Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

Tricky said:
I've seen various interpretations of this, but the idea of post-death redemption and reward is rather unusual. I suspect that the reason for this is that such a scenario would remove religion as a moral authority in this life, which, in my opinion, is one of the primary reasons why we have religion. But quite obviously, if anybody really did wind up in the Christian version of hell, they would acknowledge Jesus PDQ. If redemption were possible from the afterlife, nobody would stay in hell very long.

On Christian boards, there is an ongoing discussion about OSAS and OSNAS, meaning "Once Saved, Always Saved" versus "Once Saved Not Always Saved". The disagreement is about if someone can lose their religion. Of course, those who argue for OSAS posit that if you lose your religion, then you weren't really saved in the first place. It is a version of the 'no true Scotsman' logical fallacy. The OSNAS crowd argues that redemption is an ongoing process, not an epiphany.
Click to expand...

The problem I find with this theory that we cannot be redeemed after death is that it is that it is contradictory to the Bible. I apologize in advance for lack of references here. I remember a passage in the Bible stating that a very sinful man died while on his steed. That man was redeemed on his way down from the top of the horse.

To me, man cannot judge man. What I may consider a sin, nobody else may. But again, when we are speaking in terms of God, there is no way for either of us to know if it is or not. If I go my whole life thinking something is not a sin, how can I be held accountable? Likewise, if I go my whole life not knowing God, how can It judge me? Now, if I am presented with what is right and wrong at death, shouldn't I then have a chance to feel remorse with what is considered a sin in God's eyes?

I am religious, but I am not naive enough to think that the Bible is unaltered to filter the writers' opinions through its pages.
 
Iacchus said:
He says he's just guessing. I'm not.

It says that I don't follow the crowd?
Click to expand...

Does it make me a bad Christian to admit others have valid arguments against my viewpoint? Yeah, I'm guessing. But does that discount my faith compared to yours? I believe. I just act like a true Christian and treat others how I'd like to be treated. I show respect to them just like I'd like to be respected.
 
Iacchus said:
Really? And by this I can prove that I'm not insane? I suppose I could start ranting and raving about Jesus if you like. ;)
Click to expand...


You seem to have totally ignored Tricky's point that the default position from a non-believers point of view isn't that you are insane, merely that you are incorrect. Have you never been incorrect about anything before? Does that translate to "you're insane"? You may be insane, you may not, I dunno, but being right or wrong on the subject of your beliefs does not necessarily mean anything either way. It's a whole seperate issue.

So anyway, prove the Bible has any more significance than the hsitorical. You calim to have some sort of special knowledge here, that you aren't 'just guessing'. Prove that you do.
 
wastepanel said:
Does it make me a bad Christian to admit others have valid arguments against my viewpoint?
Click to expand...
Yes, and we can waste all day arguing whether something is logical or not but, that doesn't prove a thing. Let me ask you this. Do you think the person who wrote the book of Revelation knew what they were talking about? Or, were they just making it up off the top of their head?
 
Last edited:
Nyarlathotep said:
You seem to have totally ignored Tricky's point that the default position from a non-believers point of view isn't that you are insane, merely that you are incorrect. Have you never been incorrect about anything before? Does that translate to "you're insane"? You may be insane, you may not, I dunno, but being right or wrong on the subject of your beliefs does not necessarily mean anything either way. It's a whole seperate issue.
Click to expand...
I would take it to mean that when Tricky says I'm delusional, he's referring to the state of my sanity.

So anyway, prove the Bible has any more significance than the hsitorical. You calim to have some sort of special knowledge here, that you aren't 'just guessing'. Prove that you do.
Click to expand...
No, this does not mean I'm capable of reading minds, nor performing horse and pony tricks.
 
Last edited:
nz290.jpg
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, and we can waste all day arguing whether something is logical or not but, that doesn't prove anything. Let me ask you this. Do you think the person who wrote the book of Revelation knew what they were talking about? Or, were they just making it up all off the top of their head?
Click to expand...

First, I'd like to address the fact that you have discounted my position in this topic. I understand your position on this, and I respect it. But, for example, I have heard fundamentalists argue that lava doesn't exist until it has erupted from the volcano. Thusly, carbon dating is innacurate. That logic reminds me of the "Yadda, yadda, yadda..." episode of Seinfeld. The beginning of the story is told, the middle is replaced with "yadda, yadda, yadda", and the end of the story becomes cryptic compared to the first statement due to lack of content. I get annoyed when people do argue with me without any logic, and I think they deserve the same. I do have issues with many fundamentalist arguments. They are ignorant, and there is no excuse. If God gave me this brain in my head and didn't expect me to say "I'm guessing I'm right about God", then there's a giant flaw in his system. My faith is rooted in the fact that I can listen to the arguments, and still make that same decision that God exists. If any religious person can wake up everyday of his/her life and claim they have never questioned their faith (same can be said of aetheists), than they are fooling themselves. For that, Iacchus, I believe I am on par with your faith.

In regards to Revelations, it is a cryptic passage that describes the end of this world. I don't read into it, I don't try to break it down. It is a scary, scary thought. It is the words of the Holy Spirit, but I can't say that other words originally inscribed were omitted or others added. So, yes, I believe that Revelations could be accurate.
 
Iacchus said:
No, this does not mean I'm capable of reading minds, nor perfoming horse and pony tricks.
Click to expand...

Then why should we believe you over any of the other umpteen thousands of people, who over the centuries who ALSO claimed to have special knowledge showing the path to The Solution To The World's Problemstm. Why should I believe you over Fred Phelps, or whoever the current prophet of the Mormon Church is, or Pat Robertson, or the Dalai Lama, or any of a zillion other would be prophets and Saviors of Humanitytm.

Ya'll have a pretty diverse set of claims and beliefs and some of them are pretty contradictory. So why should I belive ANY of you if NONE of you can back up what you say with any sort of proof.
 
Huntster said:
If He provides "clear indications" of His existence, then it wouldn't be belief, would it?
Click to expand...

Sure it would. In fact, I try to only believe things for which I have clear indications. For example, I refuel my car when the fuel gauge provides me with a clear indication that I'm about to run out, precisely because I believe that further driving will leave me stranded at the side of the road.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Then why should we believe you over any of the other umpteen thousands of people, who over the centuries who ALSO claimed to have special knowledge showing the path to The Solution To The World's Problemstm. Why should I believe you over Fred Phelps, or whoever the current prophet of the Mormon Church is, or Pat Robertson, or the Dalai Lama, or any of a zillion other would be prophets and Saviors of Humanitytm.
Click to expand...
Good question. I wouldn't believe most of these people either. The Dalai Lama, however, appears to be genuinely human. So I can probably relate more to what he says in that respect.

Ya'll have a pretty diverse set of claims and beliefs and some of them are pretty contradictory. So why should I belive ANY of you if NONE of you can back up what you say with any sort of proof.
Click to expand...
How does the housewife prove to her husband that she's not a whore? It doesn't speak much of the relationship if this is all it boils down to does it? In fact it would probably only exacerbate things if she tried to prove she wasn't. No, I'm not going to change the way I conduct myself just because it suits you.
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
How does the housewife prove to her husband that she's not a whore? It doesn't speak much of the relationship if this is all it boils down to does it? In fact it would probably only exacerbate things if she tried to prove she wasn't. No, I'm not going to change the way I conduct myself just because it suits you.
Click to expand...


Iacchus-speak to English Translation: I got nothin'.
 
wastepanel said:
My faith is rooted in the fact that I can listen to the arguments, and still make that same decision that God exists. If any religious person can wake up everyday of his/her life and claim they have never questioned their faith (same can be said of aetheists), than they are fooling themselves. For that, Iacchus, I believe I am on par with your faith.
Click to expand...
Logic is a means. It is not a final destination. This is all I'm saying. This is all I have ever said (or, meant to say) with my logic. I don't expect anyone to accept hook, line and sinker what I have to say.
 
Iacchus said:
It's sort of like this brain versus the mind thing ... Is there in fact a genuine mystery behind the mind or, is it all tied up in the history of the brain?
Click to expand...

A glimmer of hope, a glimmer of hope!!

This is why it almost induces me to puke whenever someone insists on expressing it in terms of the brain only. We are in fact castrating our humanness when we do this.
Click to expand...

Gah! Hope, destroyed.
 
Iacchus said:
Are you suggesting people are incapable of change, with or without a God? Why should God have to make it so blatantly obvious, and less subject to interpretation? Life is a test, for all of us.
Click to expand...

Funny, how just after saying "without" God, you then imply that there is one.

Iacchus said:
It seems to be a specific human peculiarity does it not?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but then how would you know ? Maybe dolphins believe in some primitive deity, too.
 
wastepanel said:
Don't pick on Iacchus. That was actually a pretty good statement.
Click to expand...

I'm not picking on anyone. Only asking him to back up a claim he made. Preferably in plain English. I would even go so far as to say I LIKE arguing with Iacchus, and if I were intent on "picking on him" i would be raking him over the coals FAR harder.
 
Iacchus said:
The Bible, however, speaks of a mystery, and it isn't just a history lesson. So, if you don't get the mystery, whether you get the history right or not is pointless ... unless of course you're speaking purely from an historical standpoint.
Click to expand...

Or, maybe the bible is simply wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom