God and a barber
-
sure ..and i didnt say want to convince you. Did i ? Relax, dont assume too much.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Trust me, don't bother. I will turn out to be convincing u to become a free thinker while u will convince me to become christian. Chances r we r gonna remain as wat we r from the beginning. Tis is gonna take out too much time and frankly i can't afford the time...
And also to be entirely fitting to what you said, we can stop conversation here altogether since you cannot afford the time. -
let's chill before this goes out of topic, yea?
worshippers of self doesn't always convince.
-
Some thoughts on the useage of the word 'ravage', 'threaten' and 'woo':
Unfortunately (or not) being creatures of free will, logically we restrict God's omnipotence by having this condition set up that we cannot be forced into simply agreeing with whatever He would want.
Hence He could, but He cannot ravage our will without destroying it.
Threaten and woo. I am not sure if the useage of 'threaten' comes in as 'if you don't do this I will do this to you.', or 'if you do this, this is going to happen that I cannot do anything about because of the rules that have been set up'.
People who have issues with the fairness of hell might suppose that all of the supposed 'threats' are of the first kind. I am somewhat convinced (being a theist) that it is of the second kind.
The difference is as great as warning somebody you were going to kill him if he kept on annoying you and warning somebody that if he drank or ate that he was going to die.
Hence within the restrictions of the system, and what we can deduce with logical process. It would seem 'wooing' is the only option left. -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Pardon me for saying so, but that is just semantics. For a start, who made up the rules?
Threaten and woo. I am not sure if the useage of 'threaten' comes in as 'if you don't do this I will do this to you.', or 'if you do this, this is going to happen that I cannot do anything about because of the rules that have been set up'.
People who have issues with the fairness of hell might suppose that all of the supposed 'threats' are of the first kind. I am somewhat convinced (being a theist) that it is of the second kind.
If I point a gun to someone's head and tell him to hand over all his money... and I tell him that the "rule" is that if he doesnt hand me his money, I will squeeze the trigger. I will also stress to him that he has full free will not to obey me, though I will caution him that "if you dont obey me, my finger will pull the trigger, and that......
Am I "wooing" or am I "threatening"?
this is going to happen that I cannot do anything about because of the rules that have been set up'. -
wooooooooo~~~~~
-
hmmm.... examples.
ok, here is one,
If a person wants to jump off from the top of a skyscrapper, the Law of Gravity says he will be pulled downwars, hit the pavement so hard, he will surely die. Whether this person do not believe in the Law of Gravity or he have not even heard of it, has no bearing on the result, he will surely die.
If you so happen to be there just before he jumps off the top of the building, and you shout "Don't Jump! come back down or you will surely die!" or you try to talk some sense to him, point out to him the reality of his situations that he is going to die if he were to continue his course of action (jumping off the edge of the building)...etc
now are you wooing or threatening? I will say its wooing, cause you are simply giving him the correct perpective of his reality and pointing a way out for him.
oh, if that person decide to ignore your "wooing" and jumps off the top and die, does that make you repsponsible for his death? absolutely not, its a decision that he had made himself, and there is really not much you can do about it.
cheers. -
What is the difference between the example from Beyond Religion and mine?Originally posted by Beyond Religion:If I point a gun to someone's head and tell him to hand over all his money... and I tell him that the "rule" is that if he doesnt hand me his money, I will squeeze the trigger. I will also stress to him that he has full free will not to obey me, though I will caution him that "if you dont obey me, my finger will pull the trigger, and that......
1) Rules can be bend, Laws cannot.
In his example, if the "victim" empty his pocket, the gun bearer can still choose to squeeze the trigger, alternatively, if the victim decide not to comply, nothing is there to make the gun bearer squeeze the trigger if he does not want to.
Law of Gravity is different, if a person jumps off the top of a skyscrapper (unaided), he will surely and definitely die.
Rules are liken the lane divider on the road, its there as a guideline, if need to, a driver can always drive across it (lane change).
Laws are liken that of a road divider, try driving across it, the car will only ended up smashing into the concret barrier.
2) a Robbery Case is not a definite event, and not universal, the Law of Gravity is universal, and have the same bearing on everyone irregardless or race/religion/qualifications/status.
In Christianity, God's laws and its requirements are universal, does not matter if one believe or not, nor status/wealth/qualifications/upbringing...etc matters at all.
The destiny of all is the same, Christ came to provide the way out, we christian are just acting like "road signs" pointing others to this way, whether if the person wish to listen, act on it and take it? or chose to ignore it and continue their path is entirely up to him (the person), neither the provider of the way nor the "road signs" is responsible for the decision he made.
cheers -
More semantics, if you will pardon me.Originally posted by vince69:What is the difference between the example from Beyond Religion and mine?
Rules can be bend, Laws cannot.
In his example, if the "victim" empty his pocket, the gun bearer can still choose to squeeze the trigger, alternatively, if the victim decide not to comply, nothing is there to make the gun bearer squeeze the trigger if he does not want to.
Law of Gravity is different, if a person jumps off the top of a skyscrapper (unaided), he will surely and definitely die.
Rules are liken the lane divider on the road, its there as a guideline, if need to, a driver can always drive across it (lane change).
Laws are liken that of a road divider, try driving across it, the car will only ended up smashing into the concret barrier.
Whether you call these "rules" or "laws", the bottom line is that these are still made by God. Can God get around his own creations? -
Can He? of course He cannot, If He were to bend His Laws, will He still be just?Originally posted by Beyond Religion:More semantics, if you will pardon me.
Whether you call these "rules" or "laws", the bottom line is that these are still made by God. Can God get around his own creations?
If equivalent to asking God to create something He cannot carry.
another example:
If a person broke a law, say a traffic offence, and he is booked and the Judge prononce him guilty. Can this person blame the Judge for not getting around the Law and set him (the guilty one) free? No, he will not be set free until every single bits of his penalty is fully paid. Now, if someone comes along and wants to pay his penalty for him, he (the guilty one) can either accept it and walk out, or reject the offer and stay in jail (free will).
In the same way God had found all to be guilty, Christ came to pay the penalty of our guilt that none of us can ever pay. The decision we have to make is whether we want to accept His offer or reject Him. A personal decision all of us have to make for ourself.
cheers. -
How "just" can God be when He is capable of throwing non-believers (regardless if these are morally upright persons) into an eternal hell, and to punish their descendants up to the 4th generation?Originally posted by vince69:Can He? of course He cannot, If He were to bend His Laws, will He still be just?
cheers. -
just according to whose standards, yours or Gods? if you read the bible, God does not just punish for no reason, there are conditions which God has set to be obeyed, if you choose not to obey, then like all things you suffer the consequences.Originally posted by Beyond Religion:How "just" can God be when He is capable of throwing non-believers (regardless if these are morally upright persons) into an eternal hell, and to punish their descendants up to the 4th generation?
eg, In singapore there are laws, if you break them, you have to pay the penalty, likewise God has laws and if you break them, you have to pay the penalty, the good thing is that although the penalty we deserve is death, God Himself gave us the atoning sacrifice so that if we accept His offer of salvation, we are no longer dead, but have life everlasting.
on the going to hell bit, I will write more about it if I have time later... regards. -
people don't born knowing everything they should -_-Originally posted by klydeer:May i ask who might this "some people" be ?
How do you know they have "never" heard of Jesus in their entire life ?
Thanks. -
That is my point. What is that 'rule' (or law) to be obeyed? I can understand if someone gets punished if he disobeys a 'rule' or 'law' to be moral, but I take issue with burning someone for an eternity just because he doesnt not believe in a god.Originally posted by breytonhartge:just according to whose standards, yours or Gods? if you read the bible, God does not just punish for no reason, there are conditions which God has set to be obeyed, if you choose not to obey, then like all things you suffer the consequences.
eg, In singapore there are laws, if you break them, you have to pay the penalty, likewise God has laws and if you break them, you have to pay the penalty, the good thing is that although the penalty we deserve is death, God Himself gave us the atoning sacrifice so that if we accept His offer of salvation, we are no longer dead, but have life everlasting.
Um... you dont have to do that, I have been 'hearing' about this from evangelists since I was 10 years old. I really do not need to read any more about thatOriginally posted by breytonhartge:on the going to hell bit, I will write more about it if I have time later... regards. -
This is a wrong view of reality, Its not about burning someone for an eternity just because he doesnt not believe in a god, the reality is more like this someone is destined for hell unless he take up the saving grace provided from God.Originally posted by Beyond Religion:That is my point. What is that 'rule' (or law) to be obeyed? I can understand if someone gets punished if he disobeys a 'rule' or 'law' to be moral, but I take issue with burning someone for an eternity just because he doesnt not believe in a god.
Its like, a drowning man refusing to take the Buoy thrown to him, and later he drown. can blame the person who is trying to save him?
A building is on fire, the fire exit is just ahead with the exit sign all light up, a fireman stands at the door biding all inside to exit the burning building. one man decide not to believe it, jumps straight back into the fire and choose to remains there, is the fireman reponsible for his (the man that refused to use the exit) action?
cheers
-
I am afraid that still does not cut it.Originally posted by vince69:This is a wrong view of reality, Its not about burning someone for an eternity just because he doesnt not believe in a god, the reality is more like this someone is destined for hell unless he take up the saving grace provided from God.
Its like, a drowning man refusing to take the Buoy thrown to him, and later he drown. can blame the person who is trying to save him?
A building is on fire, the fire exit is just ahead with the exit sign all light up, a fireman stands at the door biding all inside to exit the burning building. one man decide not to believe it, jumps straight back into the fire and choose to remains there, is the fireman reponsible for his (the man that refused to use the exit) action?
cheers
You are talking about an almighty God, not just a human fireman. If I were that fireman, and if I have God's powers, I will jolly well yank that silly man kicking & screaming, back to safety, instead of watching him burn and tell him "I told 'ya so!"
Heck, if I have God's powers, there won't be a fire in the first place... -
yes of course. and your point being ?Originally posted by irenenergy:people don't born knowing everything they should -_-
i was asking chris a question about his statement on "some people" - who are these ? "entire life" - sure ?
i was wondering, if a person who (either know or do not know God) can profess to know of people who do not know Him as well for an entire life !. On what basis are such claims made ? -
Originally posted by Beyond Religion:
hianz.... nevermind lah, hope you can understand it soon lah.
I am afraid that still does not cut it.
You are talking about an almighty God, not just a human fireman. If I were that fireman, and if I have God's powers, I will jolly well yank that silly man kicking & screaming, back to safety, instead of watching him burn and tell him "I told 'ya so!"
Heck, if I have God's powers, there won't [b]be a fire in the first place...[/b]
none of us is perfect, we can only explain things to the best of our ability only.
God bless. -
I am afraid that still does not cut it.
edit: Why, in the first place, are we borned in such a state equating to a drowning person, or persons trapped in a burning building? Who put us into that position?
Also, you are talking about an almighty God, not just a human fireman. If I were that fireman, and if I have God's powers, I will jolly well yank that silly man kicking & screaming, back to safety, instead of watching him burn and tell him "I told 'ya so!"
Heck, if I have God's powers, there won't be a fire in the first place... -
OK, if that is the way this thread is going to go.....
Beyond Religion,
i was just wondering through your posts,
How can one be threatened by what one does not believe ?
How can one be wooed by what one does not see ? -
Hello,Originally posted by klydeer:OK, if that is the way this thread is going to go.....
Beyond Religion,
i was just wondering through your posts,
How can one be threatened by what one does not believe ?
How can one be wooed by what one does not see ?
To answer your questions...
No, I am not threatened by what I do not believe, nor can I be wooed by what I cannot see, but that is not the point of my posts.
I am trying to discuss the ethical propriety (or lack thereof) of using threats to achieve one's objective.
If I receive a letter from a stranger (whom I have never met), who threatens to report me to police for a murder I did not comit, unless I pay him S$100. I would of course, not believe this threat and I wont actually pay him the money. My point instead, is to examine the ethics of that stranger in making such a threat. -
I feel I need to make this clear.... I am not trying to "bash" monotheists, I am conveying my genuine disbelief (and disagreement) over one of the fundamental tenets of monotheism. Hope you wont misunderstand my intention.
-
Originally posted by Beyond Religion:I feel I need to make this clear.... I am not trying to "bash" monotheists, I am conveying my genuine disbelief (and disagreement) over one of the fundamental tenets of monotheism. Hope you wont misunderstand my intention.
Thought we are just having a discussion only?
not to worry, no "bashing" felt. -
Just in case mah... Some people very sensitive wanOriginally posted by vince69: Thought we are just having a discussion only?
not to worry, no "bashing" felt. 
-
I think there is a need to define the word "threat" and "woo" properly
woo
To tempt or invite.
threat
An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment
I get both definiton from dictionary.com
The similarity between "woo" and "threat" is making a person perform an action which he will not do otherwise. In "woo", u use incentive or something "good" for the person to pursuade him to perform tis action. In "threat", u use punishment such as pain or burning etc to convince him to do tat action. An example of "woo" is god saying men can live in heaven if he is a believer. An example of "threat" is god force men to go to hell if he is not a believer.
Hence in the case of hell, it is really using "threat"
-
Hmm, I am not sure your case includes all of the possible arguments as to hell being nothing but a 'threat'.
Would you care to spell out the entire case of what you suppose the whol logic and justice of hell to be?