No. You and Daganev both missed what I was driving at, but someone else got it in.

What's all this God hating people stuff? That has no part in any Christianity I've ever come across... bar the militant anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality stuff... and I'd be alarmed if you subscribe to it.

Wow. Who would want to believe in a God that would punish a child for being murdered while she was young? That's an honest question. How could you support that sort of cruelty?

As I said I'm no judge and no right to judge on who goes to hell or who doesn't.

EDIT: Really REALLY last reply for today... >.<

EDIT2: As for your question, I dunno, I just believe. From the human point of view it could be cruelty, from his view, it wasn't cruelty he's doing but perhaps to save her from further suffering she would have if she'd still be alive. Maybe your question now is that "What of those people in near death situations who survived", probably he had other plans for them and death isn't their time yet. As I said, I'm no judge nor have the right to argue his decision. What's his will, I willingly follow it.

EDIT3: Okay, shutting off computers before I click refresh and see a reply and force myself to reply that reply. NIGHT

1. Purgatory is a catholic idea - and disputed by Protestants.
2. It isn't punishment. It's just a place of waiting.

You are constantly framing your questions and responses in an entirely wordly context. As I've frequently stated, I'm somewhere between agnosticism and atheism.. but I have a fair grasp of the concepts... and I don't know whether to think you're deliberately missing the point, or just that you've never really come across these ideas before.

So many posts...I'll never be able to keep up with stuff, but I'm going to clip out random things to respond to. First, to Wesmin!

It is possible to believe both, or some combination of the two. I believe the Bible is the direct word of God, but that it is often misinterpreted and misused.



I don't believe in shoving religion down anyone's throat. Still, just from what you've said here, you seem to have a skewed view of the reality of what Christians believe, which is why I like discussion threads like this. In most cases, we argue with and hate strawmen, rather than ever really knowing what other people truly believe.

I've asked (and been asked) the question several times: "Imagine for the sake of argument that your beliefs are truly wrong. You have been misled, and the direction your life is going will really lead to eternal suffering. Would you want anyone to tell you?" In my own case, the answer is a strong yes, which is why I continue to try to keep up discussion and study other religions.

All of this is based on the presupposition that you are correct. All discussion on the topic of religion should be open-minded. Rather than being offended by the idea that someone believes differently, you should stop and think about it - why do I believe what I believe? And how do I know the other person isn't right?



Let's be honest. For the sake of argument, we'll say there is no God. What reason do you have to care about anyone else in the world, especially someone on the other side of the globe? It doesn't affect me at all, what reason do I truly have to care?

I picked out a bunch of random things from several different posts, all by Fallen, to respond to here.

This is only true if they answer the question truthfully, and there is a true correlation between the way they answer and reality. In my own case, I can honestly say that I would most likely lie. However, I would not argue that this is actually the right thing to do. That makes it much more complicated.



There are Christians who believe that God's will always concides with the will of individuals. I am not one of them, personally.

God's "will" is a wide term, really. There are some things that God 'wills' in such a way that he will make them happen. The flood is an example of this - it wasn't a suggestion nor just a desire. It was something that he made happen.

There are some things that God wants, and will intervene toward making them happen, but he doesn't directly force them. The story of Jonah is an example of this - God never possessed him or forced him to go. He did intervene and make life extremely difficult for him until he decided to go.

Third, there are things that God desires to see, but he will not strongly intervene to make them happen. Universal commands usually fit into this category - things like the fact that God wants all men to be with him in heaven, among a lot of other things.

Fourth, there are some things that God does not want to see, and He has the power to stop, but for some reason He does not. In this sense, the things that occur are not technically his desires, but he does allow them to happen.

When you talk about God's "will," you have to clarify what you actually mean.




I want to steer in a new direction based on all of this. You talk an awful lot about how 'evil' God's actions must be. I'm curious - if you don't believe there is a God, what moral standard are you using to judge these actions? Your own concepts of right and wrong? Who are you to say what is 'right' or 'wrong' for anyone else, especially God?

C.S. Lewis presented a pretty effective argument using universal morality as an argument for the existence of God. If you are going to judge an action as being openly moral or immoral, you must first define your terms. Either there is no God (and thus no universal morality, unless you know of another possible source) and so you cannot judge the actions of the biblical God, or there is a God (and thus he created morality itself, so by definition cannot be immoral). It leads to a difficult circular argument.

I appreciate when people make efforts like that. It goes a long way toward real discussion, rather than strawmen and accusations.

And you're right, I would have answered that question very differently, as I don't believe in Purgatory. That's part of what makes Christianity so difficult to reject outright - there are a wide span of beliefs that fall under the umbrella of "Christianity."

I couldn't tell you, but I can tell you that in my Jew schools, we always thought that the concepts of heaven and hell came from a misunderstanding of the view of an "afterlife" on this Earth.

All of these are from the oral traditions past on, none are in the bible itself.

In Jewish texts the same term "Olam Habah" (The world to come) has three meanings. Afterlife (After you die), The Future(1,000 year period where the world is destroyed), and the time of the Messiah (When the rules of human behavior change.) We always assumed that Christains took all of these teachings to mean the same thing, (i.e. After you die).

So in the Bible, when it says 'We will go down to the pits of Shaol", or "Satan said x, y, z" instead of understanding the commentaries who talk about that as the world to come, i.e. in the future, they understand it as, "when you die."

Just a quick example of each, hopefully this won't cause confusion. There are three lines in the talmud, each of which uses the term "Olam Habah" to mean something else entirely.

1. Three things make a person lose thier piece of "Olam Habah:" Speaking slander, embarrassing another person, and not titheing your fruit. (After life)

2. In "olam Habah" there will be no food, and no drink, only Torah. (Future)

3. In "Olam Habah" the righteous will be ressurected and brought to Jerusalem. (Era of Messiah)


As you can see, each of those could easily be interpreted to mean any of the other three, so the confusion is easy to see. If you search the net for the term Olam Habah you will see that the debate of what means what is still going on. Here is a website that shows a different view than mine, which seperates them out completely. http://www.beingjewish.com/soul/future.html

This statement implies that those who do not believe in god are uncaring of their fellow human which seems unlikely to be what you are attempting to say.

Also, if the only reason you care what happens to someone on the other side of the globe is because you think you're going to go to hell if you don't care, does that actually count as caring? If someone held a gun to my head and said "Give that kid a piece of bread or I'm going to kill you." and I gave them that bread, is that caring or is that compliance merely to save my own skin? If I am being altruistic because I truly and utterly believe it will save my eternal soul, is that not actually being rather selfish? And if the reason I am following these teachings is because of my fear of what will happen if I don't, wouldn't god know that and send me to hell anyway? Or do you get half points for at least going through the motions?

It would seem logical that in this scenario it is not those who follow the teachings of a religion and thus lead a good life that are enlightened, rather it is those that do not NEED the teachings of a religion in order to be a "good" person that would be the enlightened ones as they truly understand the purpose rather than just following instructions.

Religion has its place. For some people it is extremely important and without it their lives would be much less. Others do not need or want it and prefer to live their lives according to their own personal spiritual beliefs. The only problems arise when someone from one of these groups attempts to diminish the other's way of life. Whether it is the religious people trying to save other people's souls or the non-religious pointing out some of the more absurd elements of religion.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not exactly familiar with the Christian canon, so this might well be answered in the Bible somewhere:

Why does God request and require worship? How is it doing Him any good, or how is it doing the worshippers any good?

When I described God as evil, I was using Christian morality to define that.

God is a lot like a cheesy Bond Villian. Seriously, take a look at them side by side. We'd consider Bond Villians evil based on christian morality. And I think God is a lot like them in some ways. Where Bond Villians have the "Nuk'em" button, God has the "Flood'em" or "Damn'em" buttons. Where Bond Villians want a world where everyone bows to them..God wants a world where everyone bows to him.. Where Bond Villians punish lackey's for stupid reasons with over-the-top punishments, God punishes lackey's for stupid reasons with over-the-top punishments.

That is why I consider God to fall into the category of evil. But he has to. Perfection requires it by definition. However, the above comparison is also why I think George W. Bush is evil too, so, that doesn't score points for God either

Fallen I think you're confusing the god of the old testament with the god of the new testament. Christianity is built around the teachings of Jesus primarily and focuses more on the new testament which is full of rather practical messages along with the love thy neighbor statements and the talk of heaven. All the cool floods and plagues were in the old testament. All god did that was questionable in the new testament is apparently sending his only son to suffer horribly and die but according to Christian beliefs this was simply a symbol of how much god loves humans. So much that he sent his only begotten son. Which is pretty inspirational if you believe it. And if you don't, it's still a great story.

It never ceases to baffle me when religious people imply that there's no such thing as morals without God. I follow basically the same morals that you probably follow (precisely defining these "morals" is a different topic that would probably derail this thread) but I subscribe basically to the normal set of Western moreal beliefs... just, I don't believe in God. How does that make me a worse person?

I actually find it somewhat odd when people require religion to determine their own morals. Don't you have a conscience?

If you read Kant and the like, a lot of western morals are predicated on the existance of G-d and the correctness of Christain religion.

For contrary moral standards you can read Ayn Rand or Niche.

So while your personal opinion may be of one strain, the general consensus is based on religious ideas that have been passed on in Western Society.

Right, but how does the removal of belief in God make the morals any less valid?

1. It doesn't

2. It forms a relationship, it is the relationship that is important. Relationships require two directions.

Because that is what the argument is based on.

If you deny the basic premise of the argument, then it would be more logical and more honest of you to take on a new code of ethics that does not follow from that argument.

Except earlier in the thread it was said that God is the same as He always was. So even if God used to be Dr. Evil with the Moon Ray, and is now Dr Evil the Owner of Starbucks.. by Christian beliefs as stated here, he's still Dr. Evil.

I am curious if you really ever asked -Why- all these things appear to be evil to you.

I could go case by case for you, and tell you what it teaches me, but I really don't have the time since such information is so easily accessable.

Okay, that's not quite what I was saying.

My morals are based around values of simple things like "murder is usually wrong" and "honesty is usually good".

Of course it's relative. I don't think it's possible to have a system of morals that ISN'T relative, even if you do factor religion into the equation.

=====

On another topic, here's another thing that's always puzzled me about religion: Most of the arguments I hear for religion are attempting to prove that the world was created by God or some god-like entity. What is it, however, that makes you believe that Christianity is the true religion (rather than the many, many others out there) and that the Christian god is the real God?