How The Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill

[Stranger]

Again, what test?

How many times have I made this point - and now, you say you don't understand...?

The test which means we are condemned unless we get 'saved'. The test that everyone fails (except for god incarnate) and becomes a 'sinner' and is therefore inappropriate, unjust, and unfair.

...and surely we live in a universe with consequences, You are asking for suspension of consequence?

Yes we do, and no I'm not.

What are the consequences of turning away from God.

There is no evidence or reasoning to suggest that there is a god and therefore any such thing as turning away from it or any consequences for for doing so (if it were actually possible).

When will you get it into your head that I don't take any of the ideas of any of the multitudinous and contradictory god-stories at all seriously - so it's utterly pointless asking me questions that assume that your pet god-concept is actually real?

And yes for everything you've done  you get an eternity in a luxury resort villa enjoying the emanences of God's energies without having to put up with him himself, cake....and eat it too!!!

Is this another part of your fantasy?

Christ takes the consequences on himself as you do if your boy smashes the school 60 inch OLED but in this case with himself.

Nobody (sane) blames a kid for being a kid, neither do they blame a child for its great grandfather's mistakes.

The way is now open to the Father.

But only, it would seem, if we believe this silly nonsense.

[ippy]

Since none of the usual Fallacy Police seem to want to make an arrest here let me do a citizens one.

An NPF is when you say you cannot disprove X therefore X must exist.

Now take what I said

Prove God is a fictional character, also how would you know if you say you cant rule him out and your not prepared to find out if he really is?

I am not saying he cant prove God is fictional I am just asking him to prove it because he has positively asserted it an therefore has the burden of proof.

F minus.

Now your piling more N P F onto N P F, not that you'll answer, why can't you understand you're using N P F?

Regards ippy

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

Sorry old son but the question put to The Stranger was "at the very heart" and the answers I got were the basic atheist lets look at the bad bits of religion, he tells me he has studied the Bible, well I see no evidence, and just for the record, I am still studying, it would take a life time just to fully understand the Four Gospels, further I don't preach "I am better than you because I am a Christian" only that my faith my Christianity is my path, other paths are available.

And to end old son, when you say there is not a shred of evidence, I would say every single person on this forum is religious, it is what we are, it is how we think, someone a while back showed us some evidence that our very distant cousins showed signs of religion, the monkey or chimpanzee, we are Homo religious, me, I ask why? And please don't bother with the stock answer " we are mean seeking creatures who needed a reason for the volcano erupting".

Gonnagle.

PS: I like being human, in my next reincarnation if not a human then a Labrador with a good owner who does not believe in castration

Sorry forgot to add, definitely not an atheist, well maybe a cheerful atheist, always wondered why Sir Terry thought of himself as a cheerful atheist,

Forget the good and bad about having a religious belief, it would make just as much sense to be a unicornist  or a tooth fairyest  there's equally as much viable evidence for any one of them, unless you can find something viable that proves me wrong, something I'm yet to see coming from any direction.

I suppose I could be taken for a 'Star Trekist', but then perhaps it could be better for all to be as serious about superstition based beliefs as I'am about 'Star Trekism'.

By the way your reference to the volcano example, sorry Gonners but it's a good one and it'll stand until such time religiosos can find anything better and as you must know that's unlikely.

I don't think of myself as an atheist, it's a little like calling someone a non-stamp collector, I prefer, I'm a non-religious person.

I put down my presence on this forum to a fascination I have as to how so many still hold these superstition based religious beliefs?

Kind regards ippy

By the way my maternal grandfather was a full blooded Scot, I try my best to keep it quite, does that make me kiltic?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How many times have I made this point - and now, you say you don't understand...?

The test which means we are condemned unless we get 'saved'. The test that everyone fails (except for god incarnate) and becomes a 'sinner' and is therefore inappropriate, unjust, and unfair.

And the inappropriateness etc is your opinion. Very much borne out of a mind set with freedom from consequence. Imagine if the driving test was run along those lines.

Why should the bullies and persecutors for example be allowed to ply their trade in heaven? Would they even want to be in a ''place'' where they are forbidden to do so?

Some get saved and thus have passed the test if you can use that terminology in the context of personal relationships.

I can only account for the all fail as in all sin but that is our choice.

If there is a test it's what we do with Christ and thus God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Now your piling more N P F onto N P F, not that you'll answer, why can't you understand you're using N P F?

Regards ippy

Well we seem at odds with what an NPF is. What do the secular humanists say it is Ippy?

[ippy]

Well we seem at odds with what an NPF is. What do the secular humanists say it is Ippy?

This has been explained to you so many times by so many posters, what would be the point of trying even, you don't even understand secular humanism; I notice you can actually write the words secular and humanism.

Regards ippy

[torridon]

Prove God is a fictional character, also how would you know if you say you cant rule him out and your not prepared to find out if he really is?

