So Bill Nye is going to debate Ken Ham...

[TheHuckster]

hubs's comment form the couch "if god wants everyone in heaven, just open the doors. i don't gotta be omnipotent to figure this out"

According to Christianity, he did open the doors. It's up to the individual's own free will to step through them.

[siead_lietrathua]

According to Christianity, he did open the doors. It's up to the individual's own free will to step through them.

no, he didn't. he required a human sacrafice. a true open door means no prophets, no books. just bring people into heaven when they die, with no exceptions.

but no, he had to kill his child-self, then put up the rule that you have to believe in the child-self and ask for repentance in the name of the child-self and then you can be forgiven. that's not just an open door.

or, as hub said in response when i showed him this "if he did open the door, then he put a big bodyguard infront of it"

edit: for the secondary to weigh in on this one too. i told him "there are people telling me that catholics don't teach that hell has fire" and he responded with "We do beleive it and it is in catholic teachings". and when i told him ya'll were telling me it's only a separation from god, and no physical fire and pain, he could only respond with "wow"

frankly, i'll take the word of a 40+ year old, devout KoC on this one guys... on top of the other people i've spoken with IRL.

[TheHuckster]

no, he didn't. he required a human sacrafice. a true open door means no prophets, no books. just bring people into heaven when they die, with no exceptions.

but no, he had to kill his child-self, then put up the rule that you have to believe in the child-self and ask for repentance in the name of the child-self and then you can be forgiven. that's not just an open door.

or, as hub said in response when i showed him this "if he did open the door, then he put a big bodyguard infront of it"

I hold the view that it takes a lot more than mere disbelief to be so distant as to find themselves in hell. It also takes a lot more than sinning. One has to be irreconcilably severed, and this state of mind is something that nobody can detect.

And, who knows? You might even be right that He allows everyone in, and hell, while it might still be a "place," is empty.

[siead_lietrathua]

if i am right, and whatever god there is allows everyone into some type of heaven with no conditions... then it's NOT the christian god
the christian god required you believe in christ and the gift of the resurrection. if whatever god is out there doesn't require that belief, then we might as well all go back to being sun worshippers.

[Kheldarson]

That's a false statement. It could still be the same God. The issue lies in the fact that all religions and faiths are through human interpretation. Humans are, of course, fallible. We make mistakes, which is why the RCC is very selective on what She takes literally from the Bible.

So just because we may have misinterpreted doesn't mean that He has to be held to our standard.

[TheHuckster]

the christian god required you believe in christ and the gift of the resurrection. if whatever god is out there doesn't require that belief, then we might as well all go back to being sun worshippers.

There are many Christians, including myself, who totally disagree with your statement, and believe Jesus died for everyone's salvation and not only his followers.

Thus, the Catholic Church teaches that, although Christ is the Saviour of humanity, it is not necessary to know of him, or have a relationship with him, to be saved. This is because the Church teaches that the salvation of humanity takes place because of Christ's death and resurrection, and that this salvation applies to all people whether or not they are aware of this act. This does not mean that the Church teaches that all religions are equal, but rather that everyone does not have the same access to Christ and his teachings, or may have had the Gospel presented in such a manner as to have turned them away (e.g. by missionaries who were poor examples of the Christian life).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvati..._non-Catholics

[siead_lietrathua]

that just..... urgh. my head. lol.

if you want to claim that all representations of god in the past and present are really the same god... just... i can't even think of a response to it. you cannot have a god that in the very basics of it's doctrine is the command that it's the only god to be worshiped... and then claim that that god secretly is all gods? even the ones it outright demands slaughter of the followers of, like Baal?
by that logic, either ALL worshipped gods are fake, and the entity of god is just Woo-Woo, spirit of the 'verse shit. or god is a maniac that makes people believe in various incarnations of himself to have them fight each other like toy soldiers on a lawn.

and sorry, if we're talking about morality, damn right i would totally hold a god to a higher standard than i would any human before i would ever think about worshiping it.


edit: well by that standard, any athiest that fights their whole life against theocracy will be able to enter heaven no matter how many times they reject god, because they didn't have it shown to them right.

[siead_lietrathua]

think i'ma have to check out of this thread for realz. my brain is starting to break, and i'm sadly sharing my pain with my partners. since they're all "will you give up already!" i'ma take their direction on it before i find myself sleeping on the couch lol.

but hey, have more bill nye face!

[TheHuckster]

if you want to claim that all representations of god in the past and present are really the same god...

Where on earth did I say that?

and sorry, if we're talking about morality, damn right i would totally hold a god to a higher standard than i would any human before i would ever think about worshiping it.

If we're going to debate an axiomatic entity who is all-knowing, then it is a logical paradox to attempt to assign a standard, unless you assume the same amount of knowledge as that entity. If someone came up to you and said, "I know everything, not to mention created everything. Let me give you a few tips as to how to lead your life" and you believed that person, then you're going to have to have faith that what this person is saying is true.

Nobody knows the meaning of life. Nobody who is faithful knows why God created the universe, or why He gave free will. However, if one believes in such an entity that did so and is all-knowing, all-creating, all-powerful, and all-good, then by that very definition alone, the faithful must believe that due to some unknown-to-them truth there's some reason behind all of this.

edit: well by that standard, any athiest that fights their whole life against theocracy will be able to enter heaven no matter how many times they reject god, because they didn't have it shown to them right.

Which is exactly my point.

[Kheldarson]

Where on earth did I say that?

I think she was more responding to my post, and I didn't say that either.

I simply said that she couldn't say your initial statement couldn't apply to the Christian God because we honestly can't know His mind.

Which you said much more eloquently.

Not sure where the multi-god interpretation came from from that.

[Gravekeeper]

I must admit I'm lost as well, I have no idea what you were responding to or where you got it to be honest. >.>

[s_stabeler]

I will freely admit that while I identify as a christian, I don't go to church- but my interpretation is that it is how you act- that is, if you are a good person, then you will go to heaven- and that following the rules of a Church will not save you from Hell if you are a bad person. If you follow that interpretation, that the bible is a guide, rather than going into specifics of how you should act, then it makes a lot more sense. It also explains why God is actually benevolent- it takes more than a single sin or two to get cats out of heaven, it takes acting completely contrary to God's will- to use the example of an open door, it is more like there is an open door- but they will not drag you through the door kicking and screaming. Merely going through life, not particularly good, but not particularly bad? you will be allowed into heaven. Actively act like a horrible human being? yeah- you won't get into heaven.

[siead_lietrathua]

That's a false statement. It could still be the same God. The issue lies in the fact that all religions and faiths are through human interpretation. Humans are, of course, fallible. We make mistakes, which is why the RCC is very selective on what She takes literally from the Bible.

popping back in to clarify, with a less broken mind now lol. (and with the condition that i leave my partners alone about it, lmfao)

this is what i was responding too. and the bolded part is where i got the multi-god thing from.
i posted an example of a god that is most definitely not the god described in the bible. the god of the bible, like it or not, demands slaughter of his enemies, adherance to commandments, and mandates belife in him and his son to enter into the kingdom of heaven. that is NOT the hypothetical god i described that allowed anyone to enter into a heaven regardless of deeds or belief.

to claim that that hypothertical god i described, or "all religions and faiths" could be the "same god" because humans are fallible... it's dishonest to me. that logic can easily be extended to say that Zeus is the same as yahweh and we just got it wrong. it really seems like a non-defense. if a group wants to argue that their god is the "one true god" like it says in their holy book, they can't on the other hand say that well maybe we're interpereting it wrong.

i'm asking the following question honestly, and want to emphasise that i'm not being sarcastic, since tone cannot be conveyed over the internet. this question can also go for anyone:
if you honestly belive that god is unknown to humans, and that god has probably been misinterperated in some way by all faiths because humans are fallible... then why do you join one sect over another? if god is truely something intangible, why not just consider yourself an agnostic theist and leave the specific-faith labels behind?

[Kheldarson]

this is what i was responding too. and the bolded part is where i got the multi-god thing from.
i posted an example of a god that is most definitely not the god described in the bible. the god of the bible, like it or not, demands slaughter of his enemies, adherance to commandments, and mandates belife in him and his son to enter into the kingdom of heaven. that is NOT the hypothetical god i described that allowed anyone to enter into a heaven regardless of deeds or belief.

Correction. That is not what you originally posted.

Huckster posted:

I hold the view that it takes a lot more than mere disbelief to be so distant as to find themselves in hell. It also takes a lot more than sinning. One has to be irreconcilably severed, and this state of mind is something that nobody can detect.

And, who knows? You might even be right that He allows everyone in, and hell, while it might still be a "place," is empty.

To which you replied:

if i am right, and whatever god there is allows everyone into some type of heaven with no conditions... then it's NOT the christian god
the christian god required you believe in christ and the gift of the resurrection. if whatever god is out there doesn't require that belief, then we might as well all go back to being sun worshippers.

Huckster was originally positing that the Christian God, since that is who we are talking about, might actually have an open door policy and that we got it wrong.

You came back saying that it couldn't be the Christian God because of basically Biblical interpretation.

That's when I made my statement further talking about the Christian God. I did not bring up other gods, only made mention of other faiths and religions in that we all have our truths and could all be misinterpreting them.

to claim that that hypothertical god i described, or "all religions and faiths" could be the "same god" because humans are fallible... it's dishonest to me. that logic can easily be extended to say that Zeus is the same as yahweh and we just got it wrong. it really seems like a non-defense. if a group wants to argue that their god is the "one true god" like it says in their holy book, they can't on the other hand say that well maybe we're interpereting it wrong.

That wasn't what I said. I said that the God that Huckster described could be the same God you were denying it to be. I was not assigning the same God across all religions, although inter-faith dialogue tends to work across those lines.

What I was saying was that humans are fallible. Period. Therefore, any faith or religion which has a human element (surprise! All of them!) has, by its nature, a fallible element. The Bible itself has been translated and reinterpreted countless times. Single verses have been argued about probably since before the books were chosen. We may be interpreting things wrong.

Further, every book of the Bible had to be written by a human hand. Who's to say that things weren't written incorrectly way back when? Who's to say that the author didn't change the message? We don't know. But that's part of faith and study.

i'm asking the following question honestly, and want to emphasise that i'm not being sarcastic, since tone cannot be conveyed over the internet. this question can also go for anyone:
if you honestly belive that god is unknown to humans, and that god has probably been misinterperated in some way by all faiths because humans are fallible... then why do you join one sect over another? if god is truely something intangible, why not just consider yourself an agnostic theist and leave the specific-faith labels behind?

Because the RCC's teachings make sense to me. She has an infusion of faith and logic that other Christian sects either do not seem to have or encourage. Even though Her response to current times is slow, it is deliberate with an eye to our current understanding of our faith, teachings, and Traditions.

The sense of connection through time and space to other practitioners, past and present, through the rituals of the Church is awe-inspiring at times.

And, ultimately, even though I may not be able to understand God in this life, I want to be able to look Him in the eye in the next and say I tried the best I could.

[Gravekeeper]

Further, every book of the Bible had to be written by a human hand. Who's to say that things weren't written incorrectly way back when? Who's to say that the author didn't change the message? We don't know. But that's part of faith and study.

Well, technically, we do know. Seeing as finding out that sort of stuff is an entire academic discipline. >.>

Sorry, couldn't let that one slide. We have a wealth of historical information about that very topic. We do know things were changed, altered, incorrectly transcribed, etc. Which is why modern Biblical liberalism is so, to put it bluntly, idiotic.

The entire early teachings of Christianity were oral tradition. It took quite a while before anyone realized maybe they should start taking notes.

She has an infusion of faith and logic that other Christian sects either do not seem to have or encourage. Even though Her response to current times is slow, it is deliberate with an eye to our current understanding of our faith, teachings, and Traditions.

Its modern day problems are by and large of a social nature. Where it tends to be drifting a few decades behind. However, I would place more of the onus on traditionalism, not caution. Otherwise the new Pope wouldn't be freaking people out in Vatican City so much.

The Church has had a rocky, back and forth relationship with science/logic at times. However, I will agree that its current stances are open and reasonable in that regard. If not the flagrant opposite of most of the Bible thumping idjits in the US.

But the Catholic Church is far and away the largest sect of Christianity in the world. Which, I imagine, is one of the reasons certain American sects are so aggravating. They've created a stereotype of Christianity that by and large is exclusive to the US. Which is problematic as the US is the world's foremost producer of media.