yep

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

i just have a question... do you see a difference between a mormon or a scientologist's beliefs and a Christian's beliefs? i can only imagine the frustration i would have debating with a mormon

we fallen where ?? dude you know how morally wrong is this argument of yours ??

Pascal's Wager says that if Christians believe and are wrong, when they die they go nowhere and the same for nonbelievers, but if Christians are right, they go to heaven and nonbelievers go to hell. The problem here is there is no consideration for other religions. If we add Islam in here, nonbelievers can actually avoid going to hell and possibly even go to heaven if they lead a good enough life, whereas people of other religious beliefs that do not follow Islam (Christianity included) go to hell automatically because they worship a false God. Now add the 200,000 or so other religions into that and we'll see what the odds become. As you can see, your odds are about as good as mine of going to heaven in the grand scheme of things.

You also brought up other religions and recognizing that they aren't all on the same level. I agree. Some religions are far more dangerous than others and some are morally superior, but even though Christianity would be far from the bottom, it isn't exactly at the top of the list either. I'd probably put Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism at the top of the list, while certain ancient religions, sects of Christianity, Islam and Judaism would be at the bottom. Mainline Christianity and Islam would be fighting for a spot somewhere in the middle because each have their good points and their bad points, and Judaism would fall behind them slightly because they have no book eradicating the viciousness of the old testament like Christianity and Islam do. Remember, Sharia Law is equivalent to Mozaic Law. Both were followed in ancient times and then eradicated by either a prophet or a God later on. The only difference is that Islam is so young that it is to this day going through the same things that Christianity went through during the Crusades and Inquisition only they now have better weaponry.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

but even if it is refutable, the original question "how can a good/powerful God allow someone to suffer," i still say we do not know, though much has been revealed to us about the positiveness about it

and i dont see how i drew close to pascal's wager, but

Almost anyone who studies theology will agree that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient (among a few irrelevant others).

As I said, it has been suggested that two kinds of evil exist for two reasons:
1. Necessary evil created by the bad choices of mankind's free will
2. Then unnecessary evil created by evil agents who oppose god and bring evil into the world

So the argument arises, "well if God is omnipotent, then why didn't he simply make a world in which no sin, mistakes, or evil could ever occur?" The answer would be that, beings he is omnibenevolent (all good and just), he values freedom (free will) the most. Therefore people will naturally make the wrong choices due to their naivety and self interest (among a vast array of other reasons). So another argument arises, "well why didn't he simply make it so that people are incapable of being naive and self interested?" The answer would be that there is no way to be all good, fair, and just if he were to rig everything up as perfect, because it would require him to restrict freedom in some way. Thus necessary evil enters the world. By "necessary" they mean that god knows that this evil will enter the world (after all he is omniscient), and beings he allows it, it becomes a necessary evil. This necessary evil is the free will of mankind. When humans begin to exercise their free will, evil enters the world if they make bad choices. However, the afterlife exists to justify these necessary evils of free will, and punish or reward the actions of people. Furthermore,
if evil agents exist, then "unnecessary evils" enter the world by the free will of the devil.

Through God's omnis he allows these things to happen because it is for the "best" and if he were to intervene one omni would contradict another. So through a master plan justice is served. People who chose to do wrong by their free will go to hell, those who chose to do right and got the short end of the stick go to heaven. The afterlife is supposed to be the solution to the problems of life.

Now this all seems very clever, but it is contradicting from the start. The contradiction begins with human free will. Theologians will claim that perfection can never be achieved as long as human beings have free will, because we have a weakness to temptation. So the contradictions arrive when we address the afterlife. They will say that there was no other way for God to have set up the world except how it is. So the world has to be imperfect and have necessary evil to reach a greater good (heaven). BUT, isn't heaven perfect? Therefore God CAN create a perfect world, this perfect world is heaven. So why go through the trouble in the first place. Why didn't he just make the world a heaven?

This problem leads on. If heaven is supposed to be perfect, do the angels in heaven truly have free will? They obviously do, Lucifer chose to betray God, and this was by his own free will. So it is here we have a contradiction within a contradiction, because this would prove that heaven can't be perfect if individuals can choose to do ill by their own free will. So Lucifer was cast into hell (created by God to contain unnecessary evil). This leads on to several more problems like: why doesn't God just eradicate the devil now. In response we get the lousy excuse of Armageddon.

So when you throw in "the fall of mankind" it creates a new contradiction. The world WAS once perfect, so it WAS within the capacity of God to rig the world up so it can be perfect. Yet somehow he allowed the devil to intervene. Is this because God values Satan's free will? Or is it because Satan is just as omnipotent as God? These questions are never answered and the whole argument swirls in a hurricane of clever, but contradicting ideas of a vast multiplexity. The contradictions lead to other contradictions and the variations of the justifications create a confusing smokescreen that these Theologians can hide behind. The simple fact is that it is bullshit. It reminds me of a little crook trying to constantly weasel his way out of his altering story. It creates a massive fog of confusion that an interrogator would have to stumble through. That's all these theologians are doing, they are simply trying to weasel their way out of the problems that naive ancient men have created. They are trying to justify that which cannot be justified. They are simply wondering around in the dark trying to describe what they cannot see, when most likely, there is nothing there to describe in the first place.

What does this even mean? Explain please.

If you don't see how that is similar to Pascal's Wager then idk if you quite understand the concept.

Morally speaking, some religions are superior to others. When it comes to the truth of their claims, most religions are on par with each other. The only ones that are more logical are the top 3 that I mentioned because they do not make as many outlandish claims. They are all atheistic religions (the Hindu's Gods are acknowledged in the religion as imaginary, on level with that of dreams). They are also more moral because they preach peace without much (or any) mention of violence unless in reference to the violence of another people and condemning it. I'd probably put Buddhism at the top. The rest of the religions, however, make outlandish claims and mention seriously immoral things that their Gods do without condemning them.

That's just utter bias. Allah is just as loving if not more so than the God of the bible. The only difference is that Christianity may not actually specifically mention submission, but it definitely preaches it. Any God who requires you believe in Him or be burned for eternity is implying submission. I will let Menace argue for Islam though as he has read a whole lot more of the Koran than I have and he is more qualified to argue for it than I am.

I think I explained this pretty well earlier but I'll add on a bit. Those religions don't actually deify any particular beings. Basically they are spiritual atheism. They also heavily preach peace with little mention of violence. That is why my uncle, who was a life long catholic, converted to buddhism. He finally saw the hypocrisy of christianity and other non-atheistic religions.

Islamic holy wars also go against most teachings of Islam which preach peace above all things, though are just as hypocritical as the peaceful teachings of Christianity. The only difference is superior weaponry. I'll let Menace argue the rest with you.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

exactly and Sodr2 your a moral monster because of your Gods entertainment we suffer that's the simplest answer

and Sodr2 your saying your not bias Islam is doing nothing Christianity is doing something in fact Christian leaders cause this problem Christian leaders gave them weaponry and taught them how to fight and ever heard of the Islamic Golden Age Sodr2 ?? it's not called a golden age because Islam ruled the world it's called like that because Islamic scholars made the biggest discoveries in SCIENCE , TECHNOLOGY , ECONOMICS Sodr2 are you attending a Christian school because this is basic history you know what thwarted this golden age of discoveries and reformation that was going withing Islam ?? the western powers the CRUSADERS themselves and subsequently British Colonialism you see why this area of the planet didn't evolve this religion didn't evolve ?? it was constantly attacked and occupied for some 800 years and there is still no stability in the middle east and if there is no stability society can't evolve Sodr2 the middle east is where we both come from know your history my friend our homeland and ISLAM itself the product of our homeland because Islam is Jewish philosophy adopted by Arabs and seen trough an Arabic perspective so it's our product the fabric of Arabic society can't evolve alongside her religion because Arabic society is not stable. End the occupation of the middle east overthrew the puppet governments from there and maybe things will evolve alongside Islam