World views with no God

[jdawg70]

You all really think it would be possible for God to intervene constantly without having any implications on our own lives?

Yes, I do think it's possible, and quite desirable.  We could apply our life energies to higher developmental stages, rather than struggling to stay alive or to defend ourselves against attack.

I think I want to turn this around because I really feel like I need more input from Samuelke:
Samuelke, I do not think it would be possible for god to intervene constantly without having any implications on our own lives.  But that's because I do not believe that god exist.

You do believe that god exists - why do you think it wouldn't be possible for god to do so?

Furthermore, isn't it kind of silly to have a problem with god's actions having implications on our own lives?  His very existence is an implication in our own lives.  The only way for him to not have any implications on our lives is for him to not exist.

Why are implications problematic?  Like the effect his whole meteor thing had on you, allowing you to believe that he exists, be saved, give your love and adoration to god and receive it in kind?  Like the implication of god proving himself to exist to all of humanity so that now humanity gets to spend it's time arguing whether or not to worship, love, and adore god rather than bother with arguing about his existence?  Isn't that a little better for the whole 'free will' thing - that I'd have the free will to accept or reject god, rather than being unable to exercise my will to make that choice because I don't think he even exists?

[Astreja]

So Norman Geisler attempts to justify murder by demonizing the Canaanite people and their culture?  (Springy G shakes Her head in dismay and horror)  The quoted material makes a good case for evicting the Bible permanently from the "morality" shelf.

[Samuelke]

Listen i understand truly that you all are genuine in your beliefs and we have done nothing here but discuss the subject matter, and when it is one like this it can be especially hard to not put opinion into it. I know you all have not thrashed me, all have us have just been sharing our own points.

[jdawg70]

This is from  Norman Geisler’s book, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament

A Moral Problem—the slaughter of the Canaanites (Josh 6, 8, 10).

Israel was commanded by God to completely exterminate the Canaanite inhabitants of the land including men, women, and children. This has been called a primitive and barbaric act of murder perpetrated on innocent lives.

Several factors must be kept in mind in viewing this situation. (1) There is a difference between murder and justifiable killing. Murder involves intentional and malicious hatred which leads to life-taking. On the other hand, the Bible speaks of permissible life-taking in capital punishment (Gen. 9:), in self defense (Exod. 22:2), and in a justifiable war (Gen. 14). (2) The Canaanites were by no means innocent. They were a people cursed of God from their very beginning (Gen. 9:25). They were a vile people who practiced the basest forms of immorality. God described their sin vividly in these words, “I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Lev. 18:25). (3) Further, the innocent people of the land were not slaughtered. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah clearly demonstrates that God would save a whole city for ten righteous people (Gen. 18:22f.). In that incident, when God could not find ten righteous people, He took the four or five righteous ones out of the place so as not to destroy them with the wicked (Gen. 19:15). On another occasion God saved some thirty-two thousand people who were morally pure (Num. 31:35). Another notable example is Rahab, whom God saved because she believed (cf. Heb. 11:31). (4) God waited patiently for hundreds of years, giving the wicked inhabitants of Canaan time to repent (cf. 2 Peter 3:9) before He finally decided to destroy them (Gen. 15:16). When their iniquity was “full,” divine judgment fell. God’s judgment was akin to surgery for cancer or amputation of a leg as the only way to save the rest of a sick body. Just as cancer or gangrene contaminates the physical body, those elements in a society—if their evil is left to fester—will completely contaminate the rest of society. (5) Finally, the battle confronting Israel was not simply a religious war; it was a theocratic war. Israel was directly ruled by God and the extermination was God’s direct command (cf. Exod. 23:27-30; Deut. 7:3-6; Josh. 8:24-26). No other nation either before or after Israel has been a theocracy. Thus, those commands were unique. Israel as a theocracy was an instrument of judgment in the hands of God. (Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1977, pp. 99-100.)

I disagree with this primarily because I do not see punishment for the sake of punishment as a moral justification for behavior.  I do not believe in a karmic universe that allows for wrongs to be righted through the suffering of the wrongdoer.

But that's me.

Listen i understand truly that you all are genuine in your beliefs and we have done nothing here but discuss the subject matter, and when it is one like this it can be especially hard to not put opinion into it. I know you all have not thrashed me, all have us have just been sharing our own points.

Thanks for understanding that.  We are all sharing our views, but the issue I'm struggling with is that I'm not sure if you're seriously considering your own, at least not thoroughly.  There are a number of posts behind you that I'd expect you to consider if you are interested in examining your own views and beliefs (Anfauglir post #145 is one I'm particularly interested in).  Now, perhaps you are internally considering them, but I have no idea if that's true or not.

And if I can't trust you to examine your own views and beliefs, I can't necessarily trust you to examine my views or beliefs, and the conversation stops being a sharing of ideas and more of a fanfic writing session.  I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you do take your views seriously, but the more times you fail to respond to questions on your beliefs the less and less inclined I am to keep giving you that benefit.  I hope that I can continue to assume you take your beliefs seriously; conversations like this are what I do to question and evaluate my own beliefs and it is important to me to be able to continually question those.

[Samuelke]

You all really think it would be possible for God to intervene constantly without having any implications on our own lives?

Yes, I do think it's possible, and quite desirable.  We could apply our life energies to higher developmental stages, rather than struggling to stay alive or to defend ourselves against attack.

I think I want to turn this around because I really feel like I need more input from Samuelke:
Samuelke, I do not think it would be possible for god to intervene constantly without having any implications on our own lives.  But that's because I do not believe that god exist.

You do believe that god exists - why do you think it wouldn't be possible for god to do so?

Furthermore, isn't it kind of silly to have a problem with god's actions having implications on our own lives?  His very existence is an implication in our own lives.  The only way for him to not have any implications on our lives is for him to not exist

Why are implications problematic?  Like the effect his whole meteor thing had on you, allowing you to believe that he exists, be saved, give your love and adoration to god and receive it in kind?  Like the implication of god proving himself to exist to all of humanity so that now humanity gets to spend it's time arguing whether or not to worship, love, and adore god rather than bother with arguing about his existence?  Isn't that a little better for the whole 'free will' thing - that I'd have the free will to accept or reject god, rather than being unable to exercise my will to make that choice because I don't think he even exists?

Ok I understand what your saying now let me clarify, the implications I speak about are those of how humans would start behaving knowing that all prayers would be answered. We would then start to think we were all powerful and indestructible. Contrary to what someone else has just said Jesus isn't a bail out or get into heaven free card so you can live life morally to your own likings and it knowing you will ask for forgiveness one day. It is way more complicated I can get into it in another post sorry. But for me I really and truly almost never ask god for things in life or to grant me something or do something for me, I spend most of my prayer in thanks and asking for him to bless others. The meteor story has been taken from what it really is to me and totally has been slaughtered. At the time I was convinced it was God and now I say it very well could have been but maybe not, it holds little weight in what actually has me convinced God is real. Personally I enjoy not living in a perfect world where there was no suffering, not that I enjoy suffering but because we can't appreciate the good in life without experiencing the bad. We would be like robots only programmed to be good. God always intervening would take away learning from our mistakes, it would take away a lot of Good fear we have, and it would totally change the way we acted in a negative way knowing we could always get our way.

[The Wannabe]

Samuelke,

Why would Yahweh, being the omniscient and supposedly benevolent deity that he is, predestine the Canaanites to sin and genocide?  What kind of loving god creates a people, and then capriciously wipes them from the face of the earth?   If the god of the bible was truly just in any sense of the word, would he not rehabilitate the Canaanites and maybe command his people to live in harmony with this newly redeemed, indigenous tribe?

[LoriPinkAngel]

I happen to be a Christian but I saw an interesting website called "Daylight Atheism".  The author of this site was a pretty mellow atheist.  Simply advocating the reasons that he does not believe there is a god without trashing those who do.

This post has an underlying tone that I want to pull out, just to make sure I'm not the only one seeing it.  Are you trying to say that this entire thread as a personal attack on Sam?  That we are 'not mellow' and are 'trashing him'?  Why?  What are we doing if not advocating reasons that we don't believe in God without trashing Sam?  It may appear as if Sam is getting trashed, but that's only because he's losing.  We aren't calling him names, calling him stupid, or anything like that.  We are giving Sam facts to work with. 

If that was not the intention, then I apologize for jumping to that conclusion, but it sure seems like an accusation is in there.

No, that was not the intention.  I was looking for a "worldview" with a primarily positive outlook that also was logical and factual.  The site I mentioned promotes atheism by pointing out the good things about a worldview without a god rather than focusing on the shortcomings and failures of religion.  I wanted to go with something about nature & how so much of nature is beautiful but that is more of an observation the a worldview...

[jdawg70]

Ok I understand what your saying now let me clarify, the implications I speak about are those of how humans would start behaving knowing that all prayers would be answered. We would then start to think we were all powerful and indestructible.

That only applies if god always answers in the affirmative (or, rather, answers to the behest of the desires of the person praying).  What exactly is the harm in god responding thusly:
Prayer: "God, please grant me the strength to endure this stomach cancer."
God: "No, dude, you've got to learn to live through this hardship to better yourself as a person."
Prayer: "But God, this really really sucks!"
God: <uses infinite wisdom to explain why, in the end, it does not suck, with infinite love so that Prayer does not feel berated or accosted>

The prayer now has the option to endure for the 'not suck' result, or to ignore god and suffer the consequences.  I fail to see how this is less fair, less moral, less supportive of the concept of free will, less effective at teaching lessons on living a moral life, and overall less logical than god playing hide and seek or refusing to try to convince me of his existence because I'm too ignorant to see it.

Contrary to what someone else has just said Jesus isn't a bail out or get into heaven free card so you can live life morally to your own likings and it knowing you will ask for forgiveness one day.

This might be unfair to ask, but is the difference between existence in heaven and existence here?

It is way more complicated I can get into it in another post sorry. But for me I really and truly almost never ask god for things in life or to grant me something or do something for me, I spend most of my prayer in thanks and asking for him to bless others. The meteor story has been taken from what it really is to me and totally has been slaughtered. At the time I was convinced it was God and now I say it very well could have been but maybe not, it holds little weight in what actually has me convinced God is real.

Thanks.

Personally I enjoy not living in a perfect world where there was no suffering, not that I enjoy suffering but because we can't appreciate the good in life without experiencing the bad. We would be like robots only programmed to be good. God always intervening would take away learning from our mistakes, it would take away a lot of Good fear we have, and it would totally change the way we acted in a negative way knowing we could always get our way.

Again, possibly unfair, but I take it that this is not the expect scenario in heaven?  Is there evil in heaven?

[Samuelke]

Ok I understand what your saying now let me clarify, the implications I speak about are those of how humans would start behaving knowing that all prayers would be answered. We would then start to think we were all powerful and indestructible.

That only applies if god always answers in the affirmative (or, rather, answers to the behest of the desires of the person praying).  What exactly is the harm in god responding thusly:
Prayer: "God, please grant me the strength to endure this stomach cancer."
God: "No, dude, you've got to learn to live through this hardship to better yourself as a person."
Prayer: "But God, this really really sucks!"
God: <uses infinite wisdom to explain why, in the end, it does not suck, with infinite love so that Prayer does not feel berated or accosted>

The prayer now has the option to endure for the 'not suck' result, or to ignore god and suffer the consequences.  I fail to see how this is less fair, less moral, less supportive of the concept of free will, less effective at teaching lessons on living a moral life, and overall less logical than god playing hide and seek or refusing to try to convince me of his existence because I'm too ignorant to see it.

Contrary to what someone else has just said Jesus isn't a bail out or get into heaven free card so you can live life morally to your own likings and it knowing you will ask for forgiveness one day.

This might be unfair to ask, but is the difference between existence in heaven and existence here?

It is way more complicated I can get into it in another post sorry. But for me I really and truly almost never ask god for things in life or to grant me something or do something for me, I spend most of my prayer in thanks and asking for him to bless others. The meteor story has been taken from what it really is to me and totally has been slaughtered. At the time I was convinced it was God and now I say it very well could have been but maybe not, it holds little weight in what actually has me convinced God is real.

Thanks.

Personally I enjoy not living in a perfect world where there was no suffering, not that I enjoy suffering but because we can't appreciate the good in life without experiencing the bad. We would be like robots only programmed to be good. God always intervening would take away learning from our mistakes, it would take away a lot of Good fear we have, and it would totally change the way we acted in a negative way knowing we could always get our way.

Again, possibly unfair, but I take it that this is not the expect scenario in heaven?  Is there evil in heaven?

Yeah your right and for me heaven was the very first thing I questioned in my faith it actually terrified me. But a more thorough reading of the bible has changed that now, no there will be no evil in heaven, but we will still have free will and this works because of how incredible it will be we will love it so much. So because of that fact it says we will will not choose evil in heaven and that's also only possible because of this life and experiencing the repercussions of evil is the only way there can be no evil in heaven.

And it is a fact that science has proved God does not exist and science has not explained how all this came to be. Yes science has tried but what they have come up with in my opinion takes more faith to believe then God does.

[Samuelke]

Samuelke,

Why would Yahweh, being the omniscient and supposedly benevolent deity that he is, predestine the Canaanites to sin and genocide?  What kind of loving god creates a people, and then capriciously wipes them from the face of the earth?   If the god of the bible was truly just in any sense of the word, would he not rehabilitate the Canaanites and maybe command his people to live in harmony with this newly redeemed, indigenous tribe?

I don't know why you think this because Christian theology doesn't say that God chooses the outcome of peoples lives we do that. Yes we do believe God has a purpose for all of us just a unique as each of us are but whether or not we go that route is all in our hands, he did proclaim himself and give those people a chance to believe in him in every story like this. The ot has many valuable things in it but it is known that the bible is progressive in its revealing of Gods character, we learn more about him the further along you go untill revalations where all the bible is basically summarized and concluded. How could the writers of the bible, people from all over the place, most which had never met and in different times yet they all flow with a harmony. This along with prophecies by the hundred where not even one turned out to be false.Do you see that as a coincidence

[jdawg70]

Yeah your right and for me heaven was the very first thing I questioned in my faith it actually terrified me. But a more thorough reading of the bible has changed that now, no there will be no evil in heaven, but we will still have free will and this works because of how incredible it will be we will love it so much. So because of that fact it says we will will not choose evil in heaven and that's also only possible because of this life and experiencing the repercussions of evil is the only way there can be no evil in heaven.

Am I unable to choose evil in heaven or will I simply have learned my lessons so thoroughly in life that I'd never, ever, for all eternity choose to commit an act of evil?

If the former, why wouldn't god just make me unable to choose evil now?

If the latter, is there some 'quota' of life-suffering that needs to be reached to get to that state?  Did the 6-year that got killed in the car crash learn enough lessons in life to be admitted to heaven?  Does the 6-year old go to hell?  Is the 6-year old reincarnated to get a chance to learn more?

If I misunderstand god and drown my children, do I get a pass because I really, truly thought I was doing to work of god?  Do I go to hell?  Do I get reincarnated to get a chance to learn more?

How is this better than god, rather than using suffering, using his infinite wisdom and infinite love to teach us?  I hope you're not the kind of person who believes that hitting a child is an ethical way to teach children.

This is kind of one of my major beefs with Christianity (primarily Catholicism but not limited to it): it teaches the lesson that suffering can be good, even in light of other options.  That's pretty reprehensible to me.  On this world, we really should be working towards the reduction of suffering.  When we see suffering, our moral obligation should be to alleviate that suffering.

And it is a fact that science has proved God does not exist and science has not explained how all this came to be. Yes science has tried but what they have come up with in my opinion takes more faith to believe then God does.

Woah.  HOLD THE PHONE - you're using the word 'fact' incorrectly, seeing as how science has neither proved that god does not exist, is incapable of proving that no god exists (for example, a god that is all-powerful, all-knowing, and desires to not be detected), nor has science tried to prove that god exists.  Science is a methodology for examining objective reality; it is the taking of factual evidence and using those facts to derive models of reality.  Science is a methodology to explicitly try to eliminate human bias, experimental error, and models based on incorrect data.

Who told you that science had an agenda?  Scientific institutions may or may not have agendas, but the scientific method most certainly does not.  It is simply a tool that we can utilize to gain a better understanding of the world we live in and all share.

[Samuelke]

I'm about to respond to the rest of your post but I made an error in my typing as I normally do I ment to say science has not proved there is no God, I know science can't prove that God exist that was a mistake in my typing that post my apologies I realize the falseness in what I originally said and I didn't mean to say that.

[Samuelke]

And no it is a combination of how awe filling heaven will be and our knowledge of evil. I think in my opinion the suffering teaches us but he doesn't want us to suffer it is our own doing. You can not say there is more evil outside of what humans have caused in things like natural disasters and so on. Even cancer most of it comes from something we have done or made, starvation is caused by the political leaders and other people who do that to people. But in this world which we can't change how things work we have good and evil and without that evil good would be the most boring thing on the planet. But this suffering argument would hold more ground to me if it weren't true that meaninglessness does not come from being weary of pain, but meaninglessness comes from being weary of pleasure.

