Why do the religious think that because they are threatened with eternal torment and enticed by eternal bliss their...

Religion is part of the quest for meaning

God's grace is a reference to an understanding that we are a tiny speck in the vastness of the universe. We are humble because we are wise to the fact that forces outside of our control affect our lives

Yes, but the goal of it is to give up the quest. This is the same no matter where you look. In Abrahamic religions this is accomplished through giving yourself COMPLETELY to God.

But morality, which is subjective, isn’t truth. And there’s no reason to suppose truth to be eternal.
>In any case we are the only intelligent life
And you can prove this because? Sounds like ignorant hubris to me.

I think that’s a little unfair but I’m wageslave phoneposting right now so I can’t retort

>And there’s no reason to suppose truth to be eternal.
Truth is the truth, and true for everyone. 1+1 is always 2, no matter where you are in the universe
>But morality, which is subjective
This is the whole point of religion, the recognition that morality is objective. We cannot prove it with logic, but it is obvious just by looking around you and analysing the lives of every single person. You begin to notice patterns in that the way some people live their lives brings them greater meaning, happiness and fulfilment, while others' behaviours lead them to an early death, depression and ruin. This is morality.

>this is accomplished through giving yourself COMPLETELY to God
In other words, shut up and stop asking questions. Why does a rational God hate rationality in his creations?

Read Augustine and Aquinas mate

>no matter where you are in the universe
We still know too little about the universe so, while what you say is true in this temporal reality, it’s impossible to say that it’s true in all realities at all times.
>morality is objective
Nonsense. Morality is entirely subjective. What’s moral in Kansas is not necessarily moral in Kenya. To attempt to then claim the same morality applies on Earth as it does on some unnameable, unthinkable alien planet is ridiculous.

Regardless of what Christian theologians have said, this is exactly what the Bible says.

Corinthians II 11:3 - But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Why? The primary impetus for each was the justification of the RC faith. I’m not asking for an answer from catechism — just a straightforward response as to why a rational supreme being would disdain rationality in his creations.

>lest by any means your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ
Therefore theologians and the RC church, through much of its history, have been representatives of the serpent?

Yeah, pretty much. Christianity is all about turning your brain off, for better or worse.

This is a Catholic board. We're all going to hell and we all know why. You need to examine yourself.

>We're all going to hell and we all know why
We’re all going to suffer in hell for untold billions of years because of what we did in a 70-odd year lifespan? Please explain to me how that’s either rational or merciful.

No, we're going to suffer fire in purgatory forever barring the Grace of God. Just admit what you've done, you're only adding lies and pride to it now.

The clay is questioning the potter I see.

Because it means that your actions will have consequences and affect you for all eternity.

>we're going to suffer fire in purgatory forever
Answer the question, please. How is infinite suffering in any way, shape, or form merciful, rational, or just punishment for sins committed in a normal human lifespan?

If the potter makes a mistake with the clay, and then punishes the clay for all eternity for it, I’d say the clay has a damn good reason to question the potter.

The God of philosophers is “the essence of life”, as you put it. The God of the Bible is the magic man in the sky. The attempt to merge these two together came much later, and it’s an awkward fit.

Stupid analogy like all the parables in the Bible. If clay had the ability to question the one forming it, then by all means, let it do so.

Attached: download.jpg (299x168, 9K)

Purgatory is just the bit before hell, and it's only potentially infinite depending on how long it takes to burn away the sins of the flesh and on God's Grace. After that is hell, where you'll forever not know God's true nature and the answer to your question. Or heaven, if that's somehow His Will. I wouldn't trust you or anyone else to know what's merciful, rational, or just for all humanity since the beginning of time immemorial, so who are you to judge, little Eichmann?

There is no purgatory in the Bible. Its another wishful thought of Christians.

Purgatory is the only hell there is. There is no hell beyond hell, where you are forever separated from God. Such a thing is not possible.

There is no hell in the Bible either. The only thing there is an ambiguous concept modeled after the Greek Tartarus.

>so who are you to judge
A person who’s as fit to judge as you are.

If you cannot answer the question, the answer to it must be obvious. If punishment is out of all proportion to the sin committed, then the punisher must be cruel, capricious, and unjust.

I think both purgatory and hell are methods used to force obedience to Rome and the pope. Heaven as well, for that matter.

the kingdom of christ is what then?

Catholicism invented the Bible.
Everyone passes through purgatory, it's a time not a place. Beyond that is Final Judgement and then Salvation or Damnation. Read the catechism, the first letter to the Corninthians, and Jude.

"The fire that is not quenched" is a returning theme throughout the Bible. Its very clearly demarcated as eternal torment.

I have no idea. You tell me. I’m only trying understand how infinite punishment for temporal infractions is consistent with the idea of a loving and merciful God.

> terrifying
That's your consciousness telling you that you've been living your life all wrong, not God.

Us religious people aren't afraid, we're grateful.

They are not temporal because they abide on the eternal person of God.

The kingdom of christ is I assume what Christians are referring to when they talk about Heaven. The everlasting life promised by Jesus. "my kingdom is not of this world'

Im no scholar so I don't know if hell is mentioned by Jesus at any point but I dont remember it.

It's what comes after the end of time when creation is restored.

>>so who are you to judge
>A person who’s as fit to judge as you are
And we differ in our judgements because they are flawed. Did you think we were having a difference of opinion because we judge things the same way? God could grace you with heaven as soon as a murderer, and you are like the greedy capitalist fascist workers who complain to the vineyard owner that they got paid the same good wage as those who only started work in the evening. You want to pretend you're better than someone who rapes and murders grandmother's like it will excuse you being a proud liar whose judgement must be best. A haughty spirit goes before a fall just as pride goes before destruction.

>Us religious people aren't afraid, we're grateful.

You literally cannot know that. Why should anyone take someone's word for it what their intentions are when they've got jumper-cables attached to their balls?

Read John chapter 1, he literally calls Christ Logos

>spiritual jumper cables are the same as real ones
And you wonder why nobody trusts your judgement.

Oh well then that surely closes the book on this matter. He used a word. Time to wrap it up everybody, the writer of The Gospel of John used a word.

Cut down on that solipsism, brainlet bro.

You're welcome to believe that everyone around you is a lie and a phantasm; just don't overindulge, that path leads to the crazy house.

The Gospel of John was written sometime in the first century AD. You're just proving my point. You can see a clear departure from the old syncretic Canaanite war god to the later Hellenized literature.

The "the old syncretic Canaanite war god" never existed. It's a later and debased understanding of God that the Israelites were severely punished for.

If you'd read the source material you'd have known this, brainlet bro.

Cope!

I remember a girl saying she felt blessed about being a christian because by following the path God set for her, she was guaranteed to make the best decisions possible in life. Having an infallible, kind and fatherly hand looking out for you and guiding you through life makes for a powerful belief.

The sins of humanity abide in the eternal person of God? He’s powerless to resist them? Got a specific cite for that?
We differ in our judgements because we are different people, living in different circumstances. Morality, again, is subjective.
>you are like the greedy capitalist fascist workers >You want to pretend you're better than someone who rapes and murders grandmothers
>you are a proud liar
I’m curious, how does your God treat people who insult others for no good reason? People who put words into others’ mouths so as to condemn them? People who accuse others of crimes without proof?
>A haughty spirit goes before a fall just as pride goes before destruction.
I’m only asking questions here. It seems to me this applies more to you than it does to yours truly.

>He is the personification of the universe
pantheists pls go. God is a person

>Morality, again, is subjective.
Then how can you say eternal punishment with never knowing God is somehow wrong for those who don't want to know God or illogical?
>>you are a proud liar
>I’m curious, how does your God treat people who insult others for no good reason?
I'll find out if it's for no good reason, but I feel it is done with good reason and you are only insulted because you are proud and pretending not to be (lying).
>People who put words into others’ mouths so as to condemn them?
Is this you? You should examine yourself. Do you want to live that way?
>People who accuse others of crimes without proof?
If you wanted proof of the pride and lying thing, see above.
>I’m only asking questions here.
Besides that whole stating you could tell what was just punishment for everyone and that you know best out of the two of us despite then trying to claim morality was subjective? Yes you did ask lots of loaded questions that backfired between those statements.
>seems to me this applies more to you than it does to yours truly.
It applies to everyone equally.

You’re twisting around and obfuscating everything I asked. You’ve repeatedly insulted me for simply asking. You’ve repeatedly called me a liar, but I’ve lied about nothing. I don’t think you’re a very good representative of whatever creed it is that you espouse. In short, I’m sorry that my questions have elicited such very un-Christian reactions from you, and heartily recommend you shouldn’t discuss theology if it gets you this upset.

>Keeps lying
>Keeps judging others
>Hopes to lead others astray
Your choice, brother, but I don't trust your judgement.

>God is the essence of life, he

Fuck off apologist twerp

>Why do the religious think that because they are threatened with eternal torment and enticed by eternal bliss their lives are given meaning?

They don't really. It's like everyday irrational thinking 'you need a job so you will be like your bro's and look cool and get married and be happy, you're not just a lazy SOB are you user?'
It's not that they 'think', it's social rationalization and indoctrination, and you will get punched in the face for questioning it, except most religious people are pussies, hence the 'morality'

>God isn't a magic man in the sky as you imagine it.

That’s exactly how Yahweh was conceptualized in the original abrahamic mythos. It’s impossible to read the Old Testament without thinking of a magical man in the sky with very human emotions.

The fact that christians later intellectualized this deity into some sort of abstract concept to pretend theism is philosophically sophisticated doesn’t change the true origins of the abrahamic god.

>Religion is a strong force in society today
Where?

Exactly this. Christians think they can steal Platonic philosophy and apply it desultorily to their own theology and there wont be any hitches in the resulting doctrine.

Attached: images.png (235x215, 8K)

>Reading comprehension

>It's only bad insulting if I'm accusing someone else of it
I comprehended what you were saying, but you're bad at read emotions and write like a teenage girl losing a fight. You did all those things I said, you claim to know Catholics better than they know themselves and then get basic dogma wrong, you lie, you contradict yourself with no need for me to twist your words, you assume you know best and deny being prideful and act like you're being held to an unfair standard when everyone is warned against pridefulness and you like to think you know unchristian behaviour best while making out you're being perfectly Christian even though you say you don't want to be one because you think their judgement flawed while yours is fine. Do you genuinely have BPD or some other deficit that makes you fail to see how you have done all this in this thread and then deny it constantly despite there being a written record everyone can see? I feel obliged to say most nonChristians are not as dumb as you. If you refuse to read anything to do with your opponent's side and cannot step outside that prideful point of view, could you at least read JS Mill or something so you can see how that is so secularly goddamn dumb?

Seething, projecting cope.

You’re confusing two different anons. I repeat — your posts are the epitome of non-Christian ethics and you should absolutely stop participating in theological discussions if they cause you to behave in this horrible manner.

Oh so you're the one who writes like a BPD girl then? You're not helping the other user seem consistent or composed if that's what you were going for.

I have no idea WTF you’re talking about. I doubt anyone else does either.

If you want you can link all your posts in one so anons can tell if you contradict yourself like you're accused of doing.

>people here who haven’t even read the Bible in the Greek
Fucking BRAINLETS

Attached: D240B910-7AED-4B46-A311-1031994A478C.png (214x236, 6K)

Well the one who first said I was unchristian is here And I said here They write like a BPD girl. Admittedly that user might not have questioned my reading comprehension here But and previous posts in the quote chain would have to be you and the one who writes like a teenage girl losing a fight with her own words who can't read her opponent's emotions or words (or her own) very well as I describe hereBecause if you're claiming to not be user here then you can't have called me unchristian before. See: logic and a written record with a quote chain for everyone to see.

I wouldn’t pay too much attention to ’s rants if I were you. He’s obviously emotionally distressed.

Weird how you contradict yourself on the subjective judgment thing and say that you can't see how eternal punishment could not be equated with a loving God (I think subjective judgment would do it), and how you think the judgment is out of all proportion seems to take precedence over anons view it is proportioned according to the gospel (a second contradiction) and he might be right about the Catholic theology more so than you, because he corrected the eternal bit to purgatory where you said hell, and also you do seem kind of arrogant to list these and expect people who are looking for obvious contradictions to not see them. I mean. They're there, you just linked them. I don't see you resolving them. You just go to calling user emotional for listing them Joyce style.

Subjective judgement obviously applies to humanity only; the supreme being in Catholic faith is by doctrine perfect, which certainly implies objectivity. Yet if God is objective, how then to reconcile infinite punishment with temporal fallibility? This is all I’m asking. It’s a fair and natural question which unfortunately nobody ITT has really addressed. There is no contradiction in anything I posted. And I called the other user “emotional” because he obviously is.

>then to reconcile infinite punishment with temporal fallibility
Because that could be objectively right. We wouldn't know under "everyone is subjective".
user also says that God could spare people at random from purgatory-- you or a murderer. So it doesn't look like he's saying eternal punishment for everyone-- he says >it's only potentially infinite depending ... on God's Grace
When he first brings up it coming before Hell, so it doesn't even look like he believes in the eternal punishment you're talking about. You seem to just ignore that.
He's not obviously emotional, and if he is, it's more a jubilance he's showing at having so many easy contradictions to point out. You then tell him he shouldn't debate if he's emotional, when what he's done is outline basic contradictions you're making. He's doing the debate club version of dabbing on you for claiming black is white, and you're not seeing it as happy but as angry. He could do with more commas or semicolons in the list he made, but it's pretty on point.

If you're claiming subjective morality, you can't then also claim that you would know the objective version. The objective standard could be everyone goes to hell if they're under 5'9, and it would be objectively rights-- manlets or lanklets could find it subjectively hard to understand, but it would still be objectively right. You also can't claim your subjective morality (god should judge by your standard whatever that is) is some how different or more right than user's subjective morality (god should judge by parables written in some books) and you really can't claim his is less Christian somehow for, you know, being Christian.
I don't see how you're missing those contradictions. They're glaring errors in a debate.

1. Sparing people at random is subjective. If God is subjective, God can’t be perfect.
2. Whether be believes in an eternal hell or an eternal purgatory makes no difference — it’s still eternal punishment.
3. I’ve contradicted the user plenty of times. I haven’t contradicted myself once. It’s the latter I’m accused of. (And the former is a ridiculous charge, as argument is the purpose of this board).
4. Insults, false accusations, and the like are all anathema in all Christian faiths. If the user continuously indulges in them, then he is acting in an un-Christian manner, which is what I pointed out to him.
5. If God condemns all manlets, it certainly would be objective if all manlets were treated in the same manner. But it would then give rise to the question, why then condemn something you yourself made? How does eternal condemnation jibe with the Christian doctrine that God is merciful, just, etc.?

>why does OP think that straw man isn't a fallacy?

read Dante and the 4 gospels before talking about Christianity please.

>1. Sparing people at random is subjective
I mean at random from our point of view. From an objective point of view, the murder might be alright. This is the same kind of error you've been making all thread.
>2. Whether be believes in an eternal hell or an eternal purgatory makes no difference — it’s still eternal punishment.
Look at what I quoted: it says it is not necessarily eternal, and it's up to God.
Again, you are ignoring the point he made and dashing off in a different direction. >3. I’ve contradicted the user plenty of times. I
No, you're going between contradictory proposition for God (saving the murderer is only subjectively at random, but you believe God is acting with that subjective morality; user is saying God is consistently objective, regardless of how wacky that shit seems to subjective morality) You're either begging the question and saying God is subjective just cuz, or you're totally ignoring user's proposition God's objective, or both. Again, this is a really easy error to point out.
>4. Insults, false accusations, and the like are all anathema in all Christian faiths
He explains why he doesn't think it's insulting or false to call you prideful and a liar. He says everyone has to avoid them. He's not just saying that about you-- he is using a Biblical precept as you would expect most Christians to because they think *everyone* is a prideful sinner. It's part of their faith. It's why some of them go around whipping themselves or confessing to having abortions and all that repent now business. It's very Christian to call you that.
>But it would then give rise to the question, why then condemn something you yourself made?
God has been doing that since forever in the Bible. Christians assume he was right to hate Esau in the womb and smite Babel and curse Egypt. The Bible explicitly tells them he makes some people just to smite them. With your subjective morality idea though, if God alone has objective morality, we wouldn't know why he's right because we could only see it from a subjective POV.

Please stop making this same error over and over, I've explained why it doesn't work for an objectively right God to suddenly be able to be judged right/wrong by one subjective viewpoint of any kind. The subjective viewpoint would always see an incomplete morality, because if it could see the complete one, they would qualify as God in the "God sees objectively" morality universe.

1. You’re the one who made the error, LOL. If you’re in agreement with RC doctrine that God is perfect, he therefore must be objective.
2. Given what we know about the age of the universe, the question is still valid. Whether you’re up to your armpits in fire for a billion years or 15 billion years, the punishment still seems a bit excessive.
3. It’s not an error. If you and user want to claim that as mere mortals we cannot possibly understand the motives of God, fair enough (but it’s also something of a cop out). Your answer is then that there’s no answer.
4. Insults, etc. are contrary to the teachings of all mainline Christian faiths, and if user indulges in them he’s then being in-Christian, That other Christians also behave badly is no real excuse.
5. If we don’t know because we can’t know, then by extension Christian doctrine that God is merciful, just, etc. is just a guess.