Print

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

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Frumple]

It's a godly sort of love. You know, the kinda' that says it only broke one of your legs because you made it angry, instead of both. It only murdered people en masse because it loved them, etc., etc. Or at least loved some of them, and needed to make an example of someone else.

[Teneb]

New Testament God is the same God, it's just that most of the interaction is happening through Jesus who is nice.

Deep

Deeper than hell

Which is here

Hell is where the heart is
[/quote]
Hell is within your chest.

loving

I never got that impression.

Yeah, in the OT he is more of a vengeful and spiteful entity, while in the NT he is just... not there.

It's a godly sort of love. You know, the kinda' that says it only broke one of your legs because you made it angry, instead of both. It only murdered people en masse because it loved them, etc., etc. Or at least loved some of them, and needed to make an example of someone else.

So... a psychopath or something along those lines?

[Robsoie]

It is intentionally jarring that God doesn't intercede. On some level, even Jesus thought he was going to if "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" is to be believed.

Actually with those words Jesus point to the Psaulm 22 that start with this exact sentence and describe the scene as if it had been a prophecy that just got achieved.
This was pointed to the more knowledgable in the religion and texts, and then that knew that Psaulm, so they could understand and see what they decided to blind themselves to when they sent him to be crucified.

[Flying Dice]

It's a godly sort of love. You know, the kinda' that says it only broke one of your legs because you made it angry, instead of both. It only murdered people en masse because it loved them, etc., etc. Or at least loved some of them, and needed to make an example of someone else.

So... a psychopath or something along those lines?

Or an abusive lover.

We're gonna need a nerf Earth.

[origamiscienceguy]

He loved us enough to give us free will, and pay the harshest price when we abuse it. There are still consequences for sin everywhere though. About the mass slaughter, the bible mentions that they were evil. If you could go back in time and kill Osama Ben Ladin and stop 9/11 (without any other repercussions on the future or yourself), would you do it? That is kind of what it is like to have God tell you what to do. He know the future, so doing what he says is the best option.

EDIT: Osama ben Ladin. Autocorrect turned it into Obama ben Ladin 

[Rolepgeek]

The God in the Old Testament is the same as the God in the New Testament. He is extremely scary, but loving in both.

Loving in the possessive sense, at best. The way you love a pet. But if your pet doesn't worship cuddle, blasphemesscratches up the drapes, is the gay has an 'annoying' habit of keeping you up at night with it's yowling/scratching at the door, and is overall an arrogant bunch of pricksarrogant little prick, well. You can't just put it out on the street, but damnit, if it's gonna enslave the Jewspick fights with the other pets, and commit sacrilegepiss on the rug, you need to show who's in charge of the household. You have to discipline your pets, damnit. Whether that means destroying citiesscruffing them by the neck when they do something wrong, or sending plagueslocking them up when they won't stop, then so be it. Especially when they have the gall to not even bother looking guilty when they try to place other gods before youtrack shit all over the floor, well? That just won't stand. They go in the hellbox for the night.

And really, you only have room for those least likely to sinone or two pets in your household? If someone creates a speciesgives you a box of kittens, you're gonna have to flood the worldgive the rest up for adoption. Maybe later you can see about space colonization being plausiblegetting some more.

But, I mean, don't worry, you're not a bad pet owner! You make sure they have enough nothingwittyheresorryfood and water, give 'em their sciencemeds you've set up the worldto be fun for them to play in, you've tried to make sure they won't utterly obliterate themselves or be totally wiped out by diseaseeat anything poisonous for them by accident, and you try to make sure they don't get outside the solarget outside where they might be eaten by alien AIshit by a car. Yeah, it's getting a bit smallovercrowded given the way they've grown, but those magazines always exaggerate; how were you supposed to know they'd get this big? You don't murder indiscriminatelybeat them, you try to give them lots of spiritual wellbeing and guidancelove and care when you can, though work's been hectic lately. You aren't utterly genocidalrough with them when you get angry, just partially genocidalfirm. You only ever impregnated a mortaldropped them once, and that was an basis for the change in the fundamentals of the religionaccident, and they were oppressing the Jewsscratching your face! You've tried to be extra non-interventionistgood since, and you made sure they learned about compassion from Jesusweren't hurt when it happened. Died for their sinsTook 'em to the vet and everything.

Sure, true miracleswalks in the park aren't that often, but it's hard to get the motivation up to go...and last time attributed it to a mere scientific phenomenontheir paws were hurting so it probably isn't a good idea anymore, they're getting kinda smartold.

He loved us enough to give us free will, and pay the harshest price when we abuse it. There are still consequences for sin everywhere though. About the mass slaughter, the bible mentions that they were evil. If you could go back in time and kill Osama Ben Ladin and stop 9/11 (without any other repercussions on the future or yourself), would you do it? That is kind of what it is like to have God tell you what to do. He know the future, so doing what he says is the best option.

EDIT: Osama ben Ladin. Autocorrect turned it into Obama ben Ladin 

So those people were all of them, 100%, Osama bin Ladin-level evils? What with the gay sex and all? Not a single Good Samaritan in the bunch? Giving your pet access to the outdoors is nice, but it doesn't make you the perfect pet owner. Sometimes, when it means that they're likely to be hit by a car, it just makes you irresponsible. Depending on analogy, beating your pet when they run away and make you worry for a few days isn't that great either.

If you want to make it seem like a partner-lover thing, it only gets worse. And if we're his children; guess what? I find it profoundly immoral to ever beat your child to within an inch of their life (hell). For any reason.

[Putnam]

New Testament God is the same God, it's just that most of the interaction is happening through Jesus who is nice.

but like

jesus said that y'all are hypocrites for not killing children if they don't like their parents (Matthew 15)

[Frumple]

OSG, much of what was killed by god or at its word in the OT were kids. You're going to have a bloody hard time convincing me unborn infants, toddlers, preteens, etc., are evil.

And it's still entirely irreconcilable with love, regardless. If you love someone, you don't correct their poor actions by killing them. Unless you're saying god only loved some people, I guess.

... which, to be fair, is pretty accurate for the OT. Thing was a racist bastard in those texts.

Also no, if you sent me back in time, instead of killing bin ladin I'd, y'know, do the proper ethical thing and help the dude out so he wouldn't consider leading a terrorist organization to be acceptable action. Murdering someone for something they will do is about as goddamn unconscionable an act as you can perform, doubly so when it's within your power to just prevent the future act entirely without, y'know, murder, torture, rape, etc., etc.

[Rolepgeek]

I'll disagree with parts of your interpretation, Frumple, but the biggest thing there is eternity, afterlife, and scale. Killing someone isn't a massive fucking deal to God. Yeah, it's mostly reserved for his use, but death means you go to the afterlife. It's not gone, forever, always, done, like it is from our perspective. Yeah, it probably sucks, but that's what makes it an effective punishment.

That's also being very optimistic as to how much you could help him do that. I will also disagree with that bit about the 'killing someone to prevent them from doing something is the worst thing ever'. I mean, I think killing people is awful, but the two biggest reasons for execution are deterrent and prevention. I think it's one hell of a last resort to fall back on, but some things are more important than one life. Large numbers of lives, usually. If you can do it other ways then yeah sure go for it. But I think a big part of the difference between the christian idea of omnipotence (if it is to be reconciliable at all) and the one a lot of non-religious people seem to hold, is that in one, the Omnipotent can do anything. In the other, they can do anything, via any means. Big, important, massive distinction

On a different note, though, origamiscienceguy? It looks like in the past people tried doing what he said, and that resulted in some bad shit. So God's track record on that count is poor, and without a secondary source to even confirm that he does know the future (you can understand why I might consider Jesus a biased source; trying to get your Dad more followers is a pretty obvious conflict of interest here).

[origamiscienceguy]

New Testament God is the same God, it's just that most of the interaction is happening through Jesus who is nice.

but like

jesus said that y'all are hypocrites for not killing children if they don't like their parents (Matthew 15)

Children who do not have a choice for believing God, or are not old enough to understand it properly. The best example of this is 2 Samuel 12:21–23. The context of these verses is that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, with a resulting pregnancy. The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to inform David that, because of his sin, the Lord would take the child in death. David responded to this by grieving and praying for the child. But once the child was taken, David’s mourning ended. David’s servants were surprised to hear this. They said to King David, “What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” David’s response was, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” David’s response indicates that those who cannot believe are safe in the Lord. David said that he could go to the child but could not bring the child back to him. Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted by this knowledge. In other words, David seemed to be saying that he would see his baby son (in heaven), though he could not bring him back.

So children too young to understand will most likely go to heaven (although this interpretation could be completely wrong) so having them die would save them from what Jesus says in Matthew 15. if you read on: He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

[Orange Wizard]

but like

jesus said that y'all are hypocrites for not killing children if they don't like their parents (Matthew 15)

No, he said the Jewish leaders were hypocrites. Christians aren't expected to kill their children, that would be contrary to the whole "do good to everyone" thing.

[Frumple]

@rpg ... I didn't say "killing someone to prevent someone from doing something is the worst thing ever", I said it's "about as unconscionable an act as you can perform", with some added vulgarity. The key difference is the former is implying exclusivity, the latter most definitely isn't. There's plenty of acts that are just as bad. Though yes, killing someone because you've decided they're going to do bad shit in the future is all kinds of messed up. Because, full stop, you're killing someone that has done nothing. Foreknowledge (well, claimed, anyway) does not excuse that. Do, y'know, just about anything else if you really think they're irreversibly going to do whatever it is you think they are.

As for scale, it kinda' doesn't bloody matter. Regardless of how much other time is available, doing worse in a particular timeframe than you could -- and let's be completely straight up, even if you're still going to kill someone you can stop shit like ripping apart pregnant women -- is still a big deal, especially when you've got as much presumed capability as the friggin' divine. Eternity doesn't make the sins of a moment magically disappear, and you can't claim a thing does out of love acts significantly worse than they could have. You may be able to reconcile love with harshness, but you cannot reconcile it with cruelty. Any least not any kind of sane love. _{Though, mind, if you want to make the argument that the entity described as the christian god is bloody insane, I'd be pretty easy to convince -- the displayed behaviors definitely fit more than one type of mental illness.}

As for the argument that the god in question can only do so much... bugger can drown pretty much the entire bloody human species, according to the texts. I'm pretty sure with that kind of capability it could instead put someone in a box and feed them until they die of natural causes instead of murdering their firstborn or whatever the hell atrocity is being considered. It's not a matter of "via any means", it's a matter of "via means at least as impressive as attributed acts". Blame the text itself that those attributed acts covers quite a lot.

[Loud Whispers]

You're going to have a bloody hard time convincing me unborn infants, toddlers, preteens, etc., are evil.

Do you really want to be convinced? I'll warrant there's not a lot of homicidal fetuses, but never place your faith in man

[Rolepgeek]

Killing is not a punishment. It is not acceptable for revenge, it is not excusable as just desserts, it is not a matter of righting a wrong with death. It is for prevention, deterrence, and last resort. That's it. It must be both a last resort, and either prevention of a terrible action or deterrence in response to a terrible action. Occasionally it can be a mercy. But 'they did something' is not an excuse for killing someone, and as such is not the only reason for it being necessary. If you genuinely 100% believe that death is the only means to prevent it, that's what I'm talking about. But to a God for whom death is a transition of your soul, and a burden to your loved ones? It is a very different story.

The idea of there being concrete, irrevocable sins is a very christian idea. Consider: The only true 'evil' is anguish, physical, mental, emotional. All else is evil because it leads to that. If, in the timescale of eternity, 'life' is negligible, ending it an even more negligible amount sooner is less significant, because it is a relatively smaller act. What you're saying right now is because God isn't perfect, that he obviously can't love us, and it's cruel. To which I respond; why aren't you doing everything in your power to make as much money as possible to make more money in order to donate to charity? How can you consider yourself anything but cruel for not doing so? What, it's tiring? Too bad. People are suffering, and you can save lives with as little as $800 a pop if you're smart about it.

Sane love has boundaries. And that's before getting to truisms like 'it is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it', except replace war with 'sin'.

And...

As for the argument that the god in question can only do so much... bugger can drown pretty much the entire bloody human species, according to the texts. I'm pretty sure with that kind of capability it could instead put someone in a box and feed them until they die of natural causes instead of murdering their firstborn or whatever the hell atrocity is being considered. It's not a matter of "via any means", it's a matter of "via means at least as impressive as attributed acts". Blame the text itself that those attributed acts covers quite a lot.

HOW THE FUCK IS THAT ANY BETTER? 'oh, you know, rather than kill this infant, whose soul will go instantaneously to heaven, in order to try and get your consciousness to be useful, let's kidnap you and isolate you from all stimuli save basic sustenance until you grow old and die'. The hell, dude. Torture is fucked up, which is why I would refuse to worship any god who abided by it. Permanent purgatory I could accept.

And what does the impressiveness have to do with it? Seriously I'm confused here as to what you were trying to convey. Can you explain that bit again?

[Chevaleresse]

While I agree that torture is pretty bad, the logical conclusion to the "dead babies go to heaven" school of thought is that the best way to ensure everyone goes to heaven is to murder them in the womb before they have a chance to sin. I don't believe that's the intended lesson of the bible, nor do I mean to imply that's what you were trying to point out, but my point remains. Logically following that conclusion and the idea that the keys to getting into Heaven are faith and occasionally (depending on the particular branch of Christianity) good deeds, I should immediately drop what I'm doing and try to get as many fetuses aborted as possible, so that I'm doing a good deed and I, too, can go to Heaven. This would even result in my early death, meaning I'd get to go to Heaven even sooner.

Obviously this would be the work of a psychopath, but with my (admittedly middling to poor) knowledge of the Bible the only contradiction to it I can find is violation of the whole "thou shalt not kill" bit.