulk at their beliefs being described as superstitions, but the dictionary definition is hard to argue against if you're an atheist. I imagine most Christians, Jews and Muslims would have no problem describing all manner of beliefs as superstitions. It's not just a derogation, it is how I have come to view religious beliefs.

by JP Cusick Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:37 am

Well I have not been on here for near two years, but this is an important topic and thread, so I am happy to continue again.

FYI - The system sent me an email informing that there was a new comment.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
The problem with this is it removes any reason for the credulous to check their behaviour in this life, indeed it would pretty much remove any meaning this life has.

I can not see how anyone could reach that conclusion.

If we lie then we instantly become a liar, and we become separated from the truth, and it hurts other people while hurting our self, so THAT is a big huge reason to check our own behavior.

Of course it is sufficient reason for me, while most other people are just lost or confused.

If we commit a murder then the police will put us into jail, and that is a big "check" or motivator, but even if one gets away with a murder then they still get punished because they damage their own character and they become a walking murderer and they pay for that murder starting instantly and ever after, so that is a big "check" and motivator too.

The very idea that a person is not going to do some wrong just because they think that they are going to burn in a Hell is idiotic, but then it is better to be an idiot then to be a wrongdoer.

As such the meaning of life is changed and turned to a more accurate meaning of life, and that is worth fighting to discover.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
If Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot can get in then why worry about behaving at all? Also I'm not sure I'd want to spend eternity with people like that.

We have to learn about such spiritual principles as in forgiveness and loving thy enemies and universal salvation and hating the sin but not the sinner, because those high moral principles allow us to embrace and accept the very worst of sinners as being our own kinfolk.

When we learn first how to tolerate our self for all eternity, then to tolerate the other persons becomes very much easier.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
As for being beyond superstition that depends on your perspective obviously.

I see that as a matter of fact, and not of perspective.

The difference is that I have done the research and the homework so that I actually know what is what, and other people do not.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
OED defines superstition as follows:

Definition of superstition in English:
noun
1 Excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural

and religion is defined as:
noun
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:

There is one huge ugly reality that our human language is severely inadequate and deficient and very often it is twisted wrong.

In old Greece Aristotle (circa 322 BCE) wrote about the need to first work out the definition of words in every discussion before proceeding and all educated people have followed that diction ever after.

A vivid example is the dictionary (any dictionary) definition of "God" which is dead wrong, as if the dictionary knew what "God" means - it does not.

And from there when the dictionary does not know what God is then it can not understand religion or superstition any better.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
I realise theists often baulk at their beliefs being described as superstitions, but the dictionary definition is hard to argue against if you're an atheist. I imagine most Christians, Jews and Muslims would have no problem describing all manner of beliefs as superstitions. It's not just a derogation, it is how I have come to view religious beliefs.

Well you are severely misguided and misinformed.

But that does not matter as you and everyone gets saved in the end anyway, and there is no getting around that.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Jun 12, 2015 7:27 am

Hi, welcome back.

If as you say this life is merely a brief illusion before an eternity where all sins or wrongs are expunged then it demonstrably wouldn't matter what we did.

The pain and suffering our wrongs do in this life matter precisely because they can't be reversed and this life is all we have.

If you're going to abandon dictionary definitions then words will become meaningless, as will discussion. If you're suggesting the word has a nuanced meaning through context then you must show that . You can't simply deny the real definition as if that's a fact when it is an arbitrary subjective claim which you haven't even attempted to Justify beyond claiming personal knowledge you don't share.

If your own religious beliefs are a 'fact" and not based on superstition then it's for you to evidence that, and again you can't simply claim it and expect others to take your word for it, or label them misinformed. Though this of course is precisely what religious faith demands.

Claiming you've "done your homework " and others have not or are woefully misinformed is a bold claim, but again pretty meaningless if it is delivered without anything in the way of evidence. All you offered was a repudiation of a dictionary definition. So the evidence such as it is was presented by me. What evidence have you to refute the dictionary or my use of the word superstition?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Jun 12, 2015 8:33 am

JPCusick wrote: I can not see how anyone could reach that conclusion.

If we lie then we instantly become a liar, and we become separated from the truth, and it hurts other people while hurting our self, so THAT is a big huge reason to check our own behavior.

Of course it is sufficient reason for me, while most other people are just lost or confused.

I reached that conclusion because if everything we do, both good and bad is expunged at our deaths for all eternity, then it loses any significance. If the crimes of Hitler, or Stalin can be ignored and they receive the same reward for eternity what has marked their behaviour as wrong? A few decades of suffering, which is by any yardstick insignificant when measured against an eternity of heaven or bliss or whatever you want to call it when everyone receives the same reward regardless of their behaviour whilst alive.

You seem to be implying that good behaviour in this life is self evidently beneficial, and I'd agree, but only because this life is all we know we have. It behoves us all to help as many people as possible live as full and happy lives as we can.

If it's just the briefest of illusions prior to an eternity of heaven regardless of what we do, then self evidently that removes the significance of our behaviour in it. I don't see how we could view such a claim any other way.

Of course even the threat of eternal torture is no real check anyway, else the credulous would never misbehave.

Ask yourself if all laws forbidding criminal behaviour were abolished today would you feel safe walking home alone tonight even amongst only the faithful?

I suspect not....

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:44 pm

JP Cusick wrote:If we lie then we instantly become a liar,

Whilst this is true, if your claim were correct it would only be for an infinitesimally small time compared to the eternity where this behaviour would be forgiven and expunged. I generally don't care for analogies as they're often poorly used, but I'll try and convey a point here using one.

If someone deliberately lied in a trial for murder and you went to jail for life then this would represent an incomprehensible wrong or betrayal.

Now imagine instead of being jailed for life you were kept in overnight, it's still a lie and you were still wronged but they're hardly comparable.

So the significance of the act is demonstrably diminished because of the difference in the outcome. Now this is small coal compared to what you've suggested here, and I accept it's difficult for us to comprehend eternity, but we can easily see the insignificance of a few decades by comparison to eternity. So no wrong no matter what the outcome would have the very real significance it does now when measured against us being recreated into an eternity of bliss with all crimes absolved.

I actually think it's a very dangerous idea, and the idea that our behaviour can be expunged by an unknown unseen supernatural agent is extremely dangerous, but then it's also dangerous to start believing that you know what such an agent or deity thinks and wants, when you are also encouraged to believe that it's desires are more important than those of humans. We have ample evidence of what people are capable of when they think they're acting as agents of a larger power, be it a deity, a religion, a political ideology or leader. Whether a person is swearing absolute allegiance to Hitler, or unswerving obedience to a deity, or subjugating their will to a communist revolution whose needs are perceived as larger than the rights of any group or individual, once we relinquish our own moral compass we're on a slippery slope.

by polyglide Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:58 pm

Shirina,
There appears to be a misunderstanding regarding God and omnipotence and benevolence etc, so let us consider the following scenario.

A father has three sons, he instructs them from birth in matters that will be of benifit and explains that there are also many things that should not be persued or the results could be their downfall.

The first son totally ignores his father's advice and ends up a drug addict and indulges in every manner that gives adverse consquences and dies of an overdose of drugs.

The father is despondent in grief.

The second son keeps to his father's advice and lives an idea life he has certain problems regarding health etc; but his father expains how these have come about and the son fully understands and the father is well pleased.

The third son has problems at school with bullies and although following his fathers advice and keeping to the straight and narrow he is very upset, the father being a loving father to all his sons is very concerned and could easilly get hold of the culprits and deal with them, however, he is tied by the law to do so, so however benevolent he is, he cannot use the power he has.

by polyglide Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:18 pm

Shirina,
There is no such thing as hell fire, this has been used to frighten and alarm.

God has said he will give everlasting life to all those who believe in Jesus and behave accordingly, this is assured, the other people will be judged according to their actions and no one knows all the options other than God, however a benevolent God will not do anything other than look on the bright side.

by JP Cusick Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:55 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Hi, welcome back.

I appreciate the welcome but I do not expect that I will stay back for very long.

The memory of this forum being intolerant and bullying is still stuck in my memory, and so it feels uncomfortable to step back into a pile of poop.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
If as you say this life is merely a brief illusion before an eternity where all sins or wrongs are expunged then it demonstrably wouldn't matter what we did.

See here you have changed what I said into something that suits your self, and of course suits your own intentions.

This life is NOT some brief illusion, and the realities of this life will go onward forever into eternity.

There is no going to Hell or to a Heaven, but there is indeed our long term memories, so this life is not an illusion at all.

Plus I never said that the sins or wrong would ever be expunged as that is your own interjection here and not mine.

What I said is that our sins and our wrongs start to punish our self instantly and they never stop, but there is no other punishment from the God-thing as everyone gets forgiven and we move onward - but our baggage will always come along with us, and it is better (a blessing) that we keep a hold of our past sins and wrongs as being our best guide into eternity.

Being forgiven does not include being forgot or expunged.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
The pain and suffering our wrongs do in this life matter precisely because they can't be reversed and this life is all we have.

That is very true.

There is only a vague hope that there will be an afterlife, but for those of us who do the research then that hope is far more substantial.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
If you're going to abandon dictionary definitions then words will become meaningless, as will discussion. If you're suggesting the word has a nuanced meaning through context then you must show that . You can't simply deny the real definition as if that's a fact when it is an arbitrary subjective claim which you haven't even attempted to Justify beyond claiming personal knowledge you don't share.

If your own religious beliefs are a 'fact" and not based on superstition then it's for you to evidence that, and again you can't simply claim it and expect others to take your word for it, or label them misinformed.

Human languages and especially the English language is very barbaric and crude, so the definitions are not only wrong but the very words are wrong.

As like just the word G-o-d (God) is not accurate, and it is misleading, and it did not come from the old Bible languages, and yet we are stuck with using that same wrong word anyway.

I do claim some personal knowledge and I do share my knowledge as I love to share mine, and for this discussion then I have explained my knowledge here in this thread with very deliberate and distinct details.

If you (or anyone) wants to view the dictionary as the ultimate definer of our words, then that is not a defect which I share.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
What evidence have you to refute the dictionary or my use of the word superstition?

I am okay with the dictionary (and your) definition of superstition.

I just say for that one word you (and others) are applying it far too broadly.

As like calling God as a superstition has some basis in truth, but there really is a Creator or Father that we call as God and that is not superstition.

The belief in Hell is a superstition and it has no basis in truth, and Hell is just a load of emotional nonsense, but that one stupid superstition really does not hurt anyone - IMO.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:57 pm

polyglide wrote:Shirina,
There appears to be a misunderstanding regarding God and omnipotence and benevolence etc, so let us consider the following scenario.

A father has three sons, he instructs them from birth in matters that will be of benifit and explains that there are also many things that should not be persued or the results could be their downfall.

The first son totally ignores his father's advice and ends up a drug addict and indulges in every manner that gives adverse consquences and dies of an overdose of drugs.

The father is despondent in grief.

The second son keeps to his father's advice and lives an idea life he has certain problems regarding health etc; but his father expains how these have come about and the son fully understands and the father is well pleased.

The third son has problems at school with bullies and although following his fathers advice and keeping to the straight and narrow he is very upset, the father being a loving father to all his sons is very concerned and could easilly get hold of the culprits and deal with them, however, he is tied by the law to do so, so however benevolent he is, he cannot use the power he has.

The problem with your analogy is that human fathers don't possess omnipotence and omniscience. Those attributes would endow such a being with limitless choices. Now in your analogy if you look at that last sentence the father you have used is "tied by the law" and "cannot use his power, " since both claims contradict the meaning of omnipotence perhaps you can see why it's an illogical analogy?

An omnipotent being couldn't 't be tied other than through choice, so if it's choice allows evil and suffering then it's not benevolent. what's more if such a being wanted to be tied by some law, it could still do this and deal with these analogous bullies, to suggest it couldn't would again contradict the claim it was omnipotent.

the reason this is going around and around is because the claims contain an innate contradiction, hence theodicy. The paradox can't be solved, as the claims themselves don;t allow it.

Try this...could God use it's power to limit it's own power?

Which ever answer you give would limit it's power and thus stop it being omnipotent.

Or this, if God is omniscient it would have to know the future exactly, so can it alter that future using it's omnipotence? Again there is no answer that leaves both claims intact.

by polyglide Sat Jun 13, 2015 11:05 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I agree that an omnipotent can do anything, anythimg includes deciding to let a deviant try to oppose, an omnipotent is not tied in any way, you want to believe that an omnipotent can only behave in the manner you feel it should and there is a distinct difference.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Jun 13, 2015 11:10 am

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I agree that an omnipotent can do anything, anythimg includes deciding to let a deviant try to oppose, an omnipotent is not tied in any way, you want to believe that an omnipotent can only behave in the manner you feel it should and there is a distinct difference.

Not at all, the Christian religion claims that their deity is omni-benevolent as well, so the behaviour that would demand has nothing to do with me at all. Your religion is also fully aware of this innate contradiction, hence theodicy.

You still haven't acknowledged my question?

1. Does your god choose to allow evil and so is not benevolent?

or

2. Is it bound by the agreement without choice and so not omnipotent?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Jun 13, 2015 11:49 am

JP Cusick wrote:See here you have changed what I said into something that suits your self, and of course suits your own intentions.
This life is NOT some brief illusion, and the realities of this life will go onward forever into eternity.

The human brain dies fairly quickly when the heart stops supplying oxygen, the memories would go with that death. There is no evidence that we survive our deaths in any meaningful way, so the idea that this is an infinitesimally small stop off before an eternity of heaven (or whatever you claim it is) when we have no knowledge of or evidence for that would absolutely make this life a brief illusion. That doesn't "suit my purposes" as you put it, it's just what the evidence shows. I've noticed you often assign motives to atheism that aren't there, I can't of course speak for others, but I disbelieve in deities because the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that humans manufacture them for their own motives. The evidence suggests that humans create gods in their own image so to speak, not the other way around.

It must be self evident that deities reflect the views, cultures, prejudices, ignorance, and histories of the people that create them.

JP Cusick wrote:Plus I never said that the sins or wrong would ever be expunged as that is your own interjection here and not mine. What I said is that our sins and our wrongs start to punish our self instantly and they never stop, but there is no other punishment from the God-thing as everyone gets forgiven and we move onward - but our baggage will always come along with us, and it is better (a blessing) that we keep a hold of our past sins and wrongs as being our best guide into eternity.

So we'd be punished by guilt? Do Hitler or Stalin strike you as people who'd be tortured by guilt? That doesn't sound very realistic to me I must say, more like idealistic wishful thinking.

JP Cusick wrote:Being forgiven does not include being forgot or expunged.

Well without punishment that fits the crimes it does to me I must say, what religion is this by the way, as it doesn't sound like any of the contemporary monotheisms? It sounds more like a variation of Karma.

JP Cusick wrote:There is only a vague hope that there will be an afterlife, but for those of us who do the research then that hope is far more substantial.

Could you share some of this research?

JP Cusick wrote:Human languages and especially the English language is very barbaric and crude, so the definitions are not only wrong but the very words are wrong. As like just the word G-o-d (God) is not accurate, and it is misleading, and it did not come from the old Bible languages, and yet we are stuck with using that same wrong word anyway.

Then you'd have to specifically define what you're referring to if it's not god, your descriptions so far don't match the traditional Christian Jewish or Islamic deities. What word would you prefer to God and why?

JP Cusick wrote:I do claim some personal knowledge and I do share my knowledge as I love to share mine, and for this discussion then I have explained my knowledge here in this thread with very deliberate and distinct details.

I must admit I haven't read the entire thread, as I came late to it.

JP Cusick wrote:If you (or anyone) wants to view the dictionary as the ultimate definer of our words, then that is not a defect which I share.

I'm not sure what else we should use to define words, what do you suggest?

JP Cusick wrote:I just say for that one word you (and others) are applying it far too broadly. As like calling God as a superstition has some basis in truth, but there really is a Creator or Father that we call as God and that is not superstition.

Well simply making a subjective claim doesn't evidence it, and since I have never heard an argument from any religious apologist that ultimately doesn't hinge on a simple presupposition of their deities existence without any real evidence then I think superstition is a reasonably accurate term. However if I'm wrong then an easy way to show it would be to present that real evidence. More often a declaration of faith seems to suffice, even for the most fantastic claims that defy known scientific laws, hence overly credulous applies, and as the dictionary defines a superstition in this way I don't see any salient objection to using it, but then I wouldn't as I don't have faith, nor indeed do I want it or rate it as useful.

JP Cusick wrote:The belief in Hell is a superstition and it has no basis in truth, and Hell is just a load of emotional nonsense, but that one stupid superstition really does not hurt anyone - IMO.

I agree that it's an absurd and illogical superstition to claim a being with limitless benevolence tortures billions of humans forever, just for not believing in it. I don't think it is harmless though, as the lurid way it is used to frighten children has a lasting and harmful impression if the testimonies I've heard are to be believed. Myself I never really found religious claims convincing even as a child. I'd also point out that the burning hell-fire is so often emulated in real tortures in this world by believers to punish those that don't share their beliefs, or hold different beliefs of some sort, or are just plain unlucky, that again I'm not sure the notion is entirely harmless.

by polyglide Sat Jun 13, 2015 11:55 am

Dr, Sheldon,
God at the present time must be suffering as any parent would do seeing their children suffer from many things.

