religion and faith (also long)

[Davidius]

This is partly in response to the post made earlier about the crisis of faith that a person was having and partly to state what I believe. I have spent a great deal of time pondering such faith-challenging questions. I also feel very good about the answers I have to most of these difficult questions. However, what I have come to understand after reading the Gospels over and over again is that the true follower of Christ is defined not as a person who has all of their theological ducks in a row, so to speak, but rather a person who is living an authentic, compassionate, and responsible life. Jesus himself said that his true followers were the ones who do the will of the Father. One need look no further than the parable of the sheep and goats found in Matthew 25:31-46.

As for religion itself, I believe that it certainly does have meaning and value. It provides answers to "why" questions that science will never be able to answer. Why is there a universe? How did something so complex as the human body/mind come to be? How are we to understand miracles? What should I think about other people's spiritual experiences and my own? Why do we feel bad when we make a selfish decision, but feel good when we act kindly? These are the kinds of perennial questions that science does not have an answer to, and probably will never have an answer to. Not only that, but religion gives people a sense of meaning and context to people's lives. It fills the void that empty materialism cannot fill. It's comforting to believe in a just God that will figure everything out in the end. It's comforting to know that you are unconditionally loved by someone. It brings peace to the mind to be able to pray for strength when troubling times come upon you. It also offers hope that there is life after death, and that we can have eternal happiness if we live our lives in accordance to the teachings of Christ. In any case, faith and beliefs are important... but not as important as who you are as a person. As a great professor of mine puts it: "the two most important questions a Christian should ask are: what is God up to in this world, and what ought I to do." That's all.

[pilliwinks]

Amen brother.

Now who will be first with the scorn and derision?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
It provides answers to "why" questions that science will never be able to answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is there a universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

what exactly is your answer to this?

[ QUOTE ]
How did something so complex as the human body/mind come to be?

[/ QUOTE ]

why can't science answer this?

..I woul like to say that just because something gives you "answers" to difficult questions..doesn't mean that it's worth while if the answers are false..although I suppose that acquiring true information is secondary to making yourself satisfied..

[madnak]

I think your view is fine. I also think it's inconsistent with Christianity.

See, here's the thing about Christianity. It doesn't matter what kind of life you've lived, if you don't accept Jesus as your savior you will go to hell where you'll be subjected to eternal torture.

That's the platform of Christianity, and attempts to reinvent it won't change that. You can say that hell is metaphorical and that "accepting Christ" happens on an emotional rather than an intellectual level, but you're distancing yourself dramatically from the bulk of Christians. Regardless, it's not a "be nice" religion. It's a religion that admits to following a wrathful, vengeful and jealous God. This isn't touchy-feely, it's not "live a compassionate life and it's all good." It's original sin. It's raze the town, kill the men, take the women as slaves. It's obey or be punished.

That's Christianity, and no amount of apologetics is going to make it go away.

[Davidius]

I appreciate your comments and thank you for replying. My point was merely that religion, as a social construct, plays a role in many people's lives that science will never be able to. Actually, it plays a far more important one, in my own opinion. But that's just me. I love science, but it doesn't do much for me, in terms of hope and meaning-making. As for the search for truth, I find it hard for a person to ever prove with substancial evidence the answers to most of the questions I asked. Having read the Bible, it seems obvious that Jesus was more concerned with the way people behaved towards others than laying down a perfect theological construct. Hope this helps address your points...

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the search for truth, I find it hard for a person to ever prove with substancial evidence the answers to most of the questions I asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
How did something so complex as the human body/mind come to be?

[/ QUOTE ]

science has a pretty good explaination for this one..

and if you are going to say that it is not sufficient...

I doubt that christianity has more evidence that it's explaination is correct.

[ QUOTE ]
I love science, but it doesn't do much for me, in terms of hope and meaning-making.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will say one again that although it may give you "hope" and "meaning"...that does not offer this religion any credibility...

I simply wish that people could gain more satisfaction from believing what is true..rather than what they wish were true..

anyone who is not capable doing that is better off being religious I suppose

[Davidius]

As a student getting a doctorate in clinical psychology, I know that the study of the human mind has posed more questions than answers. But all of that aside, I would like to know what your idea of the "good life" is, since to me this is the most important issue for a human being. Just curious.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your view is fine. I also think it's inconsistent with Christianity.

See, here's the thing about Christianity. It doesn't matter what kind of life you've lived, if you don't accept Jesus as your savior you will go to hell where you'll be subjected to eternal torture.

That's the platform of Christianity, and attempts to reinvent it won't change that. You can say that hell is metaphorical and that "accepting Christ" happens on an emotional rather than an intellectual level, but you're distancing yourself dramatically from the bulk of Christians. Regardless, it's not a "be nice" religion. It's a religion that admits to following a wrathful, vengeful and jealous God. This isn't touchy-feely, it's not "live a compassionate life and it's all good." It's original sin. It's raze the town, kill the men, take the women as slaves. It's obey or be punished.

That's Christianity, and no amount of apologetics is going to make it go away.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a beautiful religion. It really gets me to want to jump on the band wagon! Say no more, you may spoil it! LOL

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your view is fine. I also think it's inconsistent with Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps inconsistent with medieval Christianity. Not remotely incompatible with the kind that gets shared around at our church.

I accept that having a jealous and vengeful God is not peaches and cream new agey. But you're leaving out the other side: the God who is love. Not occasionally has a burst of love in between angry spells. Is love.

So if he really is love, and he tells you that some actions are going to be very bad for you, you do well to avoid them. That's all. It doesn't make him mean or domineering, it just means he has a better idea than you do about what is good for you. If you are a parent you probably understand how this works, if not, I can see how it might appear contradictory.

And if he recommends you live the kind of life Davidious described, then you do well to have a go.

BTW it's not quite right that "It doesn't matter what kind of life you've lived". Jesus tells a very pointed story about two sons asked to do some work for dad. One says sure, then goofs off, and the other says get lost, but ends up going and doing it anyway. Moral: you show what you really believe by what you do.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
But you're leaving out the other side

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah! there are two sides to god, the good and the bad?! That must make the bad alright!

[pilliwinks]

Well, if I believed that I would be a Manichean, I think.

The two sides to God are not good and bad, but loving and just. And yes, the love does make it easier to handle the justice.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your view is fine. I also think it's inconsistent with Christianity.

See, here's the thing about Christianity. It doesn't matter what kind of life you've lived, if you don't accept Jesus as your savior you will go to hell where you'll be subjected to eternal torture.

That's the platform of Christianity, and attempts to reinvent it won't change that. You can say that hell is metaphorical and that "accepting Christ" happens on an emotional rather than an intellectual level, but you're distancing yourself dramatically from the bulk of Christians. Regardless, it's not a "be nice" religion. It's a religion that admits to following a wrathful, vengeful and jealous God. This isn't touchy-feely, it's not "live a compassionate life and it's all good." It's original sin. It's raze the town, kill the men, take the women as slaves. It's obey or be punished.

That's Christianity, and no amount of apologetics is going to make it go away.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is nothing like Christianity. Christianity is based upon the teachings of Christ. If you think Christ's teachings include "raze the town, kill the men, take the women" you really should study up on the foundations of the religion before you make such claims.

There will always be people who distort the truth of a religion such as Christianity for their own gain (be it monetary, power, control, whatever). You seem to be looking at all of these people who associate themselves with Christianity, and regardless of their actions (and whether or not they are in line with Christ's teachings), saying "look, this is how Christianity is!" These people will always exist in any group, both religious and secular. Looking at the actions or beliefs of a few ignorant people who claim they are Christian (whether they are or not) is a really poor way of judging the religion.

[madnak]

I don't believe jealousy or vengeance can coexist with justice. And I think the idea of hell is anathema to that of justice.

[madnak]

Christianity is based upon the teachings of the Bible. You can't cherry-pick the words of the Lord thy God. You get love thy neighbor, but you also get fire and brimstone.

[Davidius]

I'm wondering how familiar you are with the actual words of the gospel, and whether you have done the work to understand those words in their proper context. It's easy to make fun of something you don't know anything about, but intellectual honesty actually takes work.

[madnak]

"Proper context?" That's absurd. This is supervillain stuff we're talking about, it's not excusable based on context. You can attempt to rationalize any example I give,but it doesn't change certain bare facts. There are so many thousands of example it'd be hard to rationalize them all in one lifetime, regardless. I guess you don't remember Sodom and Gomorrah, Job, the flood, or the Egyptian curses? I guess you'll claim hell is "allegorical" or some [censored]? Heh, God has a personal torture room where the most horrible things imaginable happen, and he's still omnibenevolent. Twist yourself up all you want, the organization you're pushing is malicious and brutal by nature.

Then there are the laws of Moses, really merciful huh? This is what you're allowed to do with your slaves. "They lived in a different time," right. It's okay for the supreme being to encourage slavery because they had a different culture. And the punishments for breaking the commandments. Woo boy! Real omnibenevolent.

But this is just scratching the surface. There's so much murder, slavery, and genocide in the Bible it's difficult to even get started. So many atrocities, how do you choose the worst of them? There's virtually no horrible thing God doesn't encourage explicitly by His word. He even openly admits to being jealous and spiteful! And it's hard to say, in the various military campaigns ordered by God, whether it's worse when He orders everyone slaughtered, including women and infants, or whether He orders only the men slaughtered and the women and infants taken as slaves.

If a human were to commit any one of these acts, he'd be reviled for all history. He wouldn't even get a chance, most Christians wouldn't begin to consider him as anything other than a villain. Hitler wouldn't begin to compare. Yet, when a being purporting to be perfect, omniscient and omnibenevolent commits not one but all of these acts, when by any exercise of reason such a being should be reviled orders of magnitude more than any human being possibly could, you expect people - not just to tolerate, accept, or forgive Him - but to actually worship Him, devote their minds and bodies and hearts and souls to such a tyrant?

Play the wolf in sheep's clothing all you like. I'm not an idiot, I don't excuse genocide and murder and rape and slavery and all the horrors of existence combined because "He's a cool guy if you get to know Him." Christianity is a cult of pain and bloodlust, and Christians are generally not so good at turning the other cheek as they are at turning a blind eye to this fact.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is a cult of pain and bloodlust

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and interestingly to me, it is the only major religion I know of that has an instrument of torture as central symbol!

[Davidius]

from Matthew 5:43-48

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Is this what you are referring to?

[madnak]

What did I say about cherry-picking? It's clear this isn't going to go anywhere.

[Davidius]

What is cherry-picking, anyways? That passage reflects the very words of Christ himself. But if you would like an explanation of why judgment comes upon people who practice evil (i.e. the skinning of prisonsers who are still alive and parading them through the streets, while the towns-people laughed at them, as with Ninevah), I would think that it would be clear... given that you yourself live in a society that punishes murderers, thieves, etc.

[madnak]

Cherry-picking is using information from a source that's convenient to your position, but avoiding information from that same source that contradicts your position. In this context, since you consider the Bible to be holy writ you must take the entire pill. There is definitely some good in the Bible. It contains some of the greatest good and some of the greatest evil in all of human literature. The fact it contains good isn't an attack on my position, and I think your own quote presents the best and most-ironic example of this.

As a Christian your position is that the Bible itself is holy, that it's all good. If any part of it is thrown into question, the holiness of the entire work is indicted and therefore, at best, an external standard must be used to justify cherry-picking. This applies at a more basic level to the simple assertion that the Bible was written by men - how does one determine what's "manly" and what's "Godly?" An external standard must be introduced. However, for anyone who considers the Bible to be an accurate historical record, who believes the actions of God in the Bible are justified, or who believes that the moral lessons of the Bible (particularly of the Old Testament) are all valid this problem is compounded exponentially.

To your comment on punishment, in the first place I don't believe in it and in the second that particular punishment is neither just nor is it the worst atrocity to be found in the Bible. To be clear, the justice of the Bible includes not only cruel and unusual punishments such as this, but also punishments for crimes that hurt nobody (Lot's wife is the "safest" example because of controversy about victimless crimes), punishment delivered to the innocent family of the perpetrator (this is everywhere, Job's family, people in conquered lands, curses that pass through generations, death of the first-borns, on and on and on), punishment that goes waaaay beyond the crime (how about the 42 children who were killed for calling Elisha "bald-head"), and even systematic campaigns of "justice" with extensive collateral damage (the Egyptian curses and plagues delivered by God). In the real world, this kind of "justice" is called terrorism, and is completely illegal in the United States and most other countries.

It doesn't even approach the campaigns of Biblical conquerors and warlords, or the existence of hell. By any rational definition of justice an infinite punishment for a finite crime can't be valid.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, it's not a "be nice" religion.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'll preface this with the statement that I dont claim to be an expert in christianity. But, I was raised Catholic, went to a Catholic school and practiced when I was younger. Probably an agnostic theist now, in that I believe there is probably something else out there, but I think its absurd for anyone to claim knowledge of whatever it is.


But, I think this is wrong.


I mean, AT ITS CORE, christianity is a be-nice religion, and that was a very large part of Jesus' message. I mean, he talked about other stuff, but that was BIG part. The problem is that the people who have followed have made it very much a hollier than thou, I look down at thee, type thing. Which really blows.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
AT ITS CORE, christianity is a be-nice religion

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... At it's core it seems that eternal damnation befalls everyone not becoming christian, or accepting christianity, and that is on top of the suffering experienced in life. We definitely have different ideas of the meaning of "nice" religion.

I have never understood truly the psychological mechanism that make some people seemingly totally unaware or in denial of their beiefs.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I have never understood truly the psychological mechanism that make some people seemingly totally unaware or in denial of their beiefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know just how much you want to jump down the throat of a Christian, but IF YOU READ MY POST you would learn that this comment shouldnt be directed at me. Im about as Christian as you are.



[ QUOTE ]
Umm... At it's core it seems that eternal damnation befalls everyone not becoming christian, or accepting christianity, and that is on top of the suffering experienced in life. We definitely have different ideas of the meaning of "nice" religion.

[/ QUOTE ]


Again, I dont know everything about christianity. But, I was under the impression that an absurdly large portion of the new testament is directed at being fair to others, and helping those in need.

Can someone with more knowledge than me chime in either way?



(I mean, I know the damnation stuff is part of the religion, but I was also under the impression that it was the people who followed for the psat 2k years who focused on that, and not Jesus.)

[Davidius]

Ah, okay. I'm glad that you wrote that last message, because now I see exactly what you are saying. Or, at least, I think I have a better idea. To be honest, there is a LOT of stuff in the Old Testament that bothers me. It's the same for a lot of Christians. I, too, have pondered the questions that you posed. Incidentally, I came to the conclusion a while back that the Bible cannot be perfect, given that it was written by people rather than God. But that is neither here nor there. On the one hand, Jesus teaches that God is a God of love. You have the prophets saying the same thing and teaching the importance of social justice. On the other hand, you have stories like the death of Lot's wife, the death of the kids who didn't seem to deserve it, ect., ect. (plenty of examples). If those things did indeed happen, then what is the deal with that? To be honest, I don't know. I'll own that. And those are important questions. What I have come to believe about the Bible (especially the teachings of Christ) is that each of us is responsible for our own lives... for taking care of ourselves and of others. We must use the power that we have for "doing unto others as we would have them do unto us." That's the main thrust of the Bible. Those teachings hold true for everyone, no matter what their historical context... and it's ingrained into our sense of right/wrong. In any case, I am sorry that I made the assumption that you did not know most of the Bible. I can see that you know many of the stories. As for your idea of hell, I suppose that depends on how you interpret the concept. If you believe that hell is a physical place that is really hot, then it seems cruel to punish someone for eternity in that way. If, however, you take the concept of fire and brimstone to be a metaphorical concept that denotes a place of suffering, then it may mean something different and may vary from person to person (depending on what they did). This, of course, would be more congruent with the idea of a just God. But, to be honest, I like to stick with the pragmatics. Do good, for the sake of being good. Wow, this post is getting long. That's all.

[madnak]

I can respect that. Sometimes in my hatred of Christianity I forget that I don't hate Christians, only their religion. I'll try to live a good life in my own way, but I don't think I'll ever be able to reconcile Christianity (or any organized religion) with that life.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I know just how much you want to jump down the throat of a Christian, but IF YOU READ MY POST you would learn that this comment shouldnt be directed at me. Im about as Christian as you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if I gave that impression. It was just an added comment to the thread and definitely not directed at you, except to seek comment. Could have made that clearer. Apologies!

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if I gave that impression. It was just an added comment to the thread and definitely not directed at you, except to seek comment. Could have made that clearer. Apologies!

[/ QUOTE ]


Ahh, honest mistake.




Also, David:


As a christian, what are your thoughts on the old testament? I thought it was, for the most part, just viewed as a story and really all that meaningful in terms of following the rules therein. Is this correct?


Also, I was alsways under the impression that the general gods in the bible were:

Old Testament: Wrathful, angry.
New Testament: forgiving, loving.


Now, obviously there are exceptions to both, but are these the general trends?

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, I was alsways under the impression that the general gods in the bible were:

Old Testament: Wrathful, angry.
New Testament: forgiving, loving.


Now, obviously there are exceptions to both, but are these the general trends?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its more like:

Old Testament: Wrathful, angry, sometimes merciful, and forgiving but without eternal hell and focused more on deeds than belief.

New Testament: forgiving, loving, with Jesus focused on deeds (and including unacted upon impulses as immoral!), prospect of the world ending soon & eternal hell. Then Paul includes salvation based on belief alone and that it doesn't really matter what you do.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
from Matthew 5:43-48

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Is this what you are referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the question you should be asking is Did Jesus really believe in the God of the Old Testament?

Joseph

[AJackson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
from Matthew 5:43-48

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Is this what you are referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the question you should be asking is Did Jesus really believe in the God of the Old Testament?


[/ QUOTE ]

An even better question is since God is a perfect entity, why the big change from an eye for a eye-stone to death your disobediant children-philosophy to a love your neighbor philosophy?

Did he change his mind?

[Peter666]

"But all of that aside, I would like to know what your idea of the "good life" is, since to me this is the most important issue for a human being. Just curious."

Superb question. This should be answered by all before making any attempts to subvert the opinions of others.

[Davidius]

Why thank you!

[pilliwinks]

I am no expert on the Old Testament, so I hesitate to even speculate on explanations for some of the events mentioned. Nonetheless, I think there are some general principles that relate to figuring out how the God of wrath is the same as the God of love.

It is a core christian belief that God is unchanging. Jesus certainly believed in the God of the old testament, and that he was the son of that same God. Jesus did not suggest that the old testament was flawed in itself, or factually incorrect, but he did very strongly criticise the interpretation of it.

One traditional interpretation had been that God demanded righteousness, that righteousness was defined by the laws of Moses, and that anyone (Jew or foreigner) who refused to follow these laws, fell legitimately under the wrath of God (who might delegate the smiting duties to them). Before all you Jews leap on me, I should say that this is a terrible perversion of the Jewish faith, nonetheless, I think it characerises some of the sects that Jesus criticises.

I think some claim christians also believe this, and there is no doubt that some church-folk have (the crusades and inquisition etc etc).

But what does Jesus say? Well, he says that all of the law and prophets (ie all the rules that were supposed to make you righteous) are summed up in "love God wholeheartedly" and "love your neighbour as yourself". Obviously, loving God includes doing what he recommends.

And when you don't? Here there a two points. Jesus is clear that we have no moral high ground from which to punish the wicked: let him who is without sin cast the first stone. It is also clear that God does have the moral high ground from which to punish (he doesn't sin and knows all the facts).

This is the point from which you can potentially reconcile the God of wrath with the God of love. He makes it clear that he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, rather he forgives and has mercy to the point that the 'righteous' start complaining (eg Jonah 4:1). Nonetheless, there comes a point at which he acts.

You can see these acts as unjustifiable if you wish, but on what basis? This is a God who knows the outcome of his action, or inaction. We cannot track the swirls of history that result from the death or sparing of an evil individual or nation, but he can. He also has eternal priorities: the death of Jesus is seen by him not as an appalling miscarriage of justice, but rather as an eternal triumph of sacrificial love. So if he is prepared to kill his own son for a higher purpose, do you think he should baulk at punishing the wicked? Or even killing the innocent, like Jesus, when there is a greater good to be gained?

Now you may say that there is no good to be gained by having bears attack taunting children, but how can you tell? In every case where events are clearly linked to the actions of God, people's lives are changed - not just those involved, but also those who hear later, even thousands of years later.

Obviously, I don't know either, what all the fallout from God's interventions has been. So I can't add it up for you and say: there, see it was for the best. What I can say is: I believe in a God who makes us and loves us. He wants us to prosper. Nonetheless, there are times when suffering is called for, and he will administer it. I am glad about that, though I don't pretend to understand why it has to happen in every case. This is not hard to understand if you ever went to the dentist before the advent of pain relief!

sorry, this turned out a bit longer than I expected...

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not hard to understand if you ever went to the dentist before the advent of pain relief!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I guess the pain was god's punishment then, or a slight oversight in the design.


Really?

[madnak]

This is just a dodge. In the first place, it assumes the end justifies the means. In the second, it's largely circular. You assume we can't judge God as part of your argument that we can't judge God. And in the third, this is just the argument that a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane. Maybe Hitler was actually a really nice guy, maybe the world is better for his contributions. We can't know! Maybe Hitler hated the things he did, because he really loved everyone, but he had a divine revelation that his atrocities were for the best. This is the argument you're making. Is it valid? It's theoretically sound, but not exactly convincing to anyone who doesn't take the divinity of the Christian God as a basic premise. Someone who claims Hitler was omnibenevolent would be standing on the same ground.

Finally and most importantly, it fails to take hell into consideration. While slaughter and slavery and genocide and rape might ultimately have positive effects, hell is eternal. It can't lead to something positive. There is no such eventuality. Hell proves that God values suffering inherently, and therefore is not loving, merciful, and omnibenevolent.

[pilliwinks]

I think we all agree that there are circumstances where unpleasant means are unavoidable to acheive worthy ends. The second world war being an obvious example. I do not condone killing, and regard 'justifications' of it as repugnant, nonetheless I would have fought in that war.

I don't think the argument is circular: I am saying that if you accept that God is who I say (omni3), one logical consequence is that you cannot convincingly question his actions. This is the message of the book of Job: Job says why do bad things happen to good people, and God says "I am God". I love that bit. It would be so reasonable for the writers to attribute some other motive to God (the greeks always did). But there is no fudge: either you accept that God is responsible (and trust that he has your interests at heart), or you deny that he is God.

I guess I wasn't trying to put forward a convincing argument for God's benevolence to those who don't believe in him. I was trying to explain to those who do believe in him, that bad things are not inconsistent with a loving God.

There are countless examples of God's grace and mercy through the bible and church history. These examples are sadly lacking from the history of Hitler, so it is harder to believe that he meant well. I never knew him, but I have heard that he was a sad twisted character. On the other hand I do know God, and I can vouch for his character.

It is interesting to hear that you think God values suffering. This is a popular theme in many faiths, and has cropped up from time to time in the church also. It does run counter to everything I have read in the bible, though (verses available on request!).

Hell clearly can lead to something positive, in the same way that all threats of dire consequences can - people make different choices if they know what the outcomes will be. Having said that, I tend to agree with those writers that portray heaven and hell as an eternalisation of our earthly relationship (or lack thereof) with God. In that sense it is not a punishment or threat, it is an inevitable consequence.

MidGe, I was looking for an example of unavoidable suffering in a good cause. Perhaps having injections is easier to make sense of? It is neither a punishment nor a mistake, but it can be really hard to explain to small children.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
But there is no fudge: either you accept that God is responsible (and trust that he has your interests at heart), or you deny that he is God.

[/ QUOTE ]

God's actions imply the second course is wiser.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I wasn't trying to put forward a convincing argument for God's benevolence to those who don't believe in him. I was trying to explain to those who do believe in him, that bad things are not inconsistent with a loving God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then it has no value at all for someone trying to determine whether to believe in an omni3 God.

[ QUOTE ]
Hell clearly can lead to something positive, in the same way that all threats of dire consequences can - people make different choices if they know what the outcomes will be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that the point of hell is to scare people into submission. I don't think that's a good thing.

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, I tend to agree with those writers that portray heaven and hell as an eternalisation of our earthly relationship (or lack thereof) with God. In that sense it is not a punishment or threat, it is an inevitable consequence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is directly fallacious for various reasons. The greatest of which is that God is omnipotent. The idea that God doesn't want anyone to go to hell, but what can He do? His hands are tied, it's the "inevitable" consequence. This idea is absurd. God makes the rules - nothing is "inevitable" except when He chooses for it to be. And God is capable by definition of offering redemption even in the afterlife, or simply destroying souls destined for hell rather than allowing them to be tortured eternally. Moreover, as God created our souls and the universe, and all the rules thereof, He is the sole architect of hell. Finally, as God is omnibenevolent, He can value nothing above suffering. Even if hell were somehow "just" (and that's not an idea I'd give any credit to except for the sake of argument), God would still stop it - because if He is truly omnibenevolent He must value compassion and mercy above justice. If He values justice above compassion, He's not omnibenevolent. His benevolence plays second fiddle to His sense of "justice."

[ QUOTE ]
MidGe, I was looking for an example of unavoidable suffering in a good cause. Perhaps having injections is easier to make sense of? It is neither a punishment nor a mistake, but it can be really hard to explain to small children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Injections have a clear positive effect on the child. The situation isn't analogous. The average parent would never sentence a child to eternal torture. Also in many cases God created extreme suffering in innocent people in order to secure an advantage for His "chosen" people. That's like telling your son he's going to be brutally dismembered, but that's okay because his brother is going to get all his stuff.

Numbers 31:17-18 - "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Some "medicine."

[MidGe]

Hiya pilliwinks,

[ QUOTE ]
MidGe, I was looking for an example of unavoidable suffering in a good cause. Perhaps having injections is easier to make sense of? It is neither a punishment nor a mistake, but it can be really hard to explain to small children

[/ QUOTE ]

That is missig the point. The parents dilemna is within the game presumably set by your god. The parent are not all-powerful and able to change the settings. You god, otoh, being all-powerful, could have set it up differently. Maybe is not all powerful, or at least has some severe imperfections or weaknesses.

For instance he could set the game so that ultimately everyone became a follower after many rebirths etc...or that everyone were condemned to relive till they get it right! It still would be megalomiac, to me, but less so than one strike (life) and you are out and damned!

[pilliwinks]

Looks like both of you think that being omnipotent means you can do anything /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Seriously, though, I think it was Aquinas who said that it was heretical to assert that the inability of God to do the impossible was a limitation on his omnipotence. The point being that orthodoxy not only accepted that God cannot do impossible things, they insisted on it.

The question then is not 'is God ever unable to do what he wants', but rather 'are we looking here at a situation where God's hands are tied'.

One obvious area where I believe God's hands tied relates to people's choices: God appears to normally allow us to make choices, including a choice to despise and reject him. If he allows that choice it is not clear to me how he is supposed to magically intervene and generate a loving eternal relationship. Your suggestion of do-overs until you choose right does not sound like choice to me!

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
it was heretical to assert that the inability of God to do the impossible was a limitation on his omnipotence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Say no more about your puny god. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
One obvious area where I believe God's hands tied relates to people's choices: God appears to normally allow us to make choices, including a choice to despise and reject him. If he allows that choice it is not clear to me how he is supposed to magically intervene and generate a loving eternal relationship. Your suggestion of do-overs until you choose right does not sound like choice to me!

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said... one strike and you are out, or condemned to this miserable existence until you get it.. both megalomaniac, but of different degrees.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But there is no fudge: either you accept that God is responsible (and trust that he has your interests at heart), or you deny that he is God.

