Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: after life
Thread: after life This thread is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT»
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted October 14, 2009 07:27 PM
Edited by TheDeath at 19:28, 14 Oct 2009.

Quote:
#1 Where does love suddenly come into all this?
"good" guy is subjective, and not actually mentioned per se for "God", but "loving" and "just" are two adjectives.

Quote:
#2 Your definition of heaven seems to be very different than mine (as I understand your arguments of heaven not beeing possible if "bad" people gets to enter), in my definition, there's no problem if "bad" people enters.
Because you have a weird definition of "problem". There is a Heaven already with bad people, it's called the Earth. I repeat, Heaven is "blissful" because people in it are not "bad". (blissful and bad may be subjective, but I'm using "God's" definition here obviously).

Quote:
#3 Thinking bad stuff, does not make you bad, our thoughts are private, and is only what defines us, relatives to ourself, when we're talking about evil/good people, we evulate them upon their actions, no matter what they might have thought.
E.g. you're not gay/pedophile or whatever it may be, simply because you think of these things, relative to others, you're first that, relative to others, when you perform the action.
Sorry but you obviously have never repented when it requires you do so even if you think of "bad" things.

And our thoughts are what defines us, correct. That's the only thing needed for Heaven, "yourself" and what you are, not what you do. Not "relative to ourself" which frankly makes no sense to me.

There's no such thing as being relative to yourself, wtf. Especially considering your thoughts are yourself (at least the "yourself" people speak about -- not the body, which can be changed, but doesn't change "yourself", if you get what I mean).


And the examples are simple, because the whole thing is simple. You're trying too hard and ending up confusing terms (even "relative to ourself" ) which make no sense.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ohforfsake
ohforfsake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted October 15, 2009 12:43 PM
Edited by ohforfsake at 12:51, 15 Oct 2009.

First, I think it should be reminded, what this debate is about, or at least what I believe it's about.

It's about that I state, given there exist an entity (God) that's all powerful (can do everything, even if it's a paradox, etc. (as we're not trying to argue wether or not God actually exists or is possible here)), and given this entity stands for being "good" in the way I believe most people understands being "good", then I claim that everyone must go to heaven, otherwise God would either fail to be all powerful or to be "good".

Now the only parts I've accepted, for the sake of debate, is that I suppose there's a God and a heaven. I however do not accept things from the bible, etc. as facts, as the bible does not make itself logical in anyway, I assume an existance that's not possible to set probability on, due to it being unmeasurable, yes, but that's again, only for the sake of debate, or to say, to show that given this should end up being true, everyone would then go to heaven.

I attempt to show, that given there's a God and there's a heaven, then all must go there, if God is both "good" and all powerful, likewise heaven is the "ultimate" place to be (where everyone wants to be).

Quote:
Quote:
Making "bad" things impossible is not equal to removing freedom in the broad term, as it'll most likely increase freedom from everyone else.
Looking at the single person, who however it's not possible to hit someone with a club, sure this single person have that freedom removed.
As far as I know, people in jail can't harm others anymore.
As far as I know, they do not have freedom anymore.

This is not logical correct, however, what I believe would make it logical correct would be to state that they do not have the freedom to harm others anymore. That's really all what I'm saying here, you can't go from [Freedom to not harming others] to [Freedom for every action there is].




Quote:
Quote:
Jail is for isolation (and rehab), due to lack of ressources, we cannot offer the same standards inside of jail as of outside of jail, which should hold true for everything, except from what you're isolated from in the first place.
That's however a problem with lack of ressources, I don't see how it's related to what I wrote.
"You don't obey society's standards, you get isolated to an Island -- and you'll have to deal with problems yourself."

Something tells me, that we're talking about something very different here, in that case sorry for this spam, but if not then:
People who're isolated (in jail in our society) are just as equal as everyone else, as they're also an existing entity, uniquely defined, and thereby have the exact same rights as the rest of us, they're however in isolated, because they are too big of a risk to have in society, this doesn't mean however, in an idealistic world, with unlimited ressources, that they should not have all other possibilities (i.e. freedoms), e.g. the loved ones could choose to stay in isolation as well if they wish, etc.

Quote:
Quote:
Again, this is implying, as I understand it, that you're removing someones free will, which I have never written I believe (and if I've please show me where, so we can get this confusion settled).
So you mean, you would actually let people THINK of bad things, but not be able to do them? Sorry but that won't allow entrance to Heaven either.


Maybe not in your definition of heaven, but that doesn't matter much, following the trail of everyone define their own heaven and go there (otherwise it could never be the "ultimative" place, where everyone wants to go), simply means you'll be in a zone where everyone will only think good stuff, if that's really heaven to you. It doesn't mean that the persons you're with in there are in the same kind of heaven at all. (I know it leads to paradoxes, so does the existance of anything "all powerful" as well, again it's for the sake of debate assuming there's this entity, assuming it's all powerful and assuming it's "good").

Quote:
Actually, you see, Heaven is not a automatically-magicaly place that will make people happy or in the "ultimate state". It is that way because crooks are not allowed access. A "private club" with no criminals will appear very peaceful and blissful, but that doesn't mean it's that way because the club is magical or special: it's because criminals are left out.

That's your definition, again, as all we're doing here is assuming there's a heaven, not what religion to follow (as none of them makes anything likely to be true at all, and therefore not worthy to be considered of knowledge), everyone defines their own heaven, simply because heaven in this context is somewhere everyone wants to go (read the initial post that I respond to).

If heaven was something predefined, and it did not simply suit "the wants of everyone", then you'll always have people who'd not want to go to heaven, and that's going against the only definition of heaven that could ever hold true, heaven being a place, where everyone wants to go.

Quote:
Quote:
A) There's no reason to not do so, as you've the power, you can make their "evil doings" impossible (you still have your free will, eventhough it's impossible to kill someone, simply because this person is unkillable, etc.), and that's still with them containing their free will.
No this is fatally flawed.
Do you know what is called when you can think of something, of doing something (like bad), aka you have free will, but you have no way of doing it?

It's called jail.

I disagree, here's an example, imagine a caveman thinks about flying, is he in jail because he can't do it?

No there's certain stuff we cannot accept in our society, which basicly is limiting the freedom of other unnecessary (where the only time it's necessary is to make certain everyone have equal freedom in the first place).

We're not in jail, because of making something impossible instead of unlikely.

Quote:
That's the definition of love to you?

Being "good" in the general sense (the sense everyone should be to eachother for generating a better society, but still have the freedom not to be) have nothing to do with love in my opinion, but then again, I may define love different from you, as I define love as sacrificing your own freedom, willingly of course, for others so they've an increased freedom (and that's again in relation to the equal freedom, where we're free to do all except limiting the freedom of others, which is the only freedom limit there is).

Quote:
Quote:
B) Not letting them in, meaning, in the context of this thread, that they'd go into some kind of eternal torment, if you're truely the good guy, you would not want that to happen to anyone, no matter what they've done, the only thing that stops you from acting is a lack of power. But hey! You've the power.
No sorry totally wrong, see my point above about the "private club" and "letting criminals in".

I disagree with your point, I do not believe only the people who both thinks good and act good are the only one who could ever be welcome in heaven for making it into a heaven, it's your definition though, and in that case, that's what heaven will be for you (again assuming it exists in this thread), but as it have to be a place where everyone wants to go, you cannot force your definition down on others (again assuming "all powerful", with all the following paradoxes being solveable due to it, etc.)

Quote:
Yeah, what if I have the power to replace my rebellious children with artificial robots that will 100% obey everything I tell them?

Should I do it, given I have the power? Is that loving to you?

Now you're back at limiting free will again, I don't see where this arrise.

Quote:
or maybe, I can make them THINK of bad things, but not being ABLE to do them at ALL. That would translate to "slavery".

No it wouldn't, it would only be slavery if you'd limit their freedom in ways of them not being able to do what they want, eventhough it wouldn't be limiting your own freedom.
Here's an example, if it's forever impossible for someone to actually damage you when they try to hit you( let's assume you've some superarmor, that's invisible, light and very thin, to avoid problems with wearing it, etc.), then they've all the freedoms they want, but still they cannot damage you, so that's limiting their freedom to damage you, as stated earlier, a freedom I don't think anyone should ever have, as it would limit your own freedom, however it does not make them in slaves in any way, unless you can unhindered limit their freedom, which you likewise of course won't be able to.

Quote:
Quote:
#1 Where does love suddenly come into all this?
"good" guy is subjective, and not actually mentioned per se for "God", but "loving" and "just" are two adjectives.

Let's keep away from definitions through religion, good guy simply means that this person wants the best for everyone, the best is then self-defined by everyone, which means you also either have to be "all powerful", or just ask, for knowing what people want at any given time.

Quote:
Quote:
#2 Your definition of heaven seems to be very different than mine (as I understand your arguments of heaven not beeing possible if "bad" people gets to enter), in my definition, there's no problem if "bad" people enters.
Because you have a weird definition of "problem". There is a Heaven already with bad people, it's called the Earth. I repeat, Heaven is "blissful" because people in it are not "bad". (blissful and bad may be subjective, but I'm using "God's" definition here obviously).


Again any definition given by any religion is unacceptable, as it's not likely to be true in any way, and again we define heaven as we like, otherwise it can never be a place, where everyone wants to go.

Also, though off topic, do you then believe that if there was no people on Earth who thought "bad" thoughts, or did "bad" actions, ever, that this would be heaven? No it'd be a cold rock with no life on it, because we all do this at some time, likewise we do all change. What's often most important is intend, but intend doesn't prevail stuff like accidents.

Quote:
Sorry but you obviously have never repented when it requires you do so even if you think of "bad" things.


Huh? Where did this come from? Explain yourself please.

Quote:
And our thoughts are what defines us, correct. That's the only thing needed for Heaven, "yourself" and what you are, not what you do.


Either you think, that our thoughts solely defines our actions, or you've come to a paradox in your statements.
See you claim that heaven is not a place for "bad" people, and don't want "bad" thoughts, nor actions, however actions is not defined only through the thoughts of our free will.

Quote:
Not "relative to ourself" which frankly makes no sense to me.

Then maybe in relation to oneself is better. It just means that thoughts defines you, in your own view, and actions defines you, in the view of others. Actions and thoughts may still be very different, simply because our action does not only contain our free will, it also contains outer environment stimulies (lusts) and actions of habit. Certianly you can overcome the two latter through will power, but it's not an efficient way to go, it's much more efficient, to simply change your habit respond to the different environment stimuli, by attacking from both sides, making the response impossible, make the reaction clouded with other stimuli and let these others stimuli trigger a counter effect.

Quote:

And the examples are simple, because the whole thing is simple.

Well then enlighten me.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted October 15, 2009 05:44 PM

Quote:
It's about that I state, given there exist an entity (God) that's all powerful (can do everything, even if it's a paradox, etc. (as we're not trying to argue wether or not God actually exists or is possible here)), and given this entity stands for being "good" in the way I believe most people understands being "good", then I claim that everyone must go to heaven, otherwise God would either fail to be all powerful or to be "good".
So a "good" government must also let all criminals in society so they can rape and murder further, right? I mean, they're "good" after all...

your definition of "good" has serious problems and is akin to the definition of "fool".

What about the next scenario: the government has the power to replace criminals' minds with a CPU. So should it do it or not? Obviously it would be a total breach of freedom (and I highly suspect criminals will NOT want it)

So if the government is "good", should it do it? Highly unlikely, it's no different than the Soviet Union, both said that what they did were doing it for the good of the people.

Now, what about stopping helping those people back into society and banishing them to an island (Hell)?

Yes yes... that's more just and fair to both.


Let me put this another way: bad people who do bad things genuinely, do NOT want the "bad" to go away. God doing it would make him tyrannical, not good.

There I explained it. It's as easy as a simple analogy in real life. Not sure what's so hard to grasp.

Quote:
I attempt to show, that given there's a God and there's a heaven, then all must go there, if God is both "good" and all powerful, likewise heaven is the "ultimate" place to be (where everyone wants to be).
Yeah "everyone wants to be", because criminals also want to be in society, obviously, and not in jail, so they can still murder.

Obviously jail takes away what they can do and what they want though. (equivalent for God to "replace their brains"). A better example would be if they got isolated in an island for themselves, which is more fitting. It's not God's problem anymore anyway.

Quote:
This is not logical correct, however, what I believe would make it logical correct would be to state that they do not have the freedom to harm others anymore. That's really all what I'm saying here, you can't go from [Freedom to not harming others] to [Freedom for every action there is].
You are very biased, because you equal "harming others" with "bad things", but that doesn't mean they are both the same thing. Sure the latter may INCLUDE the former (not always -- are you saying cops are bad for harming criminals?), but if we follow the definition in the Bible (we're talking about God & afterlife anyway), it's far from it...

Quote:
People who're isolated (in jail in our society) are just as equal as everyone else, as they're also an existing entity, uniquely defined, and thereby have the exact same rights as the rest of us
lol what?

first of all it's not an issue of rights, it's an issue of getting ACCEPTED into SOCIETY (or Heaven). They are NOT accepted into society.

Quote:
have in society, this doesn't mean however, in an idealistic world, with unlimited ressources, that they should not have all other possibilities (i.e. freedoms), e.g. the loved ones could choose to stay in isolation as well if they wish, etc.
I think they obviously do -- there's nothing stopping the loved ones from choosing to be with them in Hell, but I wouldn't advise it.

Quote:
Maybe not in your definition of heaven, but that doesn't matter much, following the trail of everyone define their own heaven and go there (otherwise it could never be the "ultimative" place, where everyone wants to go)
This is the response of a indoctrinated kid who thinks the world is all full of good. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but most certainly, it's not "the ultimate place" magically like I said (do you read my posts?), it's because the bad are left out.

What's so hard to get? Imagine two countries: one full of corruption, the other full of bliss, because it kicks ALL criminals outside, and because the police can read people's thoughts (like God).

Now someone who has to go in one of the place will say "I don't like the corrupt country, but I don't agree with the "good" country either... although I would enjoy better there.". Do you think the good country will allow him in? It's the very reason it kicks the corrupt ones out, it's the very reason it IS good.

Hell is a bad place because it's full of bad angels (banished) and people. Bringing people into Heaven would turn it into a Hell, sooner or later. It's like accepting corrupt people into that good society. It would destroy its very purpose (kicking corruption out) and fall down.

Quote:
If heaven was something predefined, and it did not simply suit "the wants of everyone", then you'll always have people who'd not want to go to heaven, and that's going against the only definition of heaven that could ever hold true, heaven being a place, where everyone wants to go.
I don't know where you got that definition. people may only want to go there because of FEAR of Hell (which frankly, i think it won't get them, because it's SELFISH, a sin), which is contradicting the premise of Heaven.

If you want to go someplace, because the alternative is much worse, but don't agree with its policies, you don't really expect to be let inside right and corrupt that place?

I mean if you don't like God's policies and what he considers sin, how can you like his "place"? Just out of your fear of Hell? That's stupid, selfish, and won't get you an "entrance".

God may be good, but he's not stupid/fool.

Quote:
I disagree, here's an example, imagine a caveman thinks about flying, is he in jail because he can't do it?
yeah, a "natural" jail.

Quote:
Also, though off topic, do you then believe that if there was no people on Earth who thought "bad" thoughts, or did "bad" actions, ever, that this would be heaven?
Apart from "natural" problems, yes. Why not? Actually there wouldn't even be a need for Earth anymore, since God would take them all to Heaven beforehand.

Quote:
No it'd be a cold rock with no life on it, because we all do this at some time, likewise we do all change. What's often most important is intend, but intend doesn't prevail stuff like accidents.
That's the point of the Earth. Earth is no Hell though, of course the whole point is to define your personality and repent if you're really sorry about what you've did.

But a lifeless rock? I don't think that pure bliss is for you mate. No wonder you can't understand a pure blissful Heaven then. You think half corruption (for instance) gives life for some reason? It's only your irrationality or instincts that tell you so.

Quote:
Quote:
Sorry but you obviously have never repented when it requies you do so even if you think of "bad" things.


Huh? Where did this come from? Explain yourself please.
You're not aware of repenting your sins?

Quote:
Either you think, that our thoughts solely defines our actions, or you've come to a paradox in your statements.
Our thoughts defines ourselves.

Quote:
See you claim that heaven is not a place for "bad" people, and don't want "bad" thoughts, nor actions, however actions is not defined only through the thoughts of our free will.
Actions are not nearly as important as thoughts. An accident is not NEARLY as bad as a willful murder.

Quote:
Then maybe in relation to oneself is better. It just means that thoughts defines you, in your own view, and actions defines you, in the view of others.
This has nothing to do with anything, it's just the limited capacity of humans to read others' thoughts. But have no worries, God can read your thoughts.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted October 15, 2009 05:50 PM

By the way, you asked me to explain how simple it is, so without DETAIL, it's as simple as this:

bad people don't like God's policies (it's why they do bad things and think they are 'good' or 'pleasurable' anyway). They don't like God, plain and simple, and disagree with God.

Cool, so they are indirectly telling to themselves, that they do not want God or hate his policies or his viewpoints. Sooner or later, God is going to accomplish their wish. I mean, you can't seriously LIKE Heaven if it's full of God's policies, you said they suck! So Heaven would probably suck for you and you'll be kicked out anyway!
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
angelito
angelito


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
posted October 15, 2009 06:16 PM

Your logic has many flaws TD.

Since when does it harm your free will when you can't do things which do not exist??

If "bad" wouldn't even exist, you still have free will. You chose out of things which are PRESENT and ABLE to be selected.


An analogy using your logic:

Christopher Columbus didn't have free will because he couldn't use a navigation system and a satelite to find his way to India.


And about your statement refering to "In jail you can't harm others":

Have you ever visited a jail? Have you ever seen what happens inside a jail, especially in south america?

You really should go out more, and maybe travel around in other countries to face real life. Do not believe what books tell ya...check it yourself..
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted October 15, 2009 06:19 PM

no I havent' been in a jail, for obvious reasons. In my analogy, it was supposed to mean what the PURPOSE of the jail is, not that it's corrupted in real life.

Anyway, jail doesn't change a person at all, because his thoughts are probably still the same (unless, after some time, he starts to feel sorry for it).

So the only conclusion is that God must ban THOUGHTS, "bad thoughts", which would make him a tyrant and people slaves. He doesn't forbid people to think of bad things, which is enough to define who they are.

(sure people can change, that's the whole point of repenting )
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ohforfsake
ohforfsake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted October 16, 2009 12:13 AM

I think my point is pretty clear now, that everyone should go to Heaven given an almighty God who's "good", and a Heaven, exists.

Therefore, I'll stick to answer you from here on.

Quote:
So a "good" government must also let all criminals in society so they can rape and murder further, right? I mean, they're "good" after all...

You're comparing Heaven with Earth. This comparision however is not really okay in my opinion, because Heaven have infinite ressources through God, Earth does not.

If you'd compare with an Earth with infinite ressources, then yes, all people would be a part of society, because with infinite ressources, you also get the power to make "bad" things impossible, like in Heaven. Thereby, there'll not be any rape or murders.

Quote:
What about the next scenario: the government has the power to replace criminals' minds with a CPU. So should it do it or not? Obviously it would be a total breach of freedom (and I highly suspect criminals will NOT want it)

This have nothing to do with what I've written, you keep on going back to examples where free will gets removed, yet I don't see the relevance to what I write.

Quote:
Now, what about stopping helping those people back into society and banishing them to an island (Hell)?

Everyone should always have the possibility go get their wants fulfilled eventhough they're "bad" people, what we should do, is limit it to them not being able to limit the freedom of thers, i.e. not being able to do "bad" stuff, but not limiting them in any other way. Just sending the people away (like they sended the criminals of England to Australia) is not a solution, everyone is part of society, and is equal in the eyes of society, it's only due to a lack of ressources that we cannot give everyone the same possibilities, and that when we isolate someone, we cannot offer them the same standards as for those who're not isolated, in all places, except of course, being isolated.

Quote:
Let me put this another way: bad people who do bad things genuinely, do NOT want the "bad" to go away. God doing it would make him tyrannical, not good.


Maybe those who do "bad" things, wants to continue with that, that's however unacceptable, no matter where, as long as someone is getting their freedom limited by others uneeded (people who do "bad" things"), then it's not acceptable. It doesn't mean however, that these people should have their freedom limited compared to the rest of us, who do not want to do bad things, if we've the ressources required for doing such.

Quote:
There I explained it. It's as easy as a simple analogy in real life. Not sure what's so hard to grasp.

The problem is, that those analogies I've seen so far, have not been logical consistent with what we're debating, lacking similarity in the most important cases of my arguments, completely changing the situation.

Quote:
Obviously jail takes away what they can do and what they want though.

No a jail does not remove what people want to do, unless we're talking about rehab, and here we're not talking about removing the free will, but giving insight.

Quote:
Quote:
This is not logical correct, however, what I believe would make it logical correct would be to state that they do not have the freedom to harm others anymore. That's really all what I'm saying here, you can't go from [Freedom to not harming others] to [Freedom for every action there is].
You are very biased, because you equal "harming others" with "bad things", but that doesn't mean they are both the same thing. Sure the latter may INCLUDE the former (not always -- are you saying cops are bad for harming criminals?), but if we follow the definition in the Bible (we're talking about God & afterlife anyway), it's far from it...

Read harm others, as limit the freedom of others.
Again, let's not go into the bible here, unless you can make it likely to be true, it's not something I'm going to see as even likely to be true.

Quote:
Quote:
People who're isolated (in jail in our society) are just as equal as everyone else, as they're also an existing entity, uniquely defined, and thereby have the exact same rights as the rest of us
lol what?

first of all it's not an issue of rights, it's an issue of getting ACCEPTED into SOCIETY (or Heaven). They are NOT accepted into society.

You see, you write that the "bad" people, should not get into Heaven, I write that they've the right to get into Heaven, much like those in jail have the right to be a part of society if they're no thread to society.

As Heaven is all powerful, no one can be a threat to Heaven, so there you've an analogy that I believe is logical consistent.

Quote:
Quote:
have in society, this doesn't mean however, in an idealistic world, with unlimited ressources, that they should not have all other possibilities (i.e. freedoms), e.g. the loved ones could choose to stay in isolation as well if they wish, etc.
I think they obviously do -- there's nothing stopping the loved ones from choosing to be with them in Hell, but I wouldn't advise it.


For the sake of argument, let's say that it's not possible to make bad things impossible and you thereby still needs to isolate people.
Then create isolation layers, different world of different orders. Let the top world be for those who've never been isolated, now let's go down a world, this is the world of the people who've been isolated one time, because they could not live in the top world, as we continue down we get people who've been isolated more and more time (and those who choose to come with them).
Let it now be common for all worlds, that everyone have all freedoms, except the freedom to limit the freedom of others, and that those in the lower worlds cannot go up in worlds, unless they're no more a significant threat, and vice versa.
There you've it, no need for any "hell", make several Heavens, where there's room for everyone.
Though again, as God being all powerful, nothing can be impossible for God, whereby it doesn't make any sense to go through all this.

Quote:
Quote:
Maybe not in your definition of heaven, but that doesn't matter much, following the trail of everyone define their own heaven and go there (otherwise it could never be the "ultimative" place, where everyone wants to go)
This is the response of a indoctrinated kid who thinks the world is all full of good. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but most certainly, it's not "the ultimate place" magically like I said (do you read my posts?), it's because the bad are left out.

I read your posts, and I've seen you claim that Heaven cannot work, unless only people who only think "good" gets in, I disagree, and have written why I disagree, you've not attended to this disagreement, but now you stick to what you wrote, like an eternal truth.
And no, I'm not indoctrinated in any way I believe, I've been going out of two very basic assumption through the entire thread:
A) God being all powerful (there goes your entire "Heaven cannot work if and if part")
B) God being "good"

I made the first post that given God and Heaven exists, as some believe, everyone should go to Heaven, for making clear, that if this is what's after life, then there's nothing to fear in this part.

If however God would not let you into Heaven, then God would be a tyrant, because God would not be able to find any reason for not letting you in, as God can solve any problem there may arise, being almighty.

Quote:
What's so hard to get? Imagine two countries: one full of corruption, the other full of bliss, because it kicks ALL criminals outside, and because the police can read people's thoughts (like God).

Are you really serious about this? Do you think it's a good thing if you can read peoples thoughts?
The first country will not be full of corruption, as many countries who're not kicking out their criminals are not filled with corruption. Yes there'll probably be some corruption if we're looking at countries of today (which I think is what you keep on refering to), but remember you lack the "all powerful", or "infinite ressource fullness" if you like, in the todays world, which exists in Heaven due to God, and thereby all those analogies you make to our world automatically becomes false.
The second country will not have any people in it however, maybe except those who've immunity against getting their thoughts read.

I do however not believe that you really think reading peoples thought is a good thing, as I recall you're one who applauds private property in the definition that I gave in another thread, and as our thoughts is a part of said definition, I think you're actually only debating for the sake of debate, so if you are really serious about this stuff, then we can continue, but if you're just playing the devils advocate, then answer your own questions and place them as notes in threads, so we've 1 post in stead of 15.

Quote:
I don't know where you got that definition. people may only want to go there because of FEAR of Hell (which frankly, i think it won't get them, because it's SELFISH, a sin), which is contradicting the premise of Heaven.

I don't know either, but that's pretty much one of the definitions the whole debate is premised on, so unless you disagreeo n the premise, then let's look at the arguments shall we not?

Quote:
I mean if you don't like God's policies and what he considers sin, how can you like his "place"? Just out of your fear of Hell? That's stupid, selfish, and won't get you an "entrance".

In the debate we've been taking so far, there's been nothing of policies of God, God's opinion is not something that can bias, because God cannot have an opinion, only truth, pr. definition.
As we all know we want different things, God cannot have an opinion of we wanting the same thing, as that's false, God cannot be false pr. definition.
Whereby there can be no bias of actions you should do in Heaven.
Also remember, as you might want to pinpoints easy achieved paradoxes here, God is almighty, which means God can solve any given problem, even if the problem is a paradox of itself.

Quote:
God may be good, but he's not stupid/fool.

God is not a person, it's an idea.

Quote:
Quote:
Also, though off topic, do you then believe that if there was no people on Earth who thought "bad" thoughts, or did "bad" actions, ever, that this would be heaven?
Apart from "natural" problems, yes. Why not? Actually there wouldn't even be a need for Earth anymore, since God would take them all to Heaven beforehand.

I think you fail to see my point, everyone thinks something "bad" at some time, or give in to lust, or something, you don't define if a person is "good" or "bad/evil" in the moment, you look at the actions they ended up taking, as you cannot know their thoughts, and if you could know their thoughts, you'd not be looking, because that's going over their private property and limiting their freedom unecessary.
Something this thread have been screaming for I guess, and I can just as well add it now:
Thoughts don't hurt others, actions do, it's your actions that determines who you're in the eyes of others, and as long as those actions, is not limiting the freedom of others, and taking into consideration that people as well can change, then there's really no problem.
So again, such a world could never exist, because no one qualifies for the job.

Quote:
You think half corruption (for instance) gives life for some reason?

Nope, you miss my point, read the above text.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry but you obviously have never repented when it requies you do so even if you think of "bad" things.


Huh? Where did this come from? Explain yourself please.
You're not aware of repenting your sins?

I'm aware of regret and experience, and certainly I'd do some stuff different than I did, if I'd the chance, but then again, I'd not risk to loose what I hold most deerly (and no it's not myself) due to it, so I'm quite happy where I'm, and I'm not wasting time regretting stuff, it doesn't get you anything constructive, only a waste of time, it doesn't mean I don't learn from my mistakes though.
But, what I meant was, where did it suddenly come from? Isn't it going very off topic (like we hadn't already), asking this? Wouldn't it be much like if I started asking you if you were religious, and it's your religion that required of you to write here in some kind of defense to preserve a meaning of life?

Quote:
Quote:
Either you think, that our thoughts solely defines our actions, or you've come to a paradox in your statements.
Our thoughts defines ourselves.

Yes, but I want to go from selves->actions in the world.

Quote:
Quote:
See you claim that heaven is not a place for "bad" people, and don't want "bad" thoughts, nor actions, however actions is not defined only through the thoughts of our free will.
Actions are not nearly as important as thoughts. An accident is not NEARLY as bad as a willful murder.

Thoughts never hurted anyone, actions did, you cannot limit the freedom of others through thoughts alone, actions are what is important.

Quote:
bad people don't like God's policies

God have no policies or agenda, only religion do.
Quote:
They don't like God, plain and simple, and disagree with God.

Maybe, talking as of God as a person, then it's none of Gods business if someone disagrees with God, doesn't like God, or want anything to do with God, Heaven, as I believe it's the definition of what everyone wants individually, and that's again a premise of this debate, has nothing to do with God, except it's due to God it can exist.

Of course if someone wants to they can probably say no to Heaven, but that's a paradox created for the individual (and not almighty) as Heaven is pr. definition what they want, whereby they cannot not want to go to Heaven, as that's to not want what they want.

Quote:
Cool, so they are indirectly telling to themselves, that they do not want God or hate his policies or his viewpoints. Sooner or later, God is going to accomplish their wish. I mean, you can't seriously LIKE Heaven if it's full of God's policies, you said they suck! So Heaven would probably suck for you and you'll be kicked out anyway!

I don't know what you're implying I've said, but I don't care much of it anyway, I think we're finished with our debate, unless you can come with something that really counters my argument through the premise I've made, which I realise as true, otherwise I'll just see it as you, either playing the devils advocate, or being stubborn (I.E. wants to be right, no matter what others say).
Sorry if that was a bit personal, I guess I should go to bed.

About the last part, as I wrote before, pr. definition Heaven is what the given individual wants, whereby there's none of such policies of God, or anything like that, there's no dictactor that's biased the way of action and the way of thought, because thereby it'd pr. automatic be a tyrant, only ruling through power, and not through agreement, and that'd be something we should never accept.

But then, God would not be "good", which is one of the premises of this debate.

If you've lost count of premises, I think these are those I've used:

God is almighty (can solve any problem, even if it's a paradox)
God is "good" (will not limit the freedom of others unecessary)
Heaven is a place where everyone wants to go (as God can solve all problems, paradoxes can be ignored).

And also, remember, this is not a thread about religion.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted October 16, 2009 12:26 AM
Edited by TheDeath at 00:27, 16 Oct 2009.

Dude, you have a problem grasping concepts i lay out. First of all, this is a prime example: (see colors)

Quote:
I think you fail to see my point, everyone thinks something "bad" at some time, or give in to lust, or something, you don't define if a person is "good" or "bad/evil" in the moment, you look at the actions they ended up taking, as you cannot know their thoughts, and if you could know their thoughts, you'd not be looking, because that's going over their private property and limiting their freedom unecessary.
Something this thread have been screaming for I guess, and I can just as well add it now:
Thoughts don't hurt others, actions do, it's your actions that determines who you're in the eyes of others, and as long as those actions, is not limiting the freedom of others, and taking into consideration that people as well can change, then there's really no problem.
No you define it at that moment, but of course people can change -- and it depends how "willful" they do it of course, if they have remorse or anything of the sort, it's not easy (some psychology is based on this, for "treating" "mad" people)

WTF, you're AGAIN equating "harming others" with "bad". Just because you think that's the only bad thing (which in some cases it is not), doesn't mean it's the definition in the religions/whatever (well actually there's no "bad", it's probably just a conclusion from the so-called 'sins').

Who cares what others think of you? Do you think it's others who will judge you after you die, assuming that God exists?


As for repenting, my point was that you usually repent based on stuff you've both done and thought, because the thought is actually the bad thing. You aren't necessarily blamed for accidents which you TRULY did not deserve to do (unlike let's say, drinking while driving), because your THOUGHT is NOT bad. It's not the actions that define you.

"In the eyes of others", Ted Bundy was a very nice person. Well to some anyway, who he didn't murdered.

Simple truth is, you can't hide from God. (again, assuming he exists, as does this thread obviously).




Your third premise is wrong btw:

Quote:
Heaven is a place where everyone wants to go (as God can solve all problems, paradoxes can be ignored).
No to the first, yes to the second, and I don't know to the third.

The point is: God can solve all "problems", assuming that a "problem" is specified in the first place. But that doesn't mean the SOLUTION is favorable to freedom and free will.

There's one solution to this "bad things" problem, also without needing God: wipe out all humans. Doesn't make it very appealing, does it?

Not all solutions are good. One solution is to replace us with "robots" (not really but you get the idea). Kinda what the Soviet Union tried to do, more or less. Does it make it good?


I tried to compact the postings here.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ohforfsake
ohforfsake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted October 16, 2009 12:31 AM
Edited by ohforfsake at 08:47, 16 Oct 2009.

@TD

When we were talking about defining someone as "bad"/"good", then I kind of suspected we were talking about the time of getting into Heaven, as it sounded to me, that you'd only allow people in Heaven, who only think good thoughts and do good actions 100% of the time, however you likewise write that Earth is here for our personal development, so do you still think that you're evaluated upon the moment and not the sum of moments in your life?

Harming others = limiting the freedom of others unecessary (as I've written before)

The thing is, before I'd ever label anyone as sufficient "bad" to be needed to be isolated, given there isn't the unlimited ressources needed to make said actions impossible, I'd never evaluate upon thoughts, only upon actions. Again because thoughts alone cannot limit the freedom of others.

The whole caring about what others think, I think you misunderstood it, it was in relation to what actually would give you a verdict in society, and that's actions, not thoughts

To answer your question though, no I don't care what others think about me as a person, except for those I like/love. I do not care what others think about my actions, except for those who actually make arguments of why those actions aren't "good", etc.

(I understand care as listen to)


About repenting:
I honestly don't care much (I.e.) listens to my thoughts if they're randomly generated and not in context with my ideas of life, unless some serious arguments are presented. Randomly generated thoughts do occour, I believe they occour to all of us, they're based upon emotions, as long as you know what you want, you know what you stand for, and thereby you can easily see the difference between your thougts.

It doesn't change however, that thoughts defines you in relation to yourself, but it does change, that not all thoughts defines you, the princip here is reflection upon own thoughts, finding out what you want, and through that, you do not need to define yourself in the moment (like you seem to define people in the moment through their thoughts as "good"/"bad").

Also it doesn't matter what the individual opinion is (your Ted Bundy example), actions are absolutes (we experience the same), so it's the same everyone experience, how people evaluate them doesn't matter, like I wrote, it's not about what others think about you.

___________________________________________________________________

I can't help you disagree with my premises, then you shouldn't have gone into the debate in the first place I suppose.

Also to counter your arguments, I can just once again use the almighty definition, and state that God can solve all problems, also the problem of solving unstated problem.
Again maybe a paradox, and again it doesn't matter, because God is almighty.

So all I see you're saying is that Heaven is something else for you, and that doesn't really matter much in the context of the thread.

(I'll try to keep it shorter the next time).

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted October 16, 2009 08:49 AM

If God is all-powerful, he can solve all these problems and keep free will intact.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ohforfsake
ohforfsake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted October 16, 2009 09:02 AM

Quote:
If God is all-powerful, he can solve all these problems and keep free will intact.


Yes that's my point.
Which after a lot of jabba jabba and 3 premises, leads to that everyone should go to Heaven, or at least 1 of the premises are false.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Totoro
Totoro


Famous Hero
in User
posted October 16, 2009 11:56 AM

One thing I know for sure: I'm gonna die.

I also know that there's nothing bad after it because nothingness can't be bad.

Also, there's no point in being afraid of Satan or Hell if you're a believer. According to believers' beliefs, believers go to Heaven.

What's there to freak out then?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ohforfsake
ohforfsake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted October 16, 2009 12:48 PM

Quote:
I also know that there's nothing bad after it because nothingness can't be bad.


I disagree with this, but I guess it depends on how you define "bad".

I define "bad" as unecessary limitation of freedom, where freedom is a very wide term I'm not going to go into details about here.

However through that definition, nothingness is as bad as it gets, though for me the worst would be no awareness at all, simply because that sets all values of freedom on zero (as you aren't there at all).

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
xerox
xerox


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted October 16, 2009 03:21 PM

I like souls because it fits so nicely in fantasy settings. Unfortunaly for some people, it ends there.
Its like saying that there are leprechauns in the forest >.>

Nothing happens. Live and die with it (lol).
Why would anything happen anyway? >.>
You are finished when you die, you dont have any "zomg special purpose".

People who believe in afterlife are just really afraid to die. Or atleast the ones who made up all afterlife stuff.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Totoro
Totoro


Famous Hero
in User
posted October 16, 2009 03:45 PM

Quote:
I disagree with this, but I guess it depends on how you define "bad".

I define "bad" as unecessary limitation of freedom, where freedom is a very wide term I'm not going to go into details about here.

However through that definition, nothingness is as bad as it gets, though for me the worst would be no awareness at all, simply because that sets all values of freedom on zero (as you aren't there at all
No, it's not bad because if something is bad, you just feel that it's bad. "Badness" is completely dependent on one's brain activity. Also freedom is something that a human can understand only when something happens in their brains.

When you die, nothing happens in your brains anymore.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted October 16, 2009 05:06 PM
Edited by TheDeath at 17:07, 16 Oct 2009.

Quote:
Quote:
If God is all-powerful, he can solve all these problems and keep free will intact.


Yes that's my point.
Which after a lot of jabba jabba and 3 premises, leads to that everyone should go to Heaven, or at least 1 of the premises are false.
I don't see the logic.

Just because he has the power to do something, doesn't mean he SHOULD do it. He has the power to become evil, or bad, right? Should he?

And by the way, are you saying that God has the power to make contradicting statements true as well?

Quote:
When we were talking about defining someone as "bad"/"good", then I kind of suspected we were talking about the time of getting into Heaven, as it sounded to me, that you'd only allow people in Heaven, who only think good thoughts and do good actions 100% of the time, however you likewise write that Earth is here for our personal development, so do you still think that you're evaluated upon the moment and not the sum of moments in your life?
It depends on your personality, which you end up with. Repenting usually is supposed to help, you see.

Example: A killer kills someone without remorse. He dies after a few years. He doesn't feel bad about it, he would still do it if there was a way to do it without punishment (jail or otherwise).

This man has no place in Heaven.

Example: A killer kills someone, no remorse instantly. Afterwards he feels bad about it, truly bad, and is disgusted of himself, and repents. At this moment, his personality is that killing is bad, intrinsically, UNCONDITIONALLY.

This man may be forgiven and welcome in Heaven. After all, his viewpoints now match that of Heaven.

Quote:
Harming others = limiting the freedom of others unecessary (as I've written before)
That may be for you, although "unnecessarily" can be debated.

but that is NOT the point.

The point is that BAD does NOT equal HARMING OTHERS or whatever else you link to it.

Avarice and selfishness are sins that do not harm others directly always (they don't limit freedoms). But they're still bad.

One person may refuse to help others: such person may be considered selfish (not always, depends on context), although as you can see, he is not harming others, he is just ignoring them.

Quote:
I honestly don't care much (I.e.) listens to my thoughts if they're randomly generated and not in context with my ideas of life, unless some serious arguments are presented. Randomly generated thoughts do occour, I believe they occour to all of us, they're based upon emotions, as long as you know what you want, you know what you stand for, and thereby you can easily see the difference between your thougts.
There's no such thing as random emotions: not in science, not in religion.

Quote:
It doesn't change however, that thoughts defines you in relation to yourself
Again, RELATION to YOURSELF makes no sense whatsoever, you can't be relative to YOURSELF, other STUFF is relative to YOU.

Your thoughts don't define you relative to yourself, they define YOURSELF.

Quote:
Also it doesn't matter what the individual opinion is (your Ted Bundy example), actions are absolutes (we experience the same), so it's the same everyone experience, how people evaluate them doesn't matter, like I wrote, it's not about what others think about you.
yes, it's not about what others think about you, it's about what YOU ARE. Again, that is ARE, not DO.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted October 16, 2009 06:12 PM

Quote:
And by the way, are you saying that God has the power to make contradicting statements true as well?
If he's all-powerful, then he does.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted October 16, 2009 06:13 PM

I don't think so -- unless he changes logic altogether, which I doubt many people will be happy with.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ohforfsake
ohforfsake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted October 20, 2009 05:43 PM

Quote:
Just because he has the power to do something, doesn't mean he SHOULD do it. He has the power to become evil, or bad, right? Should he?

Premise: "Good".

Quote:

And by the way, are you saying that God has the power to make contradicting statements true as well?

Yes, and without changing the basics of logic as well, otherwise he would already not be all powerful (i.e. would have to follow a certain set of rules).

Quote:

Avarice and selfishness

Everyone have the right to be selfish (no matter if it's in opinion or in act), and to harvest goods that's not needed, as long as they're not limiting the freedom of others, i.e. requiring something of others without their acceptance.

Naturally, both subjects becomes sins in our world, without unlimited ressources, as these people only contribute in a negative way, however that's a problem of us, lacking ressources for everyone to get what they want, and something we should strive to achieve, making it a sin for our own convinience, is dealing with the problem the wrong way.

Quote:
One person may refuse to help others: such person may be considered selfish (not always, depends on context), although as you can see, he is not harming others, he is just ignoring them.

You cannot force someone to help others, true, you can however, held them responsible in the proper cases, however again, in an optimal environment, we would be independent of the help of others all together.

Quote:
There's no such thing as random emotions: not in science, not in religion.

You might believe in determinism (if this is what you're getting at), I however disagree, and thereby I believe it's random.

However all in all, it's always random to the degree of calculations that can be done in the time span necessary, and again it will thereby be a lack of ressources and/or technology that means that many computeable things becomes essentially random.

Quote:
Again, RELATION to YOURSELF makes no sense whatsoever, you can't be relative to YOURSELF, other STUFF is relative to YOU.

When dividing what defines you up in two groups, others and you, then in relation to group [] makes perfect sense, grammatically, even if it didn't, I think my point have come across, as you've repeated it, and this is not a grammatical debate after all.

Quote:
Quote:
Also it doesn't matter what the individual opinion is (your Ted Bundy example), actions are absolutes (we experience the same), so it's the same everyone experience, how people evaluate them doesn't matter, like I wrote, it's not about what others think about you.
yes, it's not about what others think about you, it's about what YOU ARE. Again, that is ARE, not DO.

And you get judged upon your actions in the real world, as again, reading someones mind is limiting their freedom, I believe, and doing so would mean the premise of God being "Good" doesn't hold.

However let's take your idea of Heaven and write onto it then.
For you, Heaven is a place for only good people, who you define as people who only think and do good.
Now imagine this, you stand on the outside and can observe Heaven, but only the actions, now for you, there'll be no difference between the set of people who:
A) Will forever do good actions
B) Will forever do good actions and think good thoughts

Simply because you cannot see what they think, however what they think have no effect on the rest of Heaven, as only their actions makes an effect with the outside world.

All in all, there's no difference for the given individual, in Heaven, wether or not the single person is actually only thinking good stuff.

So the only one who is to be satisfied, through limiting the persons with bad thoughts, are the persons themselves, as they'll be the only one (except of God in your version of course) who knows, oh and of course the feelings of God, but then no one should ever take their feelings into account, as these are random and doesn't matter.

So thereby it should be up to the persons themselves, if anything, as it can never do any bad to others, not even in your definition of bad.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted October 20, 2009 05:58 PM

Quote:
Premise: "Good".
Which I explained before why my enumeration is not. My premise of "good" is different than yours, on the other hand, I don't think "justice" and "love" are THAT subjective.

Quote:
Yes, and without changing the basics of logic as well, otherwise he would already not be all powerful (i.e. would have to follow a certain set of rules).
Not quite, if he CREATED already a set of logic, I don't think it's possible to make that without changing it -- this is kind of the paradox "Can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift?"

Either way, the response here is:

"He's not all-powerful because he can't make contradictory statements true without changing logic"

AND

"He's not all-powerful because he can't create a logic that can't be modified, but it must be removed and something new put in completely".

So your argument is void because it leads to a paradox, since I have the same argument. (all-powerfulness)

Quote:
Everyone have the right to be selfish (no matter if it's in opinion or in act), and to harvest goods that's not needed, as long as they're not limiting the freedom of others, i.e. requiring something of others without their acceptance.
Dude, are you talking about the Heaven in the religion, or your own personal Heaven? How can you say the above?

Quote:
Naturally, both subjects becomes sins in our world, without unlimited ressources, as these people only contribute in a negative way, however that's a problem of us, lacking ressources for everyone to get what they want, and something we should strive to achieve, making it a sin for our own convinience, is dealing with the problem the wrong way.
Resources are not the problem, you don't get judged by the resources you possess, you can't even take them into Heaven. But by your very self.

Quote:
You cannot force someone to help others, true, you can however, held them responsible in the proper cases, however again, in an optimal environment, we would be independent of the help of others all together.
I don't see what that has to do with what I said. In my example that person would be "neutral" but selfish. He is not harming others, but he does sin. He is not "bad", but not "good" either.

Quote:
You might believe in determinism (if this is what you're getting at), I however disagree, and thereby I believe it's random.

However all in all, it's always random to the degree of calculations that can be done in the time span necessary, and again it will thereby be a lack of ressources and/or technology that means that many computeable things becomes essentially random.
Only the thoughts are 'random', and thoughts aren't emotions, at least in my book, that's why I said that.

Quote:
When dividing what defines you up in two groups, others and you, then in relation to group [] makes perfect sense, grammatically, even if it didn't, I think my point have come across, as you've repeated it, and this is not a grammatical debate after all.
Premises:

1) Thoughts define yourself.
2) God is omniscient
3) Therefore, God judges yourself, not what you "fake out" externally (like Ted Bundy faked to his friends as a 'nice guy').

In other words, you can't hide from God.

Quote:
And you get judged upon your actions in the real world, as again, reading someones mind is limiting their freedom, I believe, and doing so would mean the premise of God being "Good" doesn't hold.
It can't be limiting freedom since it's sort of like going on a flight, where they scan you. That's normal procedure, so to speak, because you are going to a destination where that destination may not want what you bring with you, be it a bomb or dark thoughts.

Quote:
Now imagine this, you stand on the outside and can observe Heaven, but only the actions, now for you, there'll be no difference between the set of people who:
A) Will forever do good actions
B) Will forever do good actions and think good thoughts

Simply because you cannot see what they think, however what they think have no effect on the rest of Heaven, as only their actions makes an effect with the outside world.
So what? I'm not God, why would it matter what I perceive? Are you implying that God is actually not all-powerful and he can be substituted to "any person's viewpoint", like the above example? Isn't that contradicting your very premises?

Quote:
So thereby it should be up to the persons themselves, if anything, as it can never do any bad to others, not even in your definition of bad.
Again, doing bad to others is not the only sin.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.2377 seconds