God Condemns Two-Thirds of World to Hell

[Roman Candle]

He means that people condemn themselves by sinning, not that people set laws which condemn other people.

 

[KhaoticErase]

Exactly. God doesn't make us sin, WE do.

thank you, Roman Candle.

 

[WeissRaben]

Exactly.
And we can add to this statement an Ockam Razor, which say, in the end, that there is no punishment seconding the human laws. So, no one goes to hell only because is an "Infedel". Only the ones who deserves it.

 

[Roman Candle]

Ockham's Razor doesn't even apply here :s It states that the simplest explanation that fits all observations is most likely to be correct. There are no observations here, so it's useless to apply it.

What he was saying had nothing to do with human laws. He meant that God doesn't actively send us to hell - we simply end up there, by not moving towards God.

If you're a Christian, anyway.

 

[WeissRaben]

Right. But it HAS to do. God never said: This religion is the truth and such. These are human observations. Human laws.

 

[Roman Candle]

But that's the point: God is supposed to have said that.

 

[WeissRaben]

And why he should?
In the end, Torah, Bible and Koran have been written by humans, not by God himself.

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

Religion itself was created by humans, therefore all this discussion would be senseless, is there is nothing to argue about.

 

[Roman Candle]

That's an unfounded belief. There's no reason to believe that humans came up with over believing that God gave it to them - and vica versa. Since the result is the same, it's impossble to make a distinction by logic. Whichever you do believe, at least admit that it's no more valid than the other.

 

[KhaoticErase]

This topic should be closed. People are getting offended. Mainly me.

 

[WeissRaben]

Offended? And why? Here we are talking about a topic I think is very important; and without offending anyone. I am agnostic, that's right, and so I don't think any religion is right; but this is a personal opinion, and I'm not trying of impose it.

 

[ccoa]

This topic should be closed. People are getting offended. Mainly me.

If you're offended by it, don't read it. The intertubes are a vast place, surely one thread isn't too hard to avoid. Really, if you're easily offended by others' beliefs and opinions, you probably shouldn't be in a subforum like this one, anyway.

 

[Andy6000]

It's true! While people are skirting pretty close to just spouting off unfounded crap, they've avoided it so far, so I suggest you avoid the topic at hand if you can't deal with differing viewpoints.

I can't say my viewpoint differs much from the 'it was written by people with a free hand', but I can't exactly say that without proof. Roman Candle's got it right, there's nothing that says there's a god, and there's nothing that says there isn't, unless you accept the most heinously biased hearsay evidence (for either side).

EDIT: btw I put this post here as a little warning not to let this conversation get out of hand as it seems to be heading that way with the unfounded opinions being stated as blunt truth etc.

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

Nothing can be stated as being the absolute truth, that's a fact.
Religions may be right or wrong, but without doubt whether we believe in a god or not, we have to admit there's something omnipresent, call it a deity or simply
an universal law, that holds this universe (and who knows what else) together.
Sometimes I wonder about how complex the universe is. There's something marvelous about how everything works.
This reminds me the idea of the "watchmaker", I can't recall exactly who brought this idea (was it Pascal? or Descartes? my bad, help me here).

 

[ccoa]

Religions may be right or wrong, but without doubt whether we believe in a god or not, we have to admit there's something omnipresent, call it a deity or simply
an universal law, that holds this universe (and who knows what else) together.

We do? Says who and with what proof?

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

We do what? oh, the "we have to admit"
Well, then I would like you to explain me how can the universe be explained.
Science keeps bringing up new theories (String theories) concerning the big bang, and even there, seems that the big bang is just a small piece in the puzzle.
Now how do you expect proofs? Proof of an omni-present entity? or a complex law binding them all together?

 

[ccoa]

You say we have to admit it. That implies that there's irrefutable proof of it. As far as I know, there's definitely no proof for an omniscient deity, and there is no such thing as "proven" in science. The entire basis of science is that nothing can be proven.

 

[Roman Candle]

'Paradigm Shifts', (where a whole scientific model is replaced by another one), in science don't mean anything. It just means we've acknowledged that our old ideas of how the universe works are untenable, and that we're going to move onto another one which fits the evidence better, (but we still understand that the new one will not be perfect and at some time that it will be replaced).

The teleological, or argument from design, is the one lots of people call the Watchmaker" argument. It's an argument for the existence of God, and it was first put in the form with the Watchmaker by Bishop Paley, although the same argument had been around in different forms since before Plato was alive. However, I'm told that the argument is considered locially invalid by all philiosophers, mostly due to criticism by Hume. Anyway, that's a thread all of its own.

Also, when you say "Proof of an omni-present entity? or a complex law binding them all together?" you seem to be implying that the two are exclusive. I'd say that an omni-present diety is the only real explanation, (apart from 'there is no explanation', which I believe), for a natural law existing at all.

 

[___]

Last week, I was in Sunday Schoolwhen I realised something. According to the Christian faith, the only way to gain enterance to Heaven, you must accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour. I think this is messed up because that would send every non-christian (and even some christians) to an eternal after-life in hell. It also means that if Hitler were Christian, and had accepted Christ as his saviour, he would be absolved of all his sinsand allowed to enter heaven. I would like to know whatother people think about this strange fact about the Christian religion. (Just so people know, I'm Protestant, not Catholic, Baptist, or any other faction)

That's such a loaded question it's hard to dissect it, it spans from the original meaning of the language used in the bible, a lot of which has been lost to time and translation, to independent doctrine. It might be more accurate to say "Christians claim their God Condemns Two-Thirds of the World to Hell."

In reply to other parts of this thread:

This topic should be closed. People are getting offended. Mainly me.

Oh man I don't even know how to reply to that without being offensive. Please, if you don't like it, don't read it - this is the Symposium, read the disclaimer.

Whichever you do believe, at least admit that it's no more valid than the other.

there is no such thing as "proven" in science. The entire basis of science is that nothing can be proven.

Damn I wish it was as easy as saying that to get people to see it. It's hard to get a person with a vested belief to understand that admitting that isn't the same as denying or even casting doubt on what they believe though.

The teleological, or argument from design, is the one lots of people call the Watchmaker" argument. ...

That's a fun one to do another thread on : )

As for the omissions from the books of the bible, kindly offer some evidence to that so people can respond.

This is a frighteningly common misconception. The jury is still out on whether the selection process was valid, but we do know for sure that the Christian Bible wasn't compiled for several hundred years after Jesus' death from a small selection of hundreds of different gospels, testimonies, etc. Even Christian scholars won't deny that to you if they have any kind of interest in truth at the risk of faith. It raises some interesting questions about common religious doctrine involving both the veracity and divine inspiration of the book. Wikipedia can get you started here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibles#The_canonization_of_the_Bible

If you question the translation, I'm sure the experts that translated would love to get your feedback. I mean, none of the other experts are arguing with them. It might be a refreshing break!

There are several independent translations of the Bible. Each has slightly different wording but the basic concepts are the same. Unfortunately in those minor differences arise about a million dogmatic and doctrinal variations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibles#Bible_versions_and_translations

Critically, neither of these things are a big challenge to basic Christian belief in my opinion. Of course a fundamental tradition that prefers keeping people ignorant for the sake of their immortal souls might actually try to tell you all that is part of Satan's insidious lies to undermine your faith or something. Overall though I plead with you to not take for granted everything someone with a funny hat, a big book and a podium has told you. If your beliefs have any foundation whatsoever, examination will not threaten them. I encourage you to read, learn and draw your own conclusions.

I might suggest this whole thread get merged into the religious discussion sticky topic.

 

[Hisuwashi]

That's such a loaded question it's hard to dissect it, it spans from the original meaning of the language used in the bible, a lot of which has been lost to time and translation, to independent doctrine. It might be more accurate to say "Christians claim their God Condemns Two-Thirds of the World to Hell."

How can you say that? William Tyndale, indeed, was said to have perverted the scriptures, but his work became the foundation of many new English versions of the Bible such as the King James Version, then the American Standard Version, then the Revised Standard Version. There were loads of translators working on them. The Bible is more than a historical document; and it is more than a classic of literature. It's a record of how God dealt with humans, and how He revealed Himself to them. Therefore, an accurate translation is essential.

Anyway.... I don't know even know how God can condemn 2/3 of the world to hell when Jesus died to save people so they'd go to heaven rather than hell (where everyone would automatically go after they die), and Jesus was God on earth. According to Matthew 8:21 -

"Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."