| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Ghamph" |
| Date: |
02 Jan 2008 07:29:11 PM |
| Object: |
Closet Atheists? |
Closet Atheists?
Many Christians are claimed believers, out of fear.
They want the promises in the scriptures to be true and they fear the
consequences in the scriptures as well.
They believe by faith and expect everything to happen the way it is written.
But they must know, down deep, that everything really is up to them and
nobody else.
If they believe what is written; "Rewarded according to their deeds" they
know that everything they do has a reward for it, (good or bad).
But they know that having only two destinations in the end, there is little
room for degrees of goodness.
Does Mother Teresa go to the same place as Joe Six-pack who was a good
righteous churchgoer?
Does Hitler go to the same place as Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, Terry
Nichols or a candy stealer?
Yeah, but what about the guy that was a model citizen for 50 yrs. and beat
up one person the day before he dies?
Or how about the priest that has a Holy life of service to God and on his
last day on earth, rapes only one child?
Or what about the priest that rapes children his entire Church service
career and on his death bed asks to be saved?
Heaven or Hell huh...?
What a business!
.
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Closet Atheists? |
02 Jan 2008 07:39:22 PM |
|
|
On 2008-01-03 01:29:11 +0000, "Ghamph" <ghamph@localnet.com> said:
Closet Atheists?
Many Christians are claimed believers, out of fear.
How many? Have you counted? Is this assertion anything other than an
opinion based on prejudice? I think not.
They want the promises in the scriptures to be true and they fear the
consequences in the scriptures as well.
They believe by faith and expect everything to happen the way it is written.
But they must know, down deep, that everything really is up to them and
nobody else.
Must they? Says who? Ghamph with his big brain and vast experience of
human nature? Must be right then.
If they believe what is written; "Rewarded according to their deeds" they
know that everything they do has a reward for it, (good or bad).
Not if they're Christian they don't.
But they know that having only two destinations in the end, there is little
room for degrees of goodness.
And thus you demonstrate you have absolutely no - as in nada, zilch,
zip - understanding of Christian belief.
Does Mother Teresa go to the same place as Joe Six-pack who was a good
righteous churchgoer?
Can't answer that. Nor can you. Nor can anybody. Did you know Mother
Teresa? Were you her Father Confessor? Guess not. In which case you're
substituting the perfect knowledge of God for judgement by "Hello"
magazine.
Does Hitler go to the same place as Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, Terry
Nichols or a candy stealer?
See above
Yeah, but what about the guy that was a model citizen for 50 yrs. and beat
up one person the day before he dies?
Or how about the priest that has a Holy life of service to God and on his
last day on earth, rapes only one child?
Or what about the priest that rapes children his entire Church service
career and on his death bed asks to be saved?
Heaven or Hell huh...?
You tell us. You've got all the answers. I don't presume to know the
ins and outs of other people's lives and don't presume to judge them.
But just one thought - see that last guy you mentioned. Suppose he's
saved and gets eternal life - eternal life in the presence of all those
children; with everyone knowing what he did and everyone saying they
forgive him. Heaven or Hell?
What a business!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Closet Atheists? |
03 Jan 2008 09:57:38 AM |
|
|
On 2008-01-03 15:11:06 +0000, "natezenmaster@gmail.com"
<natezenmaster@gmail.com> said:
Or how about the priest that has a Holy life of service to God and on his
last day on earth, rapes only one child?
Or what about the priest that rapes children his entire Church service
career and on his death bed asks to be saved?
Suppose he's
saved and gets eternal life - eternal life in the presence of all those
children; with everyone knowing what he did and everyone saying they
forgive him. Heaven or Hell?
"He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death
or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed
away."
If there is no pain in heaven then will it matter to the rapist
priest?
Depends. Is 'regret' a form of pain?
We could, of course, use Dalmer as an actual example since he
went Christian before his death in prison. Is he - the sodomite,
cannibalistic necrophiliac, heaven or hell bound Andrew? Will he be
subjected to gnashing of teeth and eternal fire due to his atrocities?
Or strolling the streets of gold where there is no more mourning,
crying or pain for his realization and belief in Jesus he acquired
prior to death?
To be honest I'm not going to second-guess God. Do you know everything
there is to know about Dalmer? Do you know the state of his soul when
he died? Are you so pure of heart that you can judge another man's fate
for all eternity?
No. Me neither.
Another quick one, what of Martin Luther? The revered figure in
Christian lore. "One should show no mercy to these [women]; I would
burn them myself, for we read in the Law.." - Martin Luther. His
followers took up that calling and did just that... Not to mention
his blatant antisemitism. Is this cherished Christian figure also in
heaven - the witch burning, Jew hating man?
See above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Closet Atheists? |
03 Jan 2008 10:45:44 AM |
|
|
On 2008-01-03 16:14:33 +0000, El Guapo <natezenmaster@gmail.com> said:
Are you so pure of heart that you can judge another man's fate for all
eternity?
I am clear enough of mind to realize the absurdity, shabbiness and
injustice of a mass murdering pedophile and necrophiliac heaven bound
and enjoying no pain at the right of a pure god. Not to mention the
clarity of mind to see the fatuity in a god that would allow all these
acts from people he created for his own gain and flattery...
That's not what I asked. Are you qualified to judge a man for eternity?
Yes or no?
On Jan 3, 8:57 am, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2008-01-03 15:11:06 +0000, "natezenmas...@gmail.com"
<natezenmas...@gmail.com> said:
Or how about the priest that has a Holy life of service to God and on his
last day on earth, rapes only one child?
Or what about the priest that rapes children his entire Church service
career and on his death bed asks to be saved?
Suppose he's
saved and gets eternal life - eternal life in the presence of all those
children; with everyone knowing what he did and everyone saying they
forgive him. Heaven or Hell?
"He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death
or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed
away."
If there is no pain in heaven then will it matter to the rapist
priest?
Depends. Is 'regret' a form of pain?
We could, of course, use Dalmer as an actual example since he
went Christian before his death in prison. Is he - the sodomite,
cannibalistic necrophiliac, heaven or hell bound Andrew? Will he be
subjected to gnashing of teeth and eternal fire due to his atrocities?
Or strolling the streets of gold where there is no more mourning,
crying or pain for his realization and belief in Jesus he acquired
prior to death?
To be honest I'm not going to second-guess God. Do you know everything
there is to know about Dalmer? Do you know the state of his soul when
he died? Are you so pure of heart that you can judge another man's fate
for all eternity?
No. Me neither.
Another quick one, what of Martin Luther? The revered figure in
Christian lore. "One should show no mercy to these [women]; I would
burn them myself, for we read in the Law.." - Martin Luther. His
followers took up that calling and did just that... Not to mention
his blatant antisemitism. Is this cherished Christian figure also in
heaven - the witch burning, Jew hating man?
See above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Closet Atheists? |
03 Jan 2008 02:12:25 PM |
|
|
On 2008-01-03 18:53:24 +0000, El Guapo <natezenmaster@gmail.com> said:
Since neither man (the proposed judge or the culprit) last for
eternity, it is a moot question. Not to mention, that it begs the
question...
And rather obviates the point of this discussion. If this is what you
believe then the issue is wholly irrelevant to you and you are simply
wasting bandwidth.
Do you have enough discernment to realize the fatuity in a god that
would allow all these acts from people he created for his own gain and
flattery... Yes or no?
Which bit of "God" do you not understand? You can't flatter God since
flattery involves deceitful praise or complimentary language. Since God
knows what's going on in your heart and mind, flattery is a bit of a
dead loss.
In both instances, we beg the question of god's existence, judgment,
eternal heaven, soul and so on.
Indeed, but if such God does not exist, then the question is moot.
In your case, it is to place me in the
slot of god and to thereby point out that I am not god nor should I be
- thus whether Dalmer sits at god's throne painless and happy or
whether he burns in a lake of eternal fire is not up to me or my
judgment.
Indeed. And yet your post suggests that, if you are wrong and aforesaid
states of bliss and torment do exist, you are making exactly that
judgement.
In my case, it is to place you in a state of rationalization
so that you can see the ridiculousness and fatuity in the belief of
the judge, god, of his own creation's atrocities created for his own
vanity - and thereby nullifying your hypothetical question.
And yet you have failed entirely to do that because you do not really
understand the Christian concept of God.
But it
appears that an answer of no is relevant to both your question and
mine if we can ignore all of that... Though, as Dalmer is now dead and
gone and there is no more of him - I don't think its a stretch that I
or you or most individuals on this board in general is qualified to
judge his life as one the world would have been better off without.
And so long as my opinion is on record, my judgment seems valid and
qualification also.
Of course your opinion is valid. As is mine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ghamph" |
|
| Title: Re: Closet Atheists? |
03 Jan 2008 05:52:45 PM |
|
|
"El Guapo" <natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f8b00bf-3d97-49fb-a90b-f9c91341b03b@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
And yet you have failed entirely to do that because you do not really
understand the Christian concept of God.
The Christian concept of god or your concept of god, Andrew? And where
do you generate that concept - through the bible and what the bible
says? Or through the most favorable interpretations as your tastes
judge it? Just like Job - you want it not to be literal and just a
story about how bad things happen rather than the literal "god gambles
and toys with a man's life for no reason" story; meanwhile the bodily
resurrection of Jesus is literal, etc. Pick, choose, label this as
allegory, accept that as literal and so on until you have a patchwork
concept that is most palatable to your modern norms. Disregard your
intelligence in determining whether god is logical or worthy but use
that same intelligence to justify interpretations of scripture to form
your concept of god.
The god of the bible is cruel and it shows through many acts that
range from force feeding people their own children to ordering
abhorrent murders. As such, the praise you lift up to god - since it
is riddled with so many oversights and issues to ignore - is it more
than flattery? And the standard definition of flattery is excessive or
insincere praise. Either way, even if its sincere it would still seem
to me excessive. If we entertain the idea of god, he did do good
things but also horrible things. Righteousness, pure as snow, merciful
- don't seem applicable and using those descriptions are nothing more
than flattery. It is just as ignorant as marveling at a sunset and
praising god for it while ignoring the tens of thousands that lay
starving under that same sun. Either have god is the root cause of
both or neither, but don't cherry pick just to make the concept
palatable.
Lastly,
.. rather obviates the point of this discussion.. and you are simply
wasting bandwidth.
In case you didn't notice, the point of the original post - and my
subsequent posts is that the concept of judgment and the free access
to heaven - the place of no pain or crying, glorious streets of gold,
etc - for last-second repentant mass murderers, rapists and the worst
of society is repugnant for those that feel and fatuity for those that
think. Meanwhile, the otherwise moral non-believer that stole a candy
bar at age 13 is destined for hell - also ridiculous folly. In other
words, can't you see the ridiculousness in believing in the bible? My
bandwidth usage may have been wasted but not because I wasn't on
topic...
Thanks for saying what I was too lazy to type!
El Guapo can be my spokesperson anytime.
Jamffer
On Jan 3, 1:12 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2008-01-03 18:53:24 +0000, El Guapo <natezenmas...@gmail.com> said:
Since neither man (the proposed judge or the culprit) last for
eternity, it is a moot question. Not to mention, that it begs the
question...
And rather obviates the point of this discussion. If this is what you
believe then the issue is wholly irrelevant to you and you are simply
wasting bandwidth.
Do you have enough discernment to realize the fatuity in a god that
would allow all these acts from people he created for his own gain and
flattery... Yes or no?
Which bit of "God" do you not understand? You can't flatter God since
flattery involves deceitful praise or complimentary language. Since God
knows what's going on in your heart and mind, flattery is a bit of a
dead loss.
In both instances, we beg the question of god's existence, judgment,
eternal heaven, soul and so on.
Indeed, but if such God does not exist, then the question is moot.
In your case, it is to place me in the
slot of god and to thereby point out that I am not god nor should I be
- thus whether Dalmer sits at god's throne painless and happy or
whether he burns in a lake of eternal fire is not up to me or my
judgment.
Indeed. And yet your post suggests that, if you are wrong and aforesaid
states of bliss and torment do exist, you are making exactly that
judgement.
In my case, it is to place you in a state of rationalization
so that you can see the ridiculousness and fatuity in the belief of
the judge, god, of his own creation's atrocities created for his own
vanity - and thereby nullifying your hypothetical question.
And yet you have failed entirely to do that because you do not really
understand the Christian concept of God.
But it
appears that an answer of no is relevant to both your question and
mine if we can ignore all of that... Though, as Dalmer is now dead and
gone and there is no more of him - I don't think its a stretch that I
or you or most individuals on this board in general is qualified to
judge his life as one the world would have been better off without.
And so long as my opinion is on record, my judgment seems valid and
qualification also.
Of course your opinion is valid. As is mine.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Closet Atheists? |
03 Jan 2008 03:53:48 PM |
|
|
On 2008-01-03 21:26:53 +0000, El Guapo <natezenmaster@gmail.com> said:
And yet you have failed entirely to do that because you do not really
understand the Christian concept of God.
The Christian concept of god or your concept of god, Andrew? And where
do you generate that concept - through the bible and what the bible
says? Or through the most favorable interpretations as your tastes
judge it? Just like Job - you want it not to be literal and just a
story about how bad things happen rather than the literal "god gambles
and toys with a man's life for no reason" story; meanwhile the bodily
resurrection of Jesus is literal, etc. Pick, choose, label this as
allegory, accept that as literal and so on until you have a patchwork
concept that is most palatable to your modern norms.
Yes. I call that "thinking for myself". It's why God bothered to put a
brain inside my skull. or would you prefer it if I just believed what
somebody else told me without giving it a second thought?
Disregard your
intelligence in determining whether god is logical or worthy but use
that same intelligence to justify interpretations of scripture to form
your concept of god.
As I do not think I ever disregard my intelligence I do not accept that
view as accurate.
The god of the bible is cruel and it shows through many acts that
range from force feeding people their own children to ordering
abhorrent murders.
God never 'force fed people their own children'. If you would care to
cite chapter and verse I ight be able to respond more fully than that.
As such, the praise you lift up to god - since it
is riddled with so many oversights and issues to ignore - is it more
than flattery? And the standard definition of flattery is excessive or
insincere praise. Either way, even if its sincere it would still seem
to me excessive. If we entertain the idea of god, he did do good
things but also horrible things. Righteousness, pure as snow, merciful
- don't seem applicable and using those descriptions are nothing more
than flattery. It is just as ignorant as marveling at a sunset and
praising god for it while ignoring the tens of thousands that lay
starving under that same sun. Either have god is the root cause of
both or neither, but don't cherry pick just to make the concept
palatable.
Lastly,
I do accept entirely that in the world that God has created very bad
things happen. I accept that millions are hungry while the Western
world is worried about obesity. At the same time I do not think that
moral responsibility is possible in a universe where there is no
possibility of suffering. Neither do I think moral growth is possible
where the choices we make do not have consequences. So no - I do not
ignore God's creation of the possibility of suffering - I praise him
and give thanks to him for that as well.
.. rather obviates the point of this discussion.. and you are simply
wasting bandwidth.
In case you didn't notice, the point of the original post - and my
subsequent posts is that the concept of judgment and the free access
to heaven - the place of no pain or crying, glorious streets of gold,
etc - for last-second repentant mass murderers, rapists and the worst
of society is repugnant for those that feel and fatuity for those that
think. Meanwhile, the otherwise moral non-believer that stole a candy
bar at age 13 is destined for hell - also ridiculous folly. In other
words, can't you see the ridiculousness in believing in the bible? My
bandwidth usage may have been wasted but not because I wasn't on
topic...
I see your point, but it remains moot. Neither you nor I nor anybody
else knows the judgement of God. For what it's worth I tend to be
significantly more universalist in my thinking than this somewhat
parodic description of Christian belief would suggest. To be fair,
there are those among my co-religionists who take a very strict line on
who's 'in' and who's 'out'. This, however, is neither clear nor
unambiguous in the Bible. Incidentally, I do not believe in the Bible.
I believe in God - a subtle distinction, perhaps, but a necessary one.
On Jan 3, 1:12 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2008-01-03 18:53:24 +0000, El Guapo <natezenmas...@gmail.com> said:
Since neither man (the proposed judge or the culprit) last for
eternity, it is a moot question. Not to mention, that it begs the
question...
And rather obviates the point of this discussion. If this is what you
believe then the issue is wholly irrelevant to you and you are simply
wasting bandwidth.
Do you have enough discernment to realize the fatuity in a god that
would allow all these acts from people he created for his own gain and
flattery... Yes or no?
Which bit of "God" do you not understand? You can't flatter God since
flattery involves deceitful praise or complimentary language. Since God
knows what's going on in your heart and mind, flattery is a bit of a
dead loss.
In both instances, we beg the question of god's existence, judgment,
eternal heaven, soul and so on.
Indeed, but if such God does not exist, then the question is moot.
In your case, it is to place me in the
slot of god and to thereby point out that I am not god nor should I be
- thus whether Dalmer sits at god's throne painless and happy or
whether he burns in a lake of eternal fire is not up to me or my
judgment.
Indeed. And yet your post suggests that, if you are wrong and aforesaid
states of bliss and torment do exist, you are making exactly that
judgement.
In my case, it is to place you in a state of rationalization
so that you can see the ridiculousness and fatuity in the belief of
the judge, god, of his own creation's atrocities created for his own
vanity - and thereby nullifying your hypothetical question.
And yet you have failed entirely to do that because you do not really
understand the Christian concept of God.
But it
appears that an answer of no is relevant to both your question and
mine if we can ignore all of that... Though, as Dalmer is now dead and
gone and there is no more of him - I don't think its a stretch that I
or you or most individuals on this board in general is qualified to
judge his life as one the world would have been better off without.
And so long as my opinion is on record, my judgment seems valid and
qualification also.
Of course your opinion is valid. As is mine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Closet Atheists? |
03 Jan 2008 06:37:18 PM |
|
|
On 2008-01-03 23:32:23 +0000, El Guapo <natezenmaster@gmail.com> said:
Are you sure you don't wish to recant on some of that Andrew?
Particularly in item 2? Yikes...
1. > would you prefer it if I just believed what somebody else told me
without giving it a second thought?
Your concept of god was given to you by somebody else - or did you
acquire it all on your own and then later choose to apply your god to
the bible when it suits you?
I encountered God after many years of being and atheist. I examined
many religious traditions after that encounter before deciding that the
description of God in Christianity most closely mirrored that
experience.
You have chosen to embrace that and view
what is a natural world in a supernatural way. The sunset, the earth
and all its parts are god's creation to you. But this is no more or
less speculative than Zeus or any other god.
Indeed. And it's easy to look back on belief systems about which we
have only legends and forget that those myths and legends were related
to real spiritual and religious beliefs about which we have little or
no understanding.
It is also extraneous;
why throw god in there at all?
Because I met him.
2. > Neither do I think moral growth is possible where the choices we
make do not have consequences... I praise him and give thanks to him
for that as well [both the beauty of the sunset and the possibility of
suffering enacted in the tragedy of people starving to death].
So for you, you praise god because people starve to death? Because it
affords the believers the opportunity to be more moral?
That's a gross over-simplification and you know it. It's not just a
question of morality - what would be the point of our intelligence, our
resourcefulness, our inventivenesss if there were no possibility of
suffering? Would we use them? You threw Greek beliefs at me a moment
ago - are you familiar with Homer? Does the term 'lotus-eaters' mean
anything to you?
Does the
elitism dawn on you? The godless African starves to serve the
Christian western as a lesson in morality... what a grand plan!
WHICH 'godless African'?? Aren't you somewhat out of date? The oldest
Christian nation in the world is in Africa - or did that escape your
education? And I find your view frankly insulting. I don't give a
monkey's ***** if a man is Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Animist -
whatever. If a man is starving it is the responsibility of others to
help. That's what I mean by moral responsibility.
Does
this also hold for all the people that were burned, tortured and
otherwise killed by moral-learning Christians?
No - people do bad things.
Also Andrew, to what end? People starve to death so that Christians
can learn to be more moral - and for what?
Not Christians - anyone.
Vanity, vanity... both on
the Christian god and the Christian follower. Suffering allows the
Christian to be moral so that god can spend an eternity with moral
adorers that feel more refined. Meanwhile all the rampant suffering of
those that were in pain throughout life and all those billions that
were damned was just a tool - people's lives little more than
frivolous watermarks.
Seriously?
yeah. And remind me - exactly what are you doing about all that
'rampant suffering' and pain? I don't know - maybe you're doing
whatever you can. But maybe it's time for people to stop blaming God
for creating a world in which we have moral duties and responsibilties
toward one another, and the intelligence and power to do something
about them, and get on and just do it.
God never 'force fed people their own children'. If you would care to
cite chapter and verse I ight be able to respond more fully than that.
Which time?
Leviticus 26:28-30
Then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will
punish you for your sins seven times over. You will eat the flesh of
your sons and the flesh of your daughters. I will destroy your high
places, cut down your incense altars and pile your dead bodies on the
lifeless forms of your idols, and I will abhor you.
Deuteronomy 28:53 Then you shall eat the offspring of your own body,
the flesh of your sons and of your daughters whom the LORD your God
has given you, during the siege and the distress by which your enemy
will oppress you.
Jeremiah 19:8-9
I will devastate this city and make it an object of scorn; all who
pass by will be appalled and will scoff because of all its wounds. I
will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they
will eat one another's flesh...
And if you read a bit more you will find that God is talking about war.
About siege. Sieges are bad places to be - didn't you know that. People
starve during sieges and they do things they wouldn't otherwise do. And
yes God allows that to happen. The will of God is that we grow up and
start taking responsibility for our actions. We could stop that sort of
thing happening. We human beings have that in our power - the power
that God has given us. What these passages say is that when we screw
up, his will is that we reap the consequences.
"I will make them", "I will", "I will", "I will".... pretty
grotesque.
On Jan 3, 2:53 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2008-01-03 21:26:53 +0000, El Guapo <natezenmas...@gmail.com> said:
And yet you have failed entirely to do that because you do not really
understand the Christian concept of God.
The Christian concept of god or your concept of god, Andrew? And where
do you generate that concept - through the bible and what the bible
says? Or through the most favorable interpretations as your tastes
judge it? Just like Job - you want it not to be literal and just a
story about how bad things happen rather than the literal "god gambles
and toys with a man's life for no reason" story; meanwhile the bodily
resurrection of Jesus is literal, etc. Pick, choose, label this as
allegory, accept that as literal and so on until you have a patchwork
concept that is most palatable to your modern norms.
Yes. I call that "thinking for myself". It's why God bothered to put a
brain inside my skull. or would you prefer it if I just believed what
somebody else told me without giving it a second thought?
Disregard your
intelligence in determining whether god is logical or worthy but use
that same intelligence to justify interpretations of scripture to form
your concept of god.
As I do not think I ever disregard my intelligence I do not accept that
view as accurate.
The god of the bible is cruel and it shows through many acts that
range from force feeding people their own children to ordering
abhorrent murders.
God never 'force fed people their own children'. If you would care to
cite chapter and verse I ight be able to respond more fully than that.
As such, the praise you lift up to god - since it
is riddled with so many oversights and issues to ignore - is it more
than flattery? And the standard definition of flattery is excessive or
insincere praise. Either way, even if its sincere it would still seem
to me excessive. If we entertain the idea of god, he did do good
things but also horrible things. Righteousness, pure as snow, merciful
- don't seem applicable and using those descriptions are nothing more
than flattery. It is just as ignorant as marveling at a sunset and
praising god for it while ignoring the tens of thousands that lay
starving under that same sun. Either have god is the root cause of
both or neither, but don't cherry pick just to make the concept
palatable.
Lastly,
I do accept entirely that in the world that God has created very bad
things happen. I accept that millions are hungry while the Western
world is worried about obesity. At the same time I do not think that
moral responsibility is possible in a universe where there is no
possibility of suffering. Neither do I think moral growth is possible
where the choices we make do not have consequences. So no - I do not
ignore God's creation of the possibility of suffering - I praise him
and give thanks to him for that as well.
.. rather obviates the point of this discussion.. and you are simply
wasting bandwidth.
In case you didn't notice, the point of the original post - and my
subsequent posts is that the concept of judgment and the free access
to heaven - the place of no pain or crying, glorious streets of gold,
etc - for last-second repentant mass murderers, rapists and the worst
of society is repugnant for those that feel and fatuity for those that
think. Meanwhile, the otherwise moral non-believer that stole a candy
bar at age 13 is destined for hell - also ridiculous folly. In other
words, can't you see the ridiculousness in believing in the bible? My
bandwidth usage may have been wasted but not because I wasn't on
topic...
I see your point, but it remains moot. Neither you nor I nor anybody
else knows the judgement of God. For what it's worth I tend to be
significantly more universalist in my thinking than this somewhat
parodic description of Christian belief would suggest. To be fair,
there are those among my co-religionists who take a very strict line on
who's 'in' and who's 'out'. This, however, is neither clear nor
unambiguous in the Bible. Incidentally, I do not believe in the Bible.
I believe in God - a subtle distinction, perhaps, but a necessary one.
On Jan 3, 1:12 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2008-01-03 18:53:24 +0000, El Guapo <natezenmas...@gmail.com> said:
Since neither man (the proposed judge or the culprit) last for
eternity, it is a moot question. Not to mention, that it begs the
question...
And rather obviates the point of this discussion. If this is what you
believe then the issue is wholly irrelevant to you and you are simply
wasting bandwidth.
Do you have enough discernment to realize the fatuity in a god that
would allow all these acts from people he created for his own gain and
flattery... Yes or no?
Which bit of "God" do you not understand? You can't flatter God since
flattery involves deceitful praise or complimentary language. Since God
knows what's going on in your heart and mind, flattery is a bit of a
dead loss.
In both instances, we beg the question of god's existence, judgment,
eternal heaven, soul and so on.
Indeed, but if such God does not exist, then the question is moot.
In your case, it is to place me in the
slot of god and to thereby point out that I am not god nor should I be
- thus whether Dalmer sits at god's throne painless and happy or
whether he burns in a lake of eternal fire is not up to me or my
judgment.
Indeed. And yet your post suggests that, if you are wrong and aforesaid
states of bliss and torment do exist, you are making exactly that
judgement.
In my case, it is to place you in a state of rationalization
so that you can see the ridiculousness and fatuity in the belief of
the judge, god, of his own creation's atrocities created for his own
vanity - and thereby nullifying your hypothetical question.
And yet you have failed entirely to do that because you do not really
understand the Christian concept of God.
But it
appears that an answer of no is relevant to both your question and
mine if we can ignore all of that... Though, as Dalmer is now dead and
gone and there is no more of him - I don't think its a stretch that I
or you or most individuals on this board in general is qualified to
judge his life as one the world would have been better off without.
And so long as my opinion is on record, my judgment seems valid and
qualification also.
Of course your opinion is valid. As is mine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Closet Atheists? |
04 Jan 2008 11:31:52 AM |
|
|
On 2008-01-04 14:41:58 +0000, El Guapo <natezenmaster@gmail.com> said:
If a man is starving it is the responsibility of others to help. That's
what I mean by moral responsibility.
So doesn't god have that same moral responsibility? In fact, even more
so since god is the creator of these people and their entire
situation! Not to mention the most capable of help... Come on now...
By doing what? Snapping his fingers and manufacturing food out of
nowhere? Do you want to live in a universe where every time the
possibility f something bad happening occurs God snaps his fingers and
prevents it happening?
what would be the point of our intelligence, our resourcefulness, our
inventivenesss if there were no possibility of suffering?
In heaven there will be no suffering - so what's the point of our
intelligence, resourcefulness, etc then?
So what's the point of living at all? If you think there is no purpose
to those things, why have you not ended your own life as the waste of
time you seem to think it is?
You also neglected to answer my question - to what end? All this pain
and the suffering so that in the end god can have what?
God doesn't need anything. Our lives aren't for God's benefit.
A few
(comparatively) followers that praise and interact with god for
eternity - and what could god - all-knowing and powerful - get out of
the wavering praise of incipient beings like us?
Nothing.
Vanity, vanity... on
both the Christian god and the Christian follower. What is the point?
All this drama (or trauma)... all the setups and punishment - to what
end?
To be truly human. To truly be God's children.
yeah. And remind me - exactly what are you doing about all that
'rampant suffering' and pain? .. But maybe it's time for people to stop
blaming God
for creating a world in which we have moral duties and responsibilties
toward one another, and the intelligence and power to do something
about them, and get on and just do it.
I have done some but not enough and likely more than most Christians -
but that isn't really up to the topic is it (not to mention
speculative)? And, as mentioned, if people want to give credit to god
for the beauty in the world and for its creation, then it is only
reasonable that god also get credit for the evil and suffering in it
as well - particularly since god is most capable of changing it (if we
entertain the notion).
On the otherhand, if god is not involved, we
are responsible for ourselves and we have natural and logical
explanations for our world then let's throw god out and get on with
helping each other and living.
Secondly, what of all these Christian
missionary efforts? If they used that money for social development
programs, food and/or skills training programs - many more would today
be with food. Instead, the Christian movement is too caught up in
who's idea of god is best. Take the Bibles to Africa program as an
example - send a nation bibles and missionaries instead of food or
true aid, while those that donate to this program walk off feeling
better.
Perhaps. Except, of course, for the fact that in many countries in the
world there would be no hospitals or schools if Christian missionaries
and churches hadn't built them. Even today many of the hopsitals in
Malawi continue to function only through the support of the Church of
Scotland.
What these passages say is that when we screw up, his will is that we
reap the consequences.
Come on Andrew. What they say is "You have disobeyed and pissed me
off. Now, these are the things that will happen. And *I will* make
them happen and you will know it." Read them... "I will devastate... I
will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters" - That is
god saying I am going to do this to you. "I myself will punish you for
your sins seven times over... I will destroy...". Unlike Sodom or the
flood, god doesn't do it himself but sends armies and puts the pieces
into place to make it happen. Lev 26:33 "I will draw out my sword and
pursue you." This is like saying Hitler may have said what would
happen to the Jews but he never pushed any of them into the oven
himself... genocides are bad places to be - didn't you know that?
Honestly, did this punishment come from god or not?
Do try to actually read the Bible rather than plucking verses out of it
here and there. The Bble is not a single view of God - it describes a
developing and growing understanding of God that took place over the
best part of two millennia. As a Christian I interpret the Old
Testament in terms of the New. The passages you quote were written long
after the events they describe by somebody making sense of the history
of his people. His understanding of God is not an exact match for that
described by Jesus. This insight is nothing new.
"Punishment from God" in the sense you use the term means simply that
when we make the wrong choices, those choices have evil consequences.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Closet Atheists? |
04 Jan 2008 03:21:31 PM |
|
|
On 2008-01-04 19:34:12 +0000, El Guapo <natezenmaster@gmail.com> said:
You crack me up, Andrew! And I can appreciate your responses more so
than such people as Ted, etc that just spout verse after verse... no
matter what the topic is. Of course, I still think you are off and
can't understand how you can believe in what is apparent to be
myths...
Do you want to live in a universe where every time the possibility f
something bad happening occurs God snaps his fingers and prevents it
happening?
Considering - if we entertain the concepts of the bible - that god
created the universe, and as you have rightly summarized there is a
responsibility associated with that - then shouldn't god do something
about it?
He did. He made us. Again, though, you have avoided the quesyion. How
would you imagine God (assuming for a moment that he exists) going
about doing what you suggest? Do you assume he would just snap his
fingers?
Or just sit by and watch people starve - as is the case?
Again, what's the alternative? Create a world where there's enough food
for everyone and the means to get it to them - oh! wait a minute - he
already did that!
Then expect people to praise him and call him loving and awesome?
HA...
So what's the point of living at all? If you think there is no purpose
to those things, why have you not ended your own life as the waste of
time you seem to think it is?
Don't you think it is mere vanity and a large bias that we think of
ourselves as the cause and center of the universe?
Who says I do? The universe may be teeming with life for all I know. We
may be only one of countless acts of God's creation. None of that makes
any difference to our view of our own lives. and why should it?
That we *have* to
have a purpose in the grand scheme of things - is that more than self-
flattery and conceit?
Again, who says I do think we have a purpose "in the grand scheme of
things". Simply having a purpose in my little corner of the universe
for the years given to me is quite enough for me.
If we just evolved here and our cognition
developed over time, then life is to enjoy and to help others to enjoy
as far as we're able now that we have the faculty to discern, the
ability to empathize, etc. I haven't killed myself because there is
much of life still to enjoy (and I am certain any day now Natalie
Portman will realize her love for me) - just because I don't have an
eternal soul or a divine purpose doesn't mean I am without hope. On
the contrary, it makes these minutes that fly by all the more
precious.
Oddly enough I can agree with all of that (especially Natalie Portman).
Believing in God doesn't make the universe, and the process of
evolution less wonderful; nor does the prospect or possibility of
eternal life make the days of this life less precious.
Our lives aren't for God's benefit.
Really? Then why did god create us? All the pain and suffering of the
world - the billions damned for eternity - it was for their benefit?
I don't know. If we could ask them, how many of those who suffered in
the way you describe would wish they had never been born, and mean it?
We are told throughout the bible that man's purpose is to praise god,
worship, etc... and that god "created all things for himself" - but
you say not so?
Again, I'd need to see exactly which bits of the Bible you mean; but I
tend to veer toward the Prime Commandment - love God and love your
neighbour - as a description of what we're here for.
To be truly human. To truly be God's children.
How can we be truly human and be god's children, is god human? Two
vastly different cases: Case 1. How, pray tell, does suffering through
life and starving to death then finding an eternity of punishment
through judgment because you held the wrong belief make someone truly
god's child?
I can't answer for the latter bit of this. As you may have gathered
(and as I think I've said) I don't believe that 'holding the wrong
belief' is a one way ticket to eternal damnation. Again I think your
approach is to self-centred (and I don't mean that disparagingly or in
reference to your own self). One shows oneself as God's child by
responding to the suffering of others - by being with them in that
suffering and supporting them.
Case 2. How does being raised a bible loving farmer that
believes, goes to church and does his work before dying to find an
eternity of painless, streets of gold make him truly a child of god
and human?
If it's simply a surface belief and does nothing to affect his attitude
to his fellow human beings, I'm not sure that it does. There is a
difference between faith and ritual.
"Punishment from God" in the sense you use the term means simply that
when we make the wrong choices, those choices have evil consequences.
Evil consequences? Like god deciding to force feed people their own
child? That is evil... why couldn't he give them a good stern lecture
or an incurable disease (2 Chronicles 21:18 "After all this, the Lord
afflicted Jehoram with an incurable disease of the bowels")? Of
course, what you were getting at is that the stories are contrived or
distorted by people that wrote long past the event.. and so, are you
saying these events didn't happen? And how much of it is not true?
Hard to say - and not necessarily very important.
If we are not to take the bible literally, then what portions do we
accept or why accept it at all?
You realise, of course, that you've engaged in the fallacy of the
excluded middle there, don't you?
Why not place it next to the other
books of lore and gods? Its as I stated earlier, you're essentially
taking the portions of the bible that are palatable or that reinforce
the image of the god you would like to have
"like to" is tendentious here. It's the image of God I have. That is,
effectively, the image of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Like I say -
I'm a 21st Century Christian, not a Jew of the 5th Century BC.
and accepting those
portions. The portions against that image, you take as allegory or as
distortions due to people's biases, time frame, copy errors, etc.
And why god at all? Because you met him?
Obviously
Typically, people that meet
god are placed in institutions.
Are they? I'm not at all sure that's the case. I personally know lots
of people who've experienced the presence of God. But suppose you're
right - is it possible that's why some people aren't more open about
their experiences?
Seriously, why god? God is not needed
to explain anything. And why the biblical god - with its history of
violence, intolerance, suppression, etc for its followers - not to
mention passages of vulgarity and cruelty in scripture itself.
I see your point - but I'm not responsible for the actions of others.
And again, I don't embrace the "biblical god" (partly because, as I've
said, there isn't a single understanding of God in the Bible). I
believe in the God I have come to know.
On Jan 4, 10:31 am, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2008-01-04 14:41:58 +0000, El Guapo <natezenmas...@gmail.com> said:
If a man is starving it is the responsibility of others to help. That's
what I mean by moral responsibility.
So doesn't god have that same moral responsibility? In fact, even more
so since god is the creator of these people and their entire
situation! Not to mention the most capable of help... Come on now...
By doing what? Snapping his fingers and manufacturing food out of
nowhere? Do you want to live in a universe where every time the
possibility f something bad happening occurs God snaps his fingers and
prevents it happening?
what would be the point of our intelligence, our resourcefulness, our
inventivenesss if there were no possibility of suffering?
In heaven there will be no suffering - so what's the point of our
intelligence, resourcefulness, etc then?
So what's the point of living at all? If you think there is no purpose
to those things, why have you not ended your own life as the waste of
time you seem to think it is?
You also neglected to answer my question - to what end? All this pain
and the suffering so that in the end god can have what?
God doesn't need anything. Our lives aren't for God's benefit.
A few
(comparatively) followers that praise and interact with god for
eternity - and what could god - all-knowing and powerful - get out of
the wavering praise of incipient beings like us?
Nothing.
Vanity, vanity... on
both the Christian god and the Christian follower. What is the point?
All this drama (or trauma)... all the setups and punishment - to what
end?
To be truly human. To truly be God's children.
yeah. And remind me - exactly what are you doing about all that
'rampant suffering' and pain? .. But maybe it's time for people to stop
blaming God
for creating a world in which we have moral duties and responsibilties
toward one another, and the intelligence and power to do something
about them, and get on and just do it.
I have done some but not enough and likely more than most Christians -
but that isn't really up to the topic is it (not to mention
speculative)? And, as mentioned, if people want to give credit to god
for the beauty in the world and for its creation, then it is only
reasonable that god also get credit for the evil and suffering in it
as well - particularly since god is most capable of changing it (if we
entertain the notion).
On the otherhand, if god is not involved, we
are responsible for ourselves and we have natural and logical
explanations for our world then let's throw god out and get on with
helping each other and living.
Secondly, what of all these Christian
missionary efforts? If they used that money for social development
programs, food and/or skills training programs - many more would today
be with food. Instead, the Christian movement is too caught up in
who's idea of god is best. Take the Bibles to Africa program as an
example - send a nation bibles and missionaries instead of food or
true aid, while those that donate to this program walk off feeling
better.
Perhaps. Except, of course, for the fact that in many countries in the
world there would be no hospitals or schools if Christian missionaries
and churches hadn't built them. Even today many of the hopsitals in
Malawi continue to function only through the support of the Church of
Scotland.
What these passages say is that when we screw up, his will is that we
reap the consequences.
Come on Andrew. What they say is "You have disobeyed and pissed me
off. Now, these are the things that will happen. And *I will* make
them happen and you will know it." Read them... "I will devastate... I
will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters" - That is
god saying I am going to do this to you. "I myself will punish you for
your sins seven times over... I will destroy...". Unlike Sodom or the
flood, god doesn't do it himself but sends armies and puts the pieces
into place to make it happen. Lev 26:33 "I will draw out my sword and
pursue you." This is like saying Hitler may have said what would
happen to the Jews but he never pushed any of them into the oven
himself... genocides are bad places to be - didn't you know that?
Honestly, did this punishment come from god or not?
Do try to actually read the Bible rather than plucking verses out of it
here and there. The Bble is not a single view of God - it describes a
developing and growing understanding of God that took place over the
best part of two millennia. As a Christian I interpret the Old
Testament in terms of the New. The passages you quote were written long
after the events they describe by somebody making sense of the history
of his people. His understanding of God is not an exact match for that
described by Jesus. This insight is nothing new.
"Punishment from God" in the sense you use the term means simply that
when we make the wrong choices, those choices have evil consequences.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Closet Atheists? |
04 Jan 2008 05:57:38 PM |
|
|
On 2008-01-04 23:31:21 +0000, El Guapo <natezenmaster@gmail.com> said:
I don't embrace the "biblical god" (partly because, as I've said, there
isn't a single understanding of God in the Bible). I believe in the God
I have come to know.
You should've started with that line and we would've circumvented much
of the thread.
Sorry - I thought that was apparent.
So do you believe people of other religions and the
gods they have come to know?
I believe they too are speaking of the same God that I know. I think my
understanding of him is closer (but not perfect!), but I recognise that
as a matter of judgement and opinion on my part.
And what of the atheists that come to
know that there is no need for god and don't delude themselves with
the notion? What happens to me?
From my perspective God loves all his children - you as much as any other.
If you can believe that I act morally
(most of the time, save some naughty thoughts of NP and so on), do
volunteer work, etc but do not believe in god - in fact, recognize all
the problems caused by those that do and thus try to talk them out of
it - am I destined for eternal punishment? I embrace life with its
possibilities - I take your arguments and try to digest them, but it
makes no sense. Does that mean I'm deserving of eternal anguish?
As I've said, I don't get into second-guessing God when it comes to
judgement. As a matter of belief on my part, though (and bear in mind I
could be wrong) I do not think, as I think I've said, that believing
the wrong thing is an automatic passport to eternal hellfire. And if my
understanding of God is right, neither does he.
And why god at all? Because you met him?
Obviously
Haha... how is it obvious?
I merely meant that if you experience something it's a fairly obvious
reason to believe it exists - not that it is obvious that I have done
so.
Do you glow and glimmer with an aura given
you by your meeting with god? Or are we supposed to be able to gather
that impression from your fluency and ecclesiastic understandings? Do
you ever see the vanity in what you write (whether unintended or not)?
Andrew: "Why god? Because I met him." You met god? Andrew:
"Obviously."
It's the image of God I have. That is, effectively, the image of God
revealed in Jesus Christ.
But, as you have noted, we're talking about stories written by biased
and fallible humans about things beyond them. Not only just
interpretations but descriptions of the supernatural.... scholars
regard much of Jesus' words as not really his,
This is a matter on which there is, in fact, very little consensus
among scholars. There is a criterion used by some scholars to determine
which sayings are (as near as possible) undoubtedly those of Jesus. I
think this may be what you mean here. It is a very stringent criterion
and while it can be used to say which sayings almost certainly are
those of Christ, it cannot be used to say that those that do not meet
this criterion are not those of Christ.
along with various
other discrepancies and suspects on scripture - so what you really
believe is what you feel and hope to think is true. Regarding the
bible itself and which portions are accurate you stated that its "not
necessarily very important" or was that just for the stories of
cruelty and punishment? You pick and choose....
Of course I do. Ultimately it's my belief I'm talking about here and
have to be honest with myself about it. I have to interpret the Bible
in a way that makes sense to me.
One shows oneself as God's child by responding to the suffering of
others - by being with them in that suffering and supporting them.
So god creates suffering and people so that people can respond to
suffering and be more like god?
God allows the possibility of suffering - there's a subtle but
important distinction here.
How does that make sense? And if so,
if a person creates more suffering isn't he/she just helping and
affording others the opportunity to empathize and aid in that
suffering?
I still don't - as I have repeatedly asked - see to what end? All this
pain and suffering, all the drama and for what? Couldn't god come up
with a better way than all this?
I don't know - I've only got the one universe to examine.
Of course, throughout this
engagement, I've been entertaining the idea and notion of god - which
I find to be unwarranted - but all this? What good is it - again
indulging the notions as you say - that we become people that
recognize suffering of others? And then what pass on to a place where
there is no suffering for eternity?
But, hopefully, have grown in the process.
And why this notion of eternal souls? There is nothing in this world
that lasts forever and nothing that would indicate we will. You,
yourself, have changed in every imaginable way. Your body,
personality, mind - have all changed and will continue to do so. So
what is this eternal soul that comes from a wavering, incipient being?
That's a difficult question. The closest I can get is one's sense of
identity. Although I am, as you say, different in all sorts of ways
from the person I was when I was a child; I still have a sense that I
am the same person.
He did. He made us. Again, though, you have avoided the quesyion. How
would you imagine God (assuming for a moment that he exists) going
about doing what you suggest? Do you assume he would just snap his
fingers?
Oh, so god passes the buck? God: Here's earth, its all yours and I am
now blameless for all my creations.. have a good time and remember to
keep the sabbath...
Didn't god provide manna for the Israelites or feed masses with a few
fish and loaves? As with all miracles in the bible, somehow god can't
perform them anymore - whether by the snap of his fingers or not. And
is it beyond god to do so? Does it matter that people aren't helping
people? Shouldn't god lead by example and help or just sit there. Its
amazing that such a personable god relies on people to do everything
for him...
There is a difficulty in using miracles, and I have a feeling you're
deliberately avoiding it. If God were to use miracles to negate
suffering; and the possibility of suffering is always present, then God
would have to be carrying out miracles on a near-constant basis. You do
see the problem there, don't you?
I Corinthians 14:8 "So likewise, except that you utter by the tongue
words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?"
In summary, we are supposed to believe in a god that wants us so badly
to fellowship and love him that he chooses to sit in the recesses and
only reveal himself in the sensations and hearts of those that choose
prior to that revelation to believe in him.
That would, of course, be a non-Christian perspective as it avoids the
whole business of incarnation.
A god whose character we
are supposed to gather through our feelings and the impressions or
images we glean from an antiquated book of stories about 900 yr old
people, cruelties, orders and rules, etc written by fallible
individuals at times unknown about events past them.
Truth can be gleaned from all sorts of places.
We are supposed
to believe that we have an eternal soul despite there being no
evidence of anything permanent about us and that if we recognize the
suffering of others and believe in Jesus that our everlasting soul
will spend eternity in a beautiful, painless place while those other
souls that suffered may end up in an eternity of continued anguish.
All this for some purpose unknown by a god that is awesome and
righteous that also created a legion of demons and devils to work
against him
I don't think that was his purpose, and I tend to regard demons as
metaphorical.
and his other creation, us, in the process of this
believing and loving each other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Closet Atheists? |
05 Jan 2008 10:06:39 AM |
|
|
On 2008-01-05 15:35:07 +0000, El Guapo <natezenmaster@gmail.com> said:
Regarding god providing nutrition to the starving, I do recognize that
god would certainly have to become more interactive and on a continued
basis, but how is that a problem
Because it strips us of our chance
to recognize the suffering of the starving?
No - the problem is the idea of miracle on a regular basis. A miracle
is an irregularity - a breaking - of the laws of nature. If these were
happening on a regular basis it is difficult to see how there could be
laws of nature as we understand the term. However our freedom of
choice, sense of responsibility and ability to act effectively on our
choices is predicated on the predictability of our environment. Take
away the laws of nature and you also take away our choice, freedom,
responsibility and power.
Doesn't appear to be a
problem to me though I know it is for you as your view of suffering is
a tool and you praise god for it. I don't buy into it. Heaven won't be
a place of suffering or will god reinstate suffering and starvation in
order to rekindle our compassions? Or is that our impressions on earth
will last for an eternity? Christians often compare people as children
to god, which means he has an obligation and responsibility that can't
be removed. However, we'd just end up reposting and rehashing
arguments past...
I'm now more aware of your particular beliefs, which certainly can't
be construed as orthodox Christianity.
More orthodox than you may imagine.
Of course, you believe you have
a superior understanding or image of the Christian god but I'm sure
there are many others with different views that think they have the
more accurate impression.
Naturally. That's the nature of opinion.
I can certainly see why a thinking person
wouldn't be able to swallow the literal bible. And while you called
the fallacy of excluded middle, I don't see ad temperantiam as any
more or less valid. Aside from your meeting with god, which does me
and others little good, I can't see how and why one has to scramble
and incorporate god into anything or conversely scramble and
incorporate the bible into the god. Heinlein once penned what is to me
a very applicable summary: "Theology is never any help; it is
searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't
there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything." As you
mentioned, views of god can be gleaned from all sorts of places, from
John Frum to Jesus, the bible to the Iliad. The gleanings seem to lend
themselves to occasional hilarity (dark and morose as it turned out to
be) in things like Heaven's Gate or John Frum to cruelty and
intolerance in witch burnings, inquisitions and so on. Even today
people's religions dominate their political and thereby societal views
that then make their force be known to all. But, again a regression
into past posts and circular debates with you. And while I realize you
cling to my every word in near breathless anticipation, what would be
the point of a rehashing.
You're probably right. We've probably taken this debate as far as it
can go because we have reached a pretty full understanding on one
another's position. All there s from here is "I think this" and "I
think that".
May that which you think isn't there bless you.
On Jan 4, 4:57 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2008-01-04 23:31:21 +0000, El Guapo <natezenmas...@gmail.com> said:
I don't embrace the "biblical god" (partly because, as I've said, there
isn't a single understanding of God in the Bible). I believe in the God
I have come to know.
You should've started with that line and we would've circumvented much
of the thread.
Sorry - I thought that was apparent.
So do you believe people of other religions and the
gods they have come to know?
I believe they too are speaking of the same God that I know. I think my
understanding of him is closer (but not perfect!), but I recognise that
as a matter of judgement and opinion on my part.
And what of the atheists that come to
know that there is no need for god and don't delude themselves with
the notion? What happens to me?
From my perspective God loves all his children - you as much as any other.
If you can believe that I act morally
(most of the time, save some naughty thoughts of NP and so on), do
volunteer work, etc but do not believe in god - in fact, recognize all
the problems caused by those that do and thus try to talk them out of
it - am I destined for eternal punishment? I embrace life with its
possibilities - I take your arguments and try to digest them, but it
makes no sense. Does that mean I'm deserving of eternal anguish?
As I've said, I don't get into second-guessing God when it comes to
judgement. As a matter of belief on my part, though (and bear in mind I
could be wrong) I do not think, as I think I've said, that believing
the wrong thing is an automatic passport to eternal hellfire. And if my
understanding of God is right, neither does he.
And why god at all? Because you met him?
Obviously
Haha... how is it obvious?
I merely meant that if you experience something it's a fairly obvious
reason to believe it exists - not that it is obvious that I have done
so.
Do you glow and glimmer with an aura given
you by your meeting with god? Or are we supposed to be able to gather
that impression from your fluency and ecclesiastic understandings? Do
you ever see the vanity in what you write (whether unintended or not)?
Andrew: "Why god? Because I met him." You met god? Andrew:
"Obviously."
It's the image of God I have. That is, effectively, the image of God
revealed in Jesus Christ.
But, as you have noted, we're talking about stories written by biased
and fallible humans about things beyond them. Not only just
interpretations but descriptions of the supernatural.... scholars
regard much of Jesus' words as not really his,
This is a matter on which there is, in fact, very little consensus
among scholars. There is a criterion used by some scholars to determine
which sayings are (as near as possible) undoubtedly those of Jesus. I
think this may be what you mean here. It is a very stringent criterion
and while it can be used to say which sayings almost certainly are
those of Christ, it cannot be used to say that those that do not meet
this criterion are not those of Christ.
along with various
other discrepancies and suspects on scripture - so what you really
believe is what you feel and hope to think is true. Regarding the
bible itself and which portions are accurate you stated that its "not
necessarily very important" or was that just for the stories of
cruelty and punishment? You pick and choose....
Of course I do. Ultimately it's my belief I'm talking about here and
have to be honest with myself about it. I have to interpret the Bible
in a way that makes sense to me.
One shows oneself as God's child by responding to the suffering of
others - by being with them in that suffering and supporting them.
So god creates suffering and people so that people can respond to
suffering and be more like god?
God allows the possibility of suffering - there's a subtle but
important distinction here.
How does that make sense? And if so,
if a person creates more suffering isn't he/she just helping and
affording others the opportunity to empathize and aid in that
suffering?
I still don't - as I have repeatedly asked - see to what end? All this
pain and suffering, all the drama and for what? Couldn't god come up
with a better way than all this?
I don't know - I've only got the one universe to examine.
Of course, throughout this
engagement, I've been entertaining the idea and notion of god - which
I find to be unwarranted - but all this? What good is it - again
indulging the notions as you say - that we become people that
recognize suffering of others? And then what pass on to a place where
there is no suffering for eternity?
But, hopefully, have grown in the process.
And why this notion of eternal souls? There is nothing in this world
that lasts forever and nothing that would indicate we will. You,
yourself, have changed in every imaginable way. Your body,
personality, mind - have all changed and will continue to do so. So
what is this eternal soul that comes from a wavering, incipient being?
That's a difficult question. The closest I can get is one's sense of
identity. Although I am, as you say, different in all sorts of ways
from the person I was when I was a child; I still have a sense that I
am the same person.
He did. He made us. Again, though, you have avoided the quesyion. How
would you imagine God (assuming for a moment that he exists) going
about doing what you suggest? Do you assume he would just snap his
fingers?
Oh, so god passes the buck? God: Here's earth, its all yours and I am
now blameless for all my creations.. have a good time and remember to
keep the sabbath...
Didn't god provide manna for the Israelites or feed masses with a few
fish and loaves? As with all miracles in the bible, somehow god can't
perform them anymore - whether by the snap of his fingers or not. And
is it beyond god to do so? Does it matter that people aren't helping
people? Shouldn't god lead by example and help or just sit there. Its
amazing that such a personable god relies on people to do everything
for him...
There is a difficulty in using miracles, and I have a feeling you're
deliberately avoiding it. If God were to use miracles to negate
suffering; and the possibility of suffering is always present, then God
would have to be carrying out miracles on a near-constant basis. You do
see the problem there, don't you?
I Corinthians 14:8 "So likewise, except that you utter by the tongue
words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?"
In summary, we are supposed to believe in a god that wants us so badly
to fellowship and love him that he chooses to sit in the recesses and
only reveal himself in the sensations and hearts of those that choose
prior to that revelation to believe in him.
That would, of course, be a non-Christian perspective as it avoids the
whole business of incarnation.
A god whose character we
are supposed to gather through our feelings and the impressions or
images we glean from an antiquated book of stories about 900 yr old
people, cruelties, orders and rules, etc written by fallible
individuals at times unknown about events past them.
Truth can be gleaned from all sorts of places.
We are supposed
to believe that we have an eternal soul despite there being no
evidence of anything permanent about us and that if we recognize the
suffering of others and believe in Jesus that our everlasting soul
will spend eternity in a beautiful, painless place while those other
souls that suffered may end up in an eternity of continued anguish.
All this for some purpose unknown by a god that is awesome and
righteous that also created a legion of demons and devils to work
against him
I don't think that was his purpose, and I tend to regard demons as
metaphorical.
and his other creation, us, in the process of this
believing and loving each other.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: Closet Atheists? |
03 Jan 2008 09:34:35 AM |
|
|
Why do you flood this news group with your silly questions? Are you unable
to make any logical and factual reasonable?
Quit wasting our newsgroup space.
"Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2008010316454416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2008-01-03 16:14:33 +0000, El Guapo <natezenmaster@gmail.com> said:
Are you so pure of heart that you can judge another man's fate for all
eternity?
I am clear enough of mind to realize the absurdity, shabbiness and
injustice of a mass murdering pedophile and necrophiliac heaven bound
and enjoying no pain at the right of a pure god. Not to mention the
clarity of mind to see the fatuity in a god that would allow all these
acts from people he created for his own gain and flattery...
That's not what I asked. Are you qualified to judge a man for eternity?
Yes or no?
On Jan 3, 8:57 am, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2008-01-03 15:11:06 +0000, "natezenmas...@gmail.com"
<natezenmas...@gmail.com> said:
Or how about the priest that has a Holy life of service to God and on
his
last day on earth, rapes only one child?
Or what about the priest that rapes children his entire Church
service
career and on his death bed asks to be saved?
Suppose he's
saved and gets eternal life - eternal life in the presence of all
those
children; with everyone knowing what he did and everyone saying they
forgive him. Heaven or Hell?
"He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death
or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed
away."
If there is no pain in heaven then will it matter to the rapist
priest?
Depends. Is 'regret' a form of pain?
We could, of course, use Dalmer as an actual example since he
went Christian before his death in prison. Is he - the sodomite,
cannibalistic necrophiliac, heaven or hell bound Andrew? Will he be
subjected to gnashing of teeth and eternal fire due to his atrocities?
Or strolling the streets of gold where there is no more mourning,
crying or pain for his realization and belief in Jesus he acquired
prior to death?
To be honest I'm not going to second-guess God. Do you know everything
there is to know about Dalmer? Do you know the state of his soul when
he died? Are you so pure of heart that you can judge another man's fate
for all eternity?
No. Me neither.
Another quick one, what of Martin Luther? The revered figure in
Christian lore. "One should show no mercy to these [women]; I would
burn them myself, for we read in the Law.." - Martin Luther. His
followers took up that calling and did just that... Not to mention
his blatant antisemitism. Is this cherished Christian figure also in
heaven - the witch burning, Jew hating man?
See above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Closet Atheists? |
03 Jan 2008 03:38:39 PM |
|
|
On 2008-01-03 15:34:35 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said:
Why do you flood this news group with your silly questions? Are you unable
to make any logical and factual reasonable?
Can I offer you some stones to go with that glass house?
Quit wasting our newsgroup space.
"Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2008010316454416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2008-01-03 16:14:33 +0000, El Guapo <natezenmaster@gmail.com> said:
Are you so pure of heart that you can judge another man's fate for all
eternity?
I am clear enough of mind to realize the absurdity, shabbiness and
injustice of a mass murdering pedophile and necrophiliac heaven bound
and enjoying no pain at the right of a pure god. Not to mention the
clarity of mind to see the fatuity in a god that would allow all these
acts from people he created for his own gain and flattery...
That's not what I asked. Are you qualified to judge a man for eternity?
Yes or no?
On Jan 3, 8:57 am, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2008-01-03 15:11:06 +0000, "natezenmas...@gmail.com"
<natezenmas...@gmail.com> said:
Or how about the priest that has a Holy life of service to God and on
his
last day on earth, rapes only one child?
Or what about the priest that rapes children his entire Church
service
career and on his death bed asks to be saved?
Suppose he's
saved and gets eternal life - eternal life in the presence of all
those
children; with everyone knowing what he did and everyone saying they
forgive him. Heaven or Hell?
"He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death
or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed
away."
If there is no pain in heaven then will it matter to the rapist
priest?
Depends. Is 'regret' a form of pain?
We could, of course, use Dalmer as an actual example since he
went Christian before his death in prison. Is he - the sodomite,
cannibalistic necrophiliac, heaven or hell bound Andrew? Will he be
subjected to gnashing of teeth and eternal fire due to his atrocities?
Or strolling the streets of gold where there is no more mourning,
crying or pain for his realization and belief in Jesus he acquired
prior to death?
To be honest I'm not going to second-guess God. Do you know everything
there is to know about Dalmer? Do you know the state of his soul when
he died? Are you so pure of heart that you can judge another man's fate
for all eternity?
No. Me neither.
Another quick one, what of Martin Luther? The revered figure in
Christian lore. "One should show no mercy to these [women]; I would
burn them myself, for we read in the Law.." - Martin Luther. His
followers took up that calling and did just that... Not to mention
his blatant antisemitism. Is this cherished Christian figure also in
heaven - the witch burning, Jew hating man?
See above.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