And for me I can remember being spanked as a kid like maybe two times. Both my parents were raised catholic and now both are baptist but they never believed in hitting kids like both of their parents did. For me I grew to have this nasty taste for the baptist church and a whole lot of the things they do, it is really almost all the denominations that take the gospel and twist it, the only church that I have been to in the last 7 or 8 years is non-denominational but it is hard to find any good church's now adays that's why I've been 2 or 3 times in the last 4 years. But I also work at a day care with a group of about 60 to 80 elementary age kids. I've worked in daycares the last 3 years I am going to school to teach elementary age kids and no I plan on never hitting my kids I have found many many other solutions to getting through to kids. Children and teaching are two deep passions of mine.

[Samuelke]

I've seen many people say God approves of rape, slavery, child abuse and so on but I think that most cases are stories showing what not to do, because the theme that God is merciful even to his people who are continual sinners because Moses and all the ot prophets were sinners like the rest of us he doesn't expect us to be perfect. But it always tells us God did not approve of what they did, I know you will have some that don't say that and if you all could show me some and I'll discuss them.

[3sigma]

I've seen many people say God approves of rape, slavery, child abuse and so on but I think that most cases are stories showing what not to do, because the theme that God is merciful even to his people who are continual sinners because Moses and all the ot prophets were sinners like the rest of us he doesn't expect us to be perfect. But it always tells us God did not approve of what they did, I know you will have some that don't say that and if you all could show me some and I'll discuss them.

Oh please, enough of this nonsense. You are presenting a one-sided, rose-coloured view of what the Bible says. Not only is the Bible riddled with childish nonsense, it also encourages intolerance, cruelty and violence. Your God is far from merciful. The Bible paints it as being a jealous, petty, vindictive, psychopathic tyrant.

You said in an earlier post that your God only ordered armies to slaughter everyone in a city[1] because they were killing babies (this wasn’t the reason in 1 Samuel). Of course, you completely ignore the fact that the most psychopathic, genocidal baby killer in the Bible is your God itself. It slaughtered every single baby on the entire planet[2] in a fit of pique at one point in the story. All creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all.

Here are a few of the commandments in the Bible encouraging intolerance, cruelty and violence:

• Kill all homosexuals. Leviticus 20:13
• Kill all adulterers. Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22
• Kill all witches. Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27
• Kill anyone who blasphemes. Leviticus 24:16
• Kill people who work on the sabbath. Exodus 31:14-15, 35:2-3, Numbers 15:32-36
• Kill women who aren’t virgins when they marry. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
• Kill any difficult children. Exodus 21:15, 17, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21
• Kill everyone who has religious beliefs different from your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10, 13:12-16, 17:2-7

I’d say killing children for cursing their parents classifies as child abuse, wouldn’t you? As for what the Bible says about rape and slavery, look at Deuteronomy 22:23-29, Numbers 31:15-18, Leviticus 25:44-45 and Exodus 21:20-21.

Now you could try to pass all this off as merely parables or stories that people just ignore, but all you need to do is read the news to see the constant intolerance, violence, misery and death caused by people around the world acting on or motivated by their ridiculous religious beliefs. The worst part about those beliefs is that they are false. People allow themselves to believe that false or unvalidated feelings or ideas are true and then kill each other over who has the better imaginary friend.

Your God is imaginary, Samuelke. If you disagree then produce some sound evidence or sound arguments to prove that it is real. If you cannot establish the truth or validity of your claim then why should anyone believe it?

1.	1 Samuel 15:2-3 “…put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”
2.	Genesis 7:21-23

[Zankuu]

I've seen many people say God approves of rape, slavery, child abuse and so on but I think that most cases are stories showing what not to do, because the theme that God is merciful even to his people who are continual sinners [...]

Sam, do you think atheists just make this shit up? Do you think we open up our newspaper or webbrowser and read a story about a recently raped woman and think, "Another woman was raped. That bastard God must love rape"? No, Sam. We get our understanding of God's view on rape from the Bible. Many of us have actually read the damn thing. Your God DOES approve of rape. I guess I'll do your homework for you:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Deuteronomy 22:23-24  If a man happens to meet in town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife.

• Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

• Isaiah 13:11-16 I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty and will humble the pride of the ruthless. I will make people scarcer than pure gold, more rare than the gold of Ophir. Therefore I will make the heavens tremble; and the earth will shake from its place at the wrath of the Lord Almighty, in the day of his burning anger. Like a hunted gazelle, like sheep without a shepherd, they will all return to their own people, they will flee to their native land. Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the first passage God wants the raped woman put to death because her screams weren't loud enough. In the second passage God goes over his rules on how a rapist should properly handle rape, which includes paying the father fifty silver pieces for his trouble and then marrying the rape victim as if she were a piece of property. And the last one is a doozie. God gabs on about how he's going to personally rape women. I widened the verses so you can't accuse me of taking anything out of context. So yeah, Sam, that's a real merciful God. Or a rapist. Maybe we can meet in the middle and just call your god a merciful rapist?

This god had every opportunity to include a passage saying "Please don't rape your fellow human beings- it's morally wrong" but instead puts a monetary price on rape. Fuck the traumatized rape victim and her broken psyche and body I guess. There isn't even scripture on how to comfort her or help heal her. This is your disgusting god Sam, not mine. It's embarrassing that you worship such a being. Or more accurately, it's embarrassing that you don't realize you're worshipping such a being because you've been too lazy to read the damn Bible for yourself, cover to cover.

But it always tells us God did not approve of what they did [...]

Sam, all this tells me is that you and your self projection of God don't approve of rapists since scripture is strongly in opposition of your personal views on rape. Which is a good thing. You are more moral than the bronze age, middle eastern god of the Bible.

[kcrady]

Yeah your right and for me heaven was the very first thing I questioned in my faith it actually terrified me. But a more thorough reading of the bible has changed that now, no there will be no evil in heaven, but we will still have free will and this works because of how incredible it will be we will love it so much. So because of that fact it says we will will not choose evil in heaven and that's also only possible because of this life and experiencing the repercussions of evil is the only way there can be no evil in heaven.

According to the Christian theology, this is not true.  Lucifer and his angels (a third of the total, according to the Book of Revelation) were not content to live in Heaven, and did not find it so incredibly awesome they did not want to leave.  To the contrary, they started a rebellion despite being outnumbered two to one by their fellow angels--not to mention that the king they sought to overthrow is ostensibly omnipotent, and when it comes to punishment, infinitely vindictive.  In other words, they found Heaven so intolerable that they were willing to risk very high odds of everlasting torment to escape it.  Remember, at the time they made this decision, they were not drooling, hideous bat-winged abominations drenched in lives of Pure Evil, but holy angels welcome in the Celestial Court.   

And that's not all.  The sixth chapter of Genesis tells us of a second angelic rebellion, a mass defection of angels to Earth.  These defectors preferred the prosaic delights of marriage to human women, home, and family to the glories of Heaven.

Isn't it fairly obvious that if you have a regime, where large numbers of residents are jumping over the wall to escape, that it's not all it's cracked up to be?  How do you know you'll be happy in Heaven?

[The Wannabe]

I don't know why you think this because Christian theology doesn't say that God chooses the outcome of peoples lives we do that. Yes we do believe God has a purpose for all of us just a unique as each of us are but whether or not we go that route is all in our hands, he did proclaim himself and give those people a chance to believe in him in every story like this. The ot has many valuable things in it but it is known that the bible is progressive in its revealing of Gods character, we learn more about him the further along you go untill revalations where all the bible is basically summarized and concluded. How could the writers of the bible, people from all over the place, most which had never met and in different times yet they all flow with a harmony. This along with prophecies by the hundred where not even one turned out to be false.Do you see that as a coincidence

For one, it is made clear in biblical text that the Christian God predestines the fate of individuals, nations, and even talking snakes.  Roman 9:21 for example:  "Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"  I think this verse matches up quite nicely with the unfortunate (not to mention "predestined") fate of the promised land squatters in the OT.  Your god created the Canaanite vessels for dishonor and destruction.  The almighty celestial tyrant Yahweh decreed ethnic cleansing and rape in the land of Canaan, is this something a just or merciful god would do?

For two, the bible does not flow with harmony.  The bible is a literary anthology that was authored by several people over several thousand years, while also having been altered and edited numerous times.  There are several themes in the bible that are contradictory, not to mention absurd, and any Christians who claim that biblical prophecies have been fulfilled are either grasping at straws or flat out lying. 

Here's a youtube video that might shed some light on these issues for you:     

Thanks for being a good sport, Samuelke.  There's a lot of information in this thread to digest, so take all the time you need to process and gather your thoughts before replying.   

[The Gawd]

According to the Christian theology, this is not true.  Lucifer and his angels (a third of the total, according to the Book of Revelation) were not content to live in Heaven, and did not find it so incredibly awesome they did not want to leave.  To the contrary, they started a rebellion despite being outnumbered two to one by their fellow angels--not to mention that the king they sought to overthrow is ostensibly omnipotent, and when it comes to punishment, infinitely vindictive.  In other words, they found Heaven so intolerable that they were willing to risk very high odds of everlasting torment to escape it.  Remember, at the time they made this decision, they were not drooling, hideous bat-winged abominations drenched in lives of Pure Evil, but holy angels welcome in the Celestial Court.   

And that's not all.  The sixth chapter of Genesis tells us of a second angelic rebellion, a mass defection of angels to Earth.  These defectors preferred the prosaic delights of marriage to human women, home, and family to the glories of Heaven.

Isn't it fairly obvious that if you have a regime, where large numbers of residents are jumping over the wall to escape, that it's not all it's cracked up to be?  How do you know you'll be happy in Heaven?

This was always an issue I couldnt shake when I was a christian. It just never made sense. Either these "angels" knew that it was possible to beat god, or it was just so horrible that theyd rather burn forever than to be with him forever. It also paints an opposite picture of heaven than the perfection they try to feed us where there is jealousy and if jealousy why not every other negative aspect of emotion... Basically heaven is earth but with a dictator and apparently worse women.

As for sam, I do appreciate him coming back and answering, there are a lot of posts there. And though sometimes the answers are close to preaching it doesnt seem intentional and he doesnt seem to resort to the dishonesty that we see so much. That video above my post is very informative sam, I suggest it.

[screwtape]

Sam,

would you please answer these questions?


If you had the super powers of god, if you had the magic to do anything, would you use them to help people?  Would it be immoral if you did not?
Would you hide from people?
Would you insist they believe in you without seeing you?
Would you destroy them if they didn't love you?

[Ambassador Pony]

I don't know why you think this because Christian theology doesn't say that God chooses the outcome of peoples lives we do that.

Hmm. I thought christian theology said yahweh was all-powerful. You're saying he is ignorant of something, and, thus, not all-knowing.

What else can your deity not do?

Edit: please don't answer my question. I know you have a lot better posts to respond to and limited resources, as you are on your own. Plus, at this stage in a discussion the theist usually leaves.

[JeffPT]

No, that was not the intention. 

Then I apologize for jumping to the conclusion that I did, and I hope you accept it.

[Garja]

Some of the issue here seems to be an issue of predestination vs. Freewill.  This actually led to extensive debates among my Bible study back when I was a theist in college.  Essentially some Christians believe one thing, while others believe the other... We could never come to a consensus what was "correct," but the best way I personally came to look at it was that "Maybe we have freewill, but when you are talking about an omnipotent omniscient being and a finite life of a finite being that could be a false choice".  Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam argued about the same thing in the 16th century, but thats just the history buff in me showing off. 

In any case, its perfectly within Sam's right (and to stay within the bounds of Christianity) to say that the believes that God gives him Freewill to make his own choices.  Im just not sure the "choice" is a choice in the legitimate sense of the word, but at this point we are arguing semantics.

[The Wannabe]

Some of the issue here seems to be an issue of predestination vs. Freewill.  This actually led to extensive debates among my Bible study back when I was a theist in college.  Essentially some Christians believe one thing, while others believe the other... We could never come to a consensus what was "correct," but the best way I personally came to look at it was that "Maybe we have freewill, but when you are talking about an omnipotent omniscient being and a finite life of a finite being that could be a false choice".  Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam argued about the same thing in the 16th century, but thats just the history buff in me showing off. 

In any case, its perfectly within Sam's right (and to stay within the bounds of Christianity) to say that the believes that God gives him Freewill to make his own choices.  Im just not sure the "choice" is a choice in the legitimate sense of the word, but at this point we are arguing semantics.

In my opinion, the theological freewill vs predestination debate is a shut and closed case.  If the Christian, omni-everything creator exists, it logically follows that everything in existence is entangled in celestial puppet strings that reach all the way up to the pearly gates.  To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, yes you have freewill, the boss insists upon it. 