Satan is using all the means he can to turn all mankind against God, causing illness and wars etc; using the unfaithful to carry out his aim.

God cannot do anything at the present time other than suffer the same feelings as any father would seeing his children subjected to numerous henious illnesses and crimes of all kinds etc;

God could of course have stopped all the above then Satan could cliam foul play as God has given him free reign to do all he can to turn mankind agianst God.

This emphasises that God is both benevolent, being heartbroken at mankinds present situation and honest in allowing Satan free reign and omnipotent in allowing him to do so.

I feel this answers both your questions.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:09 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
God at the present time must be suffering as any parent would do seeing their children suffer from many things. Satan is using all the means he can to turn all mankind against God, causing illness and wars etc; using the unfaithful to carry out his aim. God cannot do anything at the present time other than suffer the same feelings as any father would seeing his children subjected to numerous henious illnesses and crimes of all kinds etc; God could of course have stopped all the above then Satan could cliam foul play as God has given him free reign to do all he can to turn mankind agianst God. This emphasises that God is both benevolent, being heartbroken at mankinds present situation and honest in allowing Satan free reign and omnipotent in allowing him to do so. I feel this answers both your questions.

Not really, if as you say your god is choosing to allow evil and suffering then it would demonstrably not be benevolent. This narrative you've created is itself just restating those beliefs that created the paradox, and does not solve the innate paradox of a benevolent deity allowing evil and suffering. Anthropomorphising your deity is a common tactic as well, but of course it's also illogical as a being that possessed limitless knowledge, and power would possess limitless choice.

Now as I already pointed out more than once, it's illogical to try and limit the choices in any way of a being that you claim has limitless choices, as you have done here again with this deal it's bound by or chooses to be bound by. I also think it is illogical to claim a being that is immortal, and has limitless power and knowledge would feel human emotions anyway, it strikes me as very implausible for fairly obvious reasons. So when I read apologetics that anthropomorphise deities in this way it always strikes me as wishful thinking, as well as being logically fallacious of course. Our emotions are evolved and influenced by our human brains which are also evolved, and of course by the very finite nature of our existence, and the the fact that this and much else is out of our control.

by JP Cusick Sun Jun 14, 2015 3:43 am

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:If you (or anyone) wants to view the dictionary as the ultimate definer of our words, then that is not a defect which I share.

I'm not sure what else we should use to define words, what do you suggest?

First = The world "should" is inappropriate.

Question = What else could we use or can we use to define words?

Answer = We could use our own brain and our own knowledge to define our own words to have the meaning that we mean to say.

Note = The dictionary can be our helper and sometimes it is our instructor, but the dictionary must not be our master.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Jun 14, 2015 10:13 am

JP Cusick wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

I'm not sure what else we should use to define words, what do you suggest?
First = The world "should" is inappropriate.

Question = What else could we use or can we use to define words?

Answer = We could use our own brain and our own knowledge to define our own words to have the meaning that we mean to say.

Note = The dictionary can be our helper and sometimes it is our instructor, but the dictionary must not be our master.

Should or could just sounds like semantics to me, since it was your claim that others were using the wrong word. As for using our own brains, I'm not sure why you think this is negated by using the dictionary. The dictionary is a point of reference, and as I said without it language would lose its meaning. If you think god is an inappropriate word to describe what you're talking about then you're probably talking about something that is different to what we're describing. Since this is your definition it's for you to evidence what you're describing and the claims you're making for it.

It's usually a good rule of thumb that if someone can't clearly convey an idea to others then they probably don't have a very clear understanding of it themselves. So far beyond the bare claims you've made about an afterlife your ideas are not very clear, cogent or even logical, I'm sorry. Of course I may just lack the intellect or education to understand, how are your ideas normally received? You mentioned being unhappy with the reaction to your posts previously, I've not found most people to be deliberately rude on here to be honest.

You mentioned research earlier, but have so far shown none. What's more your claims about an afterlife defy known physical facts, and seems rather illogical. As I pointed out in my post, have you any thoughts on the content beyond disputing my use of should?

by polyglide Mon Jun 15, 2015 1:56 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I would like an explanation of how you think an omnipotent can be is restricted in any way other than by choice.

by Sponsored content