The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Dre89]

Admittedly, we can't expect Nic to address all of these.

Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17, 6:16- God is invisible.
Exod. 33:20- One will die if they see God’s face.
Gen. 32:30- Jacob sees God’s face yet his life is spared.
Gen 12:7, 26:2; Exod. 6:3- God appears to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Exod. 24:9-11- Leaders of Israel see God.
Exod. 33:11,23- Moses sees God.

John 8:58- Jesus suggests He is God.
John 20:28- Jesus does not correct Thomas when he calls Him “my God”.
John 10:33- Others think that Jesus considered Himself God.
John 14:28- The Son is inferior to the Father.
John 1:2- Jesus is with God.
Tim. 2:5- Jesus mediates between God and man.

Mark 6:5- Jesus is not omnipotent
Matt. 28:18 Jesus came to be omnipotent.
Mark 13:32- Jesus is not omniscient.
John 16:30, 21:17- Jesus is omniscient.

 

[Nicholas1024]

As for the Fall of humanity, either way God is not just. He is punishing the entire human population based on one or two people's actions. Now if the idea was that every single human in the world would have taken the apple, then that's apart of a human's essence, which God created, meaning that it's God's fault we took it, and He is punishing us for something He is responsible for. If the idea is that not every human would have taken the apple, then the ones who wouldn't have are being punished when they were innocent.

Either way, God is not just, so calling Him just is a contradiction.

My counter-argument is more or less that God's offering us heaven essentially for free (despite the great cost to Himself by Jesus dying on the cross), all we need to do is apologize and try to do better. Yes, Adam and Eve undeniably got a better deal, and spoiled it for the rest of us. However, to paraphrase one of Jesus's parables, if you hired two people to do similar jobs, fixed the costs up front, but paid one twice as much, is that really being "unfair" to the other person? After all, you paid him what you agreed, if he didn't know about the other person, he'd likely be perfectly satisfied. So, is being extra generous to one person constitute unfairness to everyone else?

The thing is, there could never be anything that a Christian could not find a explanation they deem plausible for, because whenever faced with a contradiction the answer is always "we can't understand God's actions because He is infinitely beyond us". This is been the answer to the problem of evil and why He kills innocent people, when we're not even allowed to kill bad people. The Christian always plays that card when reality appears to contradict the theology.

Give me some credit, please. Where have I used that?

Also, I don't think it can be adequately reversed. Being a Christian is making a positive assumption, not being a Christian isn't, hence why the burden of proof is on the Christian. The difference is that most Christians have their conclusion, and then mould premises around it, whereas most non-Christians have their premises prior to their conclusion on Christianity.

Do you think I'm moving premises around my conclusion? Anyway, the reverse might not be quite the same type of question, but it's still a fair one, as to what your standard of proof is.

But to answer your question anyway, outside of undeniable religious experience, there isn't one single thing that could sufficiently prove Christianity, because all of its flaws would have to not exist first.

I hate it when the standard of proof my opposition sets is for all intents and purposes unattainable. It's more or less "I don't care what you say, you're still wrong." *sigh*

Would you accept a miracle as an undeniable religious experience? (Something drastic that's obviously a miracle, say healing people born blind or lame with a touch) If you didn't see it first hand, but had four separate first hand accounts from journalists regarding said miracle (who lost their jobs and all credibility, from reporting something that sounds so ridiculous, but still stuck to their story), would you accept it, assuming there were no conflicting reports?

@underdogs
That's interesting. My Bible has the same ages in both places, actually (18 and 22, respectively), as well as a note near the affected verse that some manuscripts have the other value. Anyway, I'd like to make a point here. Let's suppose that I grant those contradictions (my guess is that it's an error in one manuscript that got copied into a bunch of others). Does it disprove any of the essential doctrines of Christianity? No, the only thing it would affect is the doctrine that the Bible contains no errors, it doesn't affect anything else, and a person can certainly be a Christian and believe that the original author of 2 Chronicles made a typo about the ages of two kings.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Is the act of executing a criminal for his crimes murder? How about the act of killing an enemy in war time? If so then just about every single government in history is guilty of ridiculous amounts of mass murder. There's a huge difference between what you're claiming as murder, and what is actually defined as murder.