The burden of proof lies with those making the claim.  You are just asking people to prove that the Emperor has got no clothes on.  Doesn't work like that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This has been explained to you so many times by so many posters, what would be the point of trying even, you don't even understand secular humanism; I notice you can actually write the words secular and humanism.

Regards ippy

No It seems like every time I ask I'm told it has been explained many etc.
What has NPF got to do with SH apart from withholding their understanding from enquierers?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The burden of proof lies with those making the claim.  You are just asking people to prove that the Emperor has got no clothes on.  Doesn't work like that.

Yes and Stranger is claiming that God is a fictional character.

[Stranger]

And the inappropriateness etc is your opinion. Very much borne out of a mind set with freedom from consequence. Imagine if the driving test was run along those lines.

The driving test is run along the lines I am suggesting. It tests if the person is good enough to be relatively safe on the road - it does not set an impossible standard of total perfection.

Imagine if everybody failed the driving test (because it was unrealistically difficult). Then imagine that there was a story that the One Perfect Driver passed the test long ago, was then taken away and tortured to death and people could get an exemption from the test if they really, really believed the story. Then you'd have the equivalent of your god's idea of fairness.

Why should the bullies and persecutors for example be allowed to ply their trade in heaven? Would they even want to be in a ''place'' where they are forbidden to do so?

Now you seem to be suggesting that the 'saved' are actually better people than the rest of us - do you have evidence?

If there is a test it's what we do with Christ and thus God.

And that is manifestly unfair and unjust - because it isn't about being 'good', it isn't even about accepting a clear and obvious message, it's about believing daft old stories that have exactly the same credibility as every other superstition on the planet: none whatsoever.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The driving test is run along the lines I am suggesting.

No, they don't let everybody pass. The driving test is not appropriate say for someone who is blind or subject to fitting etc.

The 'test' which was failed was a relationship between man and God. That's what the Adam and eve story is about. God takes the consequences in Christ. Christ is the way god forgives us.
 It's about a betrayal of trust and love in which two parties loved and trusted and one breached. There was no finish line or scale of goodness to be tipped over once enough deeds had been done God loved man and visa versa from the beginning.

All the good deeds in the world would not tip the scale of justice because that isn't the right model.

In any case all good deeds without loving god would leave one good deed undone wouldn't it

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The driving test is run along the lines I am suggesting. It tests if the person is good enough to be relatively safe on the road - it does not set an impossible standard of total perfection.

Imagine if everybody failed the driving test (because it was unrealistically difficult). Then imagine that there was a story that the One Perfect Driver passed the test long ago, was then taken away and tortured to death and people could get an exemption from the test if they really, really believed the story. Then you'd have the equivalent of your god's idea of fairness.

Now you seem to be suggesting that the 'saved' are actually better people than the rest of us - do you have evidence?

I'm not suggesting that at all since we all have the need to be saved.

In terms of better people how often will an atheist complain if a murderer announces themselves saved? Maybe the concept of 'Better person' should be batted back to atheists.

if the test is entering a relationship with God then the only exempt people from the test are those who exempt themselves I would have thought.

[torridon]

Yes and Stranger is claiming that God is a fictional character.

Which would be the default conclusion if the primary claim is not substantiated.

[floo]

I'm not suggesting that at all since we all have the need to be saved.

In terms of better people how often will an atheist complain if a murderer announces themselves saved? Maybe the concept of 'Better person' should be batted back to atheists.

if the test is entering a relationship with God then the only exempt people from the test are those who exempt themselves I would have thought.

Saved from what?

[Stranger]

No, they don't let everybody pass.

Nowhere have I suggested that everybody should pass. A test is obviously inappropriate if everybody passes or if everybody fails.

The 'test' which was failed was a relationship between man and God. That's what the Adam and eve story is about. God takes the consequences in Christ. Christ is the way god forgives us.
 It's about a betrayal of trust and love in which two parties loved and trusted and one breached. There was no finish line or scale of goodness to be tipped over once enough deeds had been done God loved man and visa versa from the beginning.

All the good deeds in the world would not tip the scale of justice because that isn't the right model.

I've explained multiple times now why this is totally unfair and unjust and you keep ignoring in favour of just repeating the same thins.

One last time: individuals today are not responsible for whatever the Adam and Eve story represents, so it is unfair and unjust for us to be facing the consequences.

It is doubly unjust, barbaric, sick, and sadistic to punish Christ for it as some sort of substitute. Then the criteria for forgiveness is to believe this sick, silly, twisted fable of an unjust, barbaric god and call it 'good' and 'loving'.

It's not only unjust, it's sickening.

In any case all good deeds without loving god would leave one good deed undone wouldn't it

No.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which would be the default conclusion if the primary claim is not substantiated.

And if the default conclusion turns out to be a positive assertion?
I other words Torridon you and the atheists are bending the rules to suit yourselves.
Shoddy!

[Stranger]

I'm not suggesting that at all since we all have the need to be saved.

So what was the point of this:

Why should the bullies and persecutors for example be allowed to ply their trade in heaven? Would they even want to be in a ''place'' where they are forbidden to do so?

?

If being 'saved' doesn't make us better people, then we'd all still have a faults ('saved' or not) when going to heaven becomes an issue...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nowhere have I suggested that everybody should pass. A test is obviously inappropriate if everybody passes or if everybody fails.

I've explained multiple times now why this is totally unfair and unjust and you keep ignoring in favour of just repeating the same thins.

One last time: individuals today are not responsible for whatever the Adam and Eve story represents, so it is unfair and unjust for us to be facing the consequences.

It is doubly unjust, barbaric, sick, and sadistic to punish Christ for it as some sort of substitute. Then the criteria for forgiveness is to believe this sick, silly, twisted fable of an unjust, barbaric god and call it 'good' and 'loving'.

It's not only unjust, it's sickening.

No.

The trouble is your misreading of the Christian account as I have spelt out to you.

Your conception of the test is winning Gods love by deeds. The adam and eve story is not about winning love but losing it because we choose to. Christ shows us that God is willing and wanting to resume that relationship. He loves us but do we love him?

Christ is God the son who voluntarily took on our sin. Every time we really forgive we take on in a way some of the consequences of anothers transgression toward us. They may not accept that forgiveness because they want an emnity between them and us.

You seem to be saying you don't want God but you don't want the consequences of not having him. To me that is a cake and eat it argument.

[Stranger]

Yes and Stranger is claiming that God is a fictional character.

• Strictly speaking, I didn't claim that god was fictional, I said "Nobody can rebel against a fictional character." (#504).
  
  
• Any god that would leave any actual, objective evidence of its existence in the world can be dismissed as fictional due to the total lack of such evidence.
  
  
• Any god that is self-contradictory can be dismissed as fictional because of the contradiction.
  
  
• I have spent many of the intervening posts pointing out contradictions in many of the Christian gods.
  
  
• From 2, 3, and 4, I'm happy to stand by the claim I didn't make with regard to the sort of gods indicated.
  
  

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what was the point of this:?

If being 'saved' doesn't make us better people, then we'd all still have a faults ('saved' or not) when going to heaven becomes an issue...

By now I hope you will pre-empt what I am going to say.
Love is transformative and Gods love must be transformative.
To go away from God is to desire not to be transformed.

Also I posed the question earlier, would people who would wish to ply ''evil trade'' want to be transformed?

[floo]

By now I hope you will pre-empt what I am going to say.
Love is transformative and Gods love must be transformative.
To go away from God is to desire not to be transformed.

Also I posed the question earlier, would people who would wish to ply ''evil trade'' want to be transformed?

God and love is an oxymoron.

[Stranger]

Your conception of the test is winning Gods love by deeds.

If god is going to sit in judgement, that is the only fair and just way to do it.

The adam and eve story is not about winning love but losing it because we choose to.

No human today has made that choice.

Christ shows us that God is willing and wanting to resume that relationship.

Christ shows us nothing of the sort - it's twisted, barbaric, sadistic nonsense.

He loves us but do we love him?

There is nothing to love and if this bizarre god of yours actually did exist, it wouldn't deserve love.

Christ is God the son who voluntarily took on our sin.

The only reason everybody has 'sin' is because the test for 'sin' is inappropriate to human nature. God should have made better people or produced a more appropriate way of judging them.

The fact that everybody is a sinner condemns god as unfair and unjust.

You seem to be saying you don't want God but you don't want the consequences of not having him. To me that is a cake and eat it argument.

How many times? I don't believe in the choice or the consequences.

What's more, if this daft, self-contradictory fable, which has no supporting evidence and no rational basis, turns out to be true (which I don't believe for a second), then it would be further evidence of god's unfairness.

Love is transformative and Gods love must be transformative.

Where is the evidence?

To go away from God is to desire not to be transformed.

You can't 'go away' from a daft old myth.

Also I posed the question earlier, would people who would wish to ply ''evil trade'' want to be transformed?

Well, that would be a much better and more appropriate test than perfection. Those people who want to "ply an evil trade" could be punished and those of us who are just trying to do as best we can, with our imperfect human nature, should not be. Simples.

There you go, you can be more fair-minded than your god...     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

God and love is an oxymoron.

Not everybody agrees Floo or finds the hungry wolvine look of a New atheist in full ridicule mode appealing.

[torridon]

And if the default conclusion turns out to be a positive assertion?
I other words Torridon you and the atheists are bending the rules to suit yourselves.
Shoddy!

That's wrong though. You're just playing semantic games.  Not impressed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's wrong though. You're just playing semantic games.  Not impressed.

Any positive assertion has the burden of proof ''God is fictional'' has no trace of the negative. Examine the sentence if you wish.