Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hmm, page 3 until Godwin showed up in a heated thread.
That has to be a record.
Comparing a god to a dictator is a bit of stretch. A God is a god; he is not human, and as such has a very different perception of things.
It'll be like calling an ant a psycho.

Christians I've spoken to or corresponded with, it is my understanding that the modern Christian cosmology does not allow for the existence of any other deities

Generally this is true. Though I'm sure Polonius is not alone in his take on things.

As an additional question Polonius, have you studied the Bahai faith? It may be of interest to you considering your views if for nothing else than a similar religious outlook.

Monster Rain wrote:Huh. Considering the Bible names at least two Gods other than YHWH that I can think of off the top of my head, I'm once again saddened by the fact that people claim to live their lives based on a book that they haven't read.

More than two actually: Astroloth, Baal, Baal-zebul (also spelled as Belzebul), Bel, Ishtar, Marduk, Milkom, Nabu, and Tammuz are all named. Might be others. OT is loooonnng. You'll also note later Christian traditions convert some of these into demons.

There's no real blanket rule with regards to the use of colour, we tend to use coloured text as A. We digs words that contain the letter U ... and B. It help differentiate when we're posting as a normal plebeian user or in our "official" capacity as chief whip.

... is that right ? ....


Anyway.....

it also does indeed stand out more when we've made an edit or wish to draw attention to part of a post.

I guess if someone was using it as some form of device to try and pretend that they're a MOD then we'd kick them in the balls step in and calmly and coolly have a word about this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blood reaper wrote:

I don't think it's a terrible analogy, I think it's quite fitting, but I could simply use the word dictator, rather than one,

There's a BIG difference between saying God is like a dictator and God is nigh on identical to Hitler.

The latter, if only on terms of scale, is ridiculous.

while I do believe that constant paradise would become a boring and pointless life style to me, maybe not you.

*Yes I really, really do. Also I changed my red writing to blue.

Then you need to rethink or redefine your terms.

What you're saying is that Perfection is not perfect.

If you're accepting it as the former, then it cannot possibly be the latter.

If you wish to use the generally accepted understanding of the term "7" with reference to a numerical value then you cannot claim that "7" is actually "42.5 bison".

Sure, if you wish to redefine what you mean by "7" , or perhaps argue the "numbers" can represent other things.. cool.

But that's not the crux of the issue here.

 Seaward wrote:
The pollsters were unable to find anyone under the age of 28 who professed a belief in a deity of any sort.

Best sign for a flawed survey: found.

 LordofHats wrote:
More than two actually: Astroloth, Baal, Baal-zebul (also spelled as Belzebul), Bel, Ishtar, Marduk, Milkom, Nabu, and Tammuz are all named.

Yeah, I googled them later on too. I was just going off of what I remembered first hand, which were Baal and Moloch.

 LordofHats wrote:
Might be others. OT is loooonnng. You'll also note later Christian traditions convert some of these into demons.

Sure, but I would still maintain that the fact that they are named in the Bible as gods and the whole "no other gods before me" seems to be a good argument for the existence of other deities in Christian cosmology.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
More than two actually: Astroloth, Baal, Baal-zebul (also spelled as Belzebul), Bel, Ishtar, Marduk, Milkom, Nabu, and Tammuz are all named.

Yeah, I googled them later on too. I was just going off of what I remembered first hand, which were Baal and Moloch.

 LordofHats wrote:
Might be others. OT is loooonnng. You'll also note later Christian traditions convert some of these into demons.

Sure, but I would still maintain that the fact that they are named in the Bible as gods and the whole "no other gods before me" seems to be a good argument for the existence of other deities in Christian cosmology.

Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top, don't call it Cosmology, call it by its proper name: Mythology.

Also if God is the all powerful creator of everything on heaven and earth, shouldn't he have created all those other gods?! Talk about plot holes, that Byble thingy has more of them than Prometheus!

PhantomViper wrote:
Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top, don't call it Cosmology, call it by its proper name: Mythology.

Look everyone! Someone who doesn't understand what they are talking about! You'd think the fact that it was identified as "Christian Cosmology" would have been a hint.

PhantomViper wrote:
Also if God is the all powerful creator of everything on heaven and earth, shouldn't he have created all those other gods?!

Yeah, I suppose he would have.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
The pollsters were unable to find anyone under the age of 28 who professed a belief in a deity of any sort.

Best sign for a flawed survey: found.

How so? I suspect there are people in eastern Germany under 28 who do believe in a deity, but the percentage is so small as not to be relevant.

 Monster Rain wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top, don't call it Cosmology, call it by its proper name: Mythology.

Look everyone! Someone who doesn't understand what they are talking about! You'd think the fact that it was identified as "Christian Cosmology" would have been a hint.

It would have been a hint and it would still be wrong, the correct term is "Christian Mythology".

Cosmology is an actual academic discipline studying the origin of the Universe, Mythology is: "a sacred narrative usually explaining how the world or humankind came to be in its present form", so it would be the correct expression in this discussion.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top, don't call it Cosmology, call it by its proper name: Mythology.

Look everyone! Someone who doesn't understand what they are talking about! You'd think the fact that it was identified as "Christian Cosmology" would have been a hint.

It would have been a hint and it would still be wrong, the correct term is "Christian Mythology".

Cosmology is an actual academic discipline studying the origin of the Universe, Mythology is: "a sacred narrative usually explaining how the world or humankind came to be in its present form", so it would be the correct expression in this discussion.

Eh hem...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_cosmology

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Eh hem...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_cosmology

Cool, so we have yet another example of religion attaching itself to a recognized science in order to try and achieve a modicum of "scientific credit" to their mumbo-jumbo... Got it.

PhantomViper wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Eh hem...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_cosmology

Cool, so we have yet another example of religion attaching itself to a recognized science in order to try and achieve a modicum of "scientific credit" to their mumbo-jumbo... Got it.

I'm not entirely sure if that's the case...in fact, I'm pretty sure its not.

If you're not even going to try and post in a manner that lends itself to debate then don't bother posting please.

Needlessly inflammatory rhetoric and cheap digs aren't needed here.

If you don't believe in the religion being discussed, cool... I'm sure that won't come as a surprise to those who do have a faith, most of whom I'd wager interact with people of differing beliefs day in, day out.

As ever the manner in which one comports oneself is what matters.

If you can't discuss the matter politely or rationally then don't post.

Thanks !

The stories told would be myths, in that they are sacred stories. The sacred stories contain within in them information that explains spiritual elements in the universe, including the nature and names of gods, which is cosmology. The study and nature of the gods using the term cosmology predates the scientific use for the term, and is the origin of the term used in science. Being scientific in nature does not suddenly mean that we abandon older uses of a word because they don't apply to science. Many words have separate meaning between different disciplines. Discreet in mathematics is different than in English, and a person would rightly be labeled silly for demanding that others can only use one meaning of the word ever.


Myths aren't limited to telling how humans came to be in their present form, they also inform about the nature of man, usually through parable, as well as setting out ideas about morals and ethics.

 LordofHats wrote:

As an additional question Polonius, have you studied the Bahai faith? It may be of interest to you considering your views if for nothing else than a similar religious outlook.

I have a pretty superfiical awareness of it. A friend growing up was Ba'hai.

I'm pretty happy being a "cafeteria catholic." I find the ritual inherent in mass to be a pretty key factor. I enjoy a good protestent sermon, much as I'd enjoy a lecture from an expert on nearly any topic, but it's hard to shift away from a very ritualized approach to worship as an adult.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:

Then you need to rethink or redefine your terms.

What you're saying is that Perfection is not perfect.

If you're accepting it as the former, then it cannot possibly be the latter.

If you wish to use the generally accepted understanding of the term "7" with reference to a numerical value then you cannot claim that "7" is actually "42.5 bison".

Sure, if you wish to redefine what you mean by "7" , or perhaps argue the "numbers" can represent other things.. cool.

But that's not the crux of the issue here.

I have a weakness for armchair psychology, but at some point that level of animosity just shows a very high level of despair. I mean, if there is a god, either we have free will and bad things can happen to us, or we don't have free will. I suppose he could be arguing that god is malicious, creating a world with an illusion of free will simply to enjoy our suffering... but that involves both a belief in god, and a rejection of free will.

Polonius wrote:I have a weakness for armchair psychology, but at some point that level of animosity just shows a very high level of despair. I mean, if there is a god, either we have free will and bad things can happen to us, or we don't have free will. I suppose he could be arguing that god is malicious, creating a world with an illusion of free will simply to enjoy our suffering... but that involves both a belief in god, and a rejection of free will.

I think he meant it just as an attempt at "debunking" certain religious views, or pointing out the "plot holes" mentioned earlier.

To me as an outsider, many statements made by Christians seem incredibly contradictory, and what he mentioned about this god's supposed omnipotence and the existence of murderers and free will is one such example. Most modern day sermons present the god as a merciful being whilst still stressing the omnipotence. When someone dies a tragic death, it's brushed off with sayings like "the good Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away", and when the sad relatives ask why, they get "the ways of the Lord are unfathomable" in return. You don't need to be a believer to see that something doesn't add up here; maybe it helps to be a non-believer as faith may (or even should) override logic.

From my admittedly limited readings, I have the impression that the Christian god was painted with a much more vengeful nature in older scripture, but that this perception was gradually replaced by a more gentle appearance, perhaps to increase appeal to potential new followers. This deity's current representation doesn't really seem to hold up to what the faith promises, though - like a bad case of exaggerated expectations. With some other gods of mankind's history, their lack of action was more easily justifiable as deities such as Zeus etc had a much more "human" nature and people did not actually expect anything from them?

I just can't get "behind" the whole religious system. Though I will add that I think that it's important for a human being to believe in something, and that the communal spirit uniting followers of this belief can be an important and helpful (albeit also risky) factor in one's life ... it's just that I don't agree with this belief and this community necessarily having to be focused on some theoretical deity, and that I even think that a community with a hierarchy founded upon something supernatural is more prone to abuse by authority figures, as I'd assume people are less prone to question a god than they are to question a mere human.

 Lynata wrote:

To me as an outsider, many statements made by Christians seem incredibly contradictory, and what he mentioned about this god's supposed omnipotence and the existence of murderers and free will is one such example. Most modern day sermons present the god as a merciful being whilst still stressing the omnipotence. When someone dies a tragic death, it's brushed off with sayings like "the good Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away", and when the sad relatives ask why, they get "the ways of the Lord are unfathomable" in return. You don't need to be a believer to see that something doesn't add up here; maybe it helps to be a non-believer as faith may (or even should) override logic.

I'm not sure it's an official christian view, but there's little to suggest that God is in any way interested in our lives on earth. the reason should be painfully clear: what's the point of having free will, if god is saving kittens and averting disasters?

Life is a live fire exercise. You're given your life to do with as you wish. God is interested in the result, but he's not a fairy godmother. He loves every person, but really only the immaterial bits.

 Polonius wrote:
I'm not sure it's an official christian view

Considering the varieties of Christian belief I don't believe there is, or ever could be, such a thing as an official Christian view. There was a major study that was released years ago about religion in America, and if I could remember who did it I would link to it, but within the study there were four primary views of god by Americans.

Found the original article.

The four views on God in America:

•The Authoritative God. When conservatives Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck proclaim that America will lose God's favor unless we get right with him, they're rallying believers in what Froese and Bader call an Authoritative God, one engaged in history and meting out harsh punishment to those who do not follow him. About 28% of the nation shares this view, according to Baylor's 2008 findings.

"They divide the world by good and evil and appeal to people who are worried, concerned and scared," Froese says. "They respond to a powerful God guiding this country, and if we don't explicitly talk about (that) God, then we have the wrong God or no God at all."

•The Benevolent God. When President Obama says he is driven to live out his Christian faith in public service, or political satirist Stephen Colbert mentions God while testifying to Congress in favor of changing immigration laws, they're speaking of what the Baylor researchers call a Benevolent God. This God is engaged in our world and loves and supports us in caring for others, a vision shared by 22% of Americans, according to Baylor's findings.

"Rhetoric that talks about the righteous vs. the heathen doesn't appeal to them," Froese says. "Their God is a force for good who cares for all people, weeps at all conflicts and will comfort all."

Asked about the Baylor findings, Philip Yancey, author of What Good Is God?, says he moved from the Authoritative God of his youth — "a scowling, super-policeman in the sky, waiting to smash someone having a good time" — to a "God like a doctor who has my best interest at heart, even if sometimes I don't like his diagnosis or prescriptions."

•The Critical God. The poor, the suffering and the exploited in this world often believe in a Critical God who keeps an eye on this world but delivers justice in the next, Bader says.

Bader says this view of God — held by 21% of Americans — was reflected in a sermon at a working-class neighborhood church the researchers visited in Rifle, Colo., in 2008. Pastor Del Whittington's theme at Open Door Church was " 'Wait until heaven, and accounts will be settled.' "

Bader says Whittington described how " 'our cars that are breaking down here will be chariots in heaven. Our empty bank accounts will be storehouses with the Lord.' "

•The Distant God. Though about 5% of Americans are atheists or agnostics, Baylor found that nearly one in four (24%) see a Distant God that booted up the universe, then left humanity alone.

This doesn't mean that such people have no religion. It's the dominant view of Jews and other followers of world religions and philosophies such as Buddhism or Hinduism, the Baylor research finds.

Rabbi Jamie Korngold of Boulder, Colo., took Baylor's God quiz and clicked with the Distant God view "that gives me more personal responsibility. There's no one that can fix things if I mess them up. God's not telling me what I should do," says Korngold. Her upcoming book, God Envy: A Rabbi's Confession, is subtitled, A Book for People Who Don't Believe God Can Intervene in Their Lives and Why Judaism Is Still Important.

Others who cite a Distant God identify more with the spiritual and speak of the unknowable God behind the creation of rainbows, mountains or elegant mathematical theorems, the Baylor writers found.

This distant view is nothing new. Benjamin Franklin once wrote that he could not imagine that a "Supremely Perfect" God cares a whit for "such an inconsiderable Nothing as Man."

The Baylor researchers' four views of God reveal a richness that denominational labels often don't capture. They found that Catholics and mainline Protestants are about evenly divided among all four views, leaning slightly toward a Benevolent God. More than half of white evangelicals identify with an Authoritative God; that view is shared by more than seven in 10 black evangelicals, they said.

 d-usa wrote:
East Germany was Soviet until 23 years ago, so it's not really that surprising that a population that grew up in a setting where religion was supressed would have a large number of atheists. You might be able to use the same argument of "people only believe in religion because they have been brainwashed by their parents" and apply it in reverse here.

that's... kind of ignorant. Bit of a late joiner here, but, let's have a look at those lovely wonderful things that make our lives exciting: narcotics. Just because they happen to be banned and controlled substances doesn't mean that their repression removes it from the public and reduces the interest in those drugs. The criminality associated with anything dealing with narcotics makes people cautious, some will stay away from it because it's criminal, others will simply excercise caution in the manner in which they do what they do. Religion was the same thing. Back in Czechoslovakia religion was repressed quite heavily, but it really didn't stop any sort of faith based activity. I know when my mother ran into her teacher at a mass they had both happened to have attended in a different city, they both stared at eachother like a deer caught in headlights, sure, but that was simply a product of their caution, and niether knew how the other would react... incidentally they both pretended like nothing happened, and had a bizzare relationship for some time where neither tried to make the other irate.

Just because the soviet block repressed religion doesn't mean that religion got stamped out. People just found clever ways of getting around things.

Along those same lines, I think how individuals imagine God to be like says more about them than it does about God.

In the gospels, we read about Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman who came after him in the street to ask him to heal her daughter. Jesus rebuffed her, saying that the children (Israel) should be fed first and that it's bad to take food from the children and give it to the dogs (the gentiles). But the woman said to him, the dogs at least get the table scraps. Jesus told her that her daughter was healed. He said, “O woman, great is your faith!"

I was chatting with some friends about this. One person said, this shows that God demands total humility. Not until you admit to being "just a dog" will he help you out.

Following Bishop Gumbleton (an auxillary of Detroit), I think that is totally wrong. To me, this story reminds us that Jesus was truly a real person even having the prejudices (misogyny and xenophobia) of his time and place. But in this story, we find out about God and goodness. This woman, who has no right to talk to a man out in the street in that chauvinistic society, even dares to talk back to Jesus. She reminds him that she is a person, too. And Jesus acknowledges her, commending the faith of this gentile just as he commended the faith of the centurion: "I have not found such faith, no not in Israel."

So, a story that begins with Jesus stuck in a narrow worldview, in which only Israel matters, ends with him opening up to the wider world: a world of women as well as men, of people with different cultures and traditions -- a vision defined by good will instead of prejudice. And this was a lesson that even this man who is God had to learn!

It is much better, I think, to read the story this way than as Jesus demanding some kind of self-abasement from the woman.

 Manchu wrote:
Along those same lines, I think how individuals imagine God to be like says more about them than it does about God.

In the gospels, we read about Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman who came after him in the street to ask him to heal her daughter. Jesus rebuffed her, saying that the children (Israel) should be fed first and that it's bad to take food from the children and give it to the dogs (the gentiles). But the woman said to him, the dogs at least get the table scraps. Jesus told her that her daughter was healed. He said, “O woman, great is your faith!"

I was chatting with some friends about this. One person said, this shows that God demands total humility. Not until you admit to being "just a dog" will he help you out.

Following Bishop Gumbleton (an auxillary of Detroit), I think that is totally wrong. To me, this story reminds us that Jesus was truly a real person even having the prejudices (misogyny and xenophobia) of his time and place. But in this story, we find out about God and goodness. This woman, who has no right to talk to a man out in the street in that chauvinistic society, even dares to talk back to Jesus. She reminds him that she is a person, too. And Jesus acknowledges her, commending the faith of this gentile just as he commended the faith of the centurion: "I have not found such faith, no not in Israel."

So, a story that begins with Jesus stuck in a narrow worldview, in which only Israel matters, ends with him opening up to the wider world: a world of women as well as men, of people with different cultures and traditions -- a vision defined by good will instead of prejudice. And this was a lesson that even this man who is God had to learn!

It is much better, I think, to read the story this way than as Jesus demanding some kind of self-abasement from the woman.

Well, there's more ways to read than that, I prefer reading as "political idea steeped in code and symbol". If Yoheshua has his own personality cult, he's goign to deem members of that cult as true sons of isreal, while those who differ in views are not going to engage in a friendly discussion over coffee. If there's a personality cult, then there's also a pecking order. If anyone is accepted, then the woman's background doesn't matter, but her rank and privilege may have been the source of the issue. It may be this woman may have been trying to get her daughter inducted into the circle as well, or returning her after an expulsion or something. I think It's important to investigate the meaning of what's said as well and not take things at face value. I mean, when we say something is "sick" we typically do not happen to be discussing said item's moral objectionability or state of health. When we say something's hot or cool, it's not an indicator of temperature, but social value or attraction. Remarks about what a cat may or may not have dragged home need not necessarily pertain to a feline animal. When a business or a firm goes through a period of "restructuring", we know that they are in the process of laying as many people off as they can.

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure it's an official christian view, but there's little to suggest that God is in any way interested in our lives on earth. the reason should be painfully clear: what's the point of having free will, if god is saving kittens and averting disasters?

Exactly! Hence some posters in this thread (including me) thinking about the "plