Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Biowraith]

About the last point, the bible certainly didn't think that the matter is a mere a choice as simply "guessing". I don't think someone would truly believe in a god if they just flipped a coin and said, "oh so he does exist!".

I don't think they just flip a coin or are consciously simply guessing, but whatever method they choose isn't going to be any more reliable.

[SHAD0Wdump]

To my mind, a truly benevolent God would save everyone, unconditionally.  Even the worst of us and even the unbelievers or misbelievers.  Certainly not save the worst of us that happened to guess correctly while condemning the best of us that guessed wrong.

That's the thing, ultimately Christianity boils down to saving everyone who accepts him attempting to save them.

 I believe that no matter how everyone lived, they will after death be greeted by Jesus, and that is the last call to take up on the offer, if after having it explained to them by Jesus himself they don't believe, then that is the final example of a person who just can't be saved.
 Yes, that would mean people would get in who you wouldn't ever possibly believe getting in, like seemingly the most hardened atheists may make it. But that would not be contrary to what is said in the bible, as it is said that some who you wouldn't believe as worthy will make it to heaven, and some you'd think 100% to get in, won't.
 It's not that God is throwing caution to the wind, he will and surely has reached out to every single individual at some point in their life. If that's ever said to not be the case, I could be wrong... But it wouldn't be unlikely that any person who said that simply didn't notice, or refuses to admit it. And even just missing it seems unlikely to me.

Is there enough data concerning the existence of the person known as "Jesus of Nazareth" to suggest he existed? Pretty much yeah.
Does that necessarily mean he had "the very personality of God" or even "the foreknowledge of the fact"? Not in the slightest.
Quite frankly, there's enough disinformation and bias in even the most professional, well researched and fact focused historical texts to call into question the motives of even figures from the last CENTURY, let alone from 2000+ years ago.

The book I keep mentioning here does go through the psychological implications of Jesus, namely that he clearly knew what he was doing, where he was going, exhibited no signs of insanity, and clearly had the stability to go through with what he intended.

Simply put, who do you think has a better sense of what is right or wrong? You? Or a being who created everything assuming he exists?

Me, no question hands down, full stop.
Because I KNOW me, I know that I am generally quite logical and I know the attempts I have made to be well informed on a particular subject.
I DON'T know that about "a being who created everything assuming he exists"
I don't rely on the ASSUMPTION that "creating everything" has applications toward "knowing what to do with everything" and I find it UTTERLY TERRIFYING that so many people DO rely on that assumption.

I'll bet that you'll run into a situation down the line that you'll do something you never even fathomed yourself capable of doing. Something perhaps even embarrassing. It gets the best of us, and in those moments when I do it I feel like I barely know myself. Just saying.
 And forgive me for such an aggressive statement as this... But to assume you know more about a story than the particular author of said story is ludicrous.

 If you like to work with logical arguments, I really do suggest checking out that book, I really honestly want to see what a person who has read it who simply does not/did not believe thinks.

[Urist Mc Dwarf]

I like the Jewish take on that - 'infidels' only need to adhere to the Seven Laws of Noah (which basically amount to 'don't be a dick').

It was more like "don't be a dick, don't worship other gods, don't be gay, and don't have sex with a woman on her period".

The last three only arte counted for Jews, the second to last is debateable, and directly from the Bible, " The righteous among the nations shall have a place in the world-to-come." The world-to-come in Juadisim specifically meaning heaven.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I like the Jewish take on that - 'infidels' only need to adhere to the Seven Laws of Noah (which basically amount to 'don't be a dick').

It was more like "don't be a dick, don't worship other gods, don't be gay, and don't have sex with a woman on her period".

The last three only arte counted for Jews, the second to last is debateable, and directly from the Bible, " The righteous among the nations shall have a place in the world-to-come." The world-to-come in Juadisim specifically meaning heaven.

No, they aren't. The Noahide laws directly prohibit both idolatry and blasphemy, and prohibit "Arayot".

[Shakerag]

I believe that no matter how everyone lived, they will after death be greeted by Jesus, and that is the last call to take up on the offer, if after having it explained to them by Jesus himself they don't believe, then that is the final example of a person who just can't be saved.

My issue with this (well, one of many anyway) is that this just seems so wrong.  I am willing to assume that many, if not most, parents love their children unconditionally.  Even if said child rejects their parents, wants nothing to do with their parents, or outright hates their parents, the parents will still have some manner of love for that child (and likely hope that they eventually return said love).  These parents would, I assume, be horrified at the thought of making their child suffer for eternity, regardless of how estranged they may be.

Yet we have this god, who apparently loved us all so much that he created us, had his own son die a horrible death for us, but is totally cool letting you suffer forever if you spurn him. 

If god loves everyone so much, why would there be a hell?  Why would god let one of his loved ones suffer eternally?  Why wouldn't god just accept all of his children and want the best for them?

Side note:  When you say "saved", what exactly does that mean/imply?  Because it sounds like: "Hey, sucks that you're dead, but since I love you I want to offer you one last chance to be saved."  "Saved from what?"  "Me kicking your ass out of heaven is what."  Gee, thanks for offering to save me from yourself, god. 

[BFEL]

Simply put, who do you think has a better sense of what is right or wrong? You? Or a being who created everything assuming he exists?

Me, no question hands down, full stop.
Because I KNOW me, I know that I am generally quite logical and I know the attempts I have made to be well informed on a particular subject.
I DON'T know that about "a being who created everything assuming he exists"
I don't rely on the ASSUMPTION that "creating everything" has applications toward "knowing what to do with everything" and I find it UTTERLY TERRIFYING that so many people DO rely on that assumption.

I'll bet that you'll run into a situation down the line that you'll do something you never even fathomed yourself capable of doing. Something perhaps even embarrassing. It gets the best of us, and in those moments when I do it I feel like I barely know myself. Just saying.

I've done plenty of things that I am embarrassed about. I make no claims to perfection, unlike, well you know
But as I said I make mistakes, everyone does, and I consider those mistakes important.
I learn from my mistakes and grow from them. But the key is I am in control of those mistakes, I am in control of my own growth as a person, just as you are, just as everyone who has ever lived is.
I won't suffer someone else to determine the person I become just because they claim not to make mistakes. In fact I would argue THAT is a mistake in and of itself. You can't become better then what you are if you never make mistakes, they are what cause you to grow.

And forgive me for such an aggressive statement as this... But to assume you know more about a story than the particular author of said story is ludicrous.

To assume an author of a history book knows more about it then the people who lived/are living that history is equally (or more) ludicrous

Side note:  When you say "saved", what exactly does that mean/imply?  Because it sounds like: "Hey, sucks that you're dead, but since I love you I want to offer you one last chance to be saved."  "Saved from what?"  "Me kicking your ass out of heaven is what."  Gee, thanks for offering to save me from yourself, god. 

Pretty much sums up what caused my rejection of Christianity

[SHAD0Wdump]

My issue with this (well, one of many anyway) is that this just seems so wrong.  I am willing to assume that many, if not most, parents love their children unconditionally.  Even if said child rejects their parents, wants nothing to do with their parents, or outright hates their parents, the parents will still have some manner of love for that child (and likely hope that they eventually return said love).  These parents would, I assume, be horrified at the thought of making their child suffer for eternity, regardless of how estranged they may be.

However in the case you are referring to, the parents have hope. They do not know what the future holds for the child, but they can have a good guess as to what potential there is.
 In God's case, he knows what potential there is, indeed he knows whether any one of us will make it to heaven or not. I don't believe God lets anyone be damned for lack of trying to save them.

Yet we have this god, who apparently loved us all so much that he created us, had his own son die a horrible death for us, but is totally cool letting you suffer forever if you spurn him. 

He's not cool with it, in fact I imagine it lays heavy on his heart.

If god loves everyone so much, why would there be a hell?  Why would god let one of his loved ones suffer eternally?  Why wouldn't god just accept all of his children and want the best for them?

Because you can't just force someone to live with you. If they don't want to, they won't, no matter how much you open up to them. Some people will flat out call you a stalker if you don't leave them alone. If a person just doesn't allow it, actively hates it, then hell is all that is left for them, the hell of living by themselves.

 It is possible hell is an actual place, filled with brimstone and fire. But it is also in the same vein as interpreting satan as a red jumpsuit wear devil with a trident. It could exist like that, or it could be a poetic representation, much like Genesis as far to my knowledge.

Side note:  When you say "saved", what exactly does that mean/imply?  Because it sounds like: "Hey, sucks that you're dead, but since I love you I want to offer you one last chance to be saved."  "Saved from what?"  "Me kicking your ass out of heaven is what."  Gee, thanks for offering to save me from yourself, god.

Again, saved from the self. Saved from living alone with the ravages of existence away from the power that created it to sustain the person in question.

To assume an author of a history book knows more about it then the people who lived/are living that history is equally (or more) ludicrous

The problem with this point of view is a history book deals with characters not of the author's creation. The reason I used story book is everything in the story is within the context of what the author defines.

 While we are at it, assume the book in question is your picture of reality, and the people are reality itself. You surely have to at least give the benefit of the doubt that a God may exist.

[Biowraith]

To my mind, a truly benevolent God would save everyone, unconditionally.  Even the worst of us and even the unbelievers or misbelievers.  Certainly not save the worst of us that happened to guess correctly while condemning the best of us that guessed wrong.

That's the thing, ultimately Christianity boils down to saving everyone who accepts him attempting to save them.

The italics are the part that bugs me and is contrary to the/my idea of a benevolent God - assuming heaven and hell are indeed as advertised (and not just colourful ways of saying "being with/without God"), and 'saved' does mean saved from a hell of constant suffering.  I'm not sure how being separate from God would automatically mean suffering or why the presence of God would be required for the absence of suffering, unless he deliberately set up the system to work that way, which again, non-benevolent.  I also struggle to understand how someone could ever enjoy heaven knowing there are basically decent people (maybe even friends and family) who are suffering an eternity of hell.

And asking someone "want to live in heaven?" is somewhat different from "wanna accept me as your God and saviour?".  Or at least, it should be.

I'm also with the others that ultimately it's still being saved from Him - in that scenario he designed and created everything, including humanity, and had choices as to the nature of that design.  He chose to design us in such a way as we'd need saving, and he designed it so there was the possibility of not being saved.  So even if we need saved from ourselves, that ultimately leads back to needing saved from his design i.e. from him.  The only way I can see around that is if he is not actually as omnipotent and omniscient as advertised - i.e. he made a few mistakes and can't easily correct them, and/or if he didn't actually create everything and just kinda stumbled across it all and decided to try and help out.

[SHAD0Wdump]

I'm also with the others that ultimately it's still being saved from Him - in that scenario he designed and created everything, including humanity, and had choices as to the nature of that design.  He chose to design us in such a way as we'd need saving, and he designed it so there was the possibility of not being saved.  So even if we need saved from ourselves, that ultimately leads back to needing saved from his design i.e. from him.  The only way I can see around that is if he is not actually as omnipotent and omniscient as advertised - i.e. he made a few mistakes and can't easily correct them, and/or if he didn't actually create everything and just kinda stumbled across it all and decided to try and help out.

C.S. Lewis brought up this issue or something very much like it in The Problem of Pain(At least I think, if not that then Mere Christianity), he defines 'Omnipotent' as capable of everything that is possible. He then hypothesizes that God made creation in the best way possible to result in humanity.
 I reason that his goal was to create us as beings who had the free will and decision making to love each other and him in the best way possible, with our own drive to do so. Not because we have to, but because we can and can enjoy it. I imagine that such a thing would be impossible without the risk that we'd become self centered potentially and refuse him and his hopes for society.


 So in a sense? If this is true, then if we go back to the issue of God being selfish, this is perhaps one of the most self-less actions he could have performed, as he gave up a perfectly safe alternative for a potential result that likely is better for everyone involved.

[BFEL]

You surely have to at least give the benefit of the doubt that a God may exist.

This is true, and I do.
Nowhere in any of these statements have I said there is no chance of a creator, or even that there is no chance he's exactly what you think he is.

If God is what you think he is, what you have described, then he mostly seems like a cool, chill guy and I would have no issues shaking his hand and generally being friends. But quite frankly I consider the sunshine butterflies and rainbows picture you have painted to be EXTREMELY unlikely.

If God is real but NOT what you think he is, but what he is literally portrayed as in the Bible, he is NOT in any way shape or form a decent person and I am very much not cool with him overseeing the universe. Given what little evidence we have, I sadly consider this more likely then your personal viewpoint.

This is why I consider myself an Anti-Theist instead of the more traditional Atheist. An Atheist is someone who at some point said "I don't believe God exists"
Whereas an Anti-Theist such as myself at one point said to themselves "I don't believe God is good"
This doesn't mean that I don't believe in the POSSIBILITY of an Omnibenevolent God, just that I don't believe in the LIKELYHOOD of it.

Basically if God is as you think he is, then my statements so far don't matter, because he's not the bastard I think he is.
If there is a god who is totally indifferent to our existence, also a possibility, then it doesn't matter.
If The Bible and everything in it are poetic and metaphorical and all that, it doesn't matter because it has as much bearing on reality as Mickey Mouse cartoons.
If God doesn't exist well DOESN'T MATTER OBLIVION FOR ALL. Which I would be ok with personally.

If however, The Bible is literal and real and the God depicted in it is the incredible bastard he is written to be, then I have a problem and recommend investigating anti-deity weaponry. Which I'm working on just in case.

Point is, I don't know how the universe was created or what happens when we die. I'm just the type who prepares for the worst.

[SHAD0Wdump]

Well look... If I am right. He will be trying to reach out to you, probably has been and still is. Possibly is right here in this thread in some sense.
 So please, stay open to the concept of him being benevolent, hell, seek out whatever suggests that he is if you can and test it.

[Biowraith]

I'm also with the others that ultimately it's still being saved from Him - in that scenario he designed and created everything, including humanity, and had choices as to the nature of that design.  He chose to design us in such a way as we'd need saving, and he designed it so there was the possibility of not being saved.  So even if we need saved from ourselves, that ultimately leads back to needing saved from his design i.e. from him.  The only way I can see around that is if he is not actually as omnipotent and omniscient as advertised - i.e. he made a few mistakes and can't easily correct them, and/or if he didn't actually create everything and just kinda stumbled across it all and decided to try and help out.

C.S. Lewis brought up this issue or something very much like it in The Problem of Pain(At least I think, if not that then Mere Christianity), he defines 'Omnipotent' as capable of everything that is possible. He then hypothesizes that God made creation in the best way possible to result in humanity.
 I reason that his goal was to create us as beings who had the free will and decision making to love each other and him in the best way possible, with our own drive to do so. Not because we have to, but because we can and can enjoy it. I imagine that such a thing would be impossible without the risk that we'd become self centered potentially and refuse him and his hopes for society.


 So in a sense? If this is true, then if we go back to the issue of God being selfish, this is perhaps one of the most self-less actions he could have performed, as he gave up a perfectly safe alternative for a potential result that likely is better for everyone involved.

To me that more or less fits the "not actually as omnipotent and omniscient as advertised" solution.  Although I'd be very hesitant to start hypothesizing about what 'possible' might entail under that scenario - way too easy to just come up with an answer we like, that makes us feel good, and nigh impossible to come up with the actual truth (except by chance - and we'd not actually know if and when we'd stumbled onto the truth).  But as will likely be evident from my other posts, that's my stance on religion in general.

[Aeax]

If god loves everyone so much, why would there be a hell?  Why would god let one of his loved ones suffer eternally?  Why wouldn't god just accept all of his children and want the best for them?

You're are completely right, and there is no hell. The bible does not support a hell with eternal torment, but defines death as the state of none existence.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten." NIV

John 11:11-13 " 11These things said he: and after that he said to them, Our friend Lazarus sleeps; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 12Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 13However, Jesus spoke of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep." AKJV

In this passage, it shows that death is like sleep where you are not conscience of anything at all.

Genesis 3:19 "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” ESV


Its plainly stated that we are all dust, and that when you die, you will return to dust. There is no indication that eternal torment is the punishment for even those who have committed crimes all there life.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

You know? I was just about to jump things up a notch, but then I remember how quickly religious debate gets out of hand. So I think I speak some sense when I say maybe we should just drop this? for the good of all of us. Besides this is becoming terribly derailed, i'm not sure how much the OP is benefiting from this right now.

[SHAD0Wdump]

Yeah... Admittedly this has gone leaps and bounds past helping Lidku likely.