Author Topic: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?  (Read 3259 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #174 on: August 28, 2014, 06:03:46 PM »
Ok here is the thing. You say "believe or go to hell" that is right but only at the moment of your death. You are able to not believe all you life and believe just at the moment of your death (which is paradoxically eternity) and go to heaven. As you understand someone meeting with God would be pretty silly to not want to believe in him. But they still exist people who do not want to meet god, these people do not believe hence to to hell.
You got 4 possible conclusions in this scenario which was created by your religion:
1.   Your god is responsible for sending people to hell and thus is a malevolent god.
2.   Your religion is wrong and your god accepts those who don’t believe in “Jesus/God” into heaven, thus you would no longer be a Christian
3.   Your religion is wrong and your god did not create the universe and for some reason is incapable of avoiding the ultimatum, thus you would no longer be a Christian and your god is impotent.
4.   Your religion is wrong because there is no god and thus the ultimatum is an illusion meant to manipulate people into following the religion.
1. This is avoiding your responsibilities. would you blame the gun's constructor because he made the gun you used to kill yourself? In a way, he is responsible for your death.
2. God accept those who did not believe during their lives, as long as they believe after.
3 & 4 I disagree.
To answer the question : "why would believing in this god’s plan make someone right, but not believing in this god’s plan make that same person wrong?" The answer is "it doesn't" It does only matter at the time of your death not during your life. But as I tried to explain to you, someone used to make the same mistake will most surely keep making it even after he's dead. And the fact that you already accepted love/good in your life usually means that you will keep choosing good/love after you're dead.
"Could it be that this is one of the primary rules designed by religion to keep people believing?" No. People keep believing because they are loving it, not because they are scared of hell.
You're worth more than my time

Online eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1592
  • Darwins +60/-31
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #175 on: August 29, 2014, 05:26:25 AM »
"As you understand someone meeting with God would be pretty silly to not want to believe in him. But they still exist people who do not want to meet god, these people do not believe hence to to hell."

luk knows all this how?

Signature goes here...

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #176 on: August 29, 2014, 07:02:21 AM »
Uh, if I am a true Athiest, my last words will be "I left the million dollars in the...(dead)", not that I finally accept the existence of a misogynistic, genocidist book character.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline wow

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +24/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #177 on: August 29, 2014, 08:13:29 AM »
Ok here is the thing. You say "believe or go to hell" that is right but only at the moment of your death. You are able to not believe all you life and believe just at the moment of your death (which is paradoxically eternity) and go to heaven. As you understand someone meeting with God would be pretty silly to not want to believe in him. But they still exist people who do not want to meet god, these people do not believe hence to to hell.
You got 4 possible conclusions in this scenario which was created by your religion:
1.   Your god is responsible for sending people to hell and thus is a malevolent god.
2.   Your religion is wrong and your god accepts those who don’t believe in “Jesus/God” into heaven, thus you would no longer be a Christian
3.   Your religion is wrong and your god did not create the universe and for some reason is incapable of avoiding the ultimatum, thus you would no longer be a Christian and your god is impotent.
4.   Your religion is wrong because there is no god and thus the ultimatum is an illusion meant to manipulate people into following the religion.
1. This is avoiding your responsibilities. would you blame the gun's constructor because he made the gun you used to kill yourself? In a way, he is responsible for your death.
2. God accept those who did not believe during their lives, as long as they believe after.
3 & 4 I disagree.
To answer the question : "why would believing in this god’s plan make someone right, but not believing in this god’s plan make that same person wrong?" The answer is "it doesn't" It does only matter at the time of your death not during your life. But as I tried to explain to you, someone used to make the same mistake will most surely keep making it even after he's dead. And the fact that you already accepted love/good in your life usually means that you will keep choosing good/love after you're dead.
"Could it be that this is one of the primary rules designed by religion to keep people believing?" No. People keep believing because they are loving it, not because they are scared of hell.

Lukvance,

Thanks for creating this topic, I enjoy reading the responses. I would like to ask you some questions in light of the above though, perhaps you could explain some things to me? How would you explain your personal perspective with these verses? (the post may seem long, sorry, but it is due to the quoted bible passages).

I. Jesus the Mediator
(1 John 2:1-2 NIV) [1] My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. [2] He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Would you agree that in the end, jesus is like the mediator between mankind and god; through him mankind can be saved. What can we perhaps infer from his style of argumentation/guidelines for judgement? I will try to quote the 'jesus-said' verses as much as possible.

II. Not fit, is exit.
(Luke 14:25-35 NIV) Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: [26] "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. [27] And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. [28] "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? [29] For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, [30] saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.' [31] "Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? [32] If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. [33] In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. [34] "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? [35] It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

If it only mattered in the end, why would this verse be necessary in life? Why would Jesus feel the need to state so explicitly that it will take a whole lot of courage, strength, and moreover a whole lot of determination to follow him?

III. Silly virgins.. Like silly unbelievers?
(Matthew 25:1-13 NIV) "At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. [2] Five of them were foolish and five were wise. [3] The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. [4] The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. [5] The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. [6] "At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!' [7] "Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. [8] The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.' [9] "'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.' [10] "But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. [11] "Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!' [12] "But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.' [13] "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

It seems to me that it is your own responsibility to be watchful, for once the door closes, it remains closed. Why, if people can be saved at their time of death and what they have done in their lifes is irrelevant, what difference does it make to remain watchful? Also note, those who did not share their oil, nothing is specifically said about them. Yet as for the others, it seems it is your own responsibility, and your own alertness to make sure you are ready for when judgement comes. Simply saying, I knew about it but I kinda forgot to keep track of it some times, so silly of me, does seem a bit paradoxal here to me. I mean, the virgins knew their bridegroom was coming, they didn't know when, but they did know about him.

IV. What kind of branch are we?
(John 15:1-6 NIV) "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. [2] He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. [3] You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. [4] Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. [5] "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. [6] If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

Jesus talks about remaining. Remaining takes time, it is not a 5-minute thing you do on your deathbed. It is not, after death, looking upon a mighty god and acknowledging his existence in faith. This is not what it means to 'remain', if only we look at the synonyms which are; abide, dwell, hang around, stay, stick around, tarry etc.
More importantly, if jesus is the vine, what are those branches? Can disbelievers be a branch of the vine in jesus? Or is jesus actually talking about people who are believers of him but who fail to deliver fruits? The fact that he talks about remain, implies imho that he is actually talking about someone who is already in him. You can not remain in something which you have never considered to be a part of in spiritual context. If everyone already was a branch, baptism would not be necessary and explicitly professing jesus as savior and lord also would not be required.
Also, if jesus is the vine and thus believers are the branches and they do not remain in him, they become like a branch thrown away and burned in the fire. In my opinion, you really have to do some mental gymnastics not to read some form of judgment for believers who reject their faith, or perhaps even a believer who does not bear fruit, has no oil or is arrogant with respect to other believers (see below), etc. Also, it does not say jesus cuts them off, it is the father who will cuts them off the vine, which is jesus itself. And if jesus is the sacrificial object on which salvation hinges, then not remaining in jesus, will cut you off from that vine, i.e. it will cut you off from jesus, i.e. it will cut you off from salvation, but this will be done by the father. If this can happen to believers, what do you think can happen to unbelievers?


V. More branches!
(Romans 11:16-22 NIV) If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

I think this verse is so important. A believer who sincerely believes and keeps faith and uses another person's disbelief as a measure of his own righteousness has as much at stake as that same unbeliever! This is pretty much in line with point IV.
To be graphed in one must be a believer and if a graphed in branch is a believer then it clearly says they can be broken off also due to unbelief. Unbelief not necessarily denouncing jesus, but it could also be not being careful with the oil for your lamp to being an unfruitful branch and arrogant with respect to the disbelievers. Again, here it definately and unambiguously gives a condition: kindness of god provided that you continue in his kindness. To continue is something, is something you have to do, i.e. persevere quite systematically.


