INTP and hating religion.

[Owl]

no, actualy they are not. however, it may make it easier for you to tell yourself that.

If you want to justify your position over mine, please present a better reason than a personal attack.

some people may embrace lies. but rejecting the christian god on a moral basis has nothing to do with embracing a lie. in fact, the opposite. it means you have a concince.

Your conscious never leads you astray? You've never thought it was OK to do something, only to find out later that what you did was wrong? You've never thought something was wrong, only to find out later that it was OK?

Even if you've never experienced the above, (which would be incredible), does this mean that blindly following your conscious is a reliable way to form true beliefs about what you ought to do?

 

[Sniffles]

the evangeicals are the only ones who actually follow the bible.

According to what logic can you base this on?

 

[Robert165]

If you want to justify your position over mine, please present a better reason than a personal attack.

your position is that hell is a self inflicted wound. you have just said that i deserve to go to hell because i reject your god. its you who made it personal, not me.

Your conscious never leads you astray? You've never thought it was OK to do something, only to find out later that what you did was wrong? You've never thought something was wrong, only to find out later that it was OK?

Even if you've never experienced the above, (which would be incredible), does this mean that blindly following your conscious is a reliable way to form true beliefs about what you ought to do?

my concience would never permit me to believe a $10 fine was acceptable punishment for rape or murder. my logical mind would never let me believe the moon was made of cheese. and to answer your question, any time i let my concience "lead me away" i always had a nagging feeling telling me i was doing something wrong.

 

[Robert165]

According to what logic can you base this on?

because unlike you they don't ignore the parts that "arent pretty"

 

[Owl]

no, you're not. i may really really really want to beleive the moon is made out of cheese, but becasue i have actually seen a picture of a moon rock, i am forced to believe it is in fact, made out of moonrock. i can't force myself to beleive the moon is made out of cheese when i know for a fact it isin't.

You could always deny what you'd seen with your eyes in order to preserve your belief that the moon was made of green cheese. If you really, really, really wanted to believe the moon was made of green cheese, you'd deny the veracity of the image presented in the picture. What this example shows is that, in view of the image in the picture, you no longer want to believe the moon is made of green cheese.

nor could i force myself to believe a $10 fine was an acceptable punishment for raping or killing someone. no matter how much i would want to believe that, i could never believe that.

What if were a fact that a $10 fine were an acceptable punishment for raping or killing someone, would you believe it then?

 

[Sniffles]

because unlike you they don't ignore the parts that "arent pretty"

Really? And what parts of the Bible do I ignore? Id like to hear this.

 

[Robert165]

You could always deny what you'd seen with your eyes in order to preserve your belief that the moon was made of green cheese. If you really, really, really wanted to believe the moon was made of green cheese, you'd deny the veracity of the image presented in the picture. What this example shows is that, in view of the image in the picture, you no longer want to believe the moon is made of green cheese.

you could say it. you couldn't believe it. wait. maybe you could. i know i wouldnt be able to.

What if were a fact that a $10 fine were an acceptable punishment for raping or killing someone, would you believe it then?

you're a tricky little one, aren't you.

 

[Halla74]

you're a tricky little one, aren't you.

The apocryphal saints? Oh, I'm sorry, the CANONIZED bible, as in the version approved of human powermongers of the church, ex-cathdra Petri, and what not?

 

[Robert165]

Really? And what parts of the Bible do I ignore? Id like to hear this.

which is it, peguy:

the bible clearly says those who do not beleive in christ will go to hell. clearly. we can argue about what hell is like or how many times its mentioned, you can even drag out the names of half a dozen philosphers, but there is no arguing that the bible says, through a chain of connected declarations, that those who do not believe in christ go to hell.

so, people are being punished for eternity, for actions or choices they made in a finite lietime.

so, peguy:

1- is this fair
2- or is this unfair

 

[Sniffles]

The apocryphal saints? Oh, I'm sorry, the CANONIZED bible, as in the version approved of human powermongers of the church, ex-cathdra Petri, and what not?

The basic canon of the Gospels was largely agreed upon before the Church became anykind of powerful force.

 

[Sniffles]

Where exactly did I deny the existence of Hell? BTW, stop changing the subject.

 

[Robert165]

Where exactly did I deny the existence of Hell? BTW, stop changing the subject.

we've been on the same subject for several days now. and you didnt answer the question. people are being punished, for eternity, for actions or choices carried out in a finite lifetime. is this:

1- fair
2- unfair

 

[Haphazard]

Why would a just and loving God try to enlighten His people when not knowing about this enlightenment would not cause us ill but knowing about its existence would so condemn so many?

 

[Robert165]

Why would a just and loving God try to enlighten His people when not knowing about this enlightenment would not cause us ill but knowing about its existence would so condemn so many?

becasue he wants to be worshiped......

 

[Owl]

your position is that hell is a self inflicted wound. you have just said that i deserve to go to hell because i reject your god. its you who made it personal, not me.

I wrote about hell, not you.

You made this statement:

this life is the only place to understand it. punishing someone, forever, for what they do, or choose, in this life, is unfair. end of story.

I believe this to be a false conception of hell, and I told you what I believe to be a true conception. This doesn't constitute an ad hominem attack.

my concience would never permit me to believe a $10 fine was acceptable punishment for rape or murder. my logical mind would never let me believe the moon was made of cheese. and to answer your question, any time i let my concience "lead me away" i always had a nagging feeling telling me i was doing something wrong.

So, your conscience has lead you astray. How do you know it's not leading you astray with respect to God?

 

[Sniffles]

we've been on the same subject for several days now.

Yeah because you're a broken record.

and you didnt answer the question.

You refuse to answer any of my question, going back to the Principle of Non-Contradiction(PNC), yet stomp your foot about me not answering your questions. Cute!

people are being punished, for eternity, for actions or choices carried out in a finite lifetime. is this:

1- fair
2- unfair

Yes actually it is fair, since they freely choose that course. Now, if you could go back and answer my questions!

So, your conscience has lead you astray. How do you know it's not leading you astray with respect to God?

He believes because it's bullshit.

 

[Robert165]

I wrote about hell, not you.

You made this statement:



I believe this to be a false conception of hell, and I told you what I believe to be a true conception. This doesn't constitute an ad hominem attack.



So, your conscience has lead you astray. How do you know it's not leading you astray with respect to God?

ad hominem? you're the one sitting here and trying to complicate things. "what if its a fact that a $10 dollar fine is an aaceptable punishment for rape or murder".

do you really really --- really --- believe this is a suitable punishment for rape or murder?

 

[Robert165]

Yeah because you're a broken record.


You refuse to answer any of my question, going back to the Principle of Non-Contradiction(PNC), yet stomp your foot about me not answering your questions. Cute!


Yes actually it is fair, since they freely choose that course. Now, if you could go back and answer my questions!


He believes because it's bullshit.

1- i will answer, for the third time now, about contradiction. sending someone to hell --- forever --- for rejecting god is not a loving thing to do. and your christian god is defined as a loving god.

2- and no this is not fair. you saying it's fair doesnt make it so. however, the fact that an infinte punishment is being applied for a finite crime. there is no way that can be defined as fair. the very idea of "fair" dictates that the punishment must fit the crime.

 

[Sniffles]

1- i will answer, for the third time now, about contradiction. sending someone to hell --- forever --- for rejecting god is not a loving thing to do. and your christian god is defined as a loving god.

Because you say so huh?

2- and no this is not fair. you saying it's fair doesnt make it so.

Your contradiction will not make it unfair either, considering you're trying to argue with God - or the unmoved mover or first cause of the universe as he's often also referred to as.

however, the fact that an infinte punishment is being applied for a finite crime. there is no way that can be defined as fair. the very idea of "fair" dictates that the punishment must fit the crime.

And what exactly is your legal training might I ask?

 

[Robert165]

Because you say so huh?

no, becasue it does not match the description of a loving act. it causes harm. please tell me how casuing harm is a loving act.

Your contradiction will not make it unfair either, considering you're trying to argue with God - or the unmoved mover or first cause of the universe as he's often also referred to as.

god doesnt get to set his wn rules. oh wait! he does. but that doesnt mean he gets to use different defintions for words than we do. four sides and four right angles will alwyas make a rectanlge

And what exactly is your legal training might I ask?

don't need any. all i need is the dictionary:

love: a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. (hell is neither tender nor is it affectionate).
just: Properly due or merited