[Garja]

Yeah, I dont know; and its no longer a subject I care about enough to debate.  I just didn't know to what version of Christianity Sam prescribed.

[JeffPT]

But this suffering argument would hold more ground to me if it weren't true that meaninglessness does not come from being weary of pain, but meaninglessness comes from being weary of pleasure.

So we should welcome suffering then as a wonderful gift from God?  Is that what you are saying?  That we should not try to stamp out suffering wherever we come across it?  Should we celebrate that the 29,000 children that died today have learned all the lessons they need?  Should the mothers of those children rejoice for God having taken their child away without their say in the matter?  Am I doing the wrong thing by treating patients in my office and trying to alleviate their pain?  Should I tell them that their pain is good for them and kick them out the door?  Why should humans try to snuff out suffering if the almighty God isn't lifting a finger to do it?  After all, if God wanted suffering to stop, he'd stop it. 

If your child were suffering, what would you do to stop it?  God supposedly loves us all (his children) more than we humans could possibly love anything.  That is either a true statement or a false one.  Given that God does not lift a finger to help people who are suffering, do you really think it's reasonable to say that God loves us more than you love even your own children? 

If God did not exist, what would this world look like in terms of suffering?  It would look exactly like this one. 

Do you really think we need suffering to the extent that we see it in order to know that pleasure is better than pain?  If God took out cancer, would there still be enough suffering for us not to become weary of pleasure?  If he took out starvation on massive scales, wouldn't we still have plenty of suffering for us not to become weary of pleasure?  And if people needed pain in order to understand what pleasure was, wouldn't it be best for God to give each and every person the bare minimum required amount of pain?  That's not what happens though.  Billions of people suffer horrible amounts while billions of others hardly suffer at all. 

The truth is that suffering depends upon natural factors such as location, culture, social status, etc.  If that's the case, then why do you even need to presuppose God exists in order to understand why some people suffer more than others?  Adding the notion of a loving God into the mix only confuses the situation.  It only makes it necessary to do mental gymnastics to explain it all away.  It's far easier to understand that people starve because they don't put enough food into their mouths than it is to say that God is teaching them a lesson by keeping food away from them. 

The argument that suffering is a teaching tool is one of the most disgusting arguments that Christians come up with.  Why would you ever worship a deity who chose that as a method of education?  Especially one that is considered omnipotent, and thus capable of making each person feel exactly enough suffering to teach them that suffering is bad, and pleasure is good. 

You lose a lot of 'human decency' points when you use this argument.  It makes you look really bad.  Your religion is making you say horrible things.  I hope you can see that. 

[Garja]

^ Made me think of an old song I learned in Sunday school (which, in retrospect is kinda racist), but says something like "red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world".  But... He really does seem to show a particular affinity for white males, preferably in the 20th century or later, generally western, who's parents have sufficient income.

[Samuelke]

http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/letmypeoplethink.aspx?archive=1&pid=2536

http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2435

I feel like he makes some very strong points please tell me about those you don't agree with and this is more my starting point I don't have time tonight to give my full response because I'd like it to be as well thought out as possible. But I think these to lectures do a marvelous job at defending the bible, and they each are in parts and all are worth listening . I look for to giving my full response.

I just want to say one thing quickly, many Christians will tell you that you are taking it out of context. Now I give them some slight credit cause at least they told part of truth, but that almost is doing more an injustice then anything at all. This here is it, we must not only take the context of the passages around it in the scripture but also the historical context to which people God originally intended this mesage to and what was going on around these people. Only then can we really understand the bible and it's true meaning which is being blurred.

[3sigma]

http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/letmypeoplethink.aspx?archive=1&pid=2536

http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2435

I feel like he makes some very strong points please tell me about those you don't agree with and this is more my starting point I don't have time tonight to give my full response because I'd like it to be as well thought out as possible. But I think these to lectures do a marvelous job at defending the bible, and they each are in parts and all are worth listening . I look for to giving my full response.

Please stop posting links to apologetics web sites and start providing direct and honest answers to the questions you’ve already been asked. Before you continue telling us about your God’s character, what it says and what it wants, please prove to us that it actually exists because if it doesn’t exist then everything else you are writing about it and everything in the Bible about it is just make believe.

Please prove to us that your God is real because if it isn’t then no Christian beliefs that depend on it are worthy of respect. Tell us what, if anything, distinguishes your belief in your God from pure imagination.