Where does morality come from?

[createdtoworship]

If all it takes to "qualify" as a gossiper is to very, very briefly mention already known (and true) public behaviors of another person to yet a third party, behaviors which might be troublesome in some way, well then, call me a "gossiper," just as was Paul the Apostle.

don't bring down the apostle paul with your 'talebearing". Can you point to one time paul talked negatively about someone, without first talking to them about it? I know that christians don't teach much about this sin, and this is no doubt why you struggle. But because we don't know about sin, does not mean God does not judge us on the sin. Because it's all in the Bible already. I posted dozens of verses on the negative affects of tale bearing, (gossip).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

don't bring down the apostle paul with your 'talebearing". Can you point to one time paul talked negatively about someone, without first talking to them about it? I know that christians don't teach much about this sin, and this is no doubt why you struggle. But because we don't know about sin, does not mean God does not judge us on the sin. Because it's all in the Bible already. I posted dozens of verses on the negative affects of tale bearing, (gossip).

gradyll. You and I already talked in the past. Have you forgotten?

 

[createdtoworship]

gradyll. You and I already talked in the past. Have you forgotten?

I talk to dozens and dozens of people, please forgive me if I don't recall a particular conversation. You will have to enlighten me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I talk to dozens and dozens of people, please forgive me if I don't recall a particular conversation. You will have to enlighten me.

We had the following very brief exchange:

(1) Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

(2) Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

Moreover, the main thing is that I've chosen to avoid further interlocution with you because, even though you are a fellow Christian, we don't see eye-to-eye on how to interpret the Scriptures, and I realize our conversations will only begin and end in heated disagreement with no learning taking place with either one of us. I've also come to realize that you've been on CF even longer than I have and you seem to have never veered away from your current disposition or from your current form of apologetics. So, I think any sane and rational person would simply agree to disagree with you and call it a day rather than carrying on with you ... ad infinitum.

But again, if I said one sentence in a previous post to another person about how I think you could come across as acerbic (in a way similar to how I do at times, I suppose), then I don't see how that 'counts' as a form of gossip. No, I rather think it doesn't. And now, ironically, you've come to me to force the issue "in person." If it's any consolation, I've never talked about you, whether in elaboration or even in brief passing, with anyone else behind your back ...

 

[createdtoworship]

We had the following very brief exchange:

(1) Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

(2) Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

Moreover, the main thing is that I've chosen to avoid further interlocution with you because, even though you are a fellow Christian, we don't see eye-to-eye on how to interpret the Scriptures, and I realize our conversations will only begin and end in heated disagreement with no learning taking place with either one of us. I've also come to realize that you've been on CF even longer than I have and you seem to have never veered away from your current disposition or from your current form of apologetics. So, I think any sane and rational person would simply agree to disagree with you and call it a day rather than carrying on with you ... ad infinitum.

But again, if I said one sentence in a previous post to another person about how I think you could come across as acerbic (in a way similar to how I do at times, I suppose), then I don't see how that 'counts' as a form of gossip. No, I rather think it doesn't. And now, ironically, you've come to me to force the issue "in person." If it's any consolation, I've never talked about you, whether in elaboration or even in brief passing, with anyone else behind your back ...

sir I don't need to defend the Bible to another christian, you either believe it or you don't simply put. If you reject the dozens of verses I posted saying not to speak negatively of other brethren, then that is your choice. To answer some of your other posts on "the worm dieth not" it seems that you are picking a trivial straw man attack on the biblical hell. But to answer your question I don't think anyone knows what it means to have fire proof worms that are immortal. It could be an illusion to a trash heap in gehennah, or it could be an allusion to an evil monster in hell that eats human flesh, I really don't have the foggiest. I don't know. But to reject all the logical basis of hell, because you don't understand worms, is not the wisest choice. I suggest starting your topic here:

Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

 

[2PhiloVoid]

sir I don't need to defend the Bible to another christian, you either believe it or you don't simply put. If you reject the dozens of verses I posted saying not to speak negatively of other brethren, then that is your choice. To answer some of your other posts on "the worm dieth not" it seems that you are picking a trivial straw man attack on the biblical hell. But to answer your question I don't think anyone knows what it means to have fire proof worms that are immortal. It could be an illusion to a trash heap in gehennah, or it could be an allusion to an evil monster in hell that eats human flesh, I really don't have the foggiest. I don't know. But to reject all the logical basis of hell, because you don't understand worms, is not the wisest choice. I suggest starting your topic here:

Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

Ok. Thank you for your time, brother gradyll.

 

[createdtoworship]

We had the following very brief exchange:

(1) Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

(2) Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

Moreover, the main thing is that I've chosen to avoid further interlocution with you because, even though you are a fellow Christian, we don't see eye-to-eye on how to interpret the Scriptures, and I realize our conversations will only begin and end in heated disagreement with no learning taking place with either one of us. I've also come to realize that you've been on CF even longer than I have and you seem to have never veered away from your current disposition or from your current form of apologetics. So, I think any sane and rational person would simply agree to disagree with you and call it a day rather than carrying on with you ... ad infinitum.

But again, if I said one sentence in a previous post to another person about how I think you could come across as acerbic (in a way similar to how I do at times, I suppose), then I don't see how that 'counts' as a form of gossip. No, I rather think it doesn't. And now, ironically, you've come to me to force the issue "in person." If it's any consolation, I've never talked about you, whether in elaboration or even in brief passing, with anyone else behind your back ...

to adress this post,

Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

here you plainly confess you don't take the Bible literally. So again, if you don't believe in Gossip, perhaps it is because you don't believe the bible is literal. And this could be a reason why you criticize people who do believe what the Bible actually records. It's okay if you don't believe the Bible, thats fine, but don't say you are christian and reject christ's literal message.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

to adress this post,

Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

here you plainly confess you don't take the Bible literally. So again, if you don't believe in Gossip, perhaps it is because you don't believe the bible is literal. And this could be a reason why you criticize people who do believe what the Bible actually records. It's okay if you don't believe the Bible, thats fine, but don't say you are christian and reject christ's literal message.

It's irreconcilable posts you write----like this one above, gradyll----which give off the impression that you're simply here to dominate everyone else. It's kind of inconsistent to claim in the post #925 that you "don't know," but then come back in post #927 and then not only press the issue of my apparent hermeneutical disagreement with you over the nature of gossip, but you then add in your feelings about our earlier conversation over the nature of "worms and fire" and whatnot, and you continue to make the judgment call upon me that if I don't believe exactly like you do.........that I must therefore "not be a Christian."

This is why I've said I chose to desist and refrain from interlocuting with you. I'm not going to be like the folks here---many of whom are Skeptics---and just stay around with you in order to try to "bring you around." I'm not going to do that.

So, Carry On ... brother gradyll.

 

[createdtoworship]

It's irreconcilable post----like this one above, gradyll----that give off the impression that you're simply here to dominate everyone else. It's kind of inconsistent to claim in the post #925 that you "don't know," but then come back in post #927 and then not only press the issue of my hermeneutical disagreement with you over the nature of gossip, but you then add in your feelings about our early conversation about the nature of worms and fire and whatnot, and make the judgment call upon me that if I don't believe exactly like you do.........that I must therefore "not be a Christian."

This is why I've said I chose to desist and refrain from interlocuting with you. I'm not going to be like the folks here---many of whom are Skeptics---and just stay around with you in order to try to "bring you around." I'm not going to do that.

So, Carry On ... brother gradyll.

I never said you were not Christian. I said don't be christian. I mean why would you? You don't believe in the bible at all, so why be a christian? There are many religions of which may be a better fit, correct?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I never said you were not Christian. I said don't be christian. I mean why would you? You don't believe in the bible at all, so why be a christian? There are many religions of which may be a better fit, correct?

There you go again, assuming that I "don't believe in the bible at all." Did I ever say here, anywhere on CF, that I don't literally believe that Jesus came into this world from the Father, on our behalf, lived, died and rose again (literally) from the grave via the Holy Spirit?

No, I don't think I have. So, don't assume that YOU KNOW 'how' I interpret the Bible, or any specific book, passage, verse, or Jewishly constructed biblical genre, for that matter, unless .............. I TELL YOU !!!

Kapeesh??? [Now, please have the last word as you typically do ...]

I'm outta here.

 

[createdtoworship]

There you go again, assuming that I "don't believe in the bible at all." Did I ever say here, anywhere on CF, that I don't literally believe that Jesus came into this world from the Father, on our behalf, lived, died and rose again (literally) from the grave via the Holy Spirit?

No, I don't think I have. So, don't assume that YOU KNOW 'how' I interpret the Bible, or any specific book, passage, verse, or Jewishly constructed biblical genre, for that matter, unless .............. I TELL YOU !!!

Kapeesh??? [Now, please have the last word as you typically do ...]

I'm outta here.

you questioned me when I used a plain sense hermeneutic, the only reason why you would do that, is because you don't believe the Bible. I see that you are awful offended, so I apologize. I just felt that if you didn't believe in the Bible as a whole, you know that it's God's word not a "Jewishly constructed genre" like you confessed just now, that maybe the whole idea of christianity may not be a suitable fit for you. Thats all I was saying. I was not trying to be mean.

 

[gaara4158]

There you go again, assuming that I "don't believe in the bible at all." Did I ever say here, anywhere on CF, that I don't literally believe that Jesus came into this world from the Father, on our behalf, lived, died and rose again (literally) from the grave via the Holy Spirit?

No, I don't think I have. So, don't assume that YOU KNOW 'how' I interpret the Bible, or any specific book, passage, verse, or Jewishly constructed biblical genre, for that matter, unless .............. I TELL YOU !!!

Kapeesh??? [Now, please have the last word as you typically do ...]

I'm outta here.

Don’t get sucked in! Not you too!!

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

thanks but in my case, hell is the worst case scenario evidently, that we know of. No one has provided a worst case scenario (worse than hell), so pascals wager would only work on the worst case scenario. An eternity of burning alive in fire seems to me to be far worse than any hell I have read in any of the religions I have studied. I have studied most of the 10 most popular, and nothing comes close. So this illustration fails as well to refute the logic of pascals wager.

The Islamic nature of hell seems just as bad:

They will long to leave the Fire, but never will they leave there from; and theirs will be a lasting torment. (Quran 5:37)

…And they will never leave of the Fire. (Quran 2:167)

Surely, those who disbelieve and did wrong; God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them to any way except the way of Hell, to dwell therein forever. (Quran 4:168-169)

Surely, God has cursed the disbelievers, and has prepared for them a flaming Fire wherein they will abide forever. (Quran 33:64)

And whosoever disobeys God and His Messenger, then surely, for him is the fire of Hell, he shall dwell therein forever. (Quran 72:23)

Surely, the gates of the Heaven will not be opened for those who deny Our revelations and treat them with arrogance; their admission into paradise will be as impossible as the passing of a camel through the eye of a needle. That is how We shall reward the criminals. Hell shall be their bed and flames shall be their covering. That is how We shall reward the wrongdoers.(Qurʾān 7:40-41)

No food will there be for them except from a bitter, thorny plant which neither nourishes nor avails against hunger. (Quran 88:6-7)

Indeed, the tree of zaqūm is food for the sinful, like murky oil, it boils within bellies, like the boiling of scalding water. (Quran 44:43-46)

Is Paradise better as an abode or the tree of zaqūm? Indeed, We have made it a torment for the wrongdoers. Indeed, it is a tree issuing from the bottom of the Hellfire, its emerging fruit as if it was heads of the devils. And, indeed, they will eat from it and fill with it their bellies. Then, indeed, they will have after it a mixture of scalding water. Then, indeed, their return will be to the Hellfire. (Quran 37:62-68)

Then indeed you, O those astray (who are) deniers, will be eating from trees of zaqūm and filling with it your bellies, and drinking on top of it from scalding water, and will drink as the drinking of thirsty camels. That is their hospitality on the Day of Recompense. (Quran 56:51-56)

How is the Christian hell significantly worse than the Islamic hell?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Don't assume that I'm avoiding "your" point, Clizby. Just right out of the starting gate, one problem with your question is that it involves an implied imperative, and you seem to be assuming that the epistemological arguments of someone like W.K. Clifford have some actual teeth if and when any one of us finds the interest to make an evaluation of the Christian faith. But there really is no "should" implied; however, if we might request that Christians be reasonable people in all cases of life and not just when they contemplate how they will explain their own faith in Christ, then we would have the makings of a more equitable expectation.

The reality of the matter is that when skeptical folks such as yourself come to rely too much on Foundationalistic and Evidentialistic frameworks for their skeptical assertions and at the same time, while supposedly being leashed by their own pretenses and faintly nods towards logic and rationality, they ignore various Hermeneutical and other philosophical considerations, all that stands to happen is that Christians will find themselves "gummed" to death by the onerous skeptic. And this is essentially what Pascal implies ... especially in what I call his "Argument Against Sociopathic Skepticism," or A.A.S.S., for short, which precedes his well-worn but never really understood Wager.

Ok, so your answer is no then.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Ok. Thank you for providing your commentary, but in doing so, you have proven my point, that atheists not only take Pascal's Wager out of context, but when they bother to consider it as you've attempted to do here by citing it in isolation from everything else that Pascal wrote in his Pensees, they only do so in a way that is akin to haphazardly gutting a pig for no good reason, ripping its intestines out and then pronouncing to the crowds around them, while holding the dripping, dying intestines, that a thorough study has been made...and the tissues have been found to be (you guessed it!) ... dead.

I gave a link to the context. Instead of telling me I have taken them out of context explain where and why.

Obviously, you're an intelligent chap,

You have no basis for this determination. Can you just reply to what I wrote?

Clizby, but that's not how we should be handling Pascal's Wager, even if you're intuition is that it will still be found to be insufficient for your own use ... and as for you're individual comments in your post above, I'll try to get to them in a day or so if and when I can.

We will see.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

What is more logical, to believe nothing? To believe the soul is gone, turns off? When dead? Or to believe it goes somewhere? These are all questions I don't see atheist's bold enough to debate

There is no evidence that there is a soul. Can you support this claim?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The atheist has faiths and beliefs in the after life, but is not willing to verbalize them, or debate them.

How do you know this? Each atheist is different in what they believe about death. Most as in my case simply have no good reasons to believe we live after we die. You claim that we do, you have the burden of proof.

 

[Strathos]

you should see my other threads, one is approaching seventy pages. But most christians just give up because of reasoning like yours. But is that truly loving them? I think loving them is being patient, listening to all arguments, if they defeat you, going back and learning how to defeat the argument, but it takes time, and most people just don't love as much as Christ commanded us too. I admit I have lost patience many times, but I realize that I lost patience, and I find the problem person that made me angry and I refuse to debate that particular individual, I have kept my sanity through that process. I highly recommend it. but just saying "its too hard." is not what Christ would do. and neither is just getting angry and mocking it, which is the tactics of most athiests I debate. Because I use logic on their own belief systems, they realize they use faith every bit or more than a christian does, and it makes them mad basically. I understand that. But it should break their heart that they have been lied to.

Maybe it's your focus on 'defeating' rather than 'persuading' that is the problem.

 

[Kylie]

that is changing the bars, you originally said it was illogical for someone to burn in hell forever, if I am quoting you correctly, so I was using relativity to suggest that hell may be in a dimension outside of time. So if it is, then it would not be illogical for someone to burn forever, which was your premise. Now you want evidence of hell, and I could give it to you but that would be considered apologetics. But as I said to another person here who said hell is not a credible threat. What is more logical, to believe nothing? To believe the soul is gone, turns off? When dead? Or to believe it goes somewhere? These are all questions I don't see atheist's bold enough to debate. Because by and large the atheist is a skeptic, which by definition questions everything. But in doing so, is it really logical? I mean to have no beliefs at all? I don't think so. At this point we come to a cross roads. The atheist has faiths and beliefs in the after life, but is not willing to verbalize them, or debate them. And thus comes the word from my mouth, "cowardly," The other option is they have never thought about it. And this is a valid choice. But again just because they have never contemplated something does make everyone else who does have a view, wrong by default. Do you know what I mean? There must be some illogicality that they are referencing to, that makes hell illogical, and they again, are awkwardly silent at that point. But an important point to make is that the soul, the software that runs the brain, is massless. Somehow it turns on at birth, and at that event is placed into a timelessness. See the soul has no mass, which means it can't be affected by time. So it's eternal according to relivity. So a hell that is eternal makes perfect sense. But just saying it turns off, well is sort of naive. I am not saying you believe that. But just saying what I have heard before. So I am sorry if I didn't answer your question the way you wanted, I still said some stuff that needed to be said.

Honestly, you sound like those hardcore Star Trek fans who insist they know how dilithium crystals actually work.

It's still all make believe.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok, so your answer is no then.

My answer is essentially that of Pascal and Kierkegaard, and that is: Human reason, using the various logic(s) can never get a person to faith, however well the logics may be applied; human rational activity all by its lonesome may enable a person to begin to surmise that Christianity could have some kind of substantive claim and thus lean in that direction, but this rational leaning in and of itself would never provide a firm epistemological position by which faith in Jesus Christ could be attained. It just doesn't work like that.

For some 'reason,' there are Christians and even Atheists who, despite the failures of their own epistemological positions, still think Christianity should somehow be achievable by sheer rationality alone. Again, no, it can not; it takes more than that, which is why Pascal offers his Wager to those who haven't succumbed to apathy toward the Christian faith.