VI. Heaven let me in! What? I have to wait? Oh..
(Matthew 5:17-20 NIV)  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

You will be judged by what you have practied previously, again not something you can do on your deathbed or even afterwards if you read this. Thus, if you previously have set aside one of the commandments, you will be judged for that later in the kingdom of heaven. Thus again, not solely what you do at the time of your death, but also what you have done throughout your life, matters. We have 2 options; 1) judgement at time of death to enter heaven; if you read the above, you will probably go to Hades (see below) in jesus his own words, 2) judgement at judgement day when jesus returns; assume your notion of not believing your whole life and confessing jesus upon death is true, then you get out of 1 and enter heaven. But in the end, jesus comes back and jugement still awaits on the basis of what you have done during your lifetime (see below).

What does jesus tell you to do? Amongst others keep the will of his father (which is believe in jesus) and belief in jesus comes with quite some determination prerequisites. It has always appeared paradoxal to me that one could be judged on what one has done, when what one should do is the father's will, i.e. belief in jesus?[1]
.

(John 6:40 NIV) "40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

(Matthew 5:17-20 NIV)21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!"

In my opinion, this actually also describes the event we are contemplating on. At the time of death, someone could still claim to believe in jesus and say indeed 'lord lord, did we not prophecy in your name etc', and yet jesus turns them away. Note, jesus definately does not talk about someone who has never believed but in fact someone who actually called him "Lord, Lord" during his lifetime. This could be someone who used to believed but stopped believing, or someone who proclaimed to believe but didn't keep jesus his commandments (in this case I refer back to II, III, IV and V).
Thus if this could be the fate of someone who supposedly did/used to believe in jesus at the time of death is turned down, I imagine no good awaits someone who never believed and goes for team jesus right at the end of his life. This brings back what I stated in the beginning, if you look at how jesus describes the path it takes to follow him, it is a continous, yet correcting path, and not something you can chose to neglect and to pick back up in the end. The father's will is considered to believe in his son, and his son is pretty serious in what it means to believe in him.


Look forward to your insights!   :)
 1. I think this could be viewed in the following context: (Revelation 20:12-15 NIV) 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14". According to what they had done during their lifetime, they were first placed into either the sea or Hades supposedly after they died, awaiting judgement. Just like the Lazarus parable (here jesus talks about what happends immediately after death), they can't simply get out again, so in principle once in, there is no certain way out, if you assume the first judgement to put them in there was a righteous one done by jesus/god.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2076
  • Darwins +373/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #178 on: August 29, 2014, 09:24:28 AM »
Uh, if I am a true Athiest, my last words will be "I left the million dollars in the...(dead)", not that I finally accept the existence of a misogynistic, genocidist book character.

You left the million dollars in Castle Aaaarrrrgh?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3012
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #179 on: August 29, 2014, 10:03:14 AM »
... Note, jesus definately does not talk about someone who has never believed but in fact someone who actually called him "Lord, Lord" during his lifetime. This could be someone who used to believed but stopped believing, or someone who proclaimed to believe but didn't keep jesus his commandments (in this case I refer back to II, III, IV and V).

Thus if this could be the fate of someone who supposedly did/used to believe in jesus at the time of death is turned down, I imagine no good awaits someone who never believed and goes for team jesus right at the end of his life.

Assuming that any existing gods are at least as sane as we are, I'm going on the assumption that it's better to be upfront about unbelief and have the integrity to not do a half-assed conversion of convenience on one's deathbed, but in the meantime proceed in the spirit of Matthew 25:35-40 ("I was hungry and you fed me; I was naked and you clothed me ...") simply because of compassion for our fellow travellers.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #180 on: August 29, 2014, 11:18:58 AM »
^Oh, but don't you know?  A singular god (such as that Christians believe in) would have gone insane long ago.  Or at least strange in the head.  Did you see that Tom Hanks movie where he played a FedEx employee who was shipwrecked on an island for years, and how aberrant he was by the end when he finally escaped?  This of course presumes that said god is a social creature, but I can think of no reason that a god which was content with solitude would bother to create anything like humans.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3012
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #181 on: August 29, 2014, 12:40:38 PM »
Oh, but don't you know?  A singular god (such as that Christians believe in) would have gone insane long ago.  Or at least strange in the head ...

Já, 10 billion years of sitting around in an empty flat with nothing good on the telly[1] can really put a crimp in Your interpersonal skills.

What concerns Me the most about the rather dubious instructions list of demands made by the purported god described in the Bible is that nobody is safe from its wrath, not even the most dedicated believer.  Seriously, would you trust someone who had one of his most devout fans[2] tortured on a bet, and who arranged to have his own son killed?

 1. Which won't be invented until the 1900s CE, anyway
 2. Job.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #182 on: August 29, 2014, 01:06:05 PM »
I don't disagree, Astreja.  I certainly wouldn't worship such a being.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #183 on: August 29, 2014, 01:33:22 PM »
Ok here is the thing. You say "believe or go to hell" that is right but only at the moment of your death. You are able to not believe all you life and believe just at the moment of your death (which is paradoxically eternity) and go to heaven. As you understand someone meeting with God would be pretty silly to not want to believe in him. But they still exist people who do not want to meet god, these people do not believe hence to to hell.

I really don’t care what excuses you want to make, you really don’t know that your excuses are actually true.  You just want them to be true.  The only thing that matters (which is all I care about) is that indeed the Catholic Church teaches “believe or go to hell”.  All the fluff you choose to add after the fact is irrelevant as they are just excuses to justify the ultimatum and your beliefs.  I think this discussion is done.  I’m not really interested in reading more of your excuses (I’ve heard and read them all before multiple times throughout my life). 

You got 4 possible conclusions in this scenario which was created by your religion:
1.   Your god is responsible for sending people to hell and thus is a malevolent god.
2.   Your religion is wrong and your god accepts those who don’t believe in “Jesus/God” into heaven, thus you would no longer be a Christian
3.   Your religion is wrong and your god did not create the universe and for some reason is incapable of avoiding the ultimatum, thus you would no longer be a Christian and your god is impotent.
4.   Your religion is wrong because there is no god and thus the ultimatum is an illusion meant to manipulate people into following the religion.
1. This is avoiding your responsibilities. would you blame the gun's constructor because he made the gun you used to kill yourself? In a way, he is responsible for your death.

Where did I say we are not responsible or we are avoiding our responsibilities?  Maybe we are responsible, although how responsible are we if we are given ultimatums.  How much responsibility we have is irrelevant, we do or we do not have responsibility, it doesn’t matter.  THE POINT is that your god IS responsible and THAT is what you are trying to avoid.  If you believe we are responsible, do you also believe that your god shares equally in the responsibility?  I don’t think that you do, and that is the problem.  You seek to absolve your god of any responsibility because your god isn’t real and things that aren’t real can’t have responsibility.

Regarding the gun manufacturer, yes, the gun manufacturer is partially responsible for the violence that their product is a part of.  Are they completely responsible?  No, obviously those who commit the violence with the guns have the large share of the responsibility.  The thing about guns is that they are part of the society that accepts them, so the entire society is responsible in some part.  Only those who actively seek to abolish guns can be considered to be absolved of gun violence.  I personally do not own a gun, nor do I support any pro-gun causes but I don’t do enough to be absolved of at least partial responsibility as a member of society which accepts gun violence.

Your response to optional conclusion number 1 is nothing more than an attempt to shift the focus away from the point. 

2. God accept those who did not believe during their lives, as long as they believe after.

Which completely misses the point.  Are you willfully missing the point?  For fucks sake, I would bet you are now thinking after reading that question that I am missing your point.  No, I know what your point is, I understand that your religion teaches that your god is accepting of those who didn’t believe (all they need to do is believe).  It doesn’t matter as MY POINT is that you believe that your god DOES NOT accept those who DO NOT EVER believe.  Am I right or am I wrong?  Does your god accept those who DO NOT EVER believe?  No, your god does not. 

Seriously, you are responding to me like a robot (which only verifies points made by jdawg).   Will you please make an effort to comprehend what I am writing OR at least stop responding to me?

If your god does not accept those who DO NOT EVER believe, then your god is responsible for people going to hell, thus you would have chosen optional conclusion number 1.  IF however your god does accept those who DO NOT EVER believe (as well as everyone else) then there is no hell and your god is not responsible for sending people to hell (or allowing them to descend into hell, take your pick).  Yes, yes, I know, the people who go to hell made their choice to go to hell, which is irrelevant as even if those people willingly choose hell as you say, your god IS STILL responsible for them going to hell.

I’m sorry, you don’t get to absolve your god of responsibility.  If your god exists, then your god is responsible, and there is no way for you to get around this fact, it is right there in front of you and you keep trying to look away.  I understand why you want to look away, it doesn’t match up with everything else you believe.  The reality you’ve constructed for yourself doesn’t make sense if your god is malevolent, so you absolve your god of any responsibility.  If your god isn’t responsible, then your god isn’t malevolent.  Unfortunately for you, your god is responsible, so your god is indeed a malevolent god.  This was the point of optional conclusions 2, 3 and 4.

If your god accepts everyone into heaven, THEN no one would descend into hell and thus your god would not be malevolent.  Like I said though, believing everyone goes to heaven does raise new questions but it does successfully absolve your god of responsibility of sending/allowing people to go to hell.  This option also would mean you wouldn’t be Christian any longer either.

3 & 4 I disagree.

Of course you disagree since you don’t like any of the rational conclusions which is why I stated the following:

Your efforts here are all just an attempt to avoid coming to a conclusion you don’t like.  Unfortunately for you, any conclusion you come to besides those 4 possible ones I list above is far less likely to be possible and are almost certainly wrong.   

Look if you got a 5th rational option that I haven’t considered, then be my guest and present it.  In what way is your god absolved of responsibility for people going to hell besides the options 2, 3 and 4 that I presented?  No, you don’t get to say we are responsible because your god didn’t make the choice.  If your god created the universe, then your god created the ultimatum, thus your god is responsible even if your god didn’t make the choice.  So there are only 3 ways (that I can think of) that your god would be absolved of responsibility, either there is no hell and your god accepts everyone into heaven, your god did not create the universe or your god does not exist. 

To answer the question : "why would believing in this god’s plan make someone right, but not believing in this god’s plan make that same person wrong?" The answer is "it doesn't" It does only matter at the time of your death not during your life. But as I tried to explain to you, someone used to make the same mistake will most surely keep making it even after he's dead. And the fact that you already accepted love/good in your life usually means that you will keep choosing good/love after you're dead.

Yes, I already understand your excuses.  Unfortunately, you’re assuming that choosing good/love will mean someone will believe in “Jesus/God” at the time of their death or after.  I’m sure this is what you want to believe Is true, but we don’t actually know it is.  Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.  What if it isn’t though, what then?  What if someone chooses good/love all of their lives and even after they die, BUT they DO NOT believe in “Jesus/God”.  Again, it comes back to the ultimatum, if they don’t, then they descend into hell, that is the rule.  According to the Catholic Church, someone could choose good/love all of their life, but if they don’t believe then they will spend eternity in hell.

I don’t know what question you think you were answering, but “it doesn’t” does not answer the question I asked.  Here I’ll split it up and clarify it a little bit so you can understand:

Part 1 – Why would a person (who chooses good/love all of their life) believing in “Jesus/God’s” plan make them right?

Part 2 – Why would a person (who chooses good/love all of their life) NOT EVER believing in “Jesus/God’s” plan make them wrong?

"Could it be that this is one of the primary rules designed by religion to keep people believing?" No. People keep believing because they are loving it, not because they are scared of hell.

Oh so, Christians have no fear of hell?  Christians are completely okay with not believing in their god and going to hell?  Catholics don’t ever confess their sins for fear of going to hell (have you spoken to every Catholic on Earth about this)?

For the record, if people kept believing because they love it, then there wouldn’t be multiple religions and there wouldn’t be atheists.  If people were loving it, then no one would have a crisis of faith.  If people were loving it, then there wouldn’t be any need for Christian apologetics.   

Nope sorry, wrong answer, thanks for playing, better luck next time.  Oh, It might be true that some Christians keep believing because they love it, not all do though.  The fact that all don’t and some believe because they fear hell is all it takes to prove my point.  The problem is, hell is there in the back of the mind of every Christian, so even if they actually keep believing because they love it, hell is there if they don’t.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline atheola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1300
  • Darwins +28/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • Hospitals suck past an hour.
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #184 on: August 31, 2014, 08:03:12 PM »
God's systematic method, ignore, ignore, ignore.


Whew! I feel better!
You better believe it's not butter or you'll burn in hell forever and EVER!
Get on your knees right now and thank GOD for not being real!

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #185 on: September 02, 2014, 08:17:16 PM »
Regarding the gun manufacturer, yes, the gun manufacturer is partially responsible for the violence that their product is a part of.  Are they completely responsible?  No, obviously those who commit the violence with the guns have the large share of the responsibility.  The thing about guns is that they are part of the society that accepts them, so the entire society is responsible in some part.  Only those who actively seek to abolish guns can be considered to be absolved of gun violence.  I personally do not own a gun, nor do I support any pro-gun causes but I don’t do enough to be absolved of at least partial responsibility as a member of society which accepts gun violence.

Your response to optional conclusion number 1 is nothing more than an attempt to shift the focus away from the point. 
I don't want to shift the focus.
I'm just pointing out that even if God is responsible he is not really responsible. He is as responsible as the guy who made the gun you fired. You are the one truly responsible, not him.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #186 on: September 02, 2014, 08:21:52 PM »
Am I right or am I wrong?  Does your god accept those who DO NOT EVER believe?  No, your god does not. 
Yes God accept those who do not ever believe. It is those who do not ever believe that refuse him. They refuse him even if he's in front of them.
Is it because your son doesn't want to talk to you /acknowledge you that you don't want to talk to him? same thing.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #187 on: September 02, 2014, 08:25:45 PM »
In what way is your god absolved of responsibility for people going to hell besides the options 2, 3 and 4 that I presented?  No, you don’t get to say we are responsible because your god didn’t make the choice.  If your god created the universe, then your god created the ultimatum, thus your god is responsible even if your god didn’t make the choice.  So there are only 3 ways (that I can think of) that your god would be absolved of responsibility, either there is no hell and your god accepts everyone into heaven, your god did not create the universe or your god does not exist. 
God is responsible for creating hell and heaven and the ultimatum and all the laws of physics. Does the fact that you kill someone if you shoot him with a gun makes God responsible? In a way, yes, in reality, not that much. Same goes for heaven or hell. God IS responsible but way less than YOU.
You're worth more than my time

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4613
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #188 on: September 02, 2014, 08:44:24 PM »
In what way is your god absolved of responsibility for people going to hell besides the options 2, 3 and 4 that I presented?  No, you don’t get to say we are responsible because your god didn’t make the choice.  If your god created the universe, then your god created the ultimatum, thus your god is responsible even if your god didn’t make the choice.  So there are only 3 ways (that I can think of) that your god would be absolved of responsibility, either there is no hell and your god accepts everyone into heaven, your god did not create the universe or your god does not exist. 
God is responsible for creating hell and heaven and the ultimatum and all the laws of physics. Does the fact that you kill someone if you shoot him with a gun makes God responsible? In a way, yes, in reality, not that much. Same goes for heaven or hell. God IS responsible but way less than YOU.
so why can you sin,by accident Or choice without consequence,but a non theist can't? You may or may not choose to sin,but either way,you have no consequence,why?  The belief in Jesus is the only difference between you and I,but I would be eternally punished and you would not,even if we committed the same sins over our lives.

 The same God who created a universe,is concerned if I masturbate,but not if you masturbate. This is how fucked up a theists thought pattern is.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline wow

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +24/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #189 on: September 03, 2014, 03:15:15 AM »
Am I right or am I wrong?  Does your god accept those who DO NOT EVER believe?  No, your god does not. 
Yes God accept those who do not ever believe. It is those who do not ever believe that refuse him. They refuse him even if he's in front of them.
Is it because your son doesn't want to talk to you /acknowledge you that you don't want to talk to him? same thing.

Maybe I don't understand you correctly, but this (bold), in my opinion needs refinement. I understand you don't want to shift the focus of the topic, but have you read my previous post (#177)?

If you have, perhaps you understand that such a statement would need more nuance for it to even be considered as an argument. Especially given that, it can be argued (based on the bible itself) that it is not clearly the case that god accepts those who do not EVER believe. Let alone that, there is even room for argumentation to allow believers themselves to be subjected to god's standard of conditioned salvation.

« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 03:19:16 AM by wow »

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #190 on: September 03, 2014, 09:42:15 AM »
In what way is your god absolved of responsibility for people going to hell besides the options 2, 3 and 4 that I presented?  No, you don’t get to say we are responsible because your god didn’t make the choice.  If your god created the universe, then your god created the ultimatum, thus your god is responsible even if your god didn’t make the choice.  So there are only 3 ways (that I can think of) that your god would be absolved of responsibility, either there is no hell and your god accepts everyone into heaven, your god did not create the universe or your god does not exist. 
God is responsible for creating hell and heaven and the ultimatum and all the laws of physics. Does the fact that you kill someone if you shoot him with a gun makes God responsible? In a way, yes, in reality, not that much. Same goes for heaven or hell. God IS responsible but way less than YOU.

you oversimplify it a little there Luk.

God Created the universe
Physics
Me

God was in control of every thing that lead to the point where I pulled the trigger

God was responsible for allowing me to be sexually abused by a preditor priest
God was responsible for allowing my parents to beat me, believing I was  about the priest because were too simple minded to believe a priest could do such a thing.
God was responsible for not intervening on my behalf, for not talking to me as I made the decision to kill.   God is all powerful and if he does not intervene as I victimize someone then he is as guilty as a daycare worker who watches one kid beat another to death with a base ball bat during recess.



BTW The guy I shot was an agnostic,  Straddling the fence I killed him just months before he would have found god.  So he goes to hell because you allowed me to  victimize him prior to his awakening.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 09:45:51 AM by epidemic »

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #191 on: September 03, 2014, 10:01:44 AM »
God is responsible for creating hell and heaven and the ultimatum and all the laws of physics. <snip>
 Same goes for heaven or hell. God IS responsible but way less than YOU.

No, no, no. If god created and facilitated heaven hell and everything in between the buck stops with him.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #192 on: September 03, 2014, 12:30:04 PM »
Am I right or am I wrong?  Does your god accept those who DO NOT EVER believe?  No, your god does not. 
Yes God accept those who do not ever believe. It is those who do not ever believe that refuse him. They refuse him even if he's in front of them.
Is it because your son doesn't want to talk to you /acknowledge you that you don't want to talk to him? same thing.
Maybe I don't understand you correctly, but this (bold), in my opinion needs refinement. I understand you don't want to shift the focus of the topic, but have you read my previous post (#177)?

If you have, perhaps you understand that such a statement would need more nuance for it to even be considered as an argument. Especially given that, it can be argued (based on the bible itself) that it is not clearly the case that god accepts those who do not EVER believe. Let alone that, there is even room for argumentation to allow believers themselves to be subjected to god's standard of conditioned salvation.
I'm sorry. Did not have time to read your post.
There always have time to nuance things. In fact that's what I'm trying to do with sevenpatch opinion who does appear to me rather radical.
You're worth more than my time

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2076
  • Darwins +373/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #193 on: September 03, 2014, 12:56:16 PM »
I'm sorry. Did not have time to read your post.
There always have time to nuance things. In fact that's what I'm trying to do with sevenpatch opinion who does appear to me rather radical.

