When God knows a soul goes to hell..

[sin_is_fun]

When God knows a soul is going to go to hell ,why does he still create that soul?Why create that soul ,judge it later and send it to eternal hell?Stopping creation of such souls seems to be a better option.Why does God create souls knowing fully well that it will land up in eternal hell?

[unicorn]

Bugmaster: I'm sorry to tell you, but there haven't been any flaws in my reasoning, especially none that you have been able to point out!

[McCulloch]

...my tactic is valid...people learn best when they seek for themselves. If they continue to have questions, they can come back and ask.

That would be valid if this were a classroom or a teaching situation. But in case you missed the title, this is a debating site.

[unicorn]

McCulloch:

That would be valid if this were a classroom or a teaching situation.

You don't think that debate is about teaching? I'm sorry to have to tell you that, but that's exactly what it is--teaching/showing/demonstrating that your opponent is wrong.

So, no, I didn't miss the title. Perhaps you did?

[unicorn]

McCulloch:

P.S., dude! Since you mentioned special relativity, I found a cool article for you:

http://leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/leftow.html

[unicorn]

and again! posted some cool articles under my Big Bang thread which also discuss the theory of relativity and its support for the bible.

[A 3rd Gentleman]

McCulloch:

That would be valid if this were a classroom or a teaching situation.

You don't think that debate is about teaching? I'm sorry to have to tell you that, but that's exactly what it is--teaching/showing/demonstrating that your opponent is wrong.

So, no, I didn't miss the title. Perhaps you did?

By leaving sources undefined, you are not demonstrating or teaching anything but your own subjectyive opinion. A condition of contributing to a debate site is the mutual agreement that each person provides his/her own sources, as it makes the debate more progressive, efficient and ensures responsibility is taken for one's own statements and beliefs. It's a matter of courtesy.

[unicorn]

I do provide sources (just don't think it quite necessary/or feasible to do it immediately...I noticed a moderator quote that recognized this delay as acceptable), so, this method of expressing your/others aggravation at being proved wrong is getting old.

[harvey1]

By saying God is not a person, I don't mean that God is not capable of being personable.

What's the difference?

Being personable (yet not a person) means that there is an aspect of God that is capable of being presented to us as a person. For example, if we pray to God, and God provides a clear answer to our prayer, we feel understood, perhaps even deeply touched by the answer. This doesn't mean that God is a person, it only means that God can be personable.

It sounds like you're arguing for a sort of Ascension: as human beings progress spiritually, they become more and more like gods (or, perhaps, like a collective meta-god, EVA-style). Eventually, they will grow spiritual enough to acquire qualities of omni-everythingness, or at least timelessness, at which point they'll be able to communicate with God on a meaningful level. On the emotional level, I find this view very satisfying; it's certainly a more sensible view of Heaven than angelic choirs with harps. However, on the theological level, I think this view is a bit more shaky. First of all, the ascended humanity you envision is, once again, quite alien to us. These beings may be enlightened and wise, but they will not be human in any reasonable sense of the word, because (as you pointed out) human beings are persons, with sequential thouhgts, not timeless omniscient entities. Thus, we can speculate about Ascension, but we cannot imagine what it truly would be like, and whether it's a worthy goal at all.

I think mystical experiences can be events such as this. I've only had one such experience, so all I can say is that if that is what heaven is like, then I think everyone will be pleasantly surprised on awaits us after this fleshly experience.

Secondly, this view is, once again, quite un-Christian, and bordering on anti-Christian (heh heh heh). The Biblical God comes down hard on anyone who tries to achieve godhood -- starting with Adam and Eve and the Tower of Babel, and continuing on from there. Even the First Commandment can be seen as an admonition against Ascension. In the Bible, God is supreme, and attempting to achieve a state of being resembling his is a sin.

Once I was pondering what God would say about a certain situation that I had encountered, and I was deep into that particular thought (parked in front of a store), a particular message on an LED display lit up with a sentence that perfectly answered the question. So, I don't think it is necessarily in contradiction that God can communicate to us. Incidentally, Richard Feynman had an interesting experience with a so-called supernatural clock:

Once we were talking about the supernatural and the following anecdote involving his first wife Arline came up. Arline had tuberculosis and was confined to a hospital while Feynman was at Los Alamos. Next to her bed was an old clock. Arline told Feynman that the clock was a symbol of the time that they had together and that he should always remember that. Always look at the clock to remember the time we have together, she said. The day that Arline died in the hospital, Feynman was given a note from the nurse that indicated the time of death. Feynman noted that the clock had stopped at exactly that time. It was as the clock, which had been a symbol of their time together, had stopped at the moment of her death. Did you make a connection? I asked NO! NOT FOR A SECOND! I immediately began to think how this could have happened. And I realized that the clock was old and was always breaking. That the clock probably stopped some time before and the nurse coming in to the room to record the time of death would have looked at the clock and jotted down the time from that. I never made any supernatural connection, not even for a second. I just wanted to figure out how it happened.

Now, perhaps Feynman was right, and the clock did stop and the nurse used that clock. Or, perhaps the clock really was a symbol of their time together (incidentally, as I read another version of this story Arline had reminded Feynman a few times about the time on the clock being short...).

In fact, your God sounds a lot more Gnostic than Christian; historically, the Gnostic-Christian debate has been framed in terms of crusades

It's hard for me to reply since I'm not sure what you might have in mind. From my perspective and all I know of Christian scriptures, my view is entirely consistent with a few modern New Testament interpretations.

Firstly, how can you be sure you're really connecting with God's consciousness, and not just hallucinating, or exploring your own inner consciousness (or both) ?

One can never be sure if the clock thing was a mere coincidence...

[QED]

A very interesting post Harvey! I've opened another new topic in the Philosophy subforum to explore the question of coincidence and illusion.

[Bugmaster]

Bugmaster: I'm sorry to tell you, but there haven't been any flaws in my reasoning, especially none that you have been able to point out! :lol:

Er... which specific reasoning are you referring to ? So far, I've pointed out several flaws in your reasoning and your assumptions, but all you've responded with was, "read my post again and again until it makes sense !". That's not very impressive at all.