Dogs and Cats beggetting eachother. :)

[BradtheImpaler]

He couldn't understand what it would be like to be convinced of the validity of something if there wasn't firstly tangible proof. As intelligent as he was, he couldn't make that leap. That was one bridge he couldn't cross. Poor guy!

Well, maybe there's nothing on the other side of that bridge?

But it plainly wasn't given to him to be able to have faith.

Faith is not a gift from above. It is simply believing what you want to believe, despite the evidence or lack of.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

He couldn't understand what it would be like to be convinced of the validity of something if there wasn't firstly tangible proof. As intelligent as he was, he couldn't make that leap

Interesting statement - why would it be "intelligent" to make that leap if there was no evidence of validity?

 

[BenJasher]

You are just like him, I gather.

 

[Novum]

You are just like him, I gather.

You have not stated how you believe Brad and Voltaire are similar, and more importantly, you have not stated what issue(s) you have with Voltaire. Your smug self-righteousness is not helping your case.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

You are just like him, I gather.

Actually I don't know much about him, I just found the quote and liked it. But what I was questioning you about was why you would say -

"As intelligent as he was, he couldn't make that leap"

That sounds like you are either saying intelligence is a hinderance to finding the truth, or that it is an intelligent choice to believe what you are not convinced there is much evidence for?

 

[BenJasher]

Bradtheimpaler:
No, not at all. I wasn't ridiculing him. But he was like a lot of abnormally intelligent people who devote their lives to intellectual pursuits. Simple faith eludes them. And that is as it should be, I guess, otherwise it would not be that way. I meant no offense to you or him.

And Novum,
if you want to stick your nose in where it doesn't belong, be careful that it doesn't get cut off. Noone said anything to you, nor did they ask for your 15 cents worth. Why you would address me abrasively, as you did without cause, is beyond me. Keep a civil tone Bubba.

 

[Novum]

And Novum,
if you want to stick your nose in where it doesn't belong, be careful that it doesn't get cut off. Noone said anything to you, nor did they ask for your 15 cents worth. Why you would address me abrasively, as you did without cause, is beyond me. Keep a civil tone Bubba.

1. Pretending to take offense doesn't count as a response to an argument that I - or anyone else - make.

2. Are you threatening me?

 

[BenJasher]

1)Were you not sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong when you said:

You have not stated how you believe Brad and Voltaire are similar, and more importantly, you have not stated what issue(s) you have with Voltaire.

It would have remained simply a friendly discussion amongst those of us involved in this discussion if you had not made the following veiled threat:

Your smug self-righteousness is not helping your case.

a)It wasn't smug.
b)It wasn't self-righteous.
c)I had no case.

Pretending to take offense doesn't count as a response to an argument that I - or anyone else - make.

2)I wasn't pretending. I find your breed of auto-authoritative, holier-than-thou demeanor to be vile. It is a stench among the fellowship of the brethren. It makes my stomach wretch. I wasn't pretending. GET IT?!
3)

Are you threatening me?

You're so smart. You figure it out!

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Bradtheimpaler:
No, not at all. I wasn't ridiculing him. But he was like a lot of abnormally intelligent people who devote their lives to intellectual pursuits. Simple faith eludes them. And that is as it should be, I guess, otherwise it would not be that way. I meant no offense to you or him

Are you old enough to remember "Bizzarro World" in Superman comics? This was a dimension where everything was backwards. Sloppy was thought to be neat, slower was faster, and dumb was considered smart. ("Bizzarro Superman" even flew backwards! ) Christians, like everyone else, live in the real world, where they make dozens if not hundreds of conscious decisions each day based on experience, logic, and reason, yet when it comes to their faith, they must intentionally put their minds on hold and play "Bizzarro World". I mean, what you are intimating is that greater intelligence is actually a hinderance to discovering the ultimate truth of our existance, when it is ONLY our intelligence, as a species, which has enabled us to discover ANYTHING about ourselves and the universe we live in. If we had only the intelligence afforded animals, we would never have conceived of wondering whether there was a God or an afterlife. In which case less intelligence would prevent us from even considering what you believe is the truth.

So what do you believe is the correct amount of intelligence for human beings to possess in order to not have the truth "elude" them? Smarter than an ape but not so smart for a human? At what point on the IQ scale does intelligence change from a good thing to a stumbling block?

 

[Novum]

1)Were you not sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong when you said:

You have not stated how you believe Brad and Voltaire are similar, and more importantly, you have not stated what issue(s) you have with Voltaire.

It would have remained simply a friendly discussion amongst those of us involved in this discussion

I'm sorry, I forgot for a moment that this was not a public forum. Would you point out to me, please, where I can find a list of those members who are allowed to participate in this discussion? In the future then, all of us uninvited forum members will know to stay out. :roll:

c)I had no case.

Thanks for clearing that up.

2)I wasn't pretending. I find your breed of auto-authoritative, holier-than-thou demeanor to be vile. It is a stench among the fellowship of the brethren. It makes my stomach wretch. I wasn't pretending. GET IT?!

Oooh, a fellowship of the brethren? Is that like a tea club? Can I join? Who else is in it?

As for your intestinal issues, I honestly can't say I've ever heard of a forum post having an effect like that on someone. I do not envy you. ;)

 

[BenJasher]

You were welcome to be a part of the conversation. Your comments were welcome. This is a public forum after all whether I like it or not, or whether you like it or not. But when you got abrasive with me over a conversation that up til then you were not even part of, you got on my bad side. If Bradtheimpaler had taken the tone you did with me, I would have had it coming. After all, I was talking with him anyway, Mr Buttinsky. But he didn't. And therefore, you had no business doing so.

However:

The continual pressing of the nose brings forth blood.

If we keep this up, it will escalate to the point of one or both of us getting banned. I am willing to back off and let things go at this point. But the next time you want to rip someone a new one over something they said, after coming into the middle of a conversation; don't.

 

[Novum]

If we keep this up, it will escalate to the point of one or both of us getting banned. I am willing to back off and let things go at this point. But the next time you want to rip someone a new one over something they said, after coming into the middle of a conversation; don't.

Eh, I've already been banned once from these forums. I'm not particularly looking to be banned again.

It should be noted, however, that in my several months of membership here, you are the only one to ever have taken serious personal offense to what I've said; and, believe me, I've been far more "abrasive" (your word) to other people than I have to you. While I will not argue that my posting style has been the most "non-abrasive" on these boards, I might do well to offer a friendly suggestion that you should think about wearing a thicker skin when on a public forum like this - especially one where sensitive topics like religion are discussed regularly.

 

[BenJasher]

Are you old enough to remember "Bizzarro World" in Superman comics? This was a dimension where everything was backwards. Sloppy was thought to be neat, slower was faster, and dumb was considered smart. ("Bizzarro Superman" even flew backwards! ) Christians, like everyone else, live in the real world, where they make dozens if not hundreds of conscious decisions each day based on experience, logic, and reason, yet when it comes to their faith, they must intentionally put their minds on hold and play "Bizzarro World". I mean, what you are intimating is that greater intelligence is actually a hinderance to discovering the ultimate truth of our existance, when it is ONLY our intelligence, as a species, which has enabled us to discover ANYTHING about ourselves and the universe we live in. If we had only the intelligence afforded animals, we would never have conceived of wondering whether there was a God or an afterlife. In which case less intelligence would prevent us from even considering what you believe is the truth.

So what do you believe is the correct amount of intelligence for human beings to possess in order to not have the truth "elude" them? Smarter than an ape but not so smart for a human? At what point on the IQ scale does intelligence change from a good thing to a stumbling block?

Actually, I look at things differently than you. When faith goes into action, we actually come out of the mundane world of glamours, and for just a little while, we live and operate in a world of light and power that is more real than the one we left. We live in the "Bizzaro World," flying backwards everywhere we go, undoing the things we wish to accomplish. The only time we ever "fly right" and get tings done is when we enter into the realm of faith

History tells that this happened once when a group of settlers that we wouldn't even consider to be christian got on their knees and asked God to save them from the plague of locusts that were eating their wheat crop. And then the cloud turned black with pigeons and seagulls, who landed in their fields and ate the locusts, saving their crop. Dire need drove them to leave this world we are used to, and enter another, so to speak. But it worked just the same.

Now, some of us have the ability to see God answering the faith of a group of Mormons. We can see that God honors faith, regardless of whatever else. But there are others who would never see the hand of God in the picture. They would say that a storm had captured these birds and blew them off course and they just happened to land where there were needed desperately. They would call it coincidence. They would go into deep philosophical discussions, drink brandy snifters, and scoff at believers who claimed that it was God answering their prayers.

Now, what's the difference? Where is the dividing line? For me honestly, I think that it is divinely imparted to some to have this "faith" and to the rest it is withheld. It isn't a matter of having a gifted intellect or having faith, one or the other. It's much more simple than that. It is plainly and simply that God has given some eyes to see, and to the rest He didn't.

Jesus said something that has bearing here.

He that has ears to hear, let him hear...

Meaning that some don't have those gifted ears; but those that do need to listen up and pay heed.

Beyond all that, it has been my experience that what I said about intellectually gifted people is true.

 

[Novum]

It is plainly and simply that God has given some eyes to see, and to the rest He didn't.

Jesus said something that has bearing here.

He that has ears to hear, let him hear...

Meaning that some don't have those gifted ears; but those that do need to listen up and pay heed.

This is interesting. If God only favors a subset of his creation with the "ears" and "eyes" necessary to be a believer, then it is true that another subset of his creation has been predestined to not be believers. How is this not a violation of free will, and how is it justified for this nonbeliever subset to be punished eternally for not believing in God, when they were predestined to not do so?

 

[BenJasher]

It should be noted, however, that in my several months of membership here, you are the only one to ever have taken serious personal offense to what I've said; and, believe me, I've been far more "abrasive" (your word) to other people than I have to you. While I will not argue that my posting style has been the most "non-abrasive" on these boards, I might do well to offer a friendly suggestion that you should think about wearing a thicker skin when on a public forum like this - especially one where sensitive topics like religion are discussed regularly.

I rejoice at the opportunity to let this go. And inspite of all this, let me offer that I have been overly thin skinned this past week. I enjoy a healthy confrontation probably more than I should. But this week I have been brought to the point that I am ready to lay the hide off someone. I have had all I can take and keep the smile on my face. And you had nothing to do with that. You just came along at the right time.

I apologize for my unkind words. I ask your forgiveness. I look forward to fellowshipping with you in the future.

 

[BenJasher]

This is interesting. If God only favors a subset of his creation with the "ears" and "eyes" necessary to be a believer, then it is true that another subset of his creation has been predestined to not be believers. How is this not a violation of free will, and how is it justified for this nonbeliever subset to be punished eternally for not believing in God, when they were predestined to not do so?

Ok. I don't want to turn this into a debate. But I am convinced that Free Will is a farce. At least in the scope that it is most often spoken of. Our free will only comes into play on a micro-cosmic scale. Am I going to eat the burger or the hot dog for lunch? Do I want fries with that? These things are in the purview of our free will. But that purview doesn't extend much beyond that. It certainly doesn't extend to the matter of our eternal destiny. We are much too uninformed as to what we need to know to make that decision. Beyond that, we have also been misinformed. Add to that the fact that we are fickle, and it would be grossly irresponsible for the Creator to leave that decision up to us. Thank God He didn't.

How is it justified? Actually that is part of the misinformation we have been given, that I spoke of above. It would only be unjust if that punishment were eternal.

 

[Novum]

How is it justified? Actually that is part of the misinformation we have been given, that I spoke of above. It would only be unjust if that punishment were eternal.

How is any punishment - eternal or otherwise - justified if one was never meant to be a believer in god?

And are you taking the position that hell is not eternal?

 

[BenJasher]

Of course hell is not eternal. More misinformation that I spoke of. Even the scriptures clearly state that hell is to give up her dead and be cast into the Lake of Fire. More misinformation. The Lake of Fire is to be the eternal destiny of the lost, if those who preach eternal torment are correct.

And if it were eternal, what then? If the eternal destiny for those who did not, or otherwise could not obey His words, was to burn in eternal hell fire, do you not think that this should have been clearly delineated from the very beginning? If the consequences of their disobedience were so dire, so tragic, so eternal, and that this punishment was to be avoided at all cost, should this not be made clearly known to Adam and Eve?

How come it wasn't?

All that was told to Adam and Eve was that "in dying, ye shall die." In other words, in the painful process of getting older and weaker, you will eventually die. These words clearly indicate a physical demise, and in no way can they be stretched to convey any warning about some eternal type of fate. How just was that, if their eternal fate was unrelenting hellfire? There was nary a word of warning about what lie after their death. The only warning they got had to do with a physical death.

 

[Novum]

Of course hell is not eternal. More misinformation that I spoke of. Even the scriptures clearly state that hell is to give up her dead and be cast into the Lake of Fire. More misinformation. The Lake of Fire is to be the eternal destiny of the lost, if those who preach eternal torment are correct.

Fair enough; I too find the idea of a non-eternal hell more palatable. But I'd do well to point out to you that discussion of and arguments for non-eternal Hell are banned on this forum. The mods don't much like hearing about it, so we'd best wrap that up now. ;)

And if it were eternal, what then? If the eternal destiny for those who did not, or otherwise could not obey His words, was to burn in eternal hell fire, do you not think that this should have been clearly delineated from the very beginning? If the consequences of their disobedience were so dire, so tragic, so eternal, and that this punishment was to be avoided at all cost, should this not be made clearly known to Adam and Eve?

How come it wasn't?

All that was told to Adam and Eve was that "in dying, ye shall die." In other words, in the painful process of getting older and weaker, you will eventually die. These words clearly indicate a physical demise, and in no way can they be stretched to convey any warning about some eternal type of fate. How just was that, if their eternal fate was unrelenting hellfire? There was nary a word of warning about what lie after their death. The only warning they got had to do with a physical death.

Mmm. Well, if hell is actually eternal...

A) The bible (or one interpretation of it) is incorrect, or
B) God deceived Adam and Eve.

Not a nice choice to make ;)

 

[BenJasher]

8-)
You're right. The Mods on here like to think that for God to take all the losers and place them into a big roasting oven for eternity and forget about them doesn't violate His Character, His scriptures, or leave any important questions unanswered.
So rather than stir them up, we won't discuss it any further. :wink: :wink: