Is there a chance a non-believer will go to heaven?

another non reply, why am i not surprised. {even as you do what i categorically asked you not to do. namely, talk about politeness while ignoring the question}

no it is not. i didnt justify my actions based on his, i merely pointed out the factual error in your claim that i was the only one who called your reasoning moronic. and you did it again, talk about politeness while ignoring the question

no you havent. you have been TYPING. thats a far cry from REPLYING. replying requires actually addressing the argument rather than reiterating non significant, already dismissed claims, and more than that; it requires not ignoring parts or whole of the argument.

can i expect nothing more than this childish game of cat and mouse from you taceydavey?

oh, btw, you didnt address any of this:

Originally posted by leonheartmm
1. that is a non reply to the problem of you summoning references to logic and reason on the one hand, and on the other, being incapable of defending said references under scrutiny of "FORMAL LOGIC" {i.e. the formalised, uncontreversial, academic discipline/methodoly of the subject of philosophy of logic/reason}. To the point that you are willing to do everything {including feigning righteous indignation and victimisation} to not admit that you dont know anything about the subject and your vast ignorance of it{which would make you incapable of claiming something to be logical or illogical like you do}. again, when you can reply to the both the FACTUAL possibility of free will without evil{as dictated by formal logic which flies into the face of any weak rationalisation you give to the contrary} as well as the contradiction between your stance of on the one hand, requiring evil for free will and on the other having god limit possible options while still mainting free will. THEN we can talk. otherwise, i will be reasonable and consider your unnecesarry banter to be irrelevant and unimportant

2. i can refresh your memory by quoting to you the person who replied before me who called your brand of apriori,circular assumption of god's just nature, moronic. its all well and good to talk about manners when you have nothing substantitive to defend your claims by. {on a side not, do you understand the problem of contradictory premises and circular reasoning? both of which fly in the face of your moronic argument for god's justice?}

your problem taceydavey, is that you have convinced yourself that you are smarter than you actually are. the very reason why you overuse the words "clearly" and "obviously" in conjunction with the words "logical" and "illogical" {for your own arguments and others' arguments respectively}. you are also blind to how dismissive and insultingly patronizing your statement often are in tone and content{considering that you neither judge it necessary to reply to proper arguments by the opposition, nor consider the flaws pointed out by other to be significant enough to grace with a reply}. in other words, your holier than thou attitude and faked polite tone neither makes you REASONABLE, nor POLITE. now please, either reply to the ARGUMENTS, or shut up.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Isn't that what the quote said? Something that enforces positive/right actions and punishes those that break them.

You really don't see how the answer you gave is so vague as to be meaningless? Surely you wouldn't consider executing a woman for being raped the be justice, even though doing so enforces certain ethical systems.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not to say I have an answer as to why every action God performed was justified. I simply have the knowledge that He is all just, based off a text that I believe is true. An all just being can't perform an unjust action. If you want to claim God performed an unjust action, you must first provide reason to believe the Biblical God is not the true God. Which, is another debate.

Totally circular logic, not even worth addressing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You really don't see how the answer you gave is so vague as to be meaningless? Surely you wouldn't consider executing a woman for being raped the be justice, even though doing so enforces certain ethical systems.

Totally circular logic, not even worth addressing.

His whole bases consist on his bible being completely true so nothing in it can be wrong nor can it be challenged by any outsider because they are wrong.

*headache* *temple rub*

this is why i have a problem with certain people lack of logic and critical thinking.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't accept any of it, and the self-contradiction is a big reason why. I don't know what school you went to, but a big part of education is something called "critical thinking", which means not just blindly accepting a claim because of its source.

By your logic, a book that makes a single true claim, must be 100% true on all facts.

Originally posted by TacDavey

Of course I don't think that. I'm saying that you cannot accept [B]only the parts of a document that support your claim while ignoring the rest of the very same document that hurt it. That is, by definition, cherry picking. What if I said that the part of the Bible that says God is all just is true and every part of the Bible that has God performing a seemingly unjust act is just false? Wouldn't you have a problem with that argument?

[/B]

But that is what you're doing. You are pretty much saying they are false by claiming that they are actually just because of one instance. And we have had a problem with that arguement. Our arguement is that the unjust actions seem to outweigh the one statement of God being all just and infallible.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
another non reply, why am i not surprised. {even as you do what i categorically asked you not to do. namely, talk about politeness while ignoring the question}

no it is not. i didnt justify my actions based on his, i merely pointed out the factual error in your claim that i was the only one who called your reasoning moronic. and you did it again, talk about politeness while ignoring the question

no you havent. you have been TYPING. thats a far cry from REPLYING. replying requires actually addressing the argument rather than reiterating non significant, already dismissed claims, and more than that; it requires not ignoring parts or whole of the argument.

can i expect nothing more than this childish game of cat and mouse from you taceydavey?

oh, btw, you didnt address any of this:

You misunderstand, leonheart. I told you I would not debate with you unless we do it respectfully. You have shown that you have absolutely no interest in doing this, thus I have no interest in debating you.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You really don't see how the answer you gave is so vague as to be meaningless? Surely you wouldn't consider executing a woman for being raped the be justice, even though doing so enforces certain ethical systems.

Of course not. I don't think justice applies to every conceivable "ethical system". I suppose I don't have a perfectly clear definition of justice.

If anyone has a perfect definition, by all means, point it out.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Totally circular logic, not even worth addressing.

No. That is not circular logic. Circular logic would be something like this:

Whatever God writes is true
I know this because it says so in the Bible
And the Bible is true because it was written by God

What I said was this:

God is all just
I know this because it says so in a book I believe is true

And that's all. No part of that is circular logic.

Originally posted by socool8520
But that is what you're doing. You are pretty much saying they are false by claiming that they are actually just because of one instance. And we have had a problem with that arguement. Our arguement is that the unjust actions seem to outweigh the one statement of God being all just and infallible.

That's not what I'm doing at all. I accept the part that says God is all just. I also accept the other parts. I'm not saying ANY part of the Bible is false while assuming another part is true.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You misunderstand, leonheart. I told you I would not debate with you unless we do it respectfully. You have shown that you have absolutely no interest in doing this, thus I have no interest in debating you.

Of course not. I don't think justice applies to every conceivable "ethical system". I suppose I don't have a perfectly clear definition of justice.

If anyone has a perfect definition, by all means, point it out.

No. That is not circular logic. Circular logic would be something like this:

Whatever God writes is true
I know this because it says so in the Bible
And the Bible is true because it was written by God

What I said was this:

God is all just
I know this because it says so in a book I believe is true

And that's all. No part of that is circular logic.

That's not what I'm doing at all. I accept the part that says God is all just. I also accept the other parts. I'm not saying ANY part of the Bible is false while assuming another part is true.

a non sequiter claiming that the opposition misunderstands???

😆 😆 😆

further claiming that i am not interested in debating while i can refer to my last ARGUMENT{my last post} while you would have to go back weeks to even quote a post which contains a non argument........ 🙄

the reason you have no interest in debating is because you CANT. stop aspiring to any loftier heights than your intellect allows. and for the love of christs anus, stop using the word LOGIC. you have shown nothing that justifies ANY real knowledge of the subject whatsoever.

"what happens in cat and mouse if the cat is retarded?"-Fez 🙂

Originally posted by TacDavey
[BNo. That is not circular logic. Circular logic would be something like this:

Whatever God writes is true
I know this because it says so in the Bible
And the Bible is true because it was written by God

What I said was this:

God is all just
I know this because it says so in a book I believe is true

And that's all. No part of that is circular logic.

That's not what I'm doing at all. I accept the part that says God is all just. I also accept the other parts. I'm not saying ANY part of the Bible is false while assuming another part is true. [/B]

1. What? Those are essentially the same thing. The book is supposedly the word of God written by people. It is written by God if you believe that the individuals who wrote it followed His words exactly. If you do not, then it lends even less credibility to your arguement because then you are putting your faith in a group saying that God is all just, and not Mr. Infallible himself. That would put this on an equal playing field since it would be the writer's concept of just versus ours and humans are fallible.

Originally posted by socool8520
1. What? Those are essentially the same thing. The book is supposedly the word of God written by people. It is written by God if you believe that the individuals who wrote it followed His words exactly. If you do not, then it lends even less credibility to your arguement because then you are putting your faith in a group saying that God is all just, and not Mr. Infallible himself. That would put this on an equal playing field since it would be the writer's concept of just versus ours and humans are fallible.

They are not the same thing. Look at the structure of each argument. The first one relies on the first point to support the last in a circle.

Whatever God writes is true > I know this because it says so in the Bible > And the Bible is true because it was written by God > And whatever God writes is true> I know this...

And so on and so forth. You see how that reasoning goes around in an endless circle? That's circular logic.

What I said does not do that at all.

God is all just

and

The Bible is true

Do not go in a circle at all.

Is there a chance a non-believer will go to heaven?

The Bible says everyone on earth was living in sin except Noah. The same is not true today.

And punishment was handed out differently back then. After Christ there no longer needed to be a physical death as punishment for sin.

Not to say I have an answer as to why every action God performed was justified. I simply have the knowledge that He is all just, based off a text that I believe is true. An all just being can't perform an unjust action. If you want to claim God performed an unjust action, you must first provide reason to believe the Biblical God is not the true God. Which, is another debate.

what is more disturbing about your argument is that you simply accept the written word of the bible to be true without even thinking about it and then try to fit the contradictions into that view, literally redefining justice to mean "god's actions regardless of what they might be". this is bullshit. think for your own ****ing self, god damn it.

Originally posted by 753
that is impossible since all the newborn god wiped from the face of the earth couldnt possibly have been sinning.

Perhaps, but it would not have been possible to get all the newborns from the world onto the ark. Furthermore, had God not killed the newborns and only their parents, it would have left a ton of newborn babies all over the world to starve to death. Besides, newborns go right to heaven, so in the end I don't think God wronged them at all.

Originally posted by 753
rationale behind that?

What do you mean? You know about the switch from OT to NT right? About how we no longer stone people or sacrifice animals? After Christ died we no longer have to physically kill for sin.

Originally posted by 753
this is exactly what is wrong with your argument. you yourself cant explain why those actions were just - in truth, no one can, because they were blatantly unfair - and so you cant logically justify their righteousness. It is obvious that they are unfair and hypocritical to any system of morality that isn't based on hebrew jingoism or blind faith. it is absurd to claim that there is no contradiction in the premises "god is all just" and "god made the pharaoh keep the slaves under thrall and then killed a bunch of children to punish him for it".

what is more disturbing about your argument is that you simply accept the written word of the bible to be true without even thinking about it and then try to fit the contradictions into that view, literally redefining justice to mean "god's actions regardless of what they might be". this is bullshit. think for your own ****ing self, god damn it.

That is not true at all. For one, I am not accepting the Bible for no reason. There is plenty of reason to believe the Bible is true. But like I said, that's a whole new debate. For the sake of this argument we've been operating under the assumption that the Bible is true, since we have been using passages from it to prove our points.

But since we are using the Bible we have to use all of it. We can't cherry pick.

Frankly, as long as there is a possibility that God's actions were not unjust, your argument falls flat.

In order for you to show any conflict with the passage that states that God is all just, you must first prove that there is not even a possibility that His actions in these examples were justified.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Perhaps, but it would not have been possible to get all the newborns from the world onto the ark. Furthermore, had God not killed the newborns and only their parents, it would have left a ton of newborn babies all over the world to starve to death. Besides, newborns go right to heaven, so in the end I don't think God wronged them at all.

the switch between the old and new testament represents nothing but the contrasting values of its human authors who lived in different historical contexts and espoused different moral philosophies.

That is not true at all. For one, I am not accepting the Bible for no reason. There is plenty of reason to believe the Bible is true. But like I said, that's a whole new debate. For the sake of this argument we've been operating under the assumption that the Bible is true, since we have been using passages from it to prove our points.

But since we are using the Bible we have to use all of it. We can't cherry pick.

Frankly, as long as there is a possibility that God's actions were not unjust, your argument falls flat.

In order for you to show any conflict with the passage that states that God is all just, you must first prove that there is not even a possibility that His actions in these examples were justified. [/B]

very well, let us get into that then, why shold one belive the bible?

this is fallacious. I do not have to show the impossibility of god's actions being just to point the inconcistencies out at all. they would be considered unjust if held to the standards of almost every single contemporary moral systems and, in fact, I cant think of a single one that wouldnt frown upon killing all the 1st born children of a land to force its government to behave a certain way and outside of bronze age hebrew national myth and similar jingoist narratives, not much would be found historically either. this, of course, includes god's own words about forgiveness as preached by his human manifestation, christ.

anyway, my point is that since you cant explain why god's actions were fair, it is fallacious and hipocritical to accuse others of cherrypicking what to believe in the bible when pointing to its inconsistencies.

Originally posted by 753
since god is supposedly omnipotent nothing would be impossible for him and it isnt actually possible to put all those animals in the ark either. your point ammounts to; "god killed them out of convenience, so that's fine."

Dealing with animals is one thing. Dealing with people, with free will, is another. God can tell the animals to go to the ark. He cannot tell the people to give their children to Noah for safe keeping. And again, there would be no room for that amount of children on the ark, and not enough hands to take care of them. We would be looking again, at a bunch of starving children floating around on a boat.

Originally posted by 753
when did [b]we ever haveto kill people for sin? it was god prerrogative all along. he commited atrocities only to proffess love forgiveness and peace through christ afterwards. [/B]

We had to kill people for sin in OT. Unless, of course, an animal was sacrificed in their place. After Christ, however, we no longer need to physically die for our sins since Christ did it for us.

Originally posted by 753
very well, let us get into that then, why shold one belive the bible?

Let's not. This debate we are in now already takes up a rather large post without another topic on top of it. The point is, no one is accepting the Bible is true just because. And again, for the sake of this debate, we are operating under the assumption that the Bible is true.

Originally posted by 753
this is fallacious. I do not have to show the impossibility of god's actions being just to point the inconcistencies out at all. they would be considered unjust if held to the standards of almost every single contemporary moral systems and, in fact, I cant think of a single one that wouldnt frown upon killing all the 1st born children of a land to force its government to behave a certain way and outside of bronze age hebrew national myth and similar jingoist narratives, not much would be found historically either. this, of course, includes god's own words about forgiveness as preached by his human manifestation, christ.

Fallacious? What fallacy am I committing here? You claim that there is an inconsistency between the part of the Bible that says God is all just, and His actions, which you claim are unjust. Thus, it is up to YOU to prove that His actions are absolutely unjust. As, again, if there is even a possibility that His actions are justified, your argument falls flat.

How do we know that some greater good wouldn't come out of what we see as pointless suffering? How do you know that there was no justifiable reason for these actions that we might not ever see or know about? You have to answer questions like these if you want your argument to be valid. You have to prove that these actions were absolutely unjust. And "They are unjust because I see them as unjust" is not a valid answer.

Originally posted by 753
anyway, my point is that since you cant explain why god's actions were fair, it is fallacious and hipocritical to accuse others of cherrypicking what to believe in the bible when pointing to its inconsistencies.

That isn't true at all!

YOU are making the claim that the actions are unjust. YOU must show that they are. I'm not Cherry Picking at all. I accept the part of the Bible that says that God is all just, and I accept the part of the Bible that lists His actions. I'm not ignoring any part. You have to prove that His actions were absolutely unjust.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Dealing with animals is one thing. Dealing with people, with free will, is another. God can tell the animals to go to the ark. He cannot tell the people to give their children to Noah for safe keeping. And again, there would be no room for that amount of children on the ark, and not enough hands to take care of them. We would be looking again, at a bunch of starving children floating around on a boat.

Fallacious? What fallacy am I committing here? You claim that there is an inconsistency between the part of the Bible that says God is all just, and His actions, which you claim are unjust. Thus, it is up to YOU to prove that His actions are absolutely unjust. As, again, if there is even a [B]possibility that His actions are justified, your argument falls flat.

How do we know that some greater good wouldn't come out of what we see as pointless suffering? How do you know that there was no justifiable reason for these actions that we might not ever see or know about? You have to answer questions like these if you want your argument to be valid. You have to prove that these actions were absolutely unjust. And "They are unjust because I see them as unjust" is not a valid answer.

YOU are making the claim that the actions are unjust. YOU must show that they are. I'm not Cherry Picking at all. I accept the part of the Bible that says that God is all just, and I accept the part of the Bible that lists His actions. I'm not ignoring any part. You have to prove that His actions were absolutely unjust. [/B]

But he had enough room for 2 of every animal? And food for said animals?

Yet you have no reason for what good could come of it and no idea how to spin it so that something good would come out of this suffering. This is where you play the whole " I don't know, but God wouldn't do it if it wasn't just" card, completely ignoring how logically ridiculous that sounds.

We have with several examples, but again, you just go straight back to the God is all just comment and completely ignore any of his actions to the contrary based on his own rules.

Originally posted by socool8520
But he had enough room for 2 of every animal? And food for said animals?

So it was already pretty full. Now imagine stuffing thousands upon thousands of babies on board.

Originally posted by socool8520
Yet you have no reason for what good could come of it and no idea how to spin it so that something good would come out of this suffering. This is where you play the whole " I don't know, but God wouldn't do it if it wasn't just" card, completely ignoring how logically ridiculous that sounds.

It isn't logically ridiculous at all. You are claiming that because we don't see any good coming from it, it MUST be all bad and thus unjust. That isn't a logically valid argument at all.

Prove that these actions were absolutely unjust. Simply saying "there is no justification because I don't see one" is not logically valid.

Originally posted by socool8520
We have with several examples, but again, you just go straight back to the God is all just comment and completely ignore any of his actions to the contrary based on his own rules.

You have what? Proven that God's actions were unjust? Where? When? You've listed actions you think are unjust, but have provided no reason to believe they are unjust outside of "I think they are."

Again, you have to prove that these actions were absolutely unjust or your argument falls flat.

lol, a theist using the skeptics "there is no absolute morality" as a defense. Classic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
lol, a theist using the skeptics "there is no absolute morality" as a defense. Classic.

That isn't my argument... I fully believe there is an absolute morality.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That isn't my argument... I fully believe there is an absolute morality.

I know you believe it. But you use the fact that it is impossible to prove any absolute morality, and that it possible to justify anything to yourself, to protect "God's" apparent morals from attack.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know you believe it. But you use the fact that it is impossible to prove any absolute morality, and that it possible to justify anything to yourself, to protect "God's" apparent morals from attack.

Well, I don't know if I would word it quite like that, but I suppose that's true. For their argument to be logically valid, they have to prove that God's actions were unjust. They can't do that, so their argument isn't valid.