HELL IS NOT A PUNISHMENT FROM GOD!

 

The world seems to think God invented Hell for anyone that will not obey Him, but the world does not know or understand God. Hell is not designed as a punishment.

God will ultimately grant the desires of everyone’s heart. Those who love God and want to live with Him forever will get their wish. Those who hate God and do not want to live with Him forever will also get their wish.

This life is the time of decision. God has granted every one the right to decide where they wish to spend eternity, but the choice will be permanent.

It helps to understand everything if you know that death is only separation. The first death is physical. It is separation from the earth and everything in it. The second death that is spoken of in the Bible is separation from God.

God does not want to be separated from anyone, but He has given us the power to decide for ourselves if we want to live with Him or not. Love is not one sided. No one can make another love them, not even God. God can make one obey Him, but not love Him. No one, not even God wants to live with an enemy. There can be no peace if you live with your enemy and the life after the first death is forever, so living with your enemy forever would mean there would be no peace forever.

Bearing this in mind, we can see the Hell is not basically a punishment, but a separation. It is described as burning sulfur, but how can Hell be described? We do not even have an idea of what it would be like to be separated from God. We have been given life in God’s universe. We breathe God’s air, drink His water, live in His country, think with the mind He gave us, and work with the hands He gave us. If I tried to list everything God has given us, I could not.

I think the fire of Hell is a spiritual fire. Notice Isaiah 6:6&7 where the live coal does not burn, but removes guilt. Those in Hell will always be reminding themselves of their guilt with no chance of it being removed.

To say God is love, as the Bible does, and then say He will punish those who do not return His love, with an everlasting punishment, for not returning that love does not make any sense to me. However, it does make sense that at some point in time those who do not want to love God will be rejected by Him. It truly would be hell, to be separated from God forever, with no hope of reconciliation.

Bare in mind that Satan himself along with the worst of the worst men will be in hell and God will not intervene. Could there ever be any rest in Hell? Would anyone want to have to watch his or her back forever? Will not Satan be the king of Hell? Will he take out his frustration on his subjects? Who would stop him?

Having said all of this Hell actually would be a punishment, if only viewed from one angle, even though it was not designed by God to be so. The people of this world cannot understand spiritual things, so to them it seems only punishment. That is the only view they can see.

No one in Hell will blame God for his or her plight. They will know and understand it and say to themselves ‘It was my own damn fault’ (sorry that was just words from a song that got stuck in my mind).

27 Responses to HELL IS NOT A PUNISHMENT FROM GOD!

  1. morsec0de says:

    According to your religion, did God create Hell? Did he create Satan? Is he all knowing and all powerful?

    If so, then yes, Hell is a punishment and the God you believe in is responsible for it.

  2. Stacey says:

    Hi there! I love what you have written here. In response to the previous comment if I may. God is no more responsible for the acts of Satan’s will than He is for the acts of our will.

    Remarkable insight! Thanks.

  3. astudent says:

    morsecOde,

    You do not understand much about my religion.

    God has yet to create any Hell. We have not reached the point in time where He will judge mankind. As I understand Hell, it is separation from God, and you have to wonder if it is really anywhere, as God is everywhere.

    Yes, He did create Satan and because He knows everything, He knew what Satan would do. Think about it.

    No, if you go to Hell then you are responsible for your own plight. Saying God is responsible is a lot like saying the man that made the electric chair is responsible for the death of the criminal.

  4. morsec0de says:

    “God is no more responsible for the acts of Satan’s will than He is for the acts of our will.”

    Right.

    So, if the God you believe in is all knowing and all powerful, does it not follow that God knows absolutely everything you will ever do even before you are created? And thus, it follows, that he created you in such a way that you will do everything that he already knew you were going to do. And would this not apply to Satan? Making it, essentially, the God’s fault.

  5. astudent says:

    Stacy,

    You may and I couldn’t agree more.

  6. astudent says:

    morsecOde,

    Yes, God knows everything. He sees my future just as He sees my past.

    However that does not mean He made me in such a way as to cause my failure. That is your idea. Because He knows, what I will do does not mean that He commanded me to do it.

  7. morsec0de says:

    “You do not understand much about my religion”

    Quite possible.

    “Saying God is responsible is a lot like saying the man that made the electric chair is responsible for the death of the criminal.”

    No, it’s not. Sorry, but the analogy fails. It would only work if the man who created the electric chair also created the criminal and knew everything he was going to do before he created him.

    “However that does not mean He made me in such a way as to cause my failure.”

    Could he not have made you in a way that made sure you didn’t fail? If he could have, why didn’t he?

    If your God knows all, then you have no choice. Free will does not exist. You are created and act a certain way because a God made you that way. Thus, it is the God’s fault.

  8. astudent says:

    morsecOde,

    I know that if I jump off a cliff that I will suffer for it. However, I can choose to jump or not. God knows my choice, but until I do, or not do, I am not sure of the choice.

    I can look back in my life and see choices that I made and they cannot be changed, but until I made them, they could be. God sees my choices in the future as I see my past. They cannot be changed.

    One can prove to their selves that free choice is possible. Think of something that you are physically able to do and then either do it or do not do it. You are free to do either, but God knows what you will do. Could you fake God out? Can you say God either made you do it or not? Afterward you also will know what you will do, or did!

    Are you not able to act in a different way than you usually do?

    “O”, all analogies fail eventually

  9. morsec0de says:

    “God knows my choice, but until I do, or not do, I am not sure of the choice. ”

    Why does it matter whether you know it or not? If God knows it, and created you, then he made you do it.

    “God sees my choices in the future as I see my past. They cannot be changed.”

    So God is not all powerful? Then how can he be a god?

  10. astudent says:

    morsecOde,

    It was an analogy. I would care if I were faced with the decision. I think you see what I mean and just for the sake of argument, you refuse to admit it.

    However, just in case you really do not understand. I am sitting in a room with two possible exits. I have the choice of which one I will take. If I decide to go right and then run to the left exit, would I trick God so He would not know which exit I would take? Suppose you tell me which exit I should take and I will take the other one, just to prove that I have the choice, even though God made me.

    It seems as though you are confused with God making me, knowing what I am going to do, and making me do something. The two are not the same.

    God has made it impossible to change the past and He has made it impossible for me to know the future. When my future becomes my past it cannot be changed and if God can see my future as I can see the past then it also cannot be changed.

    One can usually dream up some question such as ‘What is the sound of one hand clapping’ or ‘Can God make a rock to large for Him to move’. If God decides something cannot be changed, then because He is all-powerful, it cannot be changed. Can you change the past? If God changed the past, would you know it, or would it just seem like the past, because you would have no memory of it?

  11. seanwillsalt says:

    God will ultimately grant the desires of everyone’s heart. Those who love God and want to live with Him forever will get their wish. Those who hate God and do not want to live with Him forever will also get their wish.

    What about people who neither love God nor hate him, but simply don’t believe in him? Can we choose our own afterlife? Because my heart’s desire is to live for eternity in a massive library containing all of the universe’s accumulated knowledge. That would be pretty great.

  12. astudent says:

    seanwillsalt,

    Ha, ha, that is funny!

    If there is no God who would grant your wish?

    Why not live with the one that made the universe? You would have forever to learn from Him

  13. astudent says:

    That Other Mike,

    The quality and quantity of your thought in the matter shows in your comment.

  14. astudent: Mighty Christian of you… I don’t waste time on refuting the concept of hell any more than I do on refuting Tír na nÓg, makárôn nêsoi or any of the other various afterlife myths.

  15. astudent says:

    That Other Mike,

    Christians should be truthful. I was.

    Your second comment reinforced the first. Why did you waste your time even commenting? Time spent contemplating the Bible and what it says is not wasted.
    Unless, of course one only looks for error. If you have not WASTED any time on the subject then you do not know it! Why do you speak as an expert? Hell will be. Fixed.

  16. aperson says:

    You flat out denied something (“The world seems to think God invented Hell for anyone that will not obey Him, but the world does not know or understand God.”) and then snuck it back in using different phraseology (“Those who hate God and do not want to live with Him forever will also get their wish”).
    These are both examples are of the same kind: “loving” God requires the act of love – which is to act as God intended. Acting in accordance to somethings intention IS obedience.
    The reverse case can be made: “hating” God requires the act of hate – which is to act as God did not intend. Not acting in accordance to somethings intention IS disobedience. It is irrational to say that people who obey God are people who hate God.
    So yes, you CAN make people love you, by forcing them to obey in a way that the act of love is exemplified by a specific intended action of that person. Especially if you dictate that your definition of “action” is the only acceptable definition.
    If I said that the only way to act out love for me (and get an infinite reward) was to only pick M&M’s over smarties, then, when you gave me a box of M&M’s it would have been an act of love. In doing so, you have OBEYED me by picking the M&M’s and therefore shown me love. As it seems, love can be one sided, since god can force obedience.
    There is no difference between a robot that can only choose to obey, and a robot who can only choose obedience from disobedience. The similarity is from the lack of a need for oneself to evaluate the choices involved. If this is the case, then God most certainly is looking for blind obedience and is openly rejecting disobedience. It is of no consequence if God doesn’t want to be separated from anyone. Especially if you are already divorced from him then he rejects his creation anyway. “God can’t make peace with an enemy” – Oh, really? That is a serious violation of his omnibenevolence.
    Hell is an end that according to you involves guilt, restlessness, abuse and paranoia. According to the bible, god did create hell, so it is unlikely that he was ignorant of what would take place there, what with omniscience/omnipresence and all. And you cannot keep referencing a hell that you claim God supposedly didn’t make yet.
    Because God’s nature of love/obedience is self-defining, it means that there can be no middle ground in this afterlife; either you are eternally happy or you eternally suffer. So it is not like an actual act of wish-fulfillment. You can’t just say that obeying God represents everything that is good, and everyone else gets everything “else”. So yes, it is a punishment in the sense that it came as a result of God and it contains suffering.
    God is irresponsible because he tacitly honors the choices that his creations are making for themselves; despite the fact that it is being made under forced duress of punishment. A duress, might I add, that he is responsible for. At least the law on earth has the sense of justice to know that it IS imposing punishment for disobedience, that is why anyone may appeal a punishment: whether it be a traffic ticket or a murder.

    That is responsibility that God simply does not enjoy, and I hope he continues to suffering his eternal futility.

    BTW, analogies only break down if they are made of straw. And straw can burn like an abortionist in the depths of hell.

  17. astudent says:

    aperson,

    humm, the statements that I made can stand on their own.
    “The world seems to think God invented Hell for anyone that will not obey Him.” They do!
    “The world does not know or understand God.” It doesn’t! There are people such as yourself, that have not studied what He says, that believe they know and understand. When you post a comment about God, it is something like the patient trying to tell the doctor he does not know his profession! You know more than he does, even though you have not studied medicine! Please do not take affront because of what I say. I do not mean it that way.
    “Those who hate God and do not want to live with Him forever will also get their wish.” They will! Would you hold God to a standard that you would not hold yourself too? If you had the power, would you choose to live forever with your enemies? If you will study God, you will find that you do indeed have the power to choose to live forever with your enemies!

    aperson, you have confused yourself. If God offers two choices and does not interfere in the individual’s choice, then it is not force, or coercion. If He made the choice for you then it would not be a choice. He does not make the choice for you. God does not force anyone to sin. Did He stop you from saying that He is irresponsible, even though He gave you life and you have enjoyed everything that He has made, all of the time you have been living?

    If you are looking for something that you had and have no choice in, then let me give it to you. You are in the game and you have, or had no choice, to play or not to play. In order to win the game, all you have to do is make the right choice. If you make the right choice then love is the result, it is not the requirement. At judgment, there will be many that cry and whine about this test or game, but not those that listened and made the right choice. Because God made everything and therefore owns everything, including you, and me He has the right to demand that we play the game.

    I do not believe many choose God because of love; though I am sure some do. I chose God because I did not want to go to Hell. It was a personal and selfish choice on my part. And He knew it, and gave me life anyway! Then He taught me to love. Don’t test me on love, as I am not a very good student.

    aperson, you only prove me correct. You do not understand God and you only see Hell as punishment. If you understood, and understanding is free and freely given by God, then you would see and make the right choice. The choice is life and joy for eternity, or life forever with your enemies, without God to protect you, along with the knowledge that you made the wrong choice. That knowledge, not God, will torture you forever.

    BTW, if you knew God, you would feel compassion for the abortionist, because he made the wrong choice. Analogies are only similar in some respects, so all analogies break down at some point.

  18. aperson says:

    Once more I see that you have confused personal criticism with argumentative criticism. This is YOUR paper that I am evaluating, so I must speak in accordance exactly to what you have written. Telling me that I am confused or that I don’t understand is a fundamentally credulous attempt at gaslighting, meant to divert the argument by presupposing my lack of understanding on the topic. This is exactly what it is and this methodology of presupposed ignorance is even what you begin your paper with!

    Unfortunately for you, the issues on hand are so uncomplicated and easy to comprehend that a five-year-old could understand it, and many do. However, many do not question it or try to understand its ramifications. So do not think that telling me that my knowledge is incomplete will dissuade me: I have thoroughly read your work, and if my opinions are wrong, then, if anything, the flaw resides within your writings.

    And at least we live in a society where we can hold doctors accountable for their practice despite their knowledge – a quality that god most certainly sees nothing of. But nothing cleans the stains of souls from ones hands.

    1.)

    1. My perception is mistaken if I think that Hell is a punishment for disobedience. (“The world seems to think God invented Hell for anyone that will not obey Him, but the world does not know or understand God.”)
    2. If I hate God and do not want to live with him forever, then I become deserving of that consequence, which most certainly is a negative one, involving hate. (“Those who hate God and do not want to live with Him forever will also get their wish.”)

    Conclusion: This is contradictory. Although you may assess both premises individually as valid, together they are not. They mean two

    different things when it comes to the basis of disobedience and punishment. One cannot be mistaken in their understanding that hell is a punishment when there is CRITERIA to be met in order to go to hell. This criteria is namely “hating” or abandoning god, which makes one sufficiently deserving of that consequence of suffering. That is punishment. I know it. God knows it.

    What all this means is that these two statements cannot both be true; which means one or both is FALSE.

    2.) I would argue that given God’s inherently positive nature; he invariably and automatically gives rise to negativity as a byproduct whether he wants to or not. And you can defend the fact that it is a choice, but only in the dictionary sense. God does not even HAVE to influence me directly to get me to chose; all he has to do is arrange a state of affairs that is CONDUCIVE (or coercive) to a particular result. Then you sprinkle in a little uncertain mortality, a little negative reinforcement, and there you have it! That is sufficient to make him guilty, again, whether he wants to be or not. And no matter what God may think about what I owe him (my existence), I do not feel guilt for the fact that he honors choices made under duress that he made possible – whether he wants to admit it or not. That is why he let me say he is irresponsible: because he knows he is.

    3.) you spent an entire paragraph explaining to me that God is forcing us to participate; yeah, free will, huh? This supposedly unforcing figure when it comes to choices is forcing you to choose. One way or another, God is gonna force you against your will in order to choose between the right choice and the wrong one. Sounds like blackmail to me, and blackmail is WRONG no matter what. God may cry and whine all he wants; I am more ethical than he is. It makes no difference what right he has, nothing has the right to be purposefully unethical to human beings in this society.

    4.) I think it is despicable that God believes that this arrangement is as fair as his nature allegedly is. I for one, do not cower before fear when it presents itself to me. I understand that fear comes to me, never I to it. Any supposedly loving God would not tolerate any situation whereby love is forced from fear. That is disgusting to my sensibility – it matters not if it comes from a creator. Why would there be such an investment into being able to choose, when forced duress prevents us from that? And is God not evil if he honors the threat of fear?

    I know God just enough. I know enough that I, and earthly law, are ethically superior to him, even if he is the “lord”. Whatever torture I suffer as a result of this blackmail, will pale in comparison to THAT knowledge.

    Also, I don’t believe in hell; so don’t make assumptions about what emotions I feel about people who are dead in a place equally as existing. You never addressed or answered the major issues that I brought up previously, instead you laughably said that I proved your point on the basis of something I said.

  19. astudent says:

    aperson,

    You are a funny guy: well that is if you are a guy. You say that you must speak in accordance exactly to what I have written. Then you say that telling you, that you are confused, that you do not understand, is meant to divert the argument! That is the argument! You are confused! What is it that I am trying to divert?

    I believe that you are an intelligent person, but you are confusing yourself.

    You ask me if I think that telling you that your knowledge is incomplete will dissuade you. My answer is “no”. However, no one knows everything, so everyone’s knowledge is incomplete and that would be about any subject. If I do not tell you, then who will?

    You say that you have thoroughly read my work and if your opinions are wrong it is because there is a flaw in my writings! Don’t you see that you are confused? You do not believe your opinions wrong. If there were flaws in my writings, that would make your opinions right, not wrong.

    aperson, I have served an apprenticeship in marriage, I already know that what has happened, is happening, and will happen is my fault, so it comes as no surprise to me that you blame me for your wrong opinions. It also makes as much sense as my x-wife’s favorite line (It’s your fault.).

    You think Hell is punishment because you are only looking at it from your own selfish view. Consider God’s view! He made a universe, earth, air for you to breathe, lungs to breathe that air, water to drink and a mouth to do so. You have lived on His earth and enjoyed everything that He has given you and you will not even acknowledge His existence! The person that doesn’t want to acknowledge God deserves to get what they want and God deserves to grant their wish. It cannot be viewed as punishment, if that is what you want! It is what you want.

    If I were to tell you not to jump off a high cliff and you chose to do so, then how can you blame me? The death that would result is not my fault, it is yours, and yet you would say that it is punishment for not listening to me!

    That is what you do to God. He tells you that if you do not acknowledge Him and attempt to live in peace with the others that He has given life, then He will grant your wish and let you depart from Him. When you meet Him, face to face, you will not want to leave His presence, but that is a choice that you have now and it will be remembered and granted at that time.

    You say that it is blackmail to force someone to make a choice! If you rob a bank and you are appended, why, you could sue the police and judicial system for blackmail! Its blackmail to force you to chose right from wrong by threatening punishment for choosing wrong! What a great idea! You’re not confused, everyone else is! Your not marching out of step, everyone else is! Of course, it is a wrong idea, that is a result of confusion, but it wouldn’t surprise me if someone doesn’t attempt it.

    aperson, you just go on and on proving my point. You claim God is forcing you to chose out of fear and then you brag about not being afraid of God! Where is the fear that He is using to force you?

