Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Actually, in Christianity, the only creatures that get into heaven are humans who live apart from sin and accept Jebus Chritiano. All other animals just die cuz they don't have souls.
Humans are the only new members. There are still fallen angels. There are fallen angels who left Lucifer and fostered Nephilim on Earth but that might be just Milton :]
God also says an eye for an eye but the interpretation is meant to be leaving murder up to god because he is the giver and taker of life.
I'm not saying there aren't fallacies in Christianity. I'm just shooting down all of yours :]
It wasn't your argument lol.
God tells us not to murder, killing and murder are two different things. Murder denotes the unjust taking of life.
Nope, sorry. It's "Thou shalt not ratsach."
God does not send anyone to hell (if by hell you mean an eternity of fiery torment). The Bible states that all living creatures are souls (Gen 1:20, 21), and that the soul dies at the death of the body, and that the wicked along with the righteous souls goto hell (hebrew - sheol, greek - hades) (Job 14:13, Ps 9:17, Acts 2:25-27), which is nothing more than the grave, a state of physical non-existence. (Eccl. 9:5, 10)
Is someone who has the capacity to bench press 750 lbs weak because he decides only do bench press 225? No he isn't. Just because he chooses to bench press 225 doesn't mean he can't do 750. He's still strong.
I'm guessing you didn't read my post, because I explained how hell is not a place of eternal suffering, nor is the idea supported anywhere in the Bible.
its possible to choose to benchpress different weights. its not possible to "not know" something and still be omniscient. hes either omniscient, in which case he knows all, or he isnt, in which case he doesnt. playing word games cant save you.
What a cliched, tired argument. This was addressed over a dozen times by various apologists.
Sure it can.
This only argues that there could coexist free will (to the extent that you agree such a thing is even a meaningful or realizable concept) and an omnipotent/omniscient god "on the sidelines." It doesn't address the fact that the god in question is supposed to have created the universe, which IS "interfering." It's no different than setting a wind-up toy in motion, since the god will have had foreknowledge of events that will transpire AND he will have set them in motion.
This is the large problem. If we use an idiotic form of freewill, it is not surprising in the least that we find it problematic. The type of freewill (the ability to choose between A and B) utilized by many is not a coherent concept. It demands that a specific set of rules is in place, but that these rules are broken when applied to the mind. So of course we find that it is garbage and never very consistent in various philosophical contexts. It cannot stand by itself. That is why I consider it "acting of one's own volition". It does not matter how I came to my decision, be it deterministic particles or a soul.
Again, that does not matter, because you are still acting of your own volition unless that god actually interferes with your decision process. God might have caused you to make that decision, and may even know what you are going to do, but that still does not take away the fact that you chose.
Well if you can be said to act of your own volition at the behest of deterministic particles, what's stopping you from saying that, say, other particles act of their own volition when subjected to forces from particles in a deterministic way? It shouldn't matter WHO the act was carried out by.
Maybe it's not 'inconsistent,' but it is basically useless.
But this is just looking at the 'most proximate cause' and saying THAT is a 'choice' without considering the causes behind that choice; I'd say it is taking it out of context. It's like looking at some Rube Goldberg device and saying "the marble knocked over the egg and cracked it into my breakfast" without acknowledging that there was a long series of complicated events that deterministically led to that, AND (to make an analogy with god) that you set up the device and 'pushed the button' in the beginning with full knowledge of what was to come.
he's the one that PROGRAMMED our decision process for us. god IS interfering with our decision process because he decided exactly what we were going to do before he made us.
The Parent didn't create sin, so your analogy is irrelevant, furthermore a parent won't cast their child away for eternal ****ation for sinning.
How is it a choice if your actions are already determined? All it creates is an illusion of free will, regardless what you pick god knew you were going to pick it.
If I am, then you are doing the same.
Again, it does not matter how I choose something. If I make a choice through deterministic particles, it is still a choice, even though I could do nothing else given the circumstances.
I can be. After all, what am I?
Because you are arguing that these particles can be considered a being equivalent to that of a human. I hope you see how idiot that tact is, as it is fundamentally nihilistic and contra to the Christian system.
If we do not have freewill, we cannot save morality and the legal system and all sorts of cruft under varying philosophical world views. The morality thing is a much larger debate admittedly. There are a variety of arguments showing that one can be morally responsible for one's actions even if they did not have a choice (I think I presented one argument in the freewill thread)
We are discussing the Christian world view, weren't we? I just put in the whole "deterministic particles" to make a point. We could start a new thread on the definition of a self if you so desire. Arguing from reductionism requires that I reject an omnipotent God [reductionism demands it, and it leads to a more rigorous system], while the "soul" conveniently provided by Christianity is a convenient loophole.
I am getting very tired of repeating myself.
Great, you reemphasized my point. All-loving is a garbage terms that means absolutely nothing in an objective sense, so any discussion that revolves around the definition of the word will go nowhere because both sides will spend the entire time yelling about what all-loving actually means. Basing an argument off of a fundamentally subjective term is an exercise in idiocy.
How completely absurd. Choice in a deterministic world? What nonsense. For as well spoken as you are, Yossarian, you manage to say the most ridiculous things.
Well I completely don't understand your point then. You admit to being a collection of particles, but then you go on to say that I'm not allowed to say that these particles constitute a human?
Sure you can. If I can't be blamed for murdering someone, the justice system then can't be blamed for doing whatever it is they do to me as punishment. Nothing about not having free will makes it "wrong" to have a justice system, because even if there were no possible moral standard anymore, you'd have no basis on which to judge the acts of the court!
No I haven't I'm emphasizing the claim that gods omni-benevolence is a fallacy because his character has shown to be not all loving, in fact his character has shown him to be more xenophobic then anything else.
Because the capacity to exercise omniscience need not be in effect all the time.
That doesn't really even make sense, but even if it did, it wouldn't matter; the mere possibility of omniscience being able to be excercised is sufficient. The fact that ANY future event would be 'knowable' by the creator of the universe is enough to conflict with free will.
Under the assumption God created because, for whatever reason, it/ He wants to, we have no rational argument for a God who truly loves us at all, much less all-loving.
Are you reading what I wrote?
then the concept of an all-loving god is meaningless and people have no reason to worship him except out of fear.
we dont need a perfectly fleshed out definition of "love" to know that sending somebody to be eternally tortured can never be a part of that definition.
Sure, whatever.
Ignoring the context shows nothing.
the point is that there *IS NO* context in which love is compatible with sending somebody to be eternally tortured. sheesh you are dense.