You have no idea what the words 'nuance' or 'radical' mean, do you?

Oh who am I kidding.  As if you'd ever admit that.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2111
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #194 on: September 03, 2014, 02:05:23 PM »
You have no idea what the words 'nuance' or 'radical' mean, do you?
In a way, yes, he does know, but in reality, not so much. But there's really nothing to explain since nuance isn't as real as love. Love exist because I felt it, but you can't say the same for radical. Same things happens with prayer. jdawg, can you even show me three evidences for a nuance being as real as love? That's too bad. This parody of a posting style probably reminds you of how annoying debating against it is, but can you even prove what an annoyance is or how you feel it? Read about the evidences first, then get back to me, jdawg.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2076
  • Darwins +373/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #195 on: September 03, 2014, 02:45:46 PM »
You have no idea what the words 'nuance' or 'radical' mean, do you?
In a way, yes, he does know, but in reality, not so much. But there's really nothing to explain since nuance isn't as real as love. Love exist because I felt it, but you can't say the same for radical. Same things happens with prayer. jdawg, can you even show me three evidences for a nuance being as real as love? That's too bad. This parody of a posting style probably reminds you of how annoying debating against it is, but can you even prove what an annoyance is or how you feel it? Read about the evidences first, then get back to me, jdawg.

Higgs boson.

CHECKMATE!
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #196 on: September 03, 2014, 02:54:30 PM »
God was in control of every thing that lead to the point where I pulled the trigger
I disagree. Prove it. God created everything does not mean he is controlling everything. Does the "creator" of a gun control the gun? or are you the one controling it?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #197 on: September 03, 2014, 02:56:07 PM »
No, no, no. If god created and facilitated heaven hell and everything in between the buck stops with him.
Why? Why would it stops with Him and doesn't stop with the gun manufacturer?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #198 on: September 03, 2014, 02:57:02 PM »
You have no idea what the words 'nuance' or 'radical' mean, do you?
Oh who am I kidding.  As if you'd ever admit that.
I might have misunderstand something. What do you get from what I am saying?
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #199 on: September 03, 2014, 02:57:57 PM »
No, no, no. If god created and facilitated heaven hell and everything in between the buck stops with him.
Why? Why would it stops with Him and doesn't stop with the gun manufacturer?

Because who created the gun manufacturer exactly as he/she was, knowing full well that he/she would manufacture guns that would result in the deaths of who knows how many people?
Just a though.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #200 on: September 03, 2014, 03:02:20 PM »
Because who created the gun manufacturer exactly as he/she was, knowing full well that he/she would manufacture guns that would result in the deaths of who knows how many people?
Just a though.
Nobody. The gun manufacturer is the son of a mother and a father. No one "created him exactly as he/she is". He is who he is because of the choices he made. Nobody made his choices for him.
I'll ask again "Why would it stops with Him (God) and doesn't stop with the gun manufacturer?"
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #201 on: September 03, 2014, 03:10:18 PM »
Because who created the gun manufacturer exactly as he/she was, knowing full well that he/she would manufacture guns that would result in the deaths of who knows how many people?
Just a though.
Nobody.

God was in control of every thing that lead to the point where I pulled the trigger
I disagree. Prove it. God created everything does not mean he is controlling everything. Does the "creator" of a gun control the gun? or are you the one controling it?
You wanna rethink that answer? Or just give the answer some thought in the first place?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline dloubet

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1396
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • Denisloubet.com
Re: How should God intervene against evil? Should it be systematic?
« Reply #202 on: September 03, 2014, 03:28:47 PM »
God was in control of every thing that lead to the point where I pulled the trigger
I disagree. Prove it. God created everything does not mean he is controlling everything. Does the "creator" of a gun control the gun? or are you the one controling it?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Let me put it this way: The god, being omnipotent, can supposedly create any universe it wants. Since it created the universe in which events led to the pulling of the trigger instead of the universe in which events did not lead to the pulling of the trigger, the blame is all on the god. No one else has any choice of which universe is created.
Denis Loubet