    You say you do not cower before fear, but that is hollow when you are facing nothing. You say that you understand fear comes to you and you not to it, but I say go to it and experience it, so you understand it.

    I have spent a lot of time experiencing fear. Fear can heighten the enjoyment of this life: at least it does mine. I am a risk taker, because I enjoy it, and I believe God gave me a life to live the way I want: as long as I am treating others as I would have them treat me.

    You do not know God and you do not know fear. That is a shame, but keep writing, because you are more proof than I could have even hoped for.

  20. aperson says:

    Okay… I basically deconstructed all of your
    talking points the last time, and I can assure you that nothing there is evidence that comes close to proving your case.

    Secondly, the argument itself is about whether or
    not hell is the product of a just and fair system,
    created by a perfect God.

    – That hell is a punishment for every single reason I gave that you refused to address, by claiming my ignorance. Instead, you expound countless scenarios that I have proven are flawed. This is what we, on planet Earth, call a diversion.

    Elements of your personal life is not what we are
    talking about, so don’t bother bringing it up.

    I do not profess to know everything, but I do
    profess to know the difference between justice and
    injustice. That is what is in discussion here, and
    that requires no stretch of the imagination.

    You, however, most certainly do not know more than
    all the scientists on the planet, because some
    little book told you so.

    If God can fill you in on his Godly perspective,
    astudent, then he should be able to answer you
    when I ask, “If you know everything past, present
    and future, O’ Lord, then why does hell make me
    afraid so?”

    “If you rob a bank and you are app[reh]ended, why,
    you could sue the police and judicial system for
    blackmail! Its blackmail to force you to chose
    right from wrong by threatening punishment for
    choosing wrong!” – I thought we were already
    through with the law analogies? And did I not just
    tell you from the very first comment that there is
    a drastic difference between JUSTICE and the kind
    of justice you’re talking about?

    You are in the wrong because the law takes
    responsibility for the punishments that it imposes
    on people. It recognizes that it is the thing that
    is punishing you, and makes no assumptions about
    you or your life. (Ever heard that “the law is
    blind”?) That is why you may appeal punishment and
    may have it changed.

    EVEN IF YOU ARE A PRIME SUSPECT THAT WAS ARRESTED
    AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, IT IS CALLED THE
    MIRANDA RIGHTS.

    The fundamental issue here is that God takes no
    responsibility for people who go to hell. This is
    to spite the fact that by purposefully creating
    the path of communion, he simultaneously created
    the path of divorce with equal purpose. So, even
    though the responsibility is there, he does not
    want it. This is not good enough.

    If something arranges the existence of a choice
    between what it sees as right and wrong, and
    forces you to make that choice, against your will,
    it has taken your freedom away.

    And if that thing takes responsibility for forcing
    that choice, then the moral and ethical thing to
    do is to enable you a fair voice to plead your
    case. This equalizes the ground between you and
    the law and makes the law just.

    Now, if that thing does NOT take responsibility
    and therefore refuses you a fair voice, then it
    has taken away your freedom and has refused you a
    voice. It has wrestled you down into silence, so
    that it may do anything it wants to you. This is
    unethical. it is unjust. It is by definition,
    blackmail.

    I CANNOT MAKE THIS MORE CLEAR FOR YOU.

    You call me selfish? What is selfishness
    but helping others as a christian out of a fear of
    hell? Would you send yourself to hell if it meant helping one other person go to heaven? Would you ever actually consider helping someone out in that way? Would a volunteer at a soup kitchen be praised for their altruism, if anyone knew that that person was
    being payed money?

    “It was a personal and selfish choice on my part.
    And He knew it, and gave me life anyway!” – are
    you prepared to refute this?

    Again, if YOU CREATED that high cliff (as God
    did), and told me not to jump off; and I did so
    anyways (maybe because I don’t believe you because
    there is no evidence to support that claim), YOU
    ARE STILL AT FAULT. I didn’t put that
    cliff there, you did. My death would never had
    occurred in the first place if you hadn’t.

    Any court would find you negligent and irresponsible for not physically stopping me.

    You are always responsible for the consequences
    you create… no. questions. asked. That is not a
    notion that I share in isolation.

    Again, God is telling you to choose between fear
    of hell and love of heaven. I do not believe in
    God. I do not believe in heaven. I do not believe
    in hell.

    I do not believe because ‘if’ it were true, God
    would be the biggest criminal since the Jigsaw
    killer from the SAW movies. “Perfect being”…
    yeah right. I do not fear things that could not
    exist. Especially if it doesn’t exist in the way
    that its definition presupposes it to. I am not alone on this one.

    Nowhere did I say that fear is unhealthy, or that
    I am incapable of fear. However, it must be
    understood that fear is something that arises from
    survival instinct, not thought. In fact, misused
    fear paralyzes thought – and denies us from the
    purpose of the brain we are born with.

    The mere fact that some things make me afraid and
    others don’t (and that those things differ from
    person to person) is proof that specific
    circumstances do not dictate specific emotional
    responses.

    This said, it is LOGICAL to conclude that it is
    not the situation itself that compels me to be afraid. In fact, nothing can compel me to be afraid, I make myself afraid. Fear comes to me. I don’t have to be afraid – in fact I never do.

    If I went to fear, that means that I am compelled
    to be afraid, as though fear is some involuntary
    bodily function that can’t be stopped whenever
    someone points and screams, “danger!” Do you think
    danger experiences fear of itself? Or that others share my same notion of “Danger”?

    Do you think that “hell” experiences fear of itself?

    All this altruistic “Golden Rule” nonsense means
    nothing if you are doing it for your own personal
    afterlife gain.

    All this “God created all the pretty flowers and loves me” crud means nothing when he is a morally and ethically inferior being.

    That is what I am trying to get at.

    Sorry. Something nags at me to tell you that
    reality is a whole lot dumber than you think it
    is. ‘Cause if it were smarter, we wouldn’t need
    answers.

  21. astudent says:

    aperson,

    The beginning of all of your comments reveals your actions. aperson says: never does it say aperson listens.

    You have deconstructed nothing and you see no evidence because you will not look.

    You are correct when you say the argument “itself” is about whether or not hell is the product of a just and fair system, created by a perfect God, but because you only listen to yourself you missed the claim I made in the very first sentence of that claim and that was, “but the world does not know or understand God.” DO YOU HEAR ME NOW? YOU DO NOT KNOW OR UNDERSTAND GOD.

    I am limited by you. I can not talk “to you”; I can only talk “at you”. It is not possible to add anything to a container that is full. You are so full of yourself and there is no room for anything else: like truth.

    You bragged about how brave you are, which is an element of your personal life, so do not try to limit my comments about my personal life. Are you so dull that you do not understand that this is MY blog? I make the rules here: not you.

    Yes, I got it. You profess to know the difference between justice and injustice, but it is a stretch of the imagination to believe that you actually do.

    I don’t profess to know more than more than “all” of the scientist on the planet, because some of them know and understand God. Just common sense would explain that some of the basic laws that most scientists adhere to are flawed.

    Again, you prove that you do listen to me when you contradict yourself by saying, “If you know everything past, present and future, O’ Lord, then why does hell make me afraid so?” after you have claimed no fear of God.

    God does answer me when you asked, “O’ Lord, then why does hell make me afraid so?” God only answers in truth and it is not possible to answer a man that first says, “I for one, do not cower before fear when it presents itself to me. I understand that fear comes to me, never I to it.” And then says, “O’ Lord, then why does hell make me afraid so?” That man contradicts himself and that is what God says to me. “THAT MAN CONTRADICTS HIMSELF”. One can ask questions that have no direct answer such as “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” and there is no answer for someone that claims no fear and then claims fear. How about “Yes/No” or “No/Yes”?

    Again, you prove yourself confused, when you make the statement, “And did I not just
    tell you from the very first comment that there is a drastic difference between JUSTICE and the kind of justice you’re talking about?” JUSTICE IS JUSTICE, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS UNJUST JUSTICE.

    The American Heritage Dictionary – jus•tice (j¾s“t¹s) n. 1. The quality of being just; fairness. 2.a. The principle of moral rightness; equity. b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness. 3.a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. b. Law. The administration and procedure of law. 4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason:

    Do you realize that Miranda rights would be useless in a court of God? The Judge was and is an eye witness to any and every crime that is and was committed! He even knows the thoughts of the perpetrator and remembers those thoughts even when the guilty party has forgotten. He is absolutely fair and requires two or more witness to the crime before they can be declared guilty. The one that committed the crime is the first witness and God is the second. You will remember your thoughts when you said you were ethically superior to God when you face him. Just remember that you said, “Whatever torture I suffer as a result of this blackmail, will pale in comparison to THAT knowledge.” YOU FOOL.

    If you were not so full of yourself, you might see that God not only answered me, but you also. Thousands of years ago, He answered you, Psalms 53:1 “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”” I know you are a fool, because I know God is always right. The good news is there is hope for you. The Bad news is you have to seek God to get the news.

    Even a fool can get something right. “The fundamental issue here is that God takes no responsibility for people who go to hell.” That is right and it is even clear to you: though if you admitted it you might not seem as bright as you want others to view you as, so you will not.

    If you knew God, you would also know that MAN CREATED DIVORCE: NOT GOD. God hates it. (Mal 2:13-16 NIV) Another thing you do: You flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. You ask, “Why?” It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. “I HATE DIVORCE,” SAYS THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.

    It is true that God created the choice, but it should be just as true that He does not force anyone to choose either way. Because He made everything, He has the right to require everyone to play the game. Everyone and everything is His property and the property owner has the legal right to do anything He wants with it.

    You have the right to plead your case before God. God is an eye witness to your sins (crimes against Him). So how can you defend yourself? Even lawyers know that a man that chooses to defend himself has a fool for a client. God wants truth from us, so admit that you sin, repent, and beg for forgiveness and He will forgive you and allow Jesus to serve your sentence. No one is keeping you from defending yourself. The problem is that you can’t defend yourself!

    Your right, you can’t make this more clear to me! It is clear to me! The problem is that it is not clear to you!

    How could you possibly suggest that it is selfish to help someone avoid hell? When you ask, “Would you send yourself to hell if it meant helping one other person go to heaven?” it is question similar to “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” It is not possible for anyone that has sinned, to pay for another’s sins. You must pay for your own! That is why Jesus can pay for another’s sins: He had none of his own, to pay for! I cannot go to hell in your place. I am a sinner.

    You say, “It was a personal and selfish choice on my part. And He knew it, and gave me life anyway!” – are you prepared to refute this? Of course not! Knowing what a man will do is not forcing him to do it. Men lay railroad tracks and put trains on them. If you stand in the way of one of those trains and are too stubborn, or stupid to move out of the way, could you blame men for your fate? Well, you could, because you have free will, but that would just add to the stupidity of the act.

    What the heck do you mean when you say there is no evidence to support the claim that if you jump off a high cliff that it will kill you? Or,”Do you think that “hell” experiences fear of itself?” Hell is a place, not a person. You are beginning to make no sense at all! Well, let me rephrase that, you are still making no sense!

    In this country I would be guilty of assault and battery for trying to stop you from jumping off a cliff, and I believe it would be you who would accuse me of it. IT IS ALL MY FAULT! EVERTHING IS ALL MY FAULT! There you feel better now?

    YOU TWIT! MAYBE WE OUGHT TO CHUG ON OVER TO MAMBY-PAMBY LAND WHERE EVERYTHING REALLY IS SOMEBODY ELSE’S FAULT. Tissue? CRYBABY.

    For all those Christians that think I should not say those things to someone else, just remember that I must obey the second royal law: Do to others as you would have them do to you. It is not; do to others as someone thinks you should do. If I were that dumb I certainly would want somebody to tell me. Wouldn’t you?

    Just as Elihu answered Job, who was also righteous in his own eyes, I must answer aperson. (Job 32:21 NIV) “I will show partiality to no one, nor will I flatter any man; for if I were skilled in flattery, my Maker would soon take me away.”

    It should come as no surprise that I do not feel, even the slightest tug, from my Father.

    And don’t think I have insulted aperson. He didn’t even hear me. He hasn’t heard a word that I have said yet! That should be apparent by now.

    By the way aperson, God doesn’t love you. God always adheres to His own rules and that is do to others as you would have them do to you. You do not want to know Him, so He does not force you to. And respecting your choice, He does not want to know you either.

    You say, “Sorry. Something nags at me to tell you that reality is a whole lot dumber than you think it is. ‘Cause if it were smarter, we wouldn’t need answers.” Well, reality is neither dumb nor smart. All of the answers that we need are given in the Bible, to anyone that asks, but we must ask sincerely searching for truth: not trying to prove ourselves righteous in our own eyes.

    If you ever really want an answer to your claim that there is no God, then read Job, chapter 32 thru 41.

  22. aperson says:

    Astudent, I am beginning to find that with the ever-increasing size of our comments, the less is actually being said; so I will make things to-the-point. Frankly, this “conversation” that we are having is being muddled with personal attacks (I really don’t care about the biblical passage where you got calling me a “fool” from, but frankly it is rude and all I have done is simply challenged your beliefs. As of to date, I have yet to refer to you as anything other than “astudent”.
    Though you may feel that your rudeness is warranted, it is secondary to the issue at hand. Name-calling rhetoric about “foolishness” is only a sign of argumentative weakness.), which is something I feel has no place in a directed dialogue about ISSUES, and not PEOPLE. You seem more interested in labeling me things you can’t prove, rather than proving the issue.
    When I refer to you as having a stance, I make reference to your stance on the issue; but alone a stance does not an issue make valid. Because that is not what stances do, what they do is provide a opinionated response to that issue and not an argument of its veracity. This is why I do not buy into your stance(s), because that is all they are. Not arguments – stances. Nothing more.
    We all have stances on issues, but, given the context of this issue, it is not inappropriate to give our position in regards to it. As long as it is NOT the only thing you use. My not having a fear of hell is a stance on the issue of hell as a form of justice; it is not a personal statement about [paraphrase]: ‘how my ex-wife thinks everything is my fault’. That is a statement about what your ex-wife thinks. Although that is not the totality of the things you have said, this has nothing to do with the issue and you know that.
    Your first statement that the world doesn’t know or understand god is irrational: obviously you are in the world too. Then there is no reason to believe anything you say about god. Given its illogical basis, it just looks like a cheap way to apply labels to oppositional arguments without engaging them.
    Existence does not imply reality; god may exist in a person’s conception, but that does not mean that god is real. When one imagines a tree, the tree exists in your imagination, but that does not mean that there is a real living tree in your head. The example doesn’t need a real world counterpart (like a tree) as it applies to any conceivable example. Likewise, saying that a conceivable god exists does not mean that god is real, without some kind of evidence.
    You seem extremely preoccupied, nay, devoted to ‘having me listen’, proclaiming my ‘self-absorbance’ – as though having me “listen” means that I must accept your lack of an argument. As a matter of fact, I am not listening to anything else BUT your “arguments”. That you would even assume that I wasn’t defeats the point of using a comment section: clearly you would feel more comfortable if there was no opposition to your opinions and everybody just shut up, listened and accepted your nonsense. No opposition means that you can talk to yourself alone all you want. At least I am making the effort to come here and engage issues. All that I asked was that we keep the dialogue on-hand.
    There is no point in writing and posting something and responding to comments if you: 1) will not engage the issue of conversation 2) cannot invalidate logical opposition. If you cannot handle challenge and you cannot control your attempts at “apologetics” (which is an equally pointless approach at defending a claim that YOU JUST ACCEPTED on the basis of it having NO evidence with which to defend itself to begin with – and called it “faith”. Faith is a stance; it says nothing, it argues nothing), then you should just hole yourself in a subterranean chamber where you will never have to think about defending yourself again. I say this because I have something to say – not to stroke your zealous, so-called “dominion” over the “rule” of this totalitarian state – I mean blog.
    Some of your comments were rooted in taking my lack of fear of the imaginary play land of hell, and “O’ lord, then why does hell make me afraid so?” and contrasting them – you do realize that my phrasing was that I was actually forwarding that question AS you. I was not making any statement like that AS myself. Don’t be modest: you KNOW you are afraid of hell, whereas I am not. Whenever I speak of a fear of hell, it is a fear YOU have, not I. So, I am afraid that that whole entire section of your comment is a false construction. A lie. Also constitutes a straw-man fallacy.
    When one lives in fear of something, that thing can deny you any excuse not to experience anything other than fear. Fear is an emotion and is not reason: human beings are fully capable of reason. Yet, even if that thing denies you an excuse or not, there IS no excuse to live in fear of it when one can reason that it isn’t real. Like hell, like any other “place” in the mind. Fear can be healthy, yet, fear of one’s own mind is self-destructive to reason.
    Not returning “god’s love” doesn’t make sense to you because you feel that there is no other suitable option: that is why one part of you admits that you are selfish (to get into heaven) and that you feel it is justified. Frankly, I can only see you returning that “love” out of your own limitlessly selfish reasons, which poisons any moral behavior you think you are doing. And if god really did know and accept that from the start, then he is just as much a selfish, poisonous character. You may return that love, but indeed, it is motivated by incentive and not freedom.
    As for the events of your comment leading up to, what is likely to be described as (in my mind at least), a sneering face proclaiming: YOU FOOL! – was clearly typed with confidence. You are going to need a little bit more than blind confidence, I’m afraid. ‘The law’ causes laws. Laws cause crimes (unless you think that people cause crimes instead of the law; until you actually think about it and remember that crimes cannot exist without laws, whereas crimes can exist without people committing them. Just think about all the crimes that exist right now even though you are NOT committing them. The same goes for everybody). Therefore ‘the law’ causes, and is responsible for, crimes.
    That is what a trial is: acknowledgement, to the offender, that the law has caused the crime he/her is accused of. Having done so, the law is responsible for circumventing free will; most people don’t CHOOSE to waltz into the SEPARATION that is the punishment of jail. But even a trial does NOT mean ‘the law’ may claim that it is NOT responsible to, and for, both crime and punishment – and thus may enforce infinite punishment for crimes that cannot be committed infinitely. A crime is not infinite if it can be committed once or twice. This goes for original sin too.
    By saying that god makes a trial unnecessary because of his “omni-powers” is a notion I was already aware of when making my points earlier, so you didn’t surprise me. If a trial against an individual is a simple formality to god, then that means god’s responsibility for his laws is also a simple formality against that individual, right? Just use a mock-trial to show the individual he broke the law, right? Wrong. The responsibility is always there, so long as god made acts moral and humans did not. This is a system where people are only TOLD they are responsible for their own salvation/damnation, but are not responsible for the very existence of the morality of the act that sent them there!
    Therefore, even if God was so awesomely powerful that he doesn’t need a trial (in the earthly-sense), or even need to do anything other than use his “omni-power” and recall events of crime in the past/present/future; he is still responsible for the crime he is judging. He is responsible for that, and is responsible for imposing the choice between heaven and hell upon everybody. A choice that in of itself is as coercive as the decision between being rich and being shot in the face for eternity. It is not “freedom” if no one can deviate from the rules; it is not your “will” if they are not your rules to begin with.
    God is unabashedly responsible for everything and responsible for no one. THAT is a contradiction: if he is responsible for no one, then he CANNOT be responsible for everything. Instead, he feels “disappointment” when someone suffers from his actions. As though whatever God has “done” (IF GOD WERE REAL) is suddenly validated by his emotions, which only asks the question: how does it validate? It doesn’t. God can hate or love whoever, whatever he wants to (IF GOD WAS REAL) and it would change nothing. Even if god hated divorce ITSELF, it wouldn’t matter. Even if god doesn’t see hell as punishment, it wouldn’t matter – in fact; it just means he’s convinced himself to be unsympathetic to humanity and cruel for sending us there. Empowering yourself doesn’t mean that you can’t accuse your abuser for what they do; it means that you can’t accuse yourself for what your abuser does. It makes perfect sense that someone who accuses themself would never see their abuser as being abusive.
    The choice carries the possibility of eternal consequence. God made the choice. God imposed the choice at all costs. In this way god limits man and both values and preserves that limitation above preserving the life of man which god is also supposedly responsible for. This is blackmail, which is a form of extortion. Blackmail is not ethical. So (PERSONALLY SPEAKING, IN CONSTRAST TO GOD, IF HE WAS REAL), I maintain that it is blackmail. Blackmail is wrong. I do not blackmail people by creating rules with eternal, pointless consequences and blaming them as though they had made those rules themselves. I do not go around saying that I have “perfect prosecution powers”, as though that covers up the fact that I (god) made the rules and the crimes that made them suffer, that I knew would make them suffer from the beginning of time! I don’t tell people that they must only demonstrate their love through obedience (which I can enforce) to my rules!
    Therefore I am ethically superior to god. So am I a fool? Well, if your defense had actually succeeded in covering up the fact that god still made the rules and the crimes, then yes. But it didn’t, so I am going to say the fools are really those who conceived the idea of god and not you.
    You don’t feel a “tug” because you have faithfully accepted and selected from the options the bible has provided and imposed upon you; you have just never been compelled to challenge your acceptance of them. That isn’t too hard of an explanation. That doesn’t make you want to debase another Zen Koan again, does it? By the way, Zen Koans are DESIGNED to sound like that, so plagiarizing them every time I ask you question doesn’t explain its relevance to the question – only that you don’t understand the question. Then what don’t you understand?
    Justice: People used to take widowed women, call them witches, and burn them alive in front of hordes of onlookers. They called it justice. I wouldn’t consider it that at all, and that is why it is an unjust form of justice. Just because we don’t see it as justice now, didn’t mean that they didn’t see at as justice then. So you see, justice is not always justice; it all depends on one’s belief orientation.
    You seem adeptly masterful at the art of the straw-man argument, at lies. What you overlooked in my rebuttal of your high cliff example was that IF you had created it, LIKE GOD SUPPOSEDLY DID, then you WOULD be at fault. If you’re just some man/woman who warns me from jumping off some cliff, then that is not the scope I am talking about. There is every chance that I would die from falling from that cliff, yet, no such evidence if that cliff never existed. According to your theology, god is responsible for the existence of that cliff. That’s simple logic, but I hope it isn’t too much.
    However, even if you are but a simple human who had nothing to do with the existence of the cliff; you didn’t say anything about TRYING to stop me, only TELLING me to stop. Your lack of physical action would constitute ‘criminally negligent manslaughter’. Get that straight. Go back and read it again. Astudent, you could tell the “imperfect” prosecutor (by your standards at least) at your court hearing that you warned me from jumping, and may call him a CRYBABY for accusing you of manslaughter. Like it or not, punishment would be store for you. On earth, where punishment and crime are of the same value, accusing another of a crime is no “namby-pamby” matter.
    The train tracks: if there is a god, then that god has knowledge of that man’s fate. Having knowledge of man’s fate entails that god knows the events in man’s life that are going to happen. If this is so, then god SHOULD have overridden his free will and guided him off the tracks, thus preventing his death and preserving his life. But god did not. This would mean that god values preserving man’s free will over preserving man’s life. Suppose that god is responsible for man being alive. Suppose that free will is not possible without man being alive. Clearly because of this, being responsible for man’s life is more crucial than being responsible for his free will. Any override of the events of man’s life would have been a predetermined part of “god’s plan” anyway. If I died on the train tracks, then it is god’s fault. Not my fault. IF GOD EXISTED.
    So… you can try and argue that god gave man free will so that man could choose to love god freely, but there is one problem: man has to actually be, and remain alive in order to choose. God would still have to value man’s life above his free will, IF GOD EXISTED.
    You can argue that god is responsible for creating you to begin with, but that just means he is responsible for your life: if he is responsible for your life, then he must value that life before any choices that one would make with it.
    You can argue that ‘fate is fate’ – that fate is unchanging. But then, who is to say that god doesn’t already have man’s ultimate fate predetermined, including any events involving overriding his free will to preserve his life? Even if god was real, his priorities are inconsistent – in order to permit man the ability to choose, god has to fundamentally preserve the life of all mankind.
    You can say, “respecting free will means respecting free will” (preserving it at any cost) as a defense, still means that god will not respect man’s life, which is his means to free will. Since god is supposedly responsible for the means of free will, forcing man to make choices over a means that isn’t his own is an act of irresponsibility on god’s part.
    You could argue that god can put people into comas, so that he still may remain alive; but remember: what is hypothetically of value to god is that man be alive in order to make choices. One cannot make choices while comatose. This still requires that the original choice that put that person in a coma be circumvented. Therefore, to god, a coma defeats the point of putting someone in a coma.
    You can even argue that death is not really death because of the soul. Arguing that god has no reason to interfere with free will to preserve life because man continues to live on after death. However, since you define free will as the choice between salvation and damnation once someone is actually dead and saved/damned, that choice is gone. Since you are dead and the choice is gone you are just “free from salvation/damnation”, right? But I thought that without the choice you became a “robot” with no free will? I would imagine that such a statement contradicts “freedom from salvation/damnation”. UNLESS one can be free from the choice, at any point, AND still have free will. Since everyone has the capacity of free will, whether or not one could choose between heaven and hell would be irrelevant. Which otherwise would indicate a greater intended purpose to free will.
    You can argue that free will is independent of the choice but that the choice only applies when you are alive; but this still concedes that the free will of every living human has a purpose greater than the choice between salvation/damnation. This is inconsistent with a creator who gave humans free will only for choosing. Since “god” (who would be taking a position I don’t agree with) has made it clear that our free will is intended for nothing other than choosing, free will cannot be independent of the choice. Then if the soul lives on once we are dead, we would become robots, which defeats the point of preserving free will by allowing people to die. Therefore, if god did value our free will/choices above our lives, then he would HAVE to keep us from dying.
    The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, right? Problem with this is that it assumes that everybody has the same belief orientation as you. Which some people don’t. If someone was suicidal, you wouldn’t condone that they go on a killing spree. Your rule is both ignorant and imperfect and therefore cannot be divine (if there is such a thing). By the way, we are always being told what to do because of the law. Golden like rust. Just KEEP apologizing AWAY to your unquestioning community that the mean atheist is making you say rude, childish things.
    The bible is NOT evidence for the claim of god’s reality because it IS the claim of god’s reality. Though you would like it to, it supports no claim. It is no defense. It is no evidence. It is no explanation. You could back-peddle everything and say that evidence is not needed: then why is the bible used as “evidence” for the claim? One cannot state that evidence is unnecessary, but necessarily found in the bible. If evidence is found in the bible, then it must actually SUPPORT the claim that god is real without implicitly or explicitly using the claim as support. So the bible is NOT the only evidence you need, it isn’t even evidence! No word riddles here.
    A claim proposing “something”, by default, lacks existence until it is made. Nobody can believe in, or accept, a claim before it is made. Whether or not the claim exists, what it is proposing may or may not actually exist; but it cannot be accepted as existing in the first place until a claim is made for it. Since the claim proposes the existence of “something” you are required to prove its existence; if you can’t then there is no reason to accept your claim. Therefore default position is to not accept or believe the claim, which does not make it a counter proposal. That is what atheists and babies share in common: a lack of belief in a claim.
    Do you want to know why I said that, “reality is a whole lot dumber than you think it is. Because if it were smarter, we wouldn’t need answers”? I said that because a “dumb” reality could NOT inform us how it works. Therefore we would ALL be ignorant of that reality in various degrees. Therefore we would need answers to explain it, and have to ask questions to determine those answers. Needing answers from a bible merely admits that you did not have those answers to begin with; and is not consistent with a reality that should already possess those answers with or without a bible.
    I think the part of your comment that I derived the most amusement from was when you dismissed what I said, and said, “reality is neither dumb nor smart” (a statement which disagrees with my argument AND intelligent design) – and then followed up with (of what I am definitely sure you will mentally select as true, and twist it into some form agreement from me; which it is not), “all the answers we need are given in the bible” – apparently there is need for answers, and reality is dumb.
    You are going to have to add more effort than telling me to listen to validate your positions. That effort takes NO genius and requires NO arrogance: my certainty needs a reason to be what it is; your certainty needs itself to be what it is. So what is your reason? Is it everlasting life? Life has no intrinsic value if it is infinite – surely you knew that.
    Am I attacking god, or the idea of god? Yes and no. On one hand I am simply proving that god is an idea; the process of proving this does NOT mean that I think I am attacking a real person. Because I can prove that god is an idea, then I have no reason to believe that god is real. On the other hand, there is nothing keeping me from criticizing ‘his’ idea to shreds. BTW: you’re still gonna be here on May 22, 2011 ‘cause it’ll never happen.

  23. astudent says:

    aperson,

    First let me congratulate you. I did return your “personal attack” with one of my own and it did not stop you from further comments. I like and admire that.

    Just so you understand how you have attacked me personally, I will try to explain. When I came to my senses and realized there really was a God and that I had offended Him and was doomed because of it, I asked for forgiveness, but God’s rules can not be changed. My sins cannot be forgiven. The penalty for my sins must be paid and that penalty is permanent separation from God. However God, knowing everything, knew that I would come to my senses, so He, knowing everything, had already devised and worked a plan that could satisfy both of us.

    His only son, born of man, who had no sin, volunteered to serve my penalty in my place. I was baptized into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Mathew 28:13) and I was given the Spirit of that Son as a permanent gift. Jesus became part of me and when you claim that God is somehow immoral you offend me personally, because you offend the Spirit that is part of me. You do not understand, because you do not study the Bible. If you did you would understand.

    You can say anything you want about me personally and it will be somewhat true, but you cannot say anything derogatory about God without upsetting me. That is not to say that it is wrong to question God, but to accuse is not to question. BTW, do not bother trying to offend me on purpose: I will just consider the source.

    It is impossible to understand God and His plan if you do not study His Word, the Bible. It is also impossible to understand if you refuse to believe God exists. One who is genuinely searching for truth does not rule out any possibility until it is considered. God has given us a Book with everything that is necessary for our good.

    BIBLE – Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.

    I use to think as you do. I thought the world should be perfect and if there was a God then He would have made this world and everything in it perfect, but the truth is, it is not perfect; far from it. So I thought if there is a God and the world is not perfect then why not? Notice that I did not say there is no God, because I did not know enough, yet, to make that determination.

    So, I thought if the world was perfect then it would be Heaven and everyone in Heaven admits that there is a God, but everyone on earth will not admit there is a God. So what is the point of earth?

    After more thought I realized that this is the place where one can make up their own mind as to whether or not there really is a God and if so, what He wants from man. That is without any pressure from Him. He does not make anyone do anything: right or wrong. The choice is yours.

    The man that stands on a railroad track and shuts his eyes, covers his ears with his hands, and loudly proclaims there is no such thing as a train, does not rule out the possibility one exists. Consider the possibility, open your eyes, uncover your ears and search in truth, not concluding there is no God before considering there might be One.

    I like truth. There can be no real understanding with out it. Consider your own words. You said, “You seem more interested in labeling me things you can’t prove, rather than proving the issue.”

    I didn’t label you a fool, God did. I merely pointed that out. You did not know it because you do not know God’s Word. You may not believe in God, but you can not deny the reality of the Bible. I can prove that the Bible says you are a fool. If you really want to test what I said then read it for yourself (Psalms 53:1). If you really care then read and ponder the next two verses. By the way, when God calls you a fool it does not mean that you are stupid. It only means that you say, in your heart, there is no God. I believe that you are intelligent; however intelligence is wasted if it is not applied intelligently. LOL

    Our basic stance or point of view leads to our disagreement. You do not believe there is a God and I do. If you do not believe there is a God then you might say Hell is unjust, but if you do not believe in God then you cannot believe in Hell either. Why would someone argue about something they do not believe even exists? Is it to prove that you are intellectually superior to me? That would be a waste of time. You probably are. APPLY IT!

    As I believe it is very clear that Hell is just. I was given life by God. I have lived on His earth, ate His food, breathed His air (With the lungs He gave me), drank His water and lived in His house. All He asks of me is to obey two rules. The first is to love Him with all my heart, soul, strength and mind. The second is to do to others as I would want them to do to me. If I choose not to do these two very easy things, then He will choose not to do the very same things to me. He will not love me and He will do to me what I do not want Him to and that is to reject me.

    When I said “The world does not know or understand God” I was using Christian terminology. We are set apart from this world. It is first used in 1 Kings 8:53 where Solomon is speaking about the Israelites and he says, “For you singled them out from all the nations of the world to be your own inheritance”. Again, you do not know God, so you do not understand. You cannot engage an argument when you know nothing about the subject.

    You say, “Likewise, saying that a conceivable God exists does not mean that God is real, without some kind of evidence”, but evidence is not proof.

    The American Heritage Dictionary – ev•i•dence (µv“¹-d…ns) n. 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis. 2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner’s face. 3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law. –ev•i•dence tr.v. ev•i•denced, ev•i•denc•ing, ev•i•denc•es. 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove. 2. To support by testimony; attest.

    What would you accept as evidence? Einstein proved matter is only energy locked in a matrix. The Bible says (Heb 11:3 NIV) By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. What was made is matter and it is visible, but what it is made of is energy and it is not visible. One might say that we can see light, but it is only the result of light striking something that we see. If you were in space, between the earth and sun and you looked between the earth and sun, not looking at either you would only see the blackness of space, not the light that is passing before your eyes. Proof, no – evidence yes.

    Then there is Dark Matter.
    Here are some of the things that were said about Dark Matter in a TV show on Public TV.
    Dark matter is one of the biggest mysteries.
    Dark matter is invisible.
    Dark matter is everywhere.
    We wouldn’t be here without dark matter: life wouldn’t be possible.
    We have no clue what dark matter is.
    We know it is out there we just have to find it.
    Discovering dark matter is going to be one of the greatest finds of the century.
    Dark matter is not made of atoms.
    Dark matter must be made of some exotic particle.
    We owe everything to Dark Matter.
    Dark Matter holds everything together.
    If there were no Dark Matter then our Galaxy would never have formed nor would have any galaxy formed.
    Galaxies like ours are completely enveloped by Dark Matter.
    Everything that is said of Dark Matter can and is said about God: except “We have no clue what dark matter is.”
    Proof, no – evidence yes

    How about God’s rule for dealing with other humans? Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Have you realized that is the formula for world peace? If everyone adhered to that rule there would be no governments, police, terrorists, slayings, thefts, no adultery and no crime of any kind. (No gas price rip offs from OPEC either) Don’t you think this is odd that such wisdom comes from a Book that you do not believe in?
    Proof, no – evidence yes

    You say faith is a stance as if faith means nothing. Tell me, do you believe in money? Do you realize that money is based on faith? A dollar is only a piece of paper and a piece of paper has no value. Money seems to have value because you and others BELIEVE it does. The dollar does not even have the same value to others. That is why the perceived value goes up and down when compared to other currencies and also why buyers always think that the seller’s price is too high.

    Are you a fair man? If you are then you will admit that there is no proof of God either way. You demanded evidence that God exists from me, so where is your evidence that God does not exist? Surely, you have such evidence.

    You say that I am afraid of Hell, but you do not know what another thinks. I was afraid, but I turned to God and He saved me. I have no fear of Hell and unlike you, I am sure there is a Hell.

    You speak of fear as if you understand it! If you do and I don’t believe you really do, you would understand that your greatest fear is being wrong. It must be very embarrassing trying to prove yourself right about a subject that you know nothing about. A wise man would study the Bible before trying to prove it wrong. You still could.

    Aperson, you are losing it. To say law causes crime is ridiculous. The law was put in place to punish the criminal: to deter crime. That is just another attempt to blame something else for your actions. If you cannot get away with blaming someone else then blame something else. THIS IS NOT MAMBY-PAMBY LAND.

    Perhaps you are not intelligent at all.

    Using your analogy about a tree, if you close your eyes and imagine a tree while walking, you just might walk into a tree, because trees are real; just as God is real.

    It seems to me that you believe what ever idea that you can create in your own mind is somehow an argument against the existence of God, so I will try to demonstrate that those ideas are wrong, starting with the paragraph where you said “I was actually forwarding that question AS you”.

    Well now, that sounds like a personal attack to me, but of course, you wouldn’t make a personal attack on me. Or would you? Anyway, as I said I am not afraid of Hell and you are not qualified to determine if and what I am afraid of.

    You said, “When one lives in fear of something, that thing can deny you any excuse not to experience anything other than fear. I read that sentence probably twenty times and it made no sense to me, until I thought about the person that wrote it. Then I realized that you are afraid that you are wrong (As you should be). Read your own words and learn from yourself, “There IS no excuse to live in fear of it (HELL) when one can reason that it isn’t real”. You would be better off to study the question, rather than to just say Hell is not real so you do not have to fear it. Hell is not in either your mind, or mine. It exists in the Bible and at the end of this age it will exist in eternity.

    You say,”Frankly, I can only see you returning that “love” out of your own limitlessly selfish reasons” and you have hit on a basic truth. ALL LOVE IS SELFISH. If you love a woman and want her, it is because of selfish reasons. If you have a child and you love him or her it is because you want the child to love you. “O’, you may show it in ways that do not seem that way, but the primary reason is selfish. Your very argument here is selfish. You love yourself and wish to prove yourself superior to me, even at the expense of my faith: as if you could.

    I am not sneering as I point out that God said you are a fool. As a matter of fact I was laughing! I have a little bit more than blind confidence. I have the Bible and it was written thousands of years before you became a fool.

    Laws define crime – people commit crime. Not the other way around. That is just another attempt to blame your failures on something else. You did not make the law and you cannot change it. All of the law stems from the second royal commandment and that is “Do to others as you would have them do to you”. Obey that law and you will not commit any crime at all and if others obeyed it relation to you no one would commit any crime against you. It is not the words that cause crime, but the actions of humans that do so.

    Have you really considered that if someone stole your computer that if there was no law then they did not steal? Wouldn’t your computer be gone? Would that be fair to you? Would you want to live in a world without law? Even if you were the biggest, badest, SOB in the world there would be no peace for you. You have to sleep sometime and all those enemies that you created would just be waiting for that.

    Trials are to determine guilt and punishment for crimes committed by people.

    You are right about some things. God is all-powerful and He could just squash us like a bug any time He wanted, and He is all-knowning, so He already knows our sins even before we commit them. A trial is not necessary for His understanding. He could just make you and then tell you that you would lie, steal, and cheat, then throw you out of His presence. However, you would not believe Him and you would eternally believe that you were unjustly treated. Therefore, He has created us and let us sin, even though He hates sin, just so we cannot say that we were unjustly treated. When the sinner stands before God at the end of this age there will two witnesses that will determine the guilt of that sinner. One will be God and the other the sinner themselves. There will be no Miranda rights at judgment. When one stands before God there can be no denial of His existence and when He says speak you will understand that He already knows the truth.

    Yes, I know that you are saying to yourself that I am wrong. What if I am not wrong?

    Well, I said, ” It seems to me that you believe what ever idea that you can create in your own mind is somehow an argument against the existence of God, so I will try to demonstrate that those ideas are wrong, starting with the paragraph where you said “I was actually forwarding that question AS you”. However, it is just a waste of my time. The more that I read your comments the better I see that.

    At some point, I must shake the dust from my feet and go one to someone that will listen (If you knew the Bible, you would understand that), so go away and study God’s Word, then come back and perhaps we can have an exchange. On the other hand, you can just wait to see which of us is right and which is wrong. Not a very intelligent thing to do, but you are free to do anything you so desire.

  24. Aperson says:

    Astudent, this is pathetic.

    Here’s why:

    “Jesus became part of me and when you claim that God is somehow immoral you offend me personally, because you offend the Spirit that is part of me… You can say anything you want about me personally and it will be somewhat true, BUT you cannot say anything derogatory about God without upsetting me.” – If this is so, then where do you draw the line between a debate about issues and a personal attack? First you separated the two by implying that there is a difference between you as a person and god; then you make them one in the same again. Which means anything I say can perceived as a personal attack to you, which makes your entire point meaningless. When you, or some intellectually plagiarized source material calls me a fool, then you are labeling me something that has no basis in argument other than to call me a fool.

    “to accuse is not to question” – yes it is. A prosecutor accuses the criminal, thus questioning him. There is no difference.

    “BTW, do not bother trying to offend me on purpose: I will just consider the source.” – Am I the source? Is the bible the source? If I am the source, then I have already succeeded in offending you by the merely challenging the bible. You can consider me any way you want to, I don’t have to offend you on purpose.

    “So I thought if there is a God and the world is not perfect then why not? Notice that I did not say there is no God, because I did not know enough, yet, to make that determination.” – Actually, by regarding god hypothetically you tacitly admitted, from a lack of belief, a conceivable world in which god is real. I can do the same thing about Narnia, that doesn’t mean I don’t think Narnia is fake (double negative). You still implied a lack of belief.

    “After more thought I realized that this is the place where one can make up their own mind as to whether or not there really is a God and if so, what He wants from man. That is without any pressure from Him. He does not make anyone do anything: right or wrong. The choice is yours” – Yes god does. God is wanting. He wants of you to do the right thing, not the wrong thing. He gives you motivation to do what he wants by sending you, without tacit or explicit consent, to hell for doing the wrong thing.

    “The man that stands on a railroad track and shuts his eyes, covers his ears with his hands, and loudly proclaims there is no such thing as a train, does not rule out the possibility one exists. Consider the possibility, open your eyes, uncover your ears and search in truth, not concluding there is no God before considering there might be One.” – Guess what? Can you observe evidence of a train? Yes you can. And can everybody agree on that evidence? Yes they can. Can anybody observe evidence of god? NO. Can everybody agree on that evidence? NO. You’re analogy presupposes that evidence of god is as eligible as evidence of a train is. How?

    “I like truth.” – So do I. But you still didn’t prove anything.

    “I didn’t label you a fool, God did. I merely pointed that out. You did not know it because you do not know God’s Word. You may not believe in God, but you can not deny the reality of the Bible… By the way, when God calls you a fool it does not mean that you are stupid. It only means that you say, in your heart, there is no God. I believe that you are intelligent; however intelligence is wasted if it is not applied intelligently. LOL” – I know that the bible says it, not you. But then again you and the bible are like the same person spiritually, so you are still calling me a fool. And I told you that I don’t care for that because it is a label that has no meaning in this dialogue. I can call you a bible-thumper, because you like the bible so much (a word and a definition that I did not make), until I’m blue in the face; it doesn’t mean anything. Assessments about my intelligence are the least concern. The physical reality of the bible lends it no basis in fact; the Mein Kampf is real, should I believe in its teachings too?

    “Our basic stance or point of view leads to our disagreement. You do not believe there is a God and I do. If you do not believe there is a God then you might say Hell is unjust, but if you do not believe in God then you cannot believe in Hell either. Why would someone argue about something they do not believe even exists? Is it to prove that you are intellectually superior to me? That would be a waste of time. You probably are. APPLY IT!” – I argue that hell is unjust or not real because if you make any assertion to me that hell is just, or real in some way, I can tell you it isn’t. It doesn’t require that I believe in it in order to tell you that: if it’s existence is true, then it is ethically wrong. If it is false, then it is a form of real-world manipulation on minds. Reason is lost on unreasonable minds… particularly minds that pick up one ultimate piece of “evidence”, abandon it when it becomes useless, and then pick up another one that better suits them.

    “As I believe it is very clear that Hell is just. I was given life by God… All He asks of me is to obey two rules. The first is to love Him with all my heart, soul, strength and mind. The second is to do to others as I would want them to do to me. If I choose not to do these two very easy things, then He will choose not to do the very same things to me. He will not love me and He will do to me what I do not want Him to and that is to reject me.” – Why does god have to choose to do the same things to you? If for some reason you think that your freedom to choose is up to you, then why is god’s freedom to choose to reject you or not, not up to him? If it is up to him, then every time he sent somebody to hell, he didn’t really have to. Which makes him malevolent. And what actual reason does god have for infinitely punishing anyone for rules/morality that he is responsible for, and then blaming them as though they are totally responsible for it. Even you’re rules don’t make sense because they assume things about other people that just isn’t true – does this supposed “god” believe in rules that are not true? That’s pretty absurd. Even for a god.

    “When I said “The world does not know or understand God” I was using Christian terminology.” – Special pleading gets you nowhere. It definitely doesn’t give an excuse to contradict oneself. Say, “The world, except Christians (*insert denomination*), does not know or understand God”. That’s a great way to alienate the world from the rest of Christianity, and Christianity from other Christian groups.

    “You say, “Likewise, saying that a conceivable God exists does not mean that God is real, without some kind of evidence”, but evidence is not proof. ” … “–ev•i•dence tr.v. ev•i•denced, ev•i•denc•ing, ev•i•denc•es. 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or PROVE.” – Your own definition disPROVED you. Existence is a property that is ambiguous in meaning, that is why one proves that god is REAL with evidence.

    “Einstein proved matter is only energy locked in a matrix.” – Matter is still not energy. Matter converts into energy. But, even energy has physical evidence and can be proven, just the same as matter can.

    “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. What was made is matter and it is visible, but what it is made of is energy and it is not visible. One might say that we can see light, but it is only the result of light striking something that we see. If you were in space, between the earth and sun and you looked between the earth and sun, not looking at either you would only see the blackness of space, not the light that is passing before your eyes. Proof, no – evidence yes.” – So proof is only what we see? It cannot be anything else? All you have said is that under some special circumstance we can’t see light, does that mean we cannot measure light? NO. We can gain proof of light through measurement. You are making a distinction between two things that describe the same thing.

    You’re dark matter spiel is ludicrous: dark matter is a theory that happens to work with existing models. I have no idea what you think evidence is; you seem to describe nothing and attribute it to evidence. Evidence can be strong or weak, strong evidence proves and adds to proof.

    “How about God’s rule for dealing with other humans? Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Have you realized that is the formula for world peace? If everyone adhered to that rule there would be no governments, police, terrorists, slayings, thefts, no adultery and no crime of any kind. (No gas price rip offs from OPEC either) Don’t you think this is odd that such wisdom comes from a Book that you do not believe in? Proof, no – evidence yes” – I just exactly explained to you why what you are talking about isn’t the formula for world peace, go back and read it again. Intrinsically, you’re rule makes a large presupposition about about people, people who may not believe in your book. What exactly is lacking proof? What exactly is presenting evidence? Proof and evidence entail the same things, not one thing you selected to represent what “proof” is.

    “You say faith is a stance as if faith means nothing. Tell me, do you believe in money? Do you realize that money is based on faith? A dollar is only a piece of paper and a piece of paper has no value.” – Faith doesn’t mean anything, that is exactly why you, astudent, take things on faith. You know nothing about how economies work. The value of a dollar is a dollar no matter where there is money, and the value of money is set according to the state. I can’t call a $20 bill a $40 bill because other people take its value on “faith”. The value of a dollar changes from country to country due to GDP and other factors. Buyers think the seller’s price is too high because they compare that price to the prices of other stores. Not because they interpret how valuable they perceive the merchandise – leave that to the antiques roadshow. You are equating the level of perceived value of money with its actual value – which is wrong. I have no faith in the value of a dollar, I only know what the value of a dollar is.

    “Are you a fair man? If you are then you will admit that there is no proof of God either way. You demanded evidence that God exists from me, so where is your evidence that God does not exist? Surely, you have such evidence.” – This chestnut. Ahem, “A claim proposing “something”, by default, lacks existence until it is made. Nobody can believe in, or accept, a claim before it is made. Whether or not the claim exists, what it is proposing may or may not actually exist; but it cannot be accepted as existing in the first place until a claim is made for it. Since the claim proposes the existence of “something” you are required to prove its existence; if you can’t then there is no reason to accept your claim. Therefore default position is to not accept or believe the claim, which does not make it a counter proposal. That is what atheists and babies share in common: a lack of belief in a claim.” I am making no proposition or claim that requires that I offer evidence for anything.

    “I have no fear of Hell” – You are afraid, that is why you follow god’s rules.

    “You would understand that your greatest fear is being wrong” – Ahem, “Because I can prove that god is an idea, then I have no reason to believe that god is real.” …No, I can actually accept being wrong, my greatest fear is people who slow down the progress of society by monopolizing their views on others.

    “To say law causes crime is ridiculous. The law was put in place to punish the criminal: to deter crime. That is just another attempt to blame something else for your actions… Have you really considered that if someone stole your computer that if there was no law then they did not steal? Wouldn’t your computer be gone? Would that be fair to you? Would you want to live in a world without law?” – You just admitted to me that laws necessitate crimes no less than a few paragraphs down. According to your first paragraph, above the computer-related one, laws function to punish the criminal. This is exactly what I mean: what must a criminal do to be punished? They must commit a crime. How does a criminal commit a crime? They must break a law. A law only deters crime when there are no criminals. Clearly there are criminals. Therefore the law does not deter crime, it creates it foremost. The blame for crimes is not mine, if I do not create crimes myself. Every judge in every court room knows this and exacts precise punishments to crimes, so that they are not unnecessary.

    ““When one lives in fear of something, that thing can deny you any excuse not to experience anything other than fear. ” – What I said, I meant it. Fear kills reason because it robs you of its use, and instead puts itself in the place of reason. Those who have reason can determine that hell is not a physical place, and that fear blinded you to that fact.

    “ALL LOVE IS SELFISH.” – Really? So love only has value if you can get something out of it? Love has no value in of itself? Then you must not see any value in loving people, unless you can get something out of it from them. This is exactly how you view your love of god: you don’t want to love him, but you do anyway because he gives you “perks” that you won’t experience until you are dead.

    “You love yourself and wish to prove yourself superior to me, even at the expense of my faith: as if you could.” – Not really. Ahem, “You are going to have to add more effort than telling me to listen to validate your positions. That effort takes NO genius and requires NO arrogance: my certainty needs a reason to be what it is; your certainty needs itself to be what it is.”… I don’t think you even read half the stuff I write.

    “I have a little bit more than blind confidence. I have the Bible and it was written thousands of years before you became a fool.” – No you don’t. The fool is still standing. The real fool seems to think they have more than blind confidence. All because the bible says something that probably didn’t exist in it until about 1000 AD.

    “Laws define crime” – That is all I am saying. If laws didn’t define crimes, there would be no crime. No punishments.

    “You did not make the law and you cannot change it.” – I may not have written it, but I can change the law. Otherwise we would be living in an authoritarian police state.

    ““Do to others as you would have them do to you”. Obey that law and you will not commit any crime at all and if others obeyed it relation to you no one would commit any crime against you.” – The suicidal should go on a killing spree. Messy people should go to other peoples homes and make a mess.

    “Trials are to determine guilt and punishment for crimes committed by people.” – Actually, trials are supposed to assume innocence and prescribe guilt only when guilt can be assigned. That is why a trial must have the duty to only prescribe guilt to crimes as necessary. Because the law causes crimes and criminals, the duty is to the law to have punishments that fit crimes. You seem to think that criminals should simply bow to whatever severity of punishment the law has in store, because it is the criminals fault for breaking the law. That is absurd and wrong.

    “Therefore, He has created us and let us sin, even though He hates sin, just so we cannot say that we were unjustly treated.” – And that is supposed to make it all better? I just explained to you that this presupposes that god isn’t responsible for the rules that he judges people on. He is responsible, and therefore he has to account for why his finite crimes merit infinite punishment. All you’re saying is that god ditched rules on us, told us its our responsibility, and allowed us to break those rules knowing full well what would happen. Then we get judged, at lo and behold, its our fault. That is wrong.

    Knowing right from wrong is easy. It doesn’t require a god, only a society.

    What if your right? Then the creator that is amongst the things that exist that were not caused, even though every thing that exists was caused, but just somehow existed (as opposed to not existing) for all eternity without causality that managed cause the universe despite his lack of causality – is wasting his time. So are you.

    The universe is still dumb. You still defend things that you accepted on the basis of it having no defense, and call it “faith”. God is still unjust. Fear still monopolizes peoples minds so they don’t reason. Atheism is still the default position. God still allows people to die for absolutely no reason other than to allow them to die.

    You’re obviously ending on a note of pessimism about future comments. Feel free to respond, but I draw the line when I have to rehash my comments.

  25. Aperson says:

    Also:

    “Well, I said, ” It seems to me that you believe what ever idea that you can create in your own mind is somehow an argument against the existence of God, so I will try to demonstrate that those ideas are wrong, starting with the paragraph where you said “I was actually forwarding that question AS you”. However, it is just a waste of my time. The more that I read your comments the better I see that. ”

    – Here it is in a nutshell: if god is real, then why do we die? This is not trick question; if god has given you any insight into the reason for life, then you must also know that of death.

  26. astudent says:

    Aperson,

    I feel sorry for you. You “Will” not understand. Our disagreement is totally, whether there is a God or not. Everything that is said is a result of that.

    Yes, I do understand about death. Possibly, I could explain, if you do not say in your heart, ‘There is no God’. However if you do not even believe there is a God then how could anyone explain anything about God to you?

    You may not believe in God and you may say so in your mind, but you cannot say in your mind, ‘There is no Bible’. Well, you cannot say it in truth. You would be foolish to deny that the Bible says, “The fool says in his heart, There is no God”, because anyone, including you, if you would, can find Psa 53:1 and read it for yourself.

    That sentence defines what a fool is. You are one who says in his heart, ‘There is no God’. One and one are two. You are such a man. You may say, in your own mind, ‘I am not a fool’, but that does not change Psa 53:1. It says you are a fool.

    Which would you like to deny? That you do not believe there is a God, or that there is a Bible? You have to deny one, or admit that the Bible calls you a fool.

    Don’t bother whining about it being someone else’s fault that you are a fool. It isn’t and nobody cares anyway.

    If you would study the subject, instead of illogically declaring there is no God, you might reach an understanding of death. READ THE POST. DEATH IS ONLY SEPARATION.

    You do not understand death, because you do not understand God. You think, or believe that death is the end of life. If you knew what death was, you would know the reason for it. You would even know why sin exists and even more. That is if you asked God in truth.

    Those are the questions that are important, but as long as you refuse to search out the answer to the most basic and therefore the most important question in the universe, you will not understand. Even when someone tells you and I already did in my post and you did not understand.

    You will certainly die. Birth certificates and Death certificates are a matched set. You do not get one without the other. Study the question in truth, while you still can. Study to prove me wrong, if for no other reason. I dare you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: