Revelation 1-22

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your thinking seems to be a little muddled, to say the least!

In what way?
Can you quote a Christian who has ever said the innocent are condemned?

[Shaker]

What Christians never propose unlike some atheists is that the innocent are condemned.

According to Christianity there's no such thing as "innocent" for all (that's all) have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God* - or had you forgotten, Vladdychops?

* Romans 3:23

[Walt Zingmatilder]

According to Christianity there's no such thing as "innocent" for all (that's all) have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God - or had you forgotten, Vladdychops?

In which case no innocent people have been condemned.........but lots of people who have sinned and fallen short will get to heaven. Thanks to Jesus.

[Shaker]

In which case no innocent people have been condemned

Who said they have been? Oh, that's right - you did:

What Christians never propose unlike some atheists is that the innocent are condemned.

So we have ascertained that the first part of your sentence is bullshit, condemned by the very words of your book. What we didn't find out is (a) who these atheists are who are condemning innocent people and (b) what these innocent people are being condemned for. Quelle surprise.

.........but lots of people who have sinned and fallen short will get to heaven. Thanks to Jesus.

Pics or it didn't happen.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It depends what they mean by innocent. Many of the more extreme Christians condemn non believers to burn in the 'fires of hell', however good or decent they are.

But many Christians say that people  don't want God and are mutually excluded.
And others, the orthodox say that all get to heaven  but some hate the experience which then becomes hell.

I realise none of that helps the cause of self pronounced innocence and denouncement of God and therefore the person doing that prefers the torture of the innocent accusation on very slender foundation.

If one can convince oneself of innocence and of God as a torturer then that is an effective God dodge.

Other views of damnation which have been and are mainstream are met with fingers in ears and the old la la la.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If that were true, people of Hitler's ilk would go to heaven if they made a deathbed conversion, whereas an unbelievers who have done a lot of good in this world would go to hell, where is the justice in that?

I think God can effectively gate wolves in sheeps clothing trying to sneak in and savage the flock.
I should imagine in your travels you have met with lots of people who say that not all the apparently Christian will "be in that number when the saints etc".

The question is therefore are we in that number and do we want to be in that number.

[Sebastian Toe]

I've already defined that in my post.
Also if someone continues to wish harm on those in heaven why should they be allowed to do it?
If they are not allowed to inflict themselves and their desires why would they want to be in heaven?

Wait a  minute.
How exactly will all of this 'wishing harm' and  'infliction' be carried out in  a place where there is no "free will"?

[Outrider]

But many Christians say that people  don't want God and are mutually excluded. And others, the orthodox say that all get to heaven  but some hate the experience which then becomes hell.

It's almost as though there's no actual data or reliable information, and people are just pulling this stuff out of thin air...

I realise none of that helps the cause of self pronounced innocence and denouncement of God and therefore the person doing that prefers the torture of the innocent accusation on very slender foundation.

That very slender foundation of 'some Christians say' which was good enough before? Or the scriptural foundations (Revelations 21:8, Matthew 13:50 and 25:46, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Mark 9:43)

If one can convince oneself of innocence and of God as a torturer then that is an effective God dodge.

If one can deduce from the claims that there's an inherent injustice that's plainly obvious in the official doctrine of some churches, then it's not 'god-dodging' to highlight that as counter to those churches' claims of moral superiority.

Other views of damnation which have been and are mainstream are met with fingers in ears and the old la la la.

Probably because the entire concept of 'damnation' is laughable, relying as it does on the spurious and baseless notion of some 'spiritual' residue being manifested somewhere else after death.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Probably because the entire concept of 'damnation' is laughable, relying as it does on the spurious and baseless notion of some 'spiritual' residue being manifested somewhere else after death.

O.

Spiritual residue......or a set of information?

[Outrider]

Spiritual residue......or a set of information?

Damnation - spiritual residue. Afterlife, under some very modern arguments, set of information. Either way, it's still not based on anything evidentiary, and there's no reason to presume that it's an accurate description of reality.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Damnation - spiritual residue. Afterlife, under some very modern arguments, set of information. Either way, it's still not based on anything evidentiary, and there's no reason to presume that it's an accurate description of reality.

O.

It's still information though isn't it. The hope I suppose is that nobody is recording it.

[Outrider]

It's still information though isn't it. The hope I suppose is that nobody is recording it.

Is it? Certainly none of the people I've spoke to in the past have conceived of the 'soul' or 'spirit' as being 'information'. You can choose to interpret it like that, but you're moving away from classic depictions of religion and theology so much as to make the terms meaningless.

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

Is it? Certainly none of the people I've spoke to in the past have conceived of the 'soul' or 'spirit' as being 'information'. You can choose to interpret it like that, but you're moving away from classic depictions of religion and theology so much as to make the terms meaningless.

O.

Just ask Alan Burns. AFAIK he is arguing that the soul is merely a decision making machine. It uses information but it is not in itself, imformation.
Once it is free of its information storage facility (the brain), after we are dead, how it will function, how it will even be able to know who or what it is. Well that question get a big shrug of the shoulders followed by a sheepish "I dunno" reponse!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it? Certainly none of the people I've spoke to in the past have conceived of the 'soul' or 'spirit' as being 'information'. You can choose to interpret it like that, but you're moving away from classic depictions of religion and theology so much as to make the terms meaningless.

No doubt we all have a 21st century idea of what information is but it is not final and whatever it is it will have always been that. What happens to information anyway?

As far as religion and theology are concerned they have always used the allegories and parables to do to where they find themselves so there is nothing illegitimate about speaking of cultural metaphors...besides if you are prepared to give simulated universe the time of day you know that someone is/could be watching and it could be recorded. That is also true for a religious and theological view and has been for some time therefore it seems that it's the modern which has moved toward the classic depiction.
In the biblical version of the afterlife we are actually reconstructed or resurrected in a new ''body''.

[Outrider]

No doubt we all have a 21st century idea of what information is but it is not final and whatever it is it will have always been that.

Information will be, but our interpretation of it won't have been. And we have a 21st century idea of 'souls' and 'spirits' as well, and they're going the way of the 21st century idea of 'sorcery'.

What happens to information anyway?

The same thing that happens to everything, eventually. Entropy.

As far as religion and theology are concerned they have always used the allegories and parables to do to where they find themselves so there is nothing illegitimate about speaking of cultural metaphors...besides if you are prepared to give simulated universe the time of day you know that someone is/could be watching and it could be recorded.

That's been the case since long before I was born with the possibility that we were just a farm for aliens.

That is also true for a religious and theological view and has been for some time therefore it seems that it's the modern which has moved toward the classic depiction.

No, the modern view has come up with something superficially similar, and religion in a desperate quest for validity has glommed onto it and claimed 'that's what we meant all along'.

In the biblical version of the afterlife we are actually reconstructed or resurrected in a new ''body''.

Right. In the Biblical version there was a worldwide flood and a six thousand year old Earth and rain came from windows in the sky and grasshoppers only had four legs and whales were fish and there was only one god except when there other gods, and... You can selectively reinterpret as many elements of the vaguely worded scripture as you'd like, it still doesn't make a difference to the fundamental underlying truth: religion is about accepting the validity of the claim that there is some external source of absolute morality to whom we owe some sort of obeisance for the very fact of our existence, and that's a morally dubious case in and of itself, even if it could be demonstrated that there were a creator of any sort, let alone an absolutely moral one, which is a claim that doesn't fit with the reality that we see.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Information will be, but our interpretation of it won't have been. And we have a 21st century idea of 'souls' and 'spirits' as well, and they're going the way of the 21st century idea of 'sorcery'.

The same thing that happens to everything, eventually. Entropy.

That's been the case since long before I was born with the possibility that we were just a farm for aliens.

No, the modern view has come up with something superficially similar, and religion in a desperate quest for validity has glommed onto it and claimed 'that's what we meant all along'.

Right. In the Biblical version there was a worldwide flood and a six thousand year old Earth and rain came from windows in the sky and grasshoppers only had four legs and whales were fish and there was only one god except when there other gods, and... You can selectively reinterpret as many elements of the vaguely worded scripture as you'd like, it still doesn't make a difference to the fundamental underlying truth: religion is about accepting the validity of the claim that there is some external source of absolute morality to whom we owe some sort of obeisance for the very fact of our existence, and that's a morally dubious case in and of itself, even if it could be demonstrated that there were a creator of any sort, let alone an absolutely moral one, which is a claim that doesn't fit with the reality that we see.

O.

First I have to take you to task about a classic religious view being unrelated to information. After all How does John's Gospel start?

Secondly, Somebody had to eventually claim in the face of simulated universes that that is the novel idea and religion is trying to get onto the bandwagon. Just like what happened with the universe having a beginning, or as Augustine suggested the universe was created with time rather in time. Your thinking here, Outrider, is like saying of course the Bee Gees version of Tragedy is not as good as the Steps original.

Trying to squeeze an opponent, me, into a biblical literalist box is a shockingly desperate strategy that until you came along people have been intelligent enough not to do it. It doesn't cut much ice with me.

Didn't get the farm for aliens bit, but Jesus does make a lot of references to sheep and flocks.

This interested me though

religion is about accepting the validity of the claim that there is some external source of absolute morality to whom we owe some sort of obeisance for the very fact of our existence, and that's a morally dubious case in and of itself

What moral authority allows you to claim moral dubiousness?

[Outrider]

First I have to take you to task about a classic religious view being unrelated to information. After all How does John's Gospel start?

The English translation 'the word' is a poetic reference to a concept that doesn't have a direct English equivalent - it could just as easily have been translated as 'The Voice'.

Secondly, Somebody had to eventually claim in the face of simulated universes that that is the novel idea and religion is trying to get onto the bandwagon.

Because eventually the truth will out?

Just like what happened with the universe having a beginning, or as Augustine suggested the universe was created with time rather in time.

If you have enough people making up enough stuff far enough in advance, some of them are accidently going to get superficially close to something correct - you know, infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters and all that.