So the premeditated killing of babies some of which have probably just come out of the womb is not murder?

This is just wrong on so many levels that I'm lacking a place to start. How about the fact that Satan was the one that originally tempted Eve to eat that fruit in the garden of Eden, and so is directly involved in every single evil act throughout all history?

Here's an idea, God could've just left Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden. He is all powerful after all and anything is possible. And it was actually humans that ate the fruit. It's like saying that I encouraged my friend to kill someone. And I am therefore more evil than my friend.

Dre, often things aren't quite as black and white as people make it out to be, a lot of things depend on the circumstances. Let's take the example of killing a man.

So? He killed the entire human race except for a family. You would have thought that at least one of those killed is innocent.

And regarding finite crimes/infinite punishment, recall that all you have to do is accept God's forgiveness and basically say "I'm sorry" to avoid said infinite punishment. Not doing so basically makes said infinite punishment self inflicted, plus makes you guilty of rejecting God's infinite love (which may qualify as an infinite crime, depending on your definition).

So it's our fault that he sends us to hell? That's like saying its not the kidnappers fault when they murder someone if their family doesn't pay the ransom. It's rubbish. He's doling out infinite punishment left-right and centre because we haven't said sorry for something we didn't do. I think if anything he owes me an apology because he's threatening me with eternal torment if I reject him.

Additionally, what alternative to you suggest? Killing people condemned to Hell for all eternity? It's quite arguable on whether that's an improvement or not. Rewarding unrepentant guilty people with heaven after a small period of punishment? In the long run that's not a punishment at all.

When you love someone, you try your best not to hurt them, no matter if they do wrong or right. If God's love is infinite, he would send us all to heaven. But he wont, and he says he loves us. Sounds like a liar to me, after all, actions speak louder than words.

Part of the essential doctrine of Christianity is that EVERYONE is guilty under God's law due to their sin, and thus condemned to Hell. So, considering someone's eternal fate is FAR more important compared to what happens here on Earth, can we agree that this whole mini-debate reduces to whether or not God has the right to condemn someone to Hell for sin?

Fine with me. But you still have to concede that performed morally questionable acts on Earth and therefore tarnishes his personality. Additionally, whether or not God has the right to condemn someone to Hell for sin is a moot point. If God were a good mate to everyone on Earth, as he is often purported to be, he shouldn't have his mates experience eternal torment for merely not apologising for something, regardless of whether he has the right to or not. That is not what mates do.

My counter-argument is more or less that God's offering us heaven essentially for free (despite the great cost to Himself by Jesus dying on the cross), all we need to do is apologize and try to do better. Yes, Adam and Eve undeniably got a better deal, and spoiled it for the rest of us. However, to paraphrase one of Jesus's parables, if you hired two people to do similar jobs, fixed the costs up front, but paid one twice as much, is that really being "unfair" to the other person? After all, you paid him what you agreed, if he didn't know about the other person, he'd likely be perfectly satisfied. So, is being extra generous to one person constitute unfairness to everyone else?

Hang on a second. I'm assumed guilty because of something my ancestors did? That sounds to me like rubbish. Sure I might have sinned, but if God is forgiving, he should just forgive us, rather than threaten us with eternal torment if we don't apologise - that to me sounds like the work of someone who is nasty. And why is an all powerful being who knows everything concerned with whether I apologise to him? He should be able to take this sort of thing on the chin. Additionally, if God controls everything, why is he allowing us to sin in the first place?

Would you accept a miracle as an undeniable religious experience? (Something drastic that's obviously a miracle, say healing people born blind or lame with a touch) If you didn't see it first hand, but had four separate first hand accounts from journalists regarding said miracle (who lost their jobs and all credibility, from reporting something that sounds so ridiculous, but still stuck to their story), would you accept it, assuming there were no conflicting reports?

Define religious experience. It is a very vague term.

 

[Theftz22]

@underdogs
That's interesting. My Bible has the same ages in both places, actually (18 and 22, respectively), as well as a note near the affected verse that some manuscripts have the other value. Anyway, I'd like to make a point here. Let's suppose that I grant those contradictions (my guess is that it's an error in one manuscript that got copied into a bunch of others). Does it disprove any of the essential doctrines of Christianity? No, the only thing it would affect is the doctrine that the Bible contains no errors, it doesn't affect anything else, and a person can certainly be a Christian and believe that the original author of 2 Chronicles made a typo about the ages of two kings.

It disproves inerrancy.

 

[Dre89]

Nic: The standard for proof- disproof is imbalanced because we are not making equally positive claims. Your claim is incredibly positive, whereas mine is not positive at all.

The point is Christianity is fallacious in so many aspects that one logical proof does not undo all the fallacies and make it valid. That's why the only one thing which would sufficiently prove Christianity is something non-rational, such as religious experience.

And Bob is right about everything, but I want to make an additional technical point. What you cannot deny, as Bob has showed, is that God acts in a way which we are designed (by Him, mind you) to look upon unfavourably. He loves us but allows unbearable suffering and evil, and commits genocide. He loves us but expects us to apologise fo something we didn't do, otherwise He'll condemn us to eternal suffering.

The point is humans, by the design God gave us, do not consider these good traits. Now you can say that we simply can't understand God because we're so limited, but calling Him good, just, merciful or loving means nothing seeing as His actions contradict the human interpretaion of these terms.

If this God and its religion did exist, then He's made it irrational to believe so, because He contradicts the human interpretations of what He labels Himself. In light of this, what makes even less sense is that He made us rational creatures, making us even more likely to reject Him. If God wants us to apologise, and to believe that He is good, just, loving and merciful, then it makes no sense to act in the way He does, and have us be rational creatures. One of them should not be the case.

 

[Nicholas1024]

@Well, everyone I'm arguing against, really.
I think I finally see why you're so insistent that God has no right to send people to Hell. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that fundamentally you're a good person and that God has no right to send you personally to Hell, am I right? (I feel like an idiot for not realizing this sooner). If so, I have a little... personality quiz for you.

Note: What follows is definitely personal, and I understand that it probably feels intrusive to some people. However, I just don't see any other way to continue the argument, for as long as you hold that you are intrinsically good, and do not deserve Hell, then we're at a standstill, since the primary point in this debate more or less boils down to whether or not God has the right to condemn someone to Hell. (Anything else is in the end meaningless compared to the choice of Heaven or Hell.) So, please bear with me. You obviously don't have to post answers in the thread, I just ask that you go through these questions and keep track of how you'd score, and be honest with yourself.

Have you ever told a lie? (Half truth? Exaggeration?)

What does that make you?(Alternatively, how many lies does one have to tell to be a liar?)

Have you ever taken something that isn't yours, regardless of how small?

What would that make you?

Have you ever hated someone? That is, thoughts along the lines of "I wish they were dead", wanting revenge just for the sake of hurting them. That's effectively "murder of the heart", as if you had a weapon and a perfect opportunity at that moment, they'd be dead.

So, at heart you are a? (This may vary somewhat from person to person, but the VAST majority of people would have to fill in "Lying thieving murderer" at this point)

Do you believe God should let you into Heaven?


(I'm about 99% certain at least one person is going to blast me for the above, but I don't see a choice here. Please understand I don't mean any personal offense, but unless I can show that sin is actually evil and deserving of Hell, this debate is effectively over.)

 

[Dre89]

Nic your quiz totally misses the point. The reason why we're sinners is because God made us that way. Christians believe that no one except Jesus (and maybe Mary? Can't remember) is perfect, meaning that it is part of our God-made essence to sin.

Now apart from the fact that most sins people commit aren't deserving of eternal suffering, even if they were, then because we sin by nature, God made us deserving Hell, then asks us to apologise to Him for it.

Secondly, as I alluded to above, most sins people commit aren't worthy of eternal suffering. As a Protestant, you believe not believing and apologising in God grants you eternal suffering after death. Again, such behaviour on God's behalf totes contradicts the human interpretation of good, loving, just and merciful.

What makes it worse, is that in behaving in a manner so contradictory to the human interpretations of the labels He gives Himself, and making us rational, He makes it far less likely to believe in and apologise to Him, then punishes us with eternal suffering for not doing so. If He was rational, he'd know that, meaning your God is not rational.

The problem is, no matter what way you look at it, your God is contradictory. Even if He is good, loving, just and merciful, then it is not by human standards, and our experience conflicts with all of this, meaning He is not rational if He still expects us to believe in Him when he created us as rational beings. However, seeing as the theology dictates that God is infinitely rational and wise, you have a serious problem on your hands.

 

[Dre89]

Sorry for the double post, but could someone please link/direct me to sources which explain big bang theory, looping theory (infinite regress version), and the no boundary proposal?

They don't have to be too technical, they just need to outline what the theories are, but they need to come from a respectable academic source (so no Wikipedia). It's for my honours thesis, hence the need for it come from a respectable academic source.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Aesir]

That's patently untrue. People have and continue to change their minds. I doubt that any one discussion or debate will suddenly make someone switch opinion, but over time, with enough exposure and reflection, people can and do change their minds.

Every generation becomes more and more diverse in beliefs. Our grandparents generation it was unspoken because it was believed that everyone thought god existed. As the years progress it became more and more diverse.

If you look at data gathered, you can see that where there's an absent of eduction religion fills that whole. While on the flip side an absence of strong religious background usually eduction fills that whole.

Again I wasn't missing the point my point is it's fun to debate god and have fun with it, but I feel it becomes more of a distraction then anything else. Like the culture war in politics. The republican party makes it an issue because that's how they win, do you really think they could win other wise? Doubtful.

 

[rvkevin]

Sorry for the double post, but could someone please link/direct me to sources which explain big bang theory, looping theory (infinite regress version), and the no boundary proposal?

If you are looking for theories regarding the origin of the universe, you can save your time by skipping the big bang theory.

 

[Dre89]

If you are looking for theories regarding the origin of the universe, you can save your time by skipping the big bang theory.

Why is that? Because it's wrong or because it's not considered to be an origin-of-the-universe theory? I'm not really going to dissect the theories, I'm using them collectively to depict different notions of time and origins of the universe.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

If you are looking for theories regarding the origin of the universe, you can save your time by skipping the big bang theory.

Well, that really depends if you're interested in how the universe came about after the beginning.

@Dre: Of particular interest is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo This basically posits the idea that the universe could have came about through a quantum fluctuation, something that happens almost continually. It relies on the idea that the total energy of the universe is equal to zero, as potential energy is considered negative. To back this up, Krauss asserts that the universe is flat (which is actually backed up, but the physics behind is relatively complex) which would be expected in a zero energy universe. It is an hour long though.

And Nic an issue with this is that the murdering aspect is thought crime. I don't believe thinking in a bad manner should be considered a sin. Furthermore, if I've stolen something or lied, that does not mean I should spend eternal torment in hell, again, that is infinite punishment for finite crimes. God could just create a mediocre land to keep all the people that aren't thoroughly evil, but aren't good enough to go to heaven. He is all powerful.

And when it comes down to it, people like Hitler go to heaven, if they believe in God. And I'm pretty sure he did, so either God has a pretty weird standard of morality, "sinning is totally fine if you say sorry to me and love me, but if don't, you spend eternity in hell!" Which sounds to me rather deranged and sick. And what about the idea that we must pray for forgiveness of crimes that we didn't commit? The idea that we are born in sin? That when you are born, you are born a sinner because your parents sinned. And even if you don't believe that we are born in sin, this sort of morality to me makes no sense at all; it seems as if God is asking us to walk a tightrope, and if we fall off, we must tell him we love him and that we're sorry we fell off, and then, and only then will he deploy the safety net. The fact that he doesn't deploy the safety net for everyone makes him appear like a judgemental, vindictive, unloving and unforgiving being. And worse still, is that he devises this weird scheme by himself and presumably considers it the best scheme there is, after all, he made it.

 

[rvkevin]

Why is that? Because it's wrong or because it's not considered to be an origin-of-the-universe theory? I'm not really going to dissect the theories, I'm using them collectively to depict different notions of time and origins of the universe.

Here Pg. 272 The Fabric of the Cosmos. Basically, it describes the universe after it began. If you want to depict different notions of time, then you should definitely look into relativity if you haven't already.

Edit:

The idea that we are born in sin? That when you are born, you are born a sinner because your parents sinned.

You know the comparison that Hitchens makes regarding North Korea? Well, this is another common feature, except that in North Korea, only 2 future generations are inflicted, whereas in Christianity, there is no limit.

 

[Dre89]

Thanks for the info guys.

Bob- Just a note on the Hitler point, that depends on your denomination. Catholics believe Heaven is achieved through faith and/or good deeds. So if you're a good person who doesn't believe in God, you'll still likely go to Heaven.

Protestants, on the other hand, believe you'll only go to Heaven if you believe in God, even if you're a bad person.

 

[Sucumbio]

Thanks for the info guys.

Bob- Just a note on the Hitler point, that depends on your denomination. Catholics believe Heaven is achieved through faith and/or good deeds. So if you're a good person who doesn't believe in God, you'll still likely go to Heaven.

Protestants, on the other hand, believe you'll only go to Heaven if you believe in God, even if you're a bad person.

Just to nit-pick:

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone," (James 2:24);

It's not and/or, it's definitely and.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm pretty sure many Christians believe that you will be forgiven so long as you pray for forgiveness, regardless of acts. What's said in the bible doesn't have any bearing on their beliefs.

 

[AltF4]

That's also not just a christian thing. I think you'll find that for any religion there's the set of stuff that's said in the holy texts, and there's a set of held beliefs. And these two things are not the same.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Don't have time for a full reply, but I'd just like to point out

The idea is that faith is what's needed to be saved, regardless of good works, but true faith will lead to said good works. If you've got doctrinal questions about Christianity, I'd recommend this site http://www.gotquestions.org/ From what I've looked at it seems to be a good representation of what Christians believe.

 

[Dre89]

Saying that faith will lead to good deeds is pointless because by your theology someone can commit bad deeds and simply say they're sorry and they're sweet.

Also, I don't see how that faith in Protestant theology would lead to good deeds, if anything it's the opposite. Technically, someone should be more prone to commit bad deeds, because unlike in Catholic theology, the Prot is likely to have more faith in God that they'll be saved by apologising without doing any good deeds.


That's what's twisted about faith-based salvation; the biggest exhibition of faith is actually not doing good deeds, because you still have faith that you'll be saved upon apology. That requires a bigger leap of faith than doing good deeds.

Nic to be honest, there's a million theological flaws with Protestantism. If this keeps on going I'm happy to point out all the those I'm aware of. However, I understand what it feels like to have a million people attacking you at once, and I don't want to become part of the wolf pack in that sense. I'm more than happy to debate you 1 on 1.

 

[Ocean]

I'm sure that a one on one thread could be arranged for you two if you want.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah I hope he's keen, at least there's mutual respect between us (at least I think there is....) and unlike many religion debates both us have at least a decent understanding of religion.

I mean...I'd like to think I have a decent understanding of God and religion...seeing as I'm becoming a philosopher of religion and all....

It's going to be weird though being on the side the majority of people here agree with, but I guess there's a first time for everything...

 

[Nicholas1024]

Hm, maybe in a few days. I'm looking to be pretty busy with homework for a while, and DRE's arguments are ones I have to actually research and think about to answer.

And yeah, I tend to joke that if the majority agrees with you, you must be doing something wrong. I don't think I've actually had a majority of the debate hall agree with me on an issue yet (which I suppose isn't too surprising, considering the topics I tend to stick to.)

 

[Dre89]

And yeah, I tend to joke that if the majority agrees with you, you must be doing something wrong. I don't think I've actually had a majority of the debate hall agree with me on an issue yet (which I suppose isn't too surprising, considering the topics I tend to stick to.)

So was Christianity wrong when it was the biggest religion demogrpahic wise, or when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire?

Smashes him.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm pretty sure many Christians believe that you will be forgiven so long as you pray for forgiveness, regardless of acts. What's said in the bible doesn't have any bearing on their beliefs.

Um... I'm pretty sure that's -not- what Christians (or ... any sane person) believes. That's like praying away the gay. Or praying for forgiveness after committing a mortal sin.

No, you have to do good works and you have to believe in God. If you do good work, but denounce God, it's not good enough. And it's definitely not good enough to proclaim your faith, and act like a douche all over the place. This should be obvious... and this isn't an attempt to proselytize... just a coarse summation of Catholic belief.

 

[Nicholas1024]

So was Christianity wrong when it was the biggest religion demogrpahic wise, or when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire?

Smashes him.

There's a reason the word "joke" was in that sentence, DRE. The opinion of the majority doesn't affect whether an argument or statement is true, it's just my personal opinion that said majority is wrong more often than not.

 

[eschemat]

Hey guys, totally sorry for being so inactive! School started and it's been hell lately.

How are all of you guys, and what happened to everyone?

 

[Dre89]

There's a reason the word "joke" was in that sentence, DRE. The opinion of the majority doesn't affect whether an argument or statement is true, it's just my personal opinion that said majority is wrong more often than not.

I know, I was just stirring you.

Suc- I think the idea is that a good atheist can still go to Heaven.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Don't have time for a full reply, but I'd just like to point out

The idea is that faith is what's needed to be saved, regardless of good works, but true faith will lead to said good works. If you've got doctrinal questions about Christianity, I'd recommend this site http://www.gotquestions.org/ From what I've looked at it seems to be a good representation of what Christians believe.

So, I'm just curious... How does this make your religion socially acceptable? The idea that Charles Manson or Hitler could go to heaven–an eternal paradise without end–after their sins if they simply repented and held up the word of christ, while a good atheist or Jew (possibly murdered by the latter) would suffer eternal damnation, regardless of how they were in life? Never mind those atheists, who don't have anything to base their morality on; isn't this possibly the most wanton lack of morals in life? That you can do anything and get away with anything, as long as you repent and believe?

There's a reason works play such a crucial role in so many religions. It's because it turns the religion into an inherent force for "good" (assuming the works requested themselves are good): you are forced to do good things in order to receive infinite reward in the afterlife. You have to help your neighbor, obey the commands not to steal, kill, ****, lie, or the like, and generally be a good person. This makes the religion a force for good in society. A religion based on faith alone is, in terms of interactions with society, a massively ****ed-up system.

And yeah, I tend to joke that if the majority agrees with you, you must be doing something wrong. I don't think I've actually had a majority of the debate hall agree with me on an issue yet (which I suppose isn't too surprising, considering the topics I tend to stick to.)

Well yeah; religion in general (not just christianity) tends to get absolutely routed in open forum debates. I can't imagine why; all it is is an unverifiable source making incredible supernatural claims that are by definition either unprovable or logically self-contradicting...

 

[Dre89]

Metaphysical claims are provable/disprovable., otherwise they couldn't be self-contradictory. Any truth statement can be intelligible, that's what makes them potentially self-contradictory. The only statements that can't be contradictory are non-rational (not irrational) ones such as "my favourite colour is blue".

 

[rvkevin]

It's because it turns the religion into an inherent force for "good" (assuming the works requested themselves are good)

That's an assumption I would not make considering that apologists need to reconcile "goodness" with their holy text, which is why we have examples of them justifying wicked acts such as genocide, and stoning women for premarital sex.

 

[Sucumbio]

Suc- I think the idea is that a good atheist can still go to Heaven.

Agreed that an atheist may go to Heaven, but not until they've spent some time in Purgatory. This is of course the result of good works sans faith.

And what's with the "Smashes Him" thing? lol

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Metaphysical claims are provable/disprovable., otherwise they couldn't be self-contradictory. Any truth statement can be intelligible, that's what makes them potentially self-contradictory. The only statements that can't be contradictory are non-rational (not irrational) ones such as "my favourite colour is blue".

No I mean they either are unfalsifiable (for example, the existence on a non-phyiscal entity is completely unfalsifiable if we no no other traits thereof) or demonstrably false (for example, an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god is self-refuting in multiple ways).

That's an assumption I would not make considering that apologists need to reconcile "goodness" with their holy text, which is why we have examples of them justifying wicked acts such as genocide, and stoning women for premarital sex.

It's because it turns the religion into an inherent force for "good" (assuming the works requested themselves are good)

Just sayin'.

 

[Battlecow]

BPC- I think the idea for most christians is that Hitler couldn't go to heaven because no true believer could possibly commit such evil actions, and that he therefore either did not worship god or worshiped a false and perverted idea of god.

 

[Ocean]

BPC- I think the idea for most christians is that Hitler couldn't go to heaven because no true believer could possibly commit such evil actions, and that he therefore either did not worship god or worshiped a false and perverted idea of god.

the issue with this is it completely relies on the no true scotsman fallacy.

 

[AltF4]

Official Moderation Declaration

Hey all, from this post onward, there will be no debating in the Debate Hall Social thread.

This thread is for socializing, and for generating topic ideas. You can come here to find out if there's any interest on a particular topic, at which point you must make a new thread for that topic and debate about it there.

Debating in this thread:
0) Makes it difficult to follow the Debate Hall as a reader. Believe it or not, people actually read the stuff we post. And when everything is jumbled up in a single thread, it's impossible to follow.
1) Makes it difficult to respond as a debater. There's frequently 3 or more debates going on simultaneously. There is no obvious flow of conversation.
2) No history. A forum like this is supposed to have the advantage of keeping a permanent record of conversations. But when everything is lumped into a single thread, it becomes unsearchable.


Now, I know each and every one of you really wants to get the last word in for the conversations you're having right now. But that's just too bad. If you want to continue your debate, make a thread. Otherwise, just use this thread for that it's supposed to be: socializing and judging interest.

Thanks!

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BPC- I think the idea for most christians is that Hitler couldn't go to heaven because no true believer could possibly commit such evil actions, and that he therefore either did not worship god or worshiped a false and perverted idea of god.

Basically what Ocean said, but it goes further than that. I mean, what defines a believer? If we are to take the explanation of apologists like Ray Comfort and Nicolas (seriously, dude, when you're going to pick an apologist to 1-1 copy, don't make it Banana Man), you will go to hell regardless of what sins you have. Lying once makes you a liar. Stealing once makes you a thief. etc. It seems like regardless of how serious your crime is, the punishment is the same, and you will go to hell. This seems somewhat inconsistent with the idea that different levels of atrocity would determine your ability to be a christian, when it does not determine whether or not you would go to heaven/hell? Do you have to live a perfect life to be a "true" christian?

Whoops. Got newpaged by Alt's post. Where do we take this debate?

 

[AltF4]

Make a thread. Come up with a title. And quote some of the old posts in if you think it makes sense to.

 

[blazedaces]

Official Moderation Declaration

Hey all, from this post onward, there will be no debating in the Debate Hall Social thread.

This thread is for socializing, and for generating topic ideas. You can come here to find out if there's any interest on a particular topic, at which point you must make a new thread for that topic and debate about it there.

Debating in this thread:
0) Makes it difficult to follow the Debate Hall as a reader. Believe it or not, people actually read the stuff we post. And when everything is jumbled up in a single thread, it's impossible to follow.
1) Makes it difficult to respond as a debater. There's frequently 3 or more debates going on simultaneously. There is no obvious flow of conversation.
2) No history. A forum like this is supposed to have the advantage of keeping a permanent record of conversations. But when everything is lumped into a single thread, it becomes unsearchable.


Now, I know each and every one of you really wants to get the last word in for the conversations you're having right now. But that's just too bad. If you want to continue your debate, make a thread. Otherwise, just use this thread for that it's supposed to be: socializing and judging interest.

Thanks!

I for one like this, it really is hard to follow what's discussed in this thread. And the debate hall is lacking in debates outside of it...

-blazed

 

[Nicholas1024]

I see BPC hasn't learned anything from his time being banned.

Anyway, I suppose I'm up to make a new thread for this, on condition it's a 1 on 1 (preferably with DRE), I really don't want to have to deal with the same arguments from 5 different people (plus BPC's "little green men from mars are more reasonable than God" garbage) for every post I make.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Excuse me for being both drunk and blind, but your argument is a straw man and kinda ridiculous. Just sayin'.