[/ QUOTE ]

God's actions imply the second course is wiser.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry you think so. I take it you are unmoved by the ceaseless efforts of God to get us on the right track.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess I wasn't trying to put forward a convincing argument for God's benevolence to those who don't believe in him. I was trying to explain to those who do believe in him, that bad things are not inconsistent with a loving God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then it has no value at all for someone trying to determine whether to believe in an omni3 God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite so. Unless they are only prevented from doing so by a belief that an omni3 God cannot allow suffering. That would be a new one to me! Plenty of people claim a bunch of things prevent them from believing but my experience suggests that pride is the main barrier (was for me!).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hell clearly can lead to something positive, in the same way that all threats of dire consequences can - people make different choices if they know what the outcomes will be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that the point of hell is to scare people into submission. I don't think that's a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say the point of hell is to intimidate, since it can only scare those who already believe, and so are at no risk of it (I agree that this was not always appreciated by the church, but the bible is pretty clear onthe topic). The point was just that there can be good outcomes from undesirable suffering.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In that sense it is not a punishment or threat, it is an inevitable consequence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This idea is absurd. God makes the rules - nothing is "inevitable" except when He chooses for it to be. And God is capable by definition of offering redemption even in the afterlife, or simply destroying souls destined for hell rather than allowing them to be tortured eternally. Moreover, as God created our souls and the universe, and all the rules thereof, He is the sole architect of hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I mentioned to MidGe, there are limitations to God's omnipotence. Nonetheless, I think it is a fair question why God does not redeem everyone. Plenty of Christians think he does. There are passages that support this interpretation of the resurrection (once for all, and reference to Adam's fall being universal, and Jesus' death being the reverse). Nonetheless, my personal opinion is that this is not what was meant. There is plenty of emphasis on the importance of choice, and the results of that choice. I can't tell you why the results of bad choices has to be so bad, but nor can I tell you why we should be entitled to such disproportionate rewards for good choices.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, as God is omnibenevolent, He can value nothing above suffering. Even if hell were somehow "just" (and that's not an idea I'd give any credit to except for the sake of argument), God would still stop it - because if He is truly omnibenevolent He must value compassion and mercy above justice. If He values justice above compassion, He's not omnibenevolent. His benevolence plays second fiddle to His sense of "justice."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think God is omnibenevolent in the sense of being nice even if it has horrible outcomes. Clearly, mercy and justice are in tension. There are so many cases where God does not bring about the consequences that he has warned people about, that I don't accept that benevolence plays second fiddle to justice. Both are priorities, though.

[ QUOTE ]
Also in many cases God created extreme suffering in innocent people in order to secure an advantage for His "chosen" people. That's like telling your son he's going to be brutally dismembered, but that's okay because his brother is going to get all his stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I'd say the crucifixion was extreme suffering of the innocent, for the sake of the chosen. And God did indeed tell his son that he was to be brutally dismembered and his stuff given to his brothers. It is hard to believe that such an action was justified, but I do believe it, and thank God for it.

[ QUOTE ]
Numbers 31:17-18 - "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
Some "medicine."

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. Note that God was not partial, though: in chapter 25 you read "So Moses said to Israel's judges, "Each of you must put to death those of your men who have joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor"". The corruption of the Israelites led to drastic action first on them, then in chapter 31 on those doing the corrupting. I have no idea what the results of inaction would have been, but God had promised to look after his people, and letting them merge with the locals would probably not have been doing them favours, judging by subsequent such mergers!

Having said that, I don't claim to be able to justify the action. I do claim that it is consistent with the nature of a loving God to kill people. And that we are not always going to know why it had to happen, though in some cases like Jesus, we are told.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
Say no more about your puny god. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Roger that. No more references to impotent omnipotence.

[ QUOTE ]
As I said... one strike and you are out, or condemned to this miserable existence until you get it.. both megalomaniac, but of different degrees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think you can be 'out', but I think you get as many swings as you like, and have to want to be out. I don't think it happens by accident!

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry you think so. I take it you are unmoved by the ceaseless efforts of God to get us on the right track.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see no such efforts. If I assume the Bible is true, then the greatest of God's "efforts" was torturing His own son to death. That's not exactly persuasive to me. We don't even get miracles any more, and don't give me the "every sunset is a miracle" [censored], you know what I mean. Some of the apostles demanded hard evidence before they believed, and yet those in the modern world who have similar reservations are on the fast track to the Devil's playground.

[ QUOTE ]
Quite so. Unless they are only prevented from doing so by a belief that an omni3 God cannot allow suffering. That would be a new one to me! Plenty of people claim a bunch of things prevent them from believing but my experience suggests that pride is the main barrier (was for me!).

[/ QUOTE ]

If self-respect counts as "pride," then I agree with you.

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't say the point of hell is to intimidate, since it can only scare those who already believe, and so are at no risk of it (I agree that this was not always appreciated by the church, but the bible is pretty clear onthe topic). The point was just that there can be good outcomes from undesirable suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

If hell only affects those who believe and are therefore immune from it, what good outcomes does it have? In any case, there are no good outcomes for those who are subjected to the suffering.

[ QUOTE ]
As I mentioned to MidGe, there are limitations to God's omnipotence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are these limitations arbitrary? Is what God can and can't do limited to what's convenient for your arguments? Did He create us or not? Did He create the universe or not?

[ QUOTE ]
Nonetheless, my personal opinion is that this is not what was meant. There is plenty of emphasis on the importance of choice, and the results of that choice. I can't tell you why the results of bad choices has to be so bad, but nor can I tell you why we should be entitled to such disproportionate rewards for good choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a bad joke. If God created us, how are our choices independent from Him? But it's more than that. People don't make mistakes because they're horrible and evil, more often because they're confused and desperate. Even those who are cruel and sadistic would look, from God's perspective, like schoolyard bullies. And most "evildoers" would simply be children who took a cookie from the jar when they thought Dad wasn't looking. And the nonbelievers are merely stubborn. For this they receive eternal damnation!

You can't explain why it "has to" be so bad? That's all you can say? That's not good enough for me. To me this is unimaginably horrible. If the Christian God were a God of balance, with equal parts cruelty and compassion, heaven might mitigate it (although God would be far from even-handed even then). But for an omnibenevolent God the existence of heaven is irrelevant to the problem. Heaven is to be expected from a compassionate creator, "disproportionate rewards" only make sense. But disproportionate punishments, from a being that is meant to be the embodiment of compassion? That doesn't make any sense at all.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think God is omnibenevolent in the sense of being nice even if it has horrible outcomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

God controls the outcomes.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, mercy and justice are in tension.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but even in these cases I fail to see how an infinite punishment for a finite crime can ever be considered "just" in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
There are so many cases where God does not bring about the consequences that he has warned people about, that I don't accept that benevolence plays second fiddle to justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't follow you. God threatens a punishment He has no intention of inflicting. To me that's not an indication of mercy, that's simply a lie. God is omniscient; when He makes the warning He knows full well that He won't follow through on it. Perhaps the lie has a higher purpose, but I don't see how it indicates mercy.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. I'd say the crucifixion was extreme suffering of the innocent, for the sake of the chosen. And God did indeed tell his son that he was to be brutally dismembered and his stuff given to his brothers. It is hard to believe that such an action was justified, but I do believe it, and thank God for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not analogous. Jesus made the choice to do this, and He has the reward of heaven. However, I agree with you that the entire situation is hard to justify. How, by brutally torturing His favored Son, did God help anyone? That's a real stretch. Redemption through brutality? Makes no sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. Note that God was not partial, though: in chapter 25 you read "So Moses said to Israel's judges, "Each of you must put to death those of your men who have joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor"".

[/ QUOTE ]

And their children and wives as well? And give their daughters into slavery?

[ QUOTE ]
The corruption of the Israelites led to drastic action first on them, then in chapter 31 on those doing the corrupting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, those babies were full of corruption.

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what the results of inaction would have been, but God had promised to look after his people, and letting them merge with the locals would probably not have been doing them favours, judging by subsequent such mergers!

[/ QUOTE ]

A weak justification for mass infanticide and child slavery.

[ QUOTE ]
And that we are not always going to know why it had to happen, though in some cases like Jesus, we are told.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes. Though God appears to be a horrible tyrant, I'm supposed to bow down and worship Him under the assumption that really He's a nice guy. Why is that, again?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I think you can be 'out', but I think you get as many swings as you like, and have to want to be out. I don't think it happens by accident!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you believe in reincarnation? I don't understand how this idea is compatible with what you're saying. Also, you'd have to be pretty incompetent to miss the ball on each of 1 quadrillion swings. Are you trying to suggest that hell is a conscious choice? If God gave me a scrap of paper with two checkboxes on it, one marked "Paradise" and one marked "Eternal Damnation," I would check the "Eternal Damnation" box?

[pilliwinks]

No, I don't believe in reincarnation, but I think you have plenty of opportunities to reconsider your decisions in the one life you do have.

Yes, I think hell is a conscious choice. Plenty of people would take Faust's deal. Even without the bonuses on offer, people prefer being boss now, and not worry about later.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, I think you can be 'out', but I think you get as many swings as you like, and have to want to be out. I don't think it happens by accident!

[/ QUOTE ]

But life is limited, I may not be able to get the number of swings I need to get out. I haven't to-date... lol

I was talking about benevolence.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I think hell is a conscious choice. Plenty of people would take Faust's deal. Even without the bonuses on offer, people prefer being boss now, and not worry about later.

[/ QUOTE ]
I assume you wouldn't take the pact, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't and I suspect Midge wouldn't. Many would.

Does that make us better than them? presumably they see the world differenty to us and it makes sense for them to take the pact in the same way it makes sense for us to reject it. That's our nature and our nature is a gift from god if you will excuse the expression /images/graemlins/smile.gif

A benevolent god will not punish us for eternity for acting during a short life according to our god given nature, even if we are mistaken.

chez

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I take it you are unmoved by the ceaseless efforts of God to get us on the right track.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see no such efforts. If I assume the Bible is true, then the greatest of God's "efforts" was torturing His own son to death. That's not exactly persuasive to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I recommend you reread! All the prophets and apostles spent their lives trying to get the message across, under God's direction. Countless times God sends the message: "all you need to do is trust me". Then he sends Jesus, and plenty of miracles later, folk still won't accept the message. I can understand why the death of Jesus is unpursuasive (Paul agrees with you!) - it is the resurrection of Jesus that is pursuasive. It is the ultimate demonstration that all you need to do is trust God.

[ QUOTE ]
We don't even get miracles any more... Some of the apostles demanded hard evidence before they believed, and yet those in the modern world who have similar reservations are on the fast track to the Devil's playground.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the question is: what evidence would you accept? Plenty of folk saw miracles and did nothing. I think God is aware of their limitations!

We are not omniscient, so we can expect some of the things God does to look strange (he sees outcomes we don't). Consequently, we need to be able to trust him. That is the bottom line. Miracles are helpful for some, but many would put their hand in Jesus side and still not trust him. God clearly understands the difficulties of those who have limited evidence of his faithfulness (John 20:29), but at the same time, today we have unprecendented levels of access to the testimony of those who have personally experienced God. So it is hard to make excueses.

[ QUOTE ]
Plenty of people claim a bunch of things prevent them from believing but my experience suggests that pride is the main barrier (was for me!).

[/ QUOTE ]

If self-respect counts as "pride," then I agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think have no shortage of self-respect. The question is, how much respect for others do you have? And how much for God? If you come first every time, I think it's clear where the problem lies.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say the point of hell is to intimidate, since it can only scare those who already believe, and so are at no risk of it (I agree that this was not always appreciated by the church, but the bible is pretty clear onthe topic). The point was just that there can be good outcomes from undesirable suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

If hell only affects those who believe and are therefore immune from it, what good outcomes does it have? In any case, there are no good outcomes for those who are subjected to the suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

The good outcome is that it motivates believers to get off their self-satisfied butts and pass on the good news. I didn't mean hell only affects believers, I meant it is not scary to unbelievers, for the fairly obvious reason that they don't believe in it! I agree that there is no good outcome for those affected. At the risk of sounding trite, I could say there is no good outcome from smoking, either, except that you serve as a warning to others.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I mentioned to MidGe, there are limitations to God's omnipotence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are these limitations arbitrary? Is what God can and can't do limited to what's convenient for your arguments? Did He create us or not? Did He create the universe or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair questions, to which I don't have answers, I'm afraid. I am not sure what the limitations are to God's omnipotence, except to say that he cannot make 1+1=3, and that he cannot deny his own nature, and a few other unhelpful logical statements. What I can say is that I understand that there are such things as competing goods, and that being omnipotent does not obviously take that away. You may want everyone to be both free and safe, for example, but I don't know how you'd do it (assuming they are real people and you leave them choices).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nonetheless, my personal opinion is that this is not what was meant. There is plenty of emphasis on the importance of choice, and the results of that choice. I can't tell you why the results of bad choices has to be so bad, but nor can I tell you why we should be entitled to such disproportionate rewards for good choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a bad joke. If God created us, how are our choices independent from Him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there are some christians who feel that they aren't and that he decided long ago who would choose wisely and who foolishly. Personally I think that is a misreading - God has certainly known forever who would choose foolishly, but the bible is clear that God gives us a choice for which we are responsible. You can claim that there are many (all?) whose choice is constrained by their experience, but the point is that God knows your experience, and your response to it. And he does the judging, not us.

[ QUOTE ]
But it's more than that. People don't make mistakes because they're horrible and evil, more often because they're confused and desperate. Even those who are cruel and sadistic would look, from God's perspective, like schoolyard bullies. And most "evildoers" would simply be children who took a cookie from the jar when they thought Dad wasn't looking. And the nonbelievers are merely stubborn. For this they receive eternal damnation!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that many of the behaviours we condemn probably look minor from God's perspective. I certainly hope so. God does not condemn sinners, evildoers, bullies, the desperate or confused, or even the horrible. Neither does he find them eternally acceptable in their current state. So he tries to save them by every possible means. In my humble opinion, the axe murderer has as much of God's sympathy as I do, probably more (read the parable of the lost sheep again!).

[ QUOTE ]
You can't explain why it "has to" be so bad? That's all you can say? That's not good enough for me. To me this is unimaginably horrible. If the Christian God were a God of balance, with equal parts cruelty and compassion, heaven might mitigate it (although God would be far from even-handed even then). But for an omnibenevolent God the existence of heaven is irrelevant to the problem. Heaven is to be expected from a compassionate creator, "disproportionate rewards" only make sense. But disproportionate punishments, from a being that is meant to be the embodiment of compassion? That doesn't make any sense at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are fine points, and well made, but they are made from a position of (unavoidable) ignorance. We simply do not know what the constraints of eternity are. It may be that hellfire is just a poetic way of describing an eternity of selfishness and isolation, or it may be that hell is just a boogie man to motivate the weak and that God would never actually do it, or it may be that it is eternal agony, made inevitable by direct exposure to God (think of the Total Perspective Vortex in the Hitchhikers Guide), or any number of other alternatives. It would be nice if God had explained why there is undesired punishment for the wicked, but I think his main audience at the time were shocked that the punishment should be undesired, and were repulsed by the notion that God actually wants to save everybody! Plenty of people today have trouble with a God who lets in a repentant <insert victimised minority here>.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think God is omnibenevolent in the sense of being nice even if it has horrible outcomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

God controls the outcomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. God knows the outcomes, but lets us choose.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, mercy and justice are in tension.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but even in these cases I fail to see how an infinite punishment for a finite crime can ever be considered "just" in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps that's like asking why you should be punished for the rest of your life for the puny sin of not brushing your teeth. The rot and pain are not punishments per se, they are consequences. It is not 'fair' or 'unfair'.

[ QUOTE ]
There are so many cases where God does not bring about the consequences that he has warned people about, that I don't accept that benevolence plays second fiddle to justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't follow you. God threatens a punishment He has no intention of inflicting. To me that's not an indication of mercy, that's simply a lie. God is omniscient; when He makes the warning He knows full well that He won't follow through on it. Perhaps the lie has a higher purpose, but I don't see how it indicates mercy.

[/ QUOTE ]

God makes the threat knowing that people have the choice to respond or not. He knows when he makes the threat that they will respond well. So he makes the threat. Seems logical to me. It is not a lie - they had a choice, and if they had made a poor one, from the evidence of the Bible, he would certainly have done the smiting.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. I'd say the crucifixion was extreme suffering of the innocent, for the sake of the chosen. And God did indeed tell his son that he was to be brutally dismembered and his stuff given to his brothers. It is hard to believe that such an action was justified, but I do believe it, and thank God for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not analogous. Jesus made the choice to do this, and He has the reward of heaven. However, I agree with you that the entire situation is hard to justify. How, by brutally torturing His favored Son, did God help anyone? That's a real stretch. Redemption through brutality? Makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite so. The redemption does not come from the brutality (which was the choice of some angry locals). The redemption is a free gift from God. It comes with the resurrection, which is why we celebrate Easter, and only commemorate Good Friday. His death helps plenty of people, for loads of reasons, but primarily because it shows them that Jesus was who he said, that he did what he said, and that they can trust what he said. It appears that trust is hard to come by, as the prophets all attested!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. Note that God was not partial, though: in chapter 25 you read "So Moses said to Israel's judges, "Each of you must put to death those of your men who have joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor"".

[/ QUOTE ]

And their children and wives as well? And give their daughters into slavery?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, actually, on several occasions! As I said, I am no OT scholar, but I think you could argue that God was far harder on the Israelites than anyone else around.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The corruption of the Israelites led to drastic action first on them, then in chapter 31 on those doing the corrupting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, those babies were full of corruption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't you wish baby Hitler had been smitten? He sees the outcomes. We don't.

[ QUOTE ]
A weak justification for mass infanticide and child slavery.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure I'm wrong about the justification - I was just trying to point out that you and I cannot tell what is justified and what is not, because we, unlike him, are not omni3.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And that we are not always going to know why it had to happen, though in some cases like Jesus, we are told.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes. Though God appears to be a horrible tyrant, I'm supposed to bow down and worship Him under the assumption that really He's a nice guy. Why is that, again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he loves us. The bloke giving you a compulsory vaccination looks like a tyrant, but isn't. The dentist with a drill looks like a tyrant too. Every time we don't understand why we have to suffer, we are ready to blame someone, usually the perpetrator. There is such a thing as tough love, and it is much better than the squishy girly kind you see on TV.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I recommend you reread! All the prophets and apostles spent their lives trying to get the message across, under God's direction. Countless times God sends the message: "all you need to do is trust me". Then he sends Jesus, and plenty of miracles later, folk still won't accept the message.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's all irrelevent when it comes to believing in god. Only if you belive in god would you believe any of it is true.

All you've got is men repeatedly invoking some god concept to propogate their religon, and we already believed in religon.

chez

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I don't believe in reincarnation, but I think you have plenty of opportunities to reconsider your decisions in the one life you do have.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Plenty" isn't "as many as you like." Life is pretty fleeting, especially for those who die young.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I think hell is a conscious choice. Plenty of people would take Faust's deal. Even without the bonuses on offer, people prefer being boss now, and not worry about later.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you think this describes every unbeliever?

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I don't believe in reincarnation, but I think you have plenty of opportunities to reconsider your decisions in the one life you do have.

Yes, I think hell is a conscious choice. Plenty of people would take Faust's deal. Even without the bonuses on offer, people prefer being boss now, and not worry about later.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it that you were born into a christian family and became saved at an early age?

If the choice was really clear, that is an ACTUAL choice, instead of many confusing signs pointing different directions then there would be only one religion.

To assume that so many people make a choice that ultimately results in eternal agony forever, while actually knowing the outcome of their decision is simply to assume that that the vast majority of the world are totally insane.

And is corporal punishment really justice for decisions made while insane?

Think about it this way, if people really knew that they were choosing hell by not following christianity then at the very least, even considering people's desire for what is considered sin, everybody would become saved in their old age, or when they knew they had a life threatening disease. But this simply doesn't happen.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I recommend you reread! All the prophets and apostles spent their lives trying to get the message across, under God's direction. Countless times God sends the message: "all you need to do is trust me". Then he sends Jesus, and plenty of miracles later, folk still won't accept the message. I can understand why the death of Jesus is unpursuasive (Paul agrees with you!) - it is the resurrection of Jesus that is pursuasive. It is the ultimate demonstration that all you need to do is trust God.

[/ QUOTE ]

My trust is earned, not given freely. If Satan said "just trust me," would you do it?

[ QUOTE ]
I think the question is: what evidence would you accept?

[/ QUOTE ]

A miracle would be a start. I would put a great deal of effort into finding God if I experienced a personal vision or miracle. To be fair, I'd say meet me halfway, but at least throw me a bone. And no, human beings preaching on the subject don't qualify in my opinion. Particularly not if they can't distinguish themselves in some qualitative way from those of other religions.

[ QUOTE ]
We are not omniscient, so we can expect some of the things God does to look strange (he sees outcomes we don't). Consequently, we need to be able to trust him. That is the bottom line. Miracles are helpful for some, but many would put their hand in Jesus side and still not trust him. God clearly understands the difficulties of those who have limited evidence of his faithfulness (John 20:29), but at the same time, today we have unprecendented levels of access to the testimony of those who have personally experienced God. So it is hard to make excueses.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have unprecedented levels of access to the testimony of those who have personally experienced the Gods of other faiths as well. But a Buddhist, who lives his life according to compassion and faith, goes to hell because he doesn't accept Jesus as his Lord and Saviour?

Again, it wouldn't make sense for me to trust a God who contradicts Himself. Even if He didn't, asking me to trust Him arbitrarily is asking quite a lot. But given the horrible things He's done, and the contradictory claims He's made, and the fact that He hasn't given me the personal experiences, I think trusting Him would be a perfect example of blindness, not faith.

[ QUOTE ]
I think have no shortage of self-respect. The question is, how much respect for others do you have? And how much for God? If you come first every time, I think it's clear where the problem lies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plenty for others. None for God. Like my trust, my respect is earned and not given freely. I have some respect for every human being, because my experience has given me "faith" in the human spirit and in the potential for courage and nobility in every person on this planet. I also know the struggles through which humans persevere, and it's almost impossible not to respect them knowing that. God has given me no such indicators, in fact he seems cruel and petty. In my experience, most human cruelty stems from weakness and insecurity and ignorance and fear - which mitigates it and makes it understandable. God is immune to such things, and so must be judged much more harshly.

[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of sounding trite, I could say there is no good outcome from smoking, either, except that you serve as a warning to others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if that's true, but if it is, smoking is a mistake. God doesn't make mistakes, does He?

[ QUOTE ]
What I can say is that I understand that there are such things as competing goods, and that being omnipotent does not obviously take that away. You may want everyone to be both free and safe, for example, but I don't know how you'd do it (assuming they are real people and you leave them choices).

[/ QUOTE ]

Cruel and unusual punishment wouldn't be a good place to start IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, there are some christians who feel that they aren't and that he decided long ago who would choose wisely and who foolishly. Personally I think that is a misreading - God has certainly known forever who would choose foolishly, but the bible is clear that God gives us a choice for which we are responsible. You can claim that there are many (all?) whose choice is constrained by their experience, but the point is that God knows your experience, and your response to it. And he does the judging, not us.

[/ QUOTE ]

So He created me, knowing that I would go to hell? And yet He has no accountability in the matter? Couldn't He have created me differently, or not at all?

[ QUOTE ]
In my humble opinion, the axe murderer has as much of God's sympathy as I do, probably more (read the parable of the lost sheep again!).

[/ QUOTE ]

He may have more of God's sympathy, but you're the one going to heaven. What happened to justice?

[ QUOTE ]
These are fine points, and well made, but they are made from a position of (unavoidable) ignorance. We simply do not know what the constraints of eternity are. It may be that hellfire is just a poetic way of describing an eternity of selfishness and isolation, or it may be that hell is just a boogie man to motivate the weak and that God would never actually do it, or it may be that it is eternal agony, made inevitable by direct exposure to God (think of the Total Perspective Vortex in the Hitchhikers Guide), or any number of other alternatives. It would be nice if God had explained why there is undesired punishment for the wicked, but I think his main audience at the time were shocked that the punishment should be undesired, and were repulsed by the notion that God actually wants to save everybody! Plenty of people today have trouble with a God who lets in a repentant <insert victimised minority here>.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the Word of God is just propaganda? Words meant, not to express truth, but only to manipulate us? Ironically, that's eminently preferable to me and may even be justifiable, however it throws everything in the Bible into question. What did God say because it's the immutable Truth, and what did He say simply to influence human action? Under such circumstances, it seems my poor atheist heart is a better moral compass than God.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, actually, on several occasions! As I said, I am no OT scholar, but I think you could argue that God was far harder on the Israelites than anyone else around.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Sodomites had it worse. Regardless, I don't see how this is meant to improve my image of God.

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't you wish baby Hitler had been smitten? He sees the outcomes. We don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I wouldn't. I thought Hitler was free to make his choices?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure I'm wrong about the justification - I was just trying to point out that you and I cannot tell what is justified and what is not, because we, unlike him, are not omni3.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you want me to believe that He's omni3. How is it unreasonable to demand an answering for such crimes before I accept someone as "omnibenevolent?" In fact, how can I reasonably believe God is omnibenevolent in any case given His actions? The reasonable conclusion here seems to be that God is not omni3.

[ QUOTE ]
Because he loves us. The bloke giving you a compulsory vaccination looks like a tyrant, but isn't. The dentist with a drill looks like a tyrant too. Every time we don't understand why we have to suffer, we are ready to blame someone, usually the perpetrator. There is such a thing as tough love, and it is much better than the squishy girly kind you see on TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I always liked going to the dentist. Call me crazy. But I don't recall the dentist torturing to death the kids who didn't. Hell, if memory serves, my dentist's response to fear and anger toward him was candy. He was a nice guy, he gave candy to kids after they went to see him. Even if they hated him. And never eternal torment. Maybe he was an evil dude; candy rots the teeth, after all. Better hell than that.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, I think hell is a conscious choice. Plenty of people would take Faust's deal. Even without the bonuses on offer, people prefer being boss now, and not worry about later.


[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you wouldn't take the pact, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't and I suspect Midge wouldn't. Many would.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your suspicions are entirely correct. In fact I go beyond that by saying that accepting god as love when it is obviously a travesty of it, evidenced by its cruelty, may very well be "the" Faustian pact. It may make you feel better whilst you are alive because you have faith, but you will regret an eternity under the thumb of a tyrant.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
That's all irrelevent when it comes to believing in god. Only if you belive in god would you believe any of it is true.

All you've got is men repeatedly invoking some god concept to propogate their religon, and we already believed in religion.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. But you can't have it both ways: either the bible is a vacuous account of religion propagation, in which case God, if he exists, bears no necessary relation to it, and cannot be accused of being a tyrant.

Or the bible is people's best efforts to pass on God's message, in which case you have to accept that God really is about saving people not condemning them.

I readily admit that the biblical account of God's actions is not likely to convert many. What makes a difference is seeing it lived out for real.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
A benevolent god will not punish us for eternity for acting during a short life according to our god given nature, even if we are mistaken.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I mentioned that there are people who think that God, having made everything, is perfectly entitled to bin whichever of his toys displease him after he has made them. Personally I find that unsatisfactory, and inconsistent with what we know of God's nature. Instead I think he really does give us choices. Real choices with real consequences. Yes they are constrained by the nature and nurture we receive, nonetheless for many of us, that nature and nurture really does allow us to make up our mind about whether we want to know about a potentially demanding (if well intentioned) overlord, or whether we are only interested in looking out for No1. I don't believe that God punishes those who make mistakes (all of us) or are ignorant (again, all of us), but I do believe that there are bad results for those who make bad choices.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's all irrelevent when it comes to believing in god. Only if you belive in god would you believe any of it is true.

All you've got is men repeatedly invoking some god concept to propogate their religon, and we already believed in religion.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. But you can't have it both ways: either the bible is a vacuous account of religion propagation, in which case God, if he exists, bears no necessary relation to it, and cannot be accused of being a tyrant.

Or the bible is people's best efforts to pass on God's message, in which case you have to accept that God really is about saving people not condemning them.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that's right. If I find the bible to be nothing to do with god (which is the case) its still the case if its true and describes a god that would condemn me to eternal damnantion for making an honest mistake, then that god isn't benevolent.

chez

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
I take it that you were born into a christian family and became saved at an early age?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually. Agnostic, intellectual dad, believer mum, dropped out of church early, didn't return until mid twenties.

[ QUOTE ]
If the choice was really clear, that is an ACTUAL choice, instead of many confusing signs pointing different directions then there would be only one religion .... Think about it this way, if people really knew that they were choosing hell by not following christianity then at the very least, even considering people's desire for what is considered sin, everybody would become saved in their old age, or when they knew they had a life threatening disease. But this simply doesn't happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you would be surprised at the number of deathbed conversions, and they say there are no atheists in foxholes! On the other hand many people persist in unwise activities in the full knowledge of the results (nurses smoking?). In these cases most people would say "I'll do what I can to persuade them to stop, but in the end, it's their choice".

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you would be surprised at the number of deathbed conversions, and they say there are no atheists in foxholes!

[/ QUOTE ]

You have got some studies on that, or is it part of the churches folklore? On another note, I guess there are more cowards than courageous people.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that's right. If I find the bible to be nothing to do with god (which is the case) its still the case if its true and describes a god that would condemn me to eternal damnantion for making an honest mistake, then that god isn't benevolent.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I don't think you can have a bible which is both true and nothing to do with god, but let that pass. If the bible described a god who willingly victimised the foolish or ignorant for no reason other than their foolishness or ignorace, then I would not be a believer. In contrast, the bible actually goes to great lengths to point out that the greatest heroes made embarrassing mistakes: Peter, Moses, David, Abraham, and the list goes on. They were not condemned to eternal damnation. Everyone makes mistakes. I believe that only those who deliberately and wilfully reject god suffer the consequences, and even in those cases I believe that God takes all the circumstances into account.

If I were god, I am not sure how I would justly deal with the recalcitrantly evil, assuming that there is no such thing as extinction, and all are eternal.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
If I were god, I am not sure how I would justly deal with the recalcitrantly evil, assuming that there is no such thing as extinction, and all are eternal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just use a bit of imagination and cretivity. As I said elsewhere, give them a second chance.

To me, christianity, in general, and I do know of a few exception and those are not mainstream, perpetuates the deception, that Orwellian double talk, that equates "love" with a sadism that the marquis himself was incapable of conceiving.

[pilliwinks]

WRT your comment on foxholes I totally agree. Nothing less convincing than a frightened person praying 'god, if there is a god, save me and I promise to be good'! I was by no means praising or recommending this kind of 'conversion'.

Personally, I suspect that 'multiple tries' is not an option: I am no expert on what persists after death, but I suspect it is not transferable to babies.

If it were, I am not sure this would be desirable. Bear in mind that as god you know how much damage that person is going to do in their next how ever many tries. Real people have to suffer for your well-intentioned reform plan. Isn't that like refraining from imprisoning violent criminals on the basis that they'll learn the error of their ways sooner or later? That is benevolent only in a rather perverse and focussed way!

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think that's right. If I find the bible to be nothing to do with god (which is the case) its still the case if its true and describes a god that would condemn me to eternal damnantion for making an honest mistake, then that god isn't benevolent.

chez


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Um, I don't think you can have a bible which is both true and nothing to do with god, but let that pass

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but you can have a bible that many honestly believe to be nothing to do with god, yet is to do with god.

[ QUOTE ]
I think I mentioned that there are people who think that God, having made everything, is perfectly entitled to bin whichever of his toys displease him after he has made them.

[/ QUOTE ]
This from your other post. god can do whatever he likes but if he behaves unbenevelently then he is not benevelent.

As to the rest of your posts, I agree. I don't think the christian god would condemn anyone for not believing in him. Its just nasty strain of christianity that demeens god so.

chez

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
If I were god, I am not sure how I would justly deal with the recalcitrantly evil, assuming that there is no such thing as extinction, and all are eternal.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's clearly ignorance to the true nature of God that is making people here think they could make better choices than God Himself..

I see your stance here much more fitting - one simply that says "I'm not big enough to make those decisions".

[MidGe]

Back godboy!

[ QUOTE ]
It's clearly ignorance to the true nature of God that is making people here think they could make better choices than God Himself..

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, to me, the kind of ignorance invoked by many Germans under Hitler...

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
As to the rest of your posts, I agree. I don't think the christian god would condemn anyone for not believing in him. Its just nasty strain of christianity that demeens god so.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. Not sure I go quite that far. I guess it depends what you mean by 'not believing in him'. The bible is explicit and consistent about the fact that some kind of judgement and potential punishment are coming. Thankfully we are not in a position to do the judging, and all we know is that those who actually trust God (regardless of what they say) will be fine.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As to the rest of your posts, I agree. I don't think the christian god would condemn anyone for not believing in him. Its just nasty strain of christianity that demeens god so.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. Not sure I go quite that far. I guess it depends what you mean by 'not believing in him'. The bible is explicit and consistent about the fact that some kind of judgement and potential punishment are coming. Thankfully we are not in a position to do the judging, and all we know is that those who actually trust God (regardless of what they say) will be fine.

[/ QUOTE ]
In that case, I disagree with you. He created many of us unable to believe in him and if he damns us for it then he is not benevlent.

and if his not benevelent then you have no reason to believe that you can trust his word even if the bible is his word.

chez

[pilliwinks]

I am not sure how you can tell that you are unable to believe in him. I can tell that I currently do not believe in Krishna, but I am by no means sure that I am unable to.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure how you can tell that you are unable to believe in him. I can tell that I currently do not believe in Krishna, but I am by no means sure that I am unable to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Letc check the logic first. If its true that I'm unable to believe in him then do you agree the rest follows?

chez

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure how you can tell that you are unable to believe in him. I can tell that I currently do not believe in Krishna, but I am by no means sure that I am unable to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Letc check the logic first. If its true that I'm unable to believe in him then do you agree the rest follows?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

i think it's possible that our inability to believe is a result of choices we've freely made in the past.

i dont want to argue about how likley that is, i just think it's conceivable that our inability to believe could be our own "fault" and not god's.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure how you can tell that you are unable to believe in him. I can tell that I currently do not believe in Krishna, but I am by no means sure that I am unable to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Letc check the logic first. If its true that I'm unable to believe in him then do you agree the rest follows?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

i think it's possible that our inability to believe is a result of choices we've freely made in the past.

i dont want to argue about how likley that is, i just think it's conceivable that our inability to believe could be our own "fault" and not god's.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is the nature of these previous choices that could possible justify eternal damnation by a benevolent god.

Edit: it would change the argument somewhat as christianity claims that belief in jesus is the key to redemption and redemption always possible. Now it would be some other unspecified choice which the supposed god hasn't told us about.

chez

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure how you can tell that you are unable to believe in him. I can tell that I currently do not believe in Krishna, but I am by no means sure that I am unable to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Letc check the logic first. If its true that I'm unable to believe in him then do you agree the rest follows?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

i think it's possible that our inability to believe is a result of choices we've freely made in the past.

i dont want to argue about how likley that is, i just think it's conceivable that our inability to believe could be our own "fault" and not god's.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is the nature of these previous choices that could possible justify eternal damnation by a benevolent god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't know, they amount to a rejection of god? even if you never explicitly believe in him?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure how you can tell that you are unable to believe in him. I can tell that I currently do not believe in Krishna, but I am by no means sure that I am unable to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Letc check the logic first. If its true that I'm unable to believe in him then do you agree the rest follows?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

i think it's possible that our inability to believe is a result of choices we've freely made in the past.

i dont want to argue about how likley that is, i just think it's conceivable that our inability to believe could be our own "fault" and not god's.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is the nature of these previous choices that could possible justify eternal damnation by a benevolent god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't know, they amount to a rejection of god? even if you never explicitly believe in him?

[/ QUOTE ]
Failing to deal with rejection is a human weakness and even most humans wouldn't wish eternal damnation on the rejector.

A god who damns those who reject something they don't believe in has serious problems.

chez

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Failing to deal with rejection is a human weakness and even most humans wouldn't wish eternal damnation on the rejector.

A god who damns those who reject something they don't believe in has serious problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

when i used the word "reject" i was referring to the choice that amounts to or results in a denial of god's existence, not the attitude people have towards that which they already disbelieve.

i'm not trying to convince you that at some point in your life you had the opportunity to make a choice that could have "saved you," i'm only trying to convince you that it's possible.

i also think it's possible that what we call "damnation" is the state of separation from god that god allows us to "opt into." and maybe if god said "screw it, i love everyone so nobody is going to be able to choose not to be with me, since i'm ulitmately what's good for them" then there would be no point to the universe.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Failing to deal with rejection is a human weakness and even most humans wouldn't wish eternal damnation on the rejector.

A god who damns those who reject something they don't believe in has serious problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

when i used the word "reject" i was referring to the choice that amounts to or results in a denial of god's existence, not the attitude people have towards that which they already disbelieve.

i'm not trying to convince you that at some point in your life you had the opportunity to make a choice that could have "saved you," i'm only trying to convince you that it's possible.

i also think it's possible that what we call "damnation" is the state of separation from god that god allows us to "opt into." and maybe if god said "screw it, i love everyone so nobody is going to be able to choose not to be with me, since i'm ulitmately what's good for them" then there would be no point to the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, its possible but I doubt its consistent with a benevolent god. Hard to argue as its so hypethetical but, its not christianity which argues that redemption is always possible. I suppose you can argue that something else unexplained could restore my ability to believe /images/graemlins/smile.gif

and yes maybe god needs to be unbenevolent to give his universe meaning, I'm not arguing anything against an unbenevolent god but, as before, if god's unbenevolent there's no reason to believe any course is more or less likely to cause damnation.

chez

[madnak]

Buddhism presents a pretty tidy solution to the problem of evil; is God not clever enough to come up with something like that?

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure how you can tell that you are unable to believe in him. I can tell that I currently do not believe in Krishna, but I am by no means sure that I am unable to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Letc check the logic first. If its true that I'm unable to believe in him then do you agree the rest follows?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but if the first bit doesn't hold, then I'm saved the trouble of dealing with the rest /images/graemlins/grin.gif

In my experience most people seem to be able to believe in (ie trust, and congruently act as if it were true) just about anything. Particularly if it is true. Do you think that there are classes of things that are true that you are not able to believe in?

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't cherry-pick the words of the Lord thy God.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be stealing your thunder.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure how you can tell that you are unable to believe in him. I can tell that I currently do not believe in Krishna, but I am by no means sure that I am unable to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Letc check the logic first. If its true that I'm unable to believe in him then do you agree the rest follows?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but if the first bit doesn't hold, then I'm saved the trouble of dealing with the rest /images/graemlins/grin.gif

In my experience most people seem to be able to believe in (ie trust, and congruently act as if it were true) just about anything. Particularly if it is true. Do you think that there are classes of things that are true that you are not able to believe in?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not absolutely no, but but I can't believe things are true on faith.

If god exists and wants me to believe in him then he knows he needs to demonstrate his existence to me. Stories that appear entirely the work of men, supported by many (not you) who are talking through there arse about reasons to believe aren't going to do the trick.

If god exists he knows this, its my (and others) natures to be skeptical. Its inconceivable that a benevolent god will be bothered by this.

chez

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
In my experience most people seem to be able to believe in (ie trust, and congruently act as if it were true) just about anything. Particularly if it is true. Do you think that there are classes of things that are true that you are not able to believe in?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really been your experience? There have definitely been things that were 100% true that I simply couldn't believe in.

But that still doesn't approach this question. If 2+2=5 were true, could you believe it?

It's nonsensical. It's impossible for me to believe that 2+2=5, so it's impossible for me to even consider the situation of 2+2=5 being "true." The situation with God is the same. Your statements that you can't justify God's actions, but trust Him anyway, are equivalent to saying "I can't tell you why 2+2=5, but just believe it!" It's not just that the Christian God seems unlikely, it's that He doesn't add up.

Those justifications are necessary for me to believe that the architect of hell is omnibenevolent, just as they are necessary for me to believe that 2+2=5 (assuming I can do so in the first place). It's not just a matter of asking me to believe it, you're going to have to tell me how I can believe such a thing before I even have the choice.

[The_Architect]

Madnak,

I plan to architect on to you a world of pain.

[Davidius]

HAHAHA!! Will Ferrell played an excellent Achitect, did he not?

[pilliwinks]

I agree that God must know that many are skeptical by nature and nurture. My impression is that he is not bothered by this, but is sad, because although the maturity of thought is welcome, for many of these folk the loss of innocence has made them cynical as well as skeptical, and that is a poor kind of life.

The bible indicates that God has no problems with skepticism, on the contrary we are exhorted to test everything (1Thess 5:21). I guess the problem comes if you are unable/unwilling to accept results that are challenging.

From what you've said it seems that biblical stories are unlikely to count for much for you, nor emotional outpourings from charismatic televangelists. But I recommend reserving judgement until you try out your skepticism on people working for the Salvation Army. I know they're far from being the only selfless volunteers, but the combination of enthusiastic faith and practical hard work achieves concrete things that challenge the view that these are just made up stories.

[pilliwinks]

In 'most people' I include those that are not particularly skeptical. Whis is most people, in my experience.

Plenty of skeptics seem to be unable to believe anything (including that they are unable to believe anything /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

I would be interested to know what things you know are true but are unable to believe.

If I had reasons to believe that 2+2=5, I would definitely consider what might have led to the contradiction rather than dismissing it out of hand.

I understand that you feel that there are contradictions in the descriptions that Christianity gives for God. Fine. All that means is that either you haven't understood what the conflicting statements were intended to convey, or one or more of them was mistaken. God does not vanish just because we attribute foolish attitudes or qualities to him.

In science we are accustomed to our descriptions of objects changing as we get to understand them better. The objects do not change, we do. Consequently I have no problem with the old testament describing a jealous God of wrath, while the new testament focusses on the God of love. All the bleeding hearts should note that we are also told that the new covenant supercedes the old.

I am not saying that there is no such thing as punishment for evil, but I am saying that it comes from a loving father, who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. You say it is contradictory for God to love someone and to punish them, but I say we simply do not know the constraints. If it were possible for God to give people the freedom to reject him, and yet still somehow live eternally in harmony with him, I guess he would have done that. Since that's not how the bible tells it, I'm guessing that there are constraints that eternity, holiness and truth put on what can happen.

This is not 2+2=5. It is more like saying black holes can't exist because of what happens on the inside. We have such poor data (and even theory), that such an attitude is more rash than skeptical.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that God must know that many are skeptical by nature and nurture. My impression is that he is not bothered by this, but is sad, because although the maturity of thought is welcome, for many of these folk the loss of innocence has made them cynical as well as skeptical, and that is a poor kind of life.

The bible indicates that God has no problems with skepticism, on the contrary we are exhorted to test everything (1Thess 5:21). I guess the problem comes if you are unable/unwilling to accept results that are challenging.

From what you've said it seems that biblical stories are unlikely to count for much for you, nor emotional outpourings from charismatic televangelists. But I recommend reserving judgement until you try out your skepticism on people working for the Salvation Army. I know they're far from being the only selfless volunteers, but the combination of enthusiastic faith and practical hard work achieves concrete things that challenge the view that these are just made up stories.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not particularly cynical about religous people, one of the finest most decent human beings I know is a vicar.

and I've talked with many including salvation army and similar hard-working people whose hard work, entusiasm and dedication is very impressive. Nothing suggests that they have any special access to the truth, they're just decent people with a strong faith. I've also met similarly impressive people with no faith.

I have noticed a strong correlation between decent religous people, and a willingness to concede that their religous beliefs are a matter of faith (some claim private experiences as well). This may be some sort of bias on my part.

As many of these decent enthusiastic hard working people have different (or no) religon, then there's no way a benevolent god could only reward the ones who happen to have the right beliefs - to argue otherwise would be truly cynical.

chez

[madnak]

I can't reconcile hell with a loving father. Hell evokes horror and fear and a deep sense of wrongness in me. That's not quite the same as 2+2=4, I'll grant, it's very emotional. But it's also very fundamental. I can't see it in a positive light, the entire concept is too awful.

It's possible there's a benevolent God working within restrictions He can't control, and that hell is a necessary consequence of these restrictions. However, by my definition, such a being wouldn't be God. The source of those restrictions, or perhaps even the restrictions themselves, would be God. Here God isn't the architect, He's just doing the best He can within a pre-existing architecture.

But if God is in fact the Creator, the one who sets the rules, then He's the one who defines the nature of eternity, holiness and truth! None of them existed before God, . Thus hell can never be an unfortunate necessity - God, being God, could create a universe with all the value and meaning of this one, but without hell. He's God, that goes without saying! If He can't do that, then there are rules He must follow and therefore there exists something greater than God. Whatever that thing is, if hell exists it's not benevolent.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
But you're leaving out the other side: the God who is love. Not occasionally has a burst of love in between angry spells. Is love.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here is my problem with this argument (and keep in mind I am a lifelong Catholic who has only recently started to experience doubts in my faith):

Just one of many examples: On Dec 26, 2004 over 200,000 people were killed by the earthquake/tsunami in the Indian Ocean. Many of these were innocent children, including infants, who were swept away and drowned.

Now this had nothing to do with free will, or man's tendency to turn his back on God. If God is love, and he is all-powerful, why would he allow this to happen? I think we can all agree that drowning to death in a tidal wave sounds like a horrible way for an innocent child to die. Even if it was in God's plan for those children to die at that time, what explination could there be for the horrible terror and suffering they must have suffered as they died? For an all-powerful God who is love, I find it hard to understand.

The idea that God is both all-powerful and all-loving is one I'm having difficulty with lately. If he was all-powerful he would prevent those innocents from drowning to death. If he was all-loving he would not want them to suffer.

So it seems to me that if God exists, he must be 1 or the other, but not both.

Or perhaps he is just apathetic towards us, and we overestimate how high a priority our human sufferings are to him.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
i also think it's possible that what we call "damnation" is the state of separation from god that god allows us to "opt into." and maybe if god said "screw it, i love everyone so nobody is going to be able to choose not to be with me, since i'm ulitmately what's good for them" then there would be no point to the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

And THAT is the issue I have with religion,. It makes it seems that there is a point and that that point is damning some! Definitely not what you'd call being inclusive. Religion at its core is negative! It is just well hidden.