Your thinking here, Outrider, is like saying of course the Bee Gees version of Tragedy is not as good as the Steps original.

As someone who doesn't do religion, that's damnably close to sacrilege, you realise...

Trying to squeeze an opponent, me, into a biblical literalist box is a shockingly desperate strategy that until you came along people have been intelligent enough not to do it. It doesn't cut much ice with me.

I'm not trying to push anyone into any boxes, I'm simply pointing out that as you move further and further away from the 'classic' depiction of god and religion you increasingly get something that has no practical purpose or meaning.

Didn't get the farm for aliens bit, but Jesus does make a lot of references to sheep and flocks

Amongst the many interpretations of the panspermia idea of the origin of life on Earth was one that surmised that we'd been tended like farm animals by aliens for their own purposes - like the simulated universe concept, it replaces god as a 'creator' (in the short term, but not ultimately), but it doesn't make the alien/programmer any sort of corollary for a god, the god concept is something beyond simply an engineer.

religion is about accepting the validity of the claim that there is some external source of absolute morality to whom we owe some sort of obeisance for the very fact of our existence, and that's a morally dubious case in and of itself

What moral authority allows you to claim moral dubiousness?

The same one anyone else has, that ultimately we have no other recourse than to justify to ourselves what we think is right. I try to work on the 'least harm' principle, personally, though I'm in the deontological rather than consequentialist camp.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you have enough people making up enough stuff far enough in advance, some of them are accidently going to get superficially close to something correct - you know, infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters and all that.

And I suppose Augustine did it all without any thought whatsoever?

i'll leave you to clean up ''Whaaa, he was just a thick Bronze age goat shagging christian Carthaginian twat anyway''.

[Outrider]

And I suppose Augustine did it all done without any thought whatsoever?

He was guessing, or extrapolating on earlier guesses, with no data to work from. He managed to maybe get one thing sort of right, so long as you don't look too deeply at the detail of his claim. I'm not saying he wasn't thinking, I'm saying he wasn't nearly critical enough of his sources, but that's largely a function of the society in which he was operating.

i'll leave you to clean up ''Whaaa, he was just a thick Bronze age goat shagging christian Carthaginian twat anyway''.

That doesn't need cleaning up, that works quite nicely on its own. I might have phrased it a little more decorously - in this conversation, in others I've been equally blunt - but the underlying meaning remains the same. Newton saw far, as he put it, because he stood on the shoulders of giants; those giants stood on the shoulders of midgets, and those midgets were being dragged back and down by the pygmies around them.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

like the simulated universe concept, it replaces god as a 'creator' (in the short term, but not ultimately), but it doesn't make the alien/programmer any sort of corollary for a god, the god concept is something beyond simply an engineer.

We don't know it replaces God at all. After all a simulated universe suggests an intelligent designer responsible for the universe, who is not dependent on it or part of it.

At worst Chucking words like engineer, alien, programmer in the fashion you are can only really be a form of hypnosis illegitimately trying to control our thoughts about what that intelligent designer must be like. At best it must be poor incomplete analogy. Following your logic, artists become colour programmers, texture aliens and paint engineers.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He was guessing, or extrapolating on earlier guesses, with no data to work from.

And that's a good thing in a simulated universe proponent but an EEEEEVVVVIIILLLLL dark skidmark on moral decency when done by a philosopher.

[Outrider]

We don't know it replaces God at all. After all a simulated universe suggests an intelligent designer responsible for the universe, who is not dependent on it or part of it.

And I'm responsible for my chicken sandwich, but that doesn't make me 'god' to the bacteria within it. If you want to reduce 'god' to being nothing more than the engineer that's fine, but I'd question whether that just renders the term meaningless.

At worst Chucking words like engineer, alien, programmer in the fashion you are can only really be a form of hypnosis illegitimately trying to control our thoughts about what that intelligent designer must be like.

I'm explaining that there is a difference between making a simulation for beings to live in, and being god. Conceivably, a human could create a simulation in which there were conscious programme elements interacting, but that person would not be 'god' - they'd have a high degree of power and influence within that universe, but I still contend that doesn't make them 'god', unless you accept that a god is not inherently good or moral or right, but is merely a cosmic tyrant with unchecked power.

At best it must be poor incomplete analogy. Following your logic, artists become colour programmers, texture aliens and paint engineers.

You can make a pretty simulation, and be an artist and engineer, but that's still short of 'god', isn't it?

O.

[Outrider]

And that's a good thing in a simulated universe proponent but an EEEEEVVVVIIILLLLL dark skidmark on moral decency when done by a philosopher.

If you're claiming that your simulated universe concept is an hypothesis awaiting data to confirm or refute it, no, then it's just conjecture. If you're Elon Musk deducing probabilities and claiming that it's probably true, then you've stepped away from science and pushed your philosophy past the point where it can be supported. Like Aquinas did. Whether Aquinas should have known better is questionable; Musk certainly should.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And I'm responsible for my chicken sandwich,

A fine example of the Peter principle.

[Outrider]

A fine example of the Peter principle.

As a chef I'm more of an example of Dilbert's Principle.

O.