re: Over Half of Democrats Don't Believe in Hell or the Devil

quote:

---

Suffering is not of God, but of the Devil

---

Suffering is a prerequisite for free will.

Without the ability to suffer God would not have been able to grant us free will in this realm.

You simply cannot have one without the possibility of the other and as humans are flawed creatures we inflict suffering on ourselves and others out of a failure to understand how to self-actualize in a healthy way.

quote:

---

Morality is defined at a given place and time by a given society. That which we 21st century Westerners find reprehensible was laudable to 18th century Trobriand Islanders

Both are/were correct for the milieu in question.

“Better” is ENTIRELY subjective.

---

And that's the position you must take if you claim there is no transcendent objective standard, as would be provided by a benevolent, personal Uncaused First Cause.

Of course, the trick is that if you're going to claim that, you have to remind yourself that when I cheat you or steal from you or beat you just because I have the opportunity, you have to remind yourself that morality is meaningless and the injustice you feel is merely a subjective illusion. I haven't done anything morally "wrong," since there's no such thing in reality, I've just done something that you personally find unpleasant or inconvenient.

Not many people I've ever seen succeed at that exercise.

quote:

---

Ah you subscribe to biblical “morality”.

---

Uh, no, that's from Conan the Barbarian.

quote:

---

There’s no such objective standard in the Bible, if that’s what you are arguing.

---

I'm not "arguing" anything, I'm pointing out a very obvious fact and you're pretending to not know what it is, although you full well do.

I haven't said anything about the Bible. I'm speaking from a logical perspective, not a Biblical one.

And from a logical perspective, it wouldn't matter if I were a psychopath. My concept of morality would still be as logically valid as yours. If there is no transcendent objective standard of morality, that is.

You could come up with all sorts of reasons of practicality and utility and mutual societal benefit to suppress and restrain my behavior as a psychopath, but none of those reasons would be rightly called moral ones. Not as the word is commonly used, anyway; you'd have to redefine it for that purpose.

I think it is you who needs to open up a book on logic and learn some things. Not really, though. You already know this is true. But it's a very inconvenient fact for people who deny an authority such as we've discussed, so you pretend to not understand it.

Or, like Hank, you admit it, although you don't live a single day of your entire life as though it's actually true, and neither does anyone you know. Unless, of course, they are psychopaths. Those are actually the only people who do live as though morality is entirely subjective.

Checking others thoughts on Gen1/Gen 2?

Gen 1 God says let us make man in our image (God is speaking amongst the Trinity or the devine council, over which God is the Most High). Male and female he created them.

Gen 2 Lord God (assume is The Most High) created Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam's rib.

Could this be two separate creations of himanity with Gen 2 Adam/Eve being for a special purpose? Or is Gen 2 a retelling with more details?

quote:

---

Gen 1 God says let us make man in our image (God is speaking amongst

---

This is from the “E” source aka the “Elohist”.

quote:

---

the Trinity

---

There was no such defined concept when this was written.

quote:

---

or the devine council

---

Bingo. Someone has been reading their Psalms like 82 and 89 and Deuteronomy 32:8-9.

quote:

---

over which God is the Most High

---

Most likely so. The Israelites were canaanites who held the same belief as the other canaanites that El Elyon (God Most High) was the father and head of the pantheon.

quote:

---

Gen 2 Lord God (assume is The Most High) created Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam's rib.

---

This is from the “J” source aka “Yahwist”. This “Lord God” is reference to Yahweh, one of El Elyon’s many sons (see Deut 32:8-9) who got a chunk of people - a nation - to rule over.

quote:

---

Could this be two separate creations of himanity with Gen 2 Adam/Eve being for a special purpose? Or is Gen 2 a retelling with more details?

---

The apologists on this site will tell you gen 2 is more details. Read them closely. Ask yourself why the details couldn’t have been put in order… and why Gen 2 lists a separate order of creation than Gen 1. In Gen 1, Elohim creates plants, then the sun , then animals, then man and woman. In Gen 2, Yahweh creates man, then plants, then animals, then woman.

They are two separate stories of creation, most likely combined after the Babylonian exile to unite two groups of people with two different creation myths. The Elohist account is a straight up copy of a Babylonian myth called the Enuma Elish, and generally favors and aligns with Israel. The Yahwist account is likely an existing Canaanite myth that favors and aligns with Judah. The priestly editor/redactor “P source” made one story out of two separate stories and added some of his own stories. Ever wonder why Noah puts two of every animal on the ark, and then it retells the same story but this time it puts 2 of every unclean animal and 14 of every clean animal on the ark? The first part with the 2 animals each is from the Elohist source and copies straight from a Babylonian myth called the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Priestly source (likely a Levite) adds the part about 14 of every clean animal and adds the part at the end of the story where Noah comes out the ark and proceeds to kill a bunch of animals and burn their flesh and Yahweh lives the sweet savory aroma of burning animals.

quote:

---

That’s odd. I don’t think you are capable of a rational thought.

---

You've got quite the track record of not understanding what you talk about, so I'm not too worried when you say that you don't think I'm capable of rational thought when I've been entirely rational this whole time. I'm even walking you through my thought process, but you seem to be ignoring it or just denying it. Either way, you aren't seeming to comprehend the meanings of words in this discussion so it's hardly fruitful to continue it. I'll do my best, though.

quote:

---

Common apologist retard argument. There’s no “wanting” to believe or disbelieve. Your arguments are an embarrassment for the human race but this one is one of the worst. If someone wanted to sin, and could will themselves to believe obvious falsehoods, then they would overwhelmingly believe in the Christian faith so that they could sin their asses off as long as they didn’t commit the only unforgivable sin - the sin of disbelief.

---

Again, your experience doesn't define reality, and I'm quite sure you have no clue what you're talking about. I've encountered many people over the years who claim to have wanted to believe in God and forgiveness of sins, etc., but just couldn't. I understand why they couldn't (the moral issue I mentioned previously), but there was still a desire to have peace, to know truth, and to have forgiveness. What the Bible teaches sounds good to them, but they simply don't believe it. That's what I'm getting at with you, except you don't want to believe it. I'm not talking about willing yourself to believe it (that's impossible), but hearing it and thinking "that does sound good. I just wish I could believe it".

quote:

---

Hey where do you stand on dinosaurs? Did they really exist or did Satan (or God) but their fossils in the ground to trick people into unbelief? Did Noah round them up and put them on the ark or did God exterminate them before creating mankind? Did Tyrannosaurus eat only plants before “the fall of man” or was he a meat eater from the beginning?

---

I know you're just trolling because you are an enemy of God and want to mock Him and His Word, but for the sake of good-faith dialogue on my part, I'll answer.

I believe dinosaurs really existed. Certain ones may have even been on the ark, though most of them died in the flood like so many other people and animals. Before the fall of Adam, all animals would have only eaten plants, herbs, and grasses and not meat. I'm sure that didn't last long, as the impression given was that Adam fell into sin pretty early on.

quote:

---

Checking others thoughts on Gen1/Gen 2?

Gen 1 God says let us make man in our image (God is speaking amongst the Trinity or the devine council, over which God is the Most High). Male and female he created them.

Gen 2 Lord God (assume is The Most High) created Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam's rib.

Could this be two separate creations of himanity with Gen 2 Adam/Eve being for a special purpose? Or is Gen 2 a retelling with more details?

---

No, just one account of creation with God (the trinity) making man in His image.

Genesis 2 sort of zooms in on the 6th day of creation to provide more detail, or rather, a different perspective and emphasis than Genesis 1, which is more concerned with the bigger picture of creation of all things.

I think I found the problem.

quote:

---

I believe dinosaurs really existed. Certain ones may have even been on the ark, though most of them died in the flood like so many other people and animals. Before the fall of Adam, all animals would have only eaten plants, herbs, and grasses and not meat. I'm sure that didn't last long, as the impression given was that Adam fell into sin pretty early on.

---

This tripe got an upvote

Foo, again, I appreciate your sincerity, but deep down you MUST realize how batshit insane this paragraph is …



Arguendo, I will assume that this guy was designed rather than evolved. He was not designed to eat ferns.

quote:

---

In order for that to mean anything, you'd have to assume some sort of objective standard of morality. So what is that? You've never answered that question.

---

It seems that the argument re 'Morality' is what subjective basis that a particular Morality rest upon. IMO, a Morality based on the Idea of Love. But only for those who have experienced the 'Feeling of Love' - as one who had never experienced Love would not have such as a potential basis. Or for those who have experienced Love, but reject it as undesirable given that Love requires self-Love sacrifice. Think Lucifer (It's Idea) of absolute narcissism, such being a zero-sum-game, from Lucifer's POV.

So in effect, there are only two Bases upon which a particular Morality may be established: One being Love of The Whole, the Other being Self Love. With all degrees of relative manifestation between those two basic Principles. With the consequences of a particular bearing witness to said Morality's 'success'.