h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

that's my understanding of Christian teaching anyway... open to correction by more learned friends...

Stayed out of this thread for a while, but I got sucked back in after KZWG's stuff about the second coming in another thread.

pocketprincess:

>>>Will we have free will in Heaven? If so, then presumably Heaven is no better or worse than Earth.<

We will have free will but we will have been purified, or we'll be chock full of love or some such so Heaven will be better due to a) lack of natural disasters, b)lack of death (no more having to get along without dear friends and loved ones) and c) everyone being perfect, shining examples of kindness, love, thoughfulness, etc, etc<<

What do you mean by purified and how does it avoid impinging on free will? A good mate of mine (an ex, in fact) does charitible works, is kind, generous, confesses his sins, goes to church. Presuming his god (the Catholic one) is the correct one, I can't see anything which would prevent him from going to heaven.

However, my mate is gay. Since he converted to Catholicism, he's remained celibate but he is still attracted to blokes. Now if he went to heaven, would these attractions be removed, thus purifying him?

Iago

If that is your answer to my questions BCR, then it is a shame that you've seen to reject (1) out of hand what I was attempting, which was a fairly reasonable (2) discourse of what we each think. Given how I've tended to be a bit dismissive in my last few posts I thought a bit of clarity would have been nice and not to mention useful to have an actual definition of what a theist considers to be 'supernatural' (3)

Instead I think you've been a bit rude (4), have both ignored (5) and obfuscated (6) the issue by trying to change the subject.

I mean if this is how you act when I extend an olive branch - what am I supposed to conclude other than you don't want to engage. (7)

I think this just reflects poorly on you - of course if you change you mind and feel like actually trying to address my questions I'll welcome that and I remain interested in your answer.

However, your curt reply does nothing to undermine my suggestion that you look highly foolish (8) nor our shared opinion that belief in the supernatural is evidence of a delusion (9)




1. Reject. (verb) dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate or not to one's taste.

2. Reasonable (adjective) having sound judgement; fair and sensible.

3. Supernatural (adjective) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

4 Rude (adjective) offensively impolite or ill-mannered.

5 Ignored (verb) refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.

6 Obfuscated (verb) render obscure, unclear or unintelligible.

7. Engage (verb) to become engaged involved in a conversation or discussion.

8. Foolish (adjective) lacking good sense or judgement; unwise.

9. Delusion (noun) an idiosyncratic belief or impression which is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of a mental disorder.


All definitions courtesy of The Oxford English Dictionary.

HonestIago,

I've always understood 'being purified' to mean entirely like God, ie devoid of all evil impulses. So we would have free will but, like God, would choose not to do wrong. Many Christians don't consider homosexuality evil but as we both know, it's not unheard-of within Christian society so I dont know if your ex would still be attracted to blokes or not... maybe he will be; could be God's gay, could be one of those protest-too-much scenarios!

Hi Gif

Re 13616...I was ignoring you cos you can be moody sometimes....(joke)

<>

Have I used that as an explanation for suffering? I always try not to 'explain' suffering. Regarding my *own* personal suffering I can choose to trust in the mystery of God's providence, but it would seem insensitive to explain away other people's suffering like that. Other people's suffering require me to act as God's hands and feet...to represent God as his follower.

Tell me Gif, are you middle-class and reasonably well off? (Don't answer me if you don't want) It's just that the most joyful christians I've come across are those with *nothing but their faith*. Perhaps people who really know what it is to suffer, when they hear this message of God's mercy in Christ, respond with open arms.

(Apologies in advance to all people offended by the above paragraph)

<>

Read the conversation between Christ and the two criminals crucified with him. Both are suffering. One mocks and rages, the other believes and asks for mercy. No explanation here of suffering but I am here trying to persuade you to be like the one who is open to Christ's offer of forgiveness and peace.

<>

I've tried to put the point across recently that it is reasonable to accept the testimony of Jesus and his followers. I've done this by many different arguments, always allowing for the requirement to *have faith*, but showing that there is good reason to believe. I fear that because we are discussing God, you will automatically consider my whole point of view 'inconsistent'. In your worldview, resurrections can't happen so Christ's didn't. Miracles of healing can't happen, therefore, all healings can be explained scientifically. God can't possibly exist therefore we can deduce that the entire universe came into being by 'quantum physics!!!?' Fair play to you...I respect your opinion.

<>

In the Bible, God comes across as a thinking feeling being.

<>

I think that can be safely assumed from the divinely inspired text.

<>

Whose words are those?

<>

I believe that would be contrary to the Bible's teaching.

<>

I'm stumped there...but I believe there probably is an answer. If I give the answer that satisfies me, it probably won't satisfy you!! I think people who are really seeking God would probably find sufficient answers to allow them to take certain deep questions like these on trust. But if someone is determined to keep on asking and asking questions bcause they are convinced that the bible is false, I'm sure there is no limit to the possible questions they could continue to raise!

<>

What? Jesus did miracles for the very reason of proving his claims. Perhaps WG is mistaken!! (Sharp intake of breath) Christians can be mistaken you know...although we believe in an ultimate objective truth, it would be unwise for any of us to claim infallibility!!

<>

Is your question here sincere...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you're a nice guy! Answer: see above paragraph...there are many ways to come to faith and I think that they are all valid.

mikey2

And now a question for you. You recently suggested that the spontaneous beginning of time and space from *nothing at all* was quite feasible because of recent discoveries in quantum physics. Well, why didn't you say so before!!? But before we all go home to live our lives as atheists, could you expand(!) a tiny bit?

>it would be unwise for any of us to claim infallibility!!<

Stoopid pope! 's to herself

Hi Mickey, if I may respond to one element of your replies to Gif and not to anticipate their own views, I would want to say this in reply to the following:

>>resurrections can't happen so Christ's didn't.<<
>>Miracles of healing can't happen, therefore, all healings can be explained scientifically.<<
>> God can't possibly exist therefore we can deduce that the entire universe came into being by 'quantum physics.<<

With the possible exception of the first, which I think is probably true, I think the majority of atheists and particularly those with a scientific bent would see those statements as being in the wrong order, although I think simply reversing them to show this is problematic as I'm not sure what you mean by healing or what your understanding of quantum physics is and so it's not quite that simple as I'm not sure the ideas as equitable.

What I'm trying to say is that atheism tends to be a rejection based on a long line of reasoning that finds arguments and 'evidence' in favour of religion to be insufficient.
It's not that we've decided a priori god doesn't exist therefore we conclude science is correct in it's estimations, rather that science which a posteriori sufficiently explains phenomena so therefore, god is not needed.

If it sometimes seems as though we dismiss out of hand the concepts of religion it's usually because after the umpteenth time of of here that Einstein believed in a god or it's all so pretty it must have been designed by a designer or 'it's all supernatural' I want to assure you that we've not just up and dismissed your ideas but that your arguments tend to not be sufficiently plausible or based in fact and reason.

Dismissive it may seem but prick us and do we not bleed rational explanations?

And that I think is the error made is saying atheists assume something can't happen therefore it didn't - which by the way is the same as saying I assume something did happen therefore it did: just positive and negative reflections of the same flawed logic (apriori)

Rather it is the case that many of us see no evidence that it can happen so find the claim that it did highly unlikely.

Hi pp,

Thanks for stepping into the breach and representing the Christian perspective... albeit, I sense, a little half-heartedly!

>we cannot know ....

So Christianity conflicts with rational thought?

>Has free will, chooses not to do evil [...] So we would have free will but, like God, would choose not to do wrong.

If this is possible, then why not make us the same way?

>We will have free will but we will have been purified

So why did God not make us pure in the first place?

Gif

Hi Mikey ,

>are you middle-class and reasonably well off?

Probably middle-class. Not feeling particularly well off at the moment, having just taken on an oppressive mortgage and with Mrs Gif's salary stopping...

I'm happy to accept that religion appeals more to the desperate. Does that mean it's true, or does it just mean that desperation rather than rational thought is the best way to become religious? I notice once again that *all* religions appeal most to the desperate - if you're going to argue that this is evidence for Christianity, why is it not also evidence for (e.g.) Islam?

><>
>Read the conversation between Christ and the two criminals crucified with him.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. I don't see how the passivity or anger of the victim removes the onus on God - or anyone - to intervene. I can see how, if you're going to suffer anyway, you should do it with courage. But that's not what I was asking. Can you explain what you meant? (NB: you forgot to mention that I need to read this in Luke. Mark and Matthew both specify that both thieves reviled Jesus.)

>it is reasonable to accept the testimony of Jesus and his followers

We do not have the testimony of Jesus!

It's pretty debatable whether we have the testimony of any of his followers either. If we do, it has certainly been doctored since.

You seem to be confusing 'consistent' with 'agreed'. Certainly we disagree over whether the Resurrection is possible. But I would not say that it is inconsistent. It is possible to imagine a world where Resurrections are possible, it just wouldn't be the same as our world. However, I am saying that it is not possible to imagine a world where free will leads inevitably to unnecessary suffering, AND where there is a Heaven where we have free will and there is no unneccessary suffering. (That sentence was a lot clearer in my head than it came out here! Let me know if it doesn't make sense.)

><>
>Whose words are those?

The words are mine, but the sentiment has been expressed by you. Over on the Bible verse thread, RoyalCrompton has said that "mankind deserves only eternal punishment. None of us deserves mercy because we all repeatedly break God's moral laws." On another thread, he's gone further, saying "Man no longer has the capacity to do good". You yourself spoke on this thread of "a society that is unable to recognize its need of redemption" and "Jesus' assessment of the human heart, which is 'desperately wicked'."

><>
>In the Bible, God comes across as a thinking feeling being.
<>
>I believe that would be contrary to the Bible's teaching.

So you clearly believe that it is possible to have free will but be incapable of falling. Why did God not make us 'in His image' in this respect?

>Jesus did miracles for the very reason of proving his claims.

Although I disagree with you on the reality of the miracles, I agree that that is the reason for their inclusion in the Bible. Seems we're actually on the same 'side' on this one

><>
>Is your question here sincere

It tied in to the previous point. WG seemed to be saying that proof denies faith, and without faith you can't be saved. If you disagree with that, you have no reason to think that 'rational Christians' would go to Hell.

>You recently suggested that the spontaneous beginning of time and space from *nothing at all* was quite feasible because of recent discoveries in quantum physics [...] could you expand

Happy to. I was thinking of vacuum fluctuations. This is when, due to Heisenberg's Uncertainly Principle, matter appears from a vacuum without cause. Nor it this particularly rare - it happens constantly, and has been measured in a lab (Google on 'Bell Inequality' for more details). btw, I didn't mention space or time, only matter. I was using this as an example of something happening without cause. Once things start happening without a cause, the whole 'argument from first cause' collapses.

So let me be quite clear about what I am saying here. I am *not* saying that we have a complete explanation for the origin of the Universe just from this. The scale is about as far off as you could get, for a start, and it's matter and energy, not time and space, that is appearing. What I *am* saying is that it punches a massive hole through the 'first cause' argument, which has as a premise the idea that everything must have a cause. Once you re-phrase it as 'most things have a cause', or 'everyday events have a cause', you have no argument.

I am also saying that even before that, it was clear that the 'argument from first cause' was flawed, because then your first cause needs a cause. You simply have to either have an infinitely long chain of cause and effect, or something that comes into existence without a pre-existing cause (self-causing, causeless or something else). In either case, there's no need for God unless you can also show that that cause must have been a thinking being.

Gif

Effers - at present somewhere between Supreme Ruler of the Universe and worthless layabout....

Err what class does that make me?

Actually I think that must make me middle class as well.

(And I wonder if mikey will classify my posts as being friendly at present.....but then again I might turn nasty at any moment.....)

Post: 13670

Effers wins teh interwebs!

Posted by KZWG from another thread. Something we've always wanted to know:

How to tell the difference between the divine revelations of gods and devils.

"This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." ~ KZWG

F19585?thread=5985941&show=1&skip=87

Isn't it obvious?

>Posted by KZWG<


Considering the evidence of late, should we really be reading his posts without medication?

That youtube video I find genuinely disturbing. The guy is a suggesting homosexuality has prelidiction towards violence and serial murder if you read the info that accompanies the video.

I'm actually quite sickened, I'll be honest.

I disagree with KZWG on many, many levels but find distributing that kind of intolerance actually repellant.

What genuinely sickens me is that because he's a Christian, h2g2 gives him free licence to continue to express his disgusting bile.

It's rare that the depravities of the wilder depths of christianity and religion actually leave me feeling angry* but KZWG just managed it with that.

I'm taking a deep breath and going downstairs to watch TV and have some cereal before bed and leave this bigotted rubbish to those who espouse it.

At least it's gone for now.



*exasperated, bewildered, confused, perplexed: frequently and often.

Yes I suppose I contradicted myself in terms of what I wrote on that other thread. It's the hypocrisy though I can't stand, about what gets yikesed here.

I do think ideally people should really understand what the extremist bornagain idea is *really* all about.

I think you have a point. I'm not sure how we bridge that gap between resisting the outrageous and allowing it to be seen for what it is.