The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

ONI writes:Oh weeeel, thats telling ONI. My argument was, simply demonstrate that in any given simple situation, I cannot make another choice in the opposite direction and you will have proved your point.I thought you were serious about debating these issues, I suppose one liners are the way a comic responds to arguments, Notice: Remember me saying we were speaking from a Biblical standpoint and in that connection. I knew you would not be able to leave it in that context or deal with my arguments that relate to the texts., ie why would God punish people for something out of thier control, does and would that make sesnse to you from a Biblical perspective. Your insinuation was that we as christians were simplistic because we believe in invisible things. Now you are trying to convince that you CAN ATUALLY at present SEE all the history that actually took place item after item through millions of years, atually and literally.Wooooow, You must have some special powers that no one else has, could you please explain this and how it happens, because I would pay money for it. actually at present I would just like for you to explain to me how you can LITERALLY see the PAST EVENTS. Now notice I did not say the results of what you believe the evidence to suggests, but the ACTUAL PAST EVENTS, that are invisible to us now.This should be interesting.EMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Wooooow, You must have some special powers that no one else has, could you please explain this and how it happens, because I would pay money for it. actually at present I would just like for you to explain to me how you can LITERALLY see the PAST EVENTS. Now notice I did not say the results of what you believe the evidence to suggests, but the ACTUAL PAST EVENTS, that are invisible to us now.

​

This should be interesting.

---

It might be interesting, but it would be off topic. Please keep to the topic.It would be nice if you and/or Onifire would summarize how this current A&E banter ties in with the topic before it runs amuck.Thanks
AdminPD

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

So you only have free will in simple situations and then don't have free will when the situation is complex? You have lost your entire basis and definition of free will at this point.All I need to show you is a situation where no other choice was possible by your own free will (complex, simple, or otherwise). We live in an ever changing reality where "simple" situations are not always the situation.If we have free will we have it under ANY situation - it can't be that we sometimes have free will and sometimes we don't - it's either all or nothing.And thus we arrive at the problem: Biological organisms which are controlled by chemical reactions in the brain, who are emotional and are prone to complex mental issues and minor mental issue, for which both can result in a loss of control.Did god create them this way?Did god provide them with this mechanism of cognition?Did all of it end during the Fall?According to EMA, we were created perfect (had free will) and the capacity to make the right choices because our mechanism for cognition was perfect.But, after the Fall, this mechanism became kinda not so perfect. Prone to failures, mental handycaps, malfunctions, etc.So at this point there is no longer free will for these people and now we are punished with Hell for these mechanical disfunctions.So lets try to follow the logic:We have free will because god gave us a mechanism to make our own choices, BUT, according to EMA, this mechanism can malfunction because of the Fall - and according to him if you have a malfunction you no longer have the ability to choose, therefore your free will is gone.So, because Eve ate the fruit, free will is now gone in people who have neurological disorders, or as he put it "brain malfunctions".So sorry anyone with a mental disorder, but you don't have free will. So I guess its safe to say that they aren't responsible for their actions and thus can't go to Hell, right? So a murderer who happens to have a mental disorder is not responsible and doesn't go to Hell by EMA's opinion.This gets confusing a bit. Either we all have free will or none of us have it. How can some have it and others not have it?In any case, I've completely lost interest in EMA's opinion of cognition, free will and consciousness, and how it relates to god ... so have fun T&U.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Nah, I'm pretty much done here too. I've hung out for a day or two to see if EMA would actually come up with a decent argument, but no such luck.I'm outa here. T&U

---

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts

​

I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes

​

"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

Admin writes:Since Oni doesnt have the stomach for a debate he incited through one liners Ill be happy to summarize and show the tie in to the topic.

TU cries:No position has been presented outside of bare assertion, that a person has no freewill. I have demonstrated that this theory is the simplest of nonsense.
Here is what I had up to and before this unwarrented comment by yourself. I demonstrated without question that a person can make a different choice in any given situation, which demonstrates that the theory that you have no freewill is complete idiocy. It is up to the person making the claim that you have no choice or freewill in any given situation, to demonstrate that point, but how in the world will you do that, it has not even been attempted in this debate, you simply keep repeating with different words that you have no freewill. It needs to be demonstrated. The core that makes the ultimate decision is the conscience, something that is elusive and unexplainable (probably the Spirit in man put there by God himself) but a part of and derived from the process, itself, yet it presides over the process to make final and ultimate decisions.This may make no sense to a humanist but he must admit that the conscience is indeed elusive in the explanation of internal processes. You do not know what I know and you are wrong again. The polar opposite of a simple decision like taking a pen, is to not take it in the first place, only one choice you make and the other in this instance you did not. No mulduplicity of choices.The opposite action of what I DID, would to be, not to take that action, before I do or did. The only opposite action of killing someone, would be to NOT do it in the first place. the only opposite action or choice of killing someone is to not take that action. The other examples you provided are not valid examples of choices if my INTENTION is to kill them in the first place. The only other choice opposite it is, to not do it. Eat or dont eat it. You are making a very simple process very complicatedThats like saying if I were getting ready to kick a football, because I had other choices, to stop and play a flute or hit someone in the mouth, I am not really making a choice to kick the football, because there are an infinite number of other possiblites. I could stop and take at that time. Please, give me a break So what and you have FAILED to demonstrate that an infinite number of other choices need to be a part of my single decision for it to be a valid, non-controlled decision or choice.Dont mean to be rude but your examples are silly to the simple decision. No there are not more than two choices in some situations as I have just demonstrated. You have to understand that to me this is just verbage and double talk to avoid the obvious simple nature of a simple choice in most circumstances. Your verbage about unconsciously eliminated choices cannot be demonstrated, it is a musing of what actually takes place. Even if it were true, you have not demonstrated that those choices eliminated are NECESSARY to make the simple choice a simple choice with only a few alternatives.To demonstrate this point I would challenge you to give me a situation where a simple choice is necessary and then show how a mulduplicity of eliminated choices so make a difference that the simple choice would be rendered no choice at all, or atleast not freewill. To this point you have only verbage Whoooee, please demonstrate. Manslaughter or murder and the dead person are not the point. You would need to demonstrate that a killing by premeditation and malice of forethought are not a simple choice with full understanding by the person doing it, free of uncontrollable biological affects, etc. What point could you make from these verses and what point would you prove? I can truely appreciate you believe this to be true and I am certain that in some instances some people posses more endorphins or WHATEVER to cause thier actions to do this or that. the problem is that you are whitewashing all actions,, everything from stealing a pen to violent murder in this spectrum. The the sad TRUTH is that all along the spectrum, there are only choices in alot of these situations, that do NOT involve higher levels of this or that, but are simply premeditated choices in a correctly balanced mind. Thats the mystery of choices and conscience, while it is a part of the PROCESS, it is separate from the process, in the form of choices with no problems or imbalances. You call it spirit or soul, which I believe it is, but if you choose to not accept it as this, it is obvious that conscience it is present and elusive as an explanation of simply the processYou can philosophize it in the manner you have described, but demonstrating that is a whole other proposition.Contact me when you come up with an argument that DEMONSTRATES, not asserts, that I or anyone else have no freewill, I would really like to see it
EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Never even came close to saying this. My point was to show that freewill existed as a result of being able to make a different choice in any given situation. to this you have done nothing to show that this is invalid, except to eloqently call it bullshit. Thats telling him ONI. Ok now I see it your way. how could I not with that form of argument.Actually there are no such things as complex situations where simple choices are involved. There may be complex choices, but essentially the person will make a simple choice in a situation and maybe even CHANGE that decision depending ont he circumstance.This suggest that conscience itself, spirit whatever you wish to call it, is in control of the process, not the opposite My simple little friend, I have been begging you to do this from the beginning. Now notice what you did, you repeated yourself again. Please, please, please, present me with a situation where you have no other choice or why in that situation you cannot make another choice in the same situation. Question. Why do you and did you refuse to provide such an example? Do you know it will throw your position into disarray? Since I never said anything like this, there is no argument here. Again double talk. Quit repeating yourself with verbose terminology and demonstrate when and where I cant make a different decision in any situation Did god create them WHAT way? Did it all end after the fall, No. the possibility of neurological disorders and disease was a result of the fall, that doesnt mean everbody has a disorder or that theY ever will, only that the possibility is there because perfection is removed.this was a side issue to the fact that I can and still do have a choice in any situation even after the fall Wow you really do know how to misrepresent someone. why would I be saying there is no longer the possibility of freewill, if that is what I am contending? demonstrating that the POSSIBILITY of disease and disorder exist now, does not imply that freewill does not exist, or that a person with a mental disorder would go to hell. I believe I said just the opposite Your kidding right? yes and it would depend on what type of disorder that removed them from reality, to demonstrate whether a choice was still present. tell me your not really that simple that you cannot see such a simple point. yes the possibility now exists for malfunctions to be present. choice may or may not be gone depending on the disorder Depends on the disorder, Im sure god is smart enough to decide whether you can or not.Im still waiting for you to demonstrate that I cannot make a decision in the opposite direction of what I am thinking in a situation. depends on the disorder,or what you describe as a disorder. some so called disorders are nothing of the sort, they are simply terminology to dismiss reponsibility. is every person that is described as insane, always insane, idoubt it. But if they are, then Im going to bet they dont have freewill in any real sense.Trust me I dont blame you strickly, its mostly your doctrine you have decided to adhere to, that causes your confusion. If you are honest and think about it seriously you will eventually figure it out. And now for Oni's failures, in connection with this debate.I challenged him to demonstrate why he did not believe in invisible things, he does, but will not admit it or defend it otherwise. he only complained that I didnt know about evolution, which is irrelevant to my point, but never explained why he does not believe in invisible things or why my misunderstanding of Macro-evolution contradics my belief as to why he does not believe in invisible thingsI assume he also believes in the Big Bang and other related things, which are for all intents and purposes are invisible to us at presentI challenged ONI to demonstrate why I cant make a different choice in any given situation, he did not demonstrate it. he complained and called it Bullshit and kept repeating himself that we have no contol, but never demonstrated that pointI challenged ONI to demonstrate why my conclusions on the texts were invalid, he criticized with quibs and one liners, but never showed conterfactual argumentation as to why my conclusions were invalidI challenged ONI to stay simply with the biblical text to show contradiction and misrepresentation, he did not. He simply repeated that I was tweeking. I provided him with other verses he requested, then never formulated an argument from those verses.I challenged ONI to stay with the strict biblical text, assuming God was its author, and explain why, if God created people before the fall with an inability to control emotions or actions, why he would punish them for actions for which they had no control. He provided no answer, atleast from a Biblical perspective and that was the context of his initial challengeI showed from the text that if Adam and Eve made a choice of thier own freewill, God promised consequences would follow, they did. Oni did not demonstrate otherwise that all the problems that are now present are not a result of that simple choice. Biblically speaking that isI demonstrated that God could not be responsible for actions made by a rational choice, by individuals that were given a perfect system and the only thing they had to do was make choice in the other direction. God, is therefore not responsible for giving freewill or the choices that come from it, assuming ONI can provide me with a situation where an opposite choice is not possible, in a normal situation. Adam and Eve's situation atleast appeared to be normal, unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. He provided no response and no answer.Finally and in connection with the thread, assuming the the God of the bible exists and is eternal in character and purpose, is infinite in knowledge, it would follow that he has RULE (not absolute control) over all decisions in connection with eternal judgements in the nature of heaven and hell.Disagreeing with his judgements is not the same as showing why he is not justified in being in that position or dispensing judgement as he sees fit.Thanks for the exchangeEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Hi EMA, I don't want you to go away unsatisfied as if your questions weren't answered. Evolution is observable; macro-evolution is the sum of all known fossils; the Big Bang is visible in the CMBR and the expansion of the universe detected by Hubble in red-light shifts - in all these situations, you have to knwo what you're looking at.This to me suffices as being observable. Nothing close to that can be said about god. Oh but I did demonstrate it, you forget that everything we write stays on the site.

quote:

---

Message 294

​

Oni: Then we are in agreement.
A malfunction in the god designed mechanism of the thought process, removed freewill.

​

EMA: I suppose we are in agreement, since you have indirectly here suggested that freewill is an actual thing, by stating "removed freewill", whatever the reason it was removed.

---

So you agree that it was removed, but are happy that I said it's a real thing. Which is funny, because I've always said that we experience free will and never disagree that it wasn't real.In any case, you admit that it was removed. That settles that. All I meant is that we can both interpret it differently, and that I didn't agree with your interpretation. That is why I simply said we can end the discussion there, because we disagree on the text. The problem is, I have no idea why he would do that. My personal opinion, because he is mean, a tyrant and a bit of a dick. I don't know?These are not questions that I can answer. I don't pretend to know the mind of god. Biblically speaking, I agree with you. I did provide you with a situation, its not normal but its still a situation. Why are you hung up on ONLY normal?You said this in this post, EMA: "My point was to show that freewill existed as a result of being able to make a different choice in any given situation."EMA, you say any given situation. Well, I gave you a situation. And, you agreed that both choice and free will are gone when the god created mechanisms failed.Read here: Message 267

quote:

---

Oni: I believe I just did. A determining factor removed the ability of choice, and in your opinion, freewill as well. So now we have established that if the mechanism (that supposedly god gave us) to make decisions is affected in some way, we are not able to make the right choice.
So in my above scenario, not only did a pre-existing condition determine the outcome and remove the mans freewill, because god gave him that mechanism, god is responsible.

​

And you reply:

​

EMA: I agree in your case of mental incapacity, but the opportunity for CHOICE IS REMOVED due to a malfunction. Not only is choice removed but so is any responsibility on the individual’s part.

---

You said you are able to make a chocie in any given situation and that you have free will because of it.But I gave you a situation where you ADMIT free will is removed, and another choice was not possible, you openly admit this, why are you denying this?So I believe I've answered, demonstrated and have proven what I am claiming.In your own words, you agree that in certain situations both free will and choices are removed.You also agreed that if god created the mechanism, then god is responsible.I'll give you the last word. Hopefully you are honest in accepting that you said these things.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I just saw this Ill get back to it as soon as possible. thanks for the exchangeEAM

I am not usually given to making philosophical and doctrinal statements that I need to alter later, or ones that I had no understanding of what I was speaking about in the first place. Of course I made these statements, they are there in black, white and now yellow.All thats involved is that you have slightly misrepresented the conclusions from those statements.In keeping witht the spirit of debate, I will not at this time enter any new material except to respond to anything you have now offered as an explanation in your responses. Of course I knew this would be your response and what you believe to be PRESENT day evolution is available an visible to you. The ACTUAL PAST EVENTS are not observable, therefore INVISIBLE. If existence itself is sufficent to the beliving in evolution, that is it is satisfactory, then the existence of things would be the same for God himself, as an initial starting point No ONI I cannot agree with the idea that you believe freewill exists, if you speak out both sides of your mouth. One moment you claim it does exist and we have it, in the next instance you say it is bullshit we have NO control over our emotions and that they control our decisions. IOW words you have made to many direct statements that the PROCESS controls our decisions, so as to make freewwill vitually non-existent.My only implication was that in this instance you seem to be indirectly implying that if freewill WAS removed, that it must have actually been there in the first place. that was why I said we were in agreement. But you dont actually believe it is, so we are arguing semantics aand verbage.Thirdly, the possibility of freewill being remove or that it has been removed in certain instances has nothing to do with it NOT BEING REAL in the first place, or making God responsible for what we as humans determine to be AWFUL events, such as murder or an other disease or disaster.God explained that these things would happen and I cant think of anything worse than death in connection with disease and destruction. death is being used in these passages as SYNECDOCHE, afigure of speech, meaning "a whole for the part, or the part for the whole." DEATH is used here as a figure of speech that encompasses all the negative results that would proceed death., ie aging and follow that are a part of AND LOSS OF perfection.A simple example will suffice. In Corinthians Paul says , "We know in part and Prophecy in part".... Paul is here using TWO of the the numerous actual miraculous gifts to represrnt all of them, saying they will eventual fade away in place of the perfect written word.death is being used to represent all imperfections that lead to the end result, cessation of physical functions as a NOW result of imperfection. IOW words it is not necessary for Paul to list ALL of the things and ways one could get to death, he simply needs to mention a word that encompasses all of it aand is its end resultit sholuld be understood that there are principles in Gods existence that superceed what we determine as awful, painful, disease or disaster. In this instance DISOBEDIENCE was the principle that started in motion a chain of events that make these conditions possible. A simple example will suffice.Its not very practicle for someone to throw thierself in harms way, to save another, this would be very impracticle and at times painful or dangerous from a human perspective. However the principle of love
or concern superceeds the impracticle or harmful nature of things , to say the 'concern' or 'love' principle is more important than even life itself, or perserving ones life."Greater Love (principle) hath no man than this that he lay down (impractical) his life for another"Principle superceeds the practicle. So to say God is responsible by creation is correct but to say he is blameworthy from a human perspective, absolutley not. Especially since, NOW WATCH, the choice could have been made to not disobey in the first place. If someone wishes to argue that someone would have disobeyed EVENTUALLY,fine, but that has nothing to do with the nature of the perfect system to begin with. I defy anyone todemonstrate otherwise.Finally, if it can be determined that freewill was removed and a crime from the states view was committedthis has nothing to do with how God would view this person. He would not hold this person responsible,IF AND ONLY IF, total choice and understanding was removed. And by any given situation I assumed you knew that I meant any normal situations where problems werenot involved. even if freewill is moved as a result of the mechanism, God is not responsible for themalfuntction because is the result of sin by simple choice resulting in (all consequences) death, if youwillBesides this God does not hold people accountable where choice is not involved. the results, tragediesthat are a result of malfunction by sin, do not superceed, Gods principle, to NOT disobey in the firstplace, which superceeds any results no matter the degree of tragedy as a result of that sin ordisobedienceAs I said in the very beginning there is nothing in existence besides existence and salvation, like that ofthought, freewill, choice. its the very essence of being created in Gods image. heaven and hell are theresults of those choices.FarewellEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

P.S. does anybody know whre Devils Advocate went. Is he on military assignment somewhere?EAM

Sorry, I didn't mean to abandon this thread. I have been pretty busy, had to travel out of state for a weekend and had some work I had to finish up.I will jump back into this discussion but the romp between you and Oni seemed to not be going anywhere as evidenced by admin having to jump in and try to redirect the thread.I would like to get back to the Christian's moral backing of the concept of hell but would like more than just simple, trite remarks on either side. I am open to suggestions on how to redirect this thread. Thanks and for the Yankees (including myself) Happy Thanksgiving!

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Evolution is a whole ball of wax that is off-topic in this thread and is more than adequately covered in other threads. Not to speak for Oni, but I think our understanding on this subject might be similar. Free-will, I believe, is not as black-and-white as you would think it to be or what people once thought it to be. Free-will just like all of reality exists in shades of gray. This is one reason our justice system is so complex. In the same way our concepts of good and evil also exists in shades of gray. Notice that just as the color black exists in shades of gray so does the concept of evil exist in the human system of morality as an extreme of unacceptable and abhorrant behavior. However, there is a wide range of actions and behaviors that exist between pure good and pure evil. Does stealing a loaf of bread merit the same punishment as murdering your next door neighbor?As far as free-will does a child merit the same punishment as an adult? How about someone aflicted with Alzheimers? Or Asperger syndrome, bipolar disorfer, obsessive-compulsive disorder, mental retardation, dementia, schizophrenia, etc, etc. All these are shades of gray in the amount of free-will that people actually have over there actions and behaviors. Many of these mental and psychotic disorder are rooted in chemical imbalances and other physiological anomolies in the brain, nervous system and other parts of the body. There is a direct link between some (notice I did not say all) criminal activies and psychological and other mental disorders. Environmental factors also play into this as well. How and where someone grows up and the different influences they have early in life can help mold and shapes that persons personality and their later actions in life. It is a known fact that child abusers and domestically violent individuals often are products of these vary same behaviors themselves.Does this mean I don't think anyone should be heald culpible for their actions? Of course not. What I am saying is that it is better to get these people the medical, psychological, and other help they need before their criminal activities and/or psychotic breaks than after. Will this solve all the problems? Of course not, but it certainly will help. Waiting to hold these people culpible for their actions after a devastating event is akin to spanking your child after she burns the house down. It may or may not deter other children from doing the same thing but the damage is already done. BTW, I do believe in the death penalalty in extreme criminal cases i.e. murder in the first-degree/mass murder but only as a means of deterance.Again free-will and the culpibility it results in, exist in shades of gray not in black-and-white.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

But the system recognizes acts of direct disobedience, with complete rational behavior, deserving consequences, correct. So its not always grey areas. So black and white does exist somewhere, correct?
Unfortunately as you demonstrated in your verbage black and white does exist in reality, whether there are shades of grey or not. I have never said there werent shades of grey. Simple choices, with no complications, problems, disorders or otherwise, constitue the black and white. I have driven this point home to may times now No no, we were speaking about invisibility. You know, like that women on the fantastic four or Wonder womens plane. How did she find it if it was invisible? While God certainly designates between degrees of good and evil, it only takes one act of disobedience to seperate one from Gods good graces or his fellowship. yes stealing a loaf of bread for any reason is ALWAYS WRONG, morally and from Gods perspective Paul grew up in a strict jewish background that probably influenced his decisions greatly, yet he did not rationalize his actions, he knew immediatley it was wrong, when he was confronted and called himself the chief of sinners This is not what you directly stated or what you indirectly implied See, this is the problem I am having. What moral backing are you wanting to research, he IS GOD. if you approach it from this perspective, there is no argument, if you approach it from a human perspective, it will end in defeat by way of circular reasoningBut maybe I am wrong, lets see what you come or someone else comes up with in this connectionEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Have you talked to a lawyer or judge recently? The justic system does exist in shades of gray in how we deal with human behavior. One person could commit a crime and get sentanced differently than another person committing the same crime but with different conditions i.e. a sane man with a steady job shop-lifts a bagel from the local grocure and a starving, psychotic, homeless man shop-lifts a bagel. Are they punished or treated the same way? This is what I am talking about when I state ethics exists in shades of gray.BTW, what is "complete rational behavior"? Please define this for me, because I don't believe a single person on this planet can fit this description 100% of the time. This is an over-simplification of what I am saying. Good and evil are the extreme ends of human behavior just like black and white are the extreme ends of the color spectrum. That is the point I am making. There is no such creature. All choices have some sort of complication, problem, disorder, i.e. outside and inside (to the human body) factors that have to be dealt with. Sorry, I have no clue what you are talking about. Will have to go back and read your and Oni’s posts on this subject. Granted. I understand this is your belief and one that I once had. Really, so stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family in a concentration camp deserves eternal damnation in hell. Wow, what a loving God. I can’t see why people have a problem accepting this concept of a good God.I can also come up with other exceptions that most moral people would find as rational and justifiable exceptions to your 10 commandments i.e. lying to protect a person from physical harm, etc. I am not rationalizing i.e. accepting and justifying their actions, I am explaining the chain of events which can cause this self-perpetuating cycle to continue. However, what if Paul was a schizophrenic or mentally insane? Would you hold him accountable as you would a seemingly rational person? Um, yes it is. If you didn’t understand it, say so. I really hate it when people on discussion boards tell me what I do or do not believe, understand, said etc. And you know your god is correct because? Actually both in a way will lead to circular reasoning since it is only through your or someone else’s interpretation (i.e. the Bible) of God that you can rely on your moral compass so to speak.As far as the human approach, it is an always evolving moral compass which again exists in shades of gray but can be backed up by various ethical and philosophical frameworks i.e. altruism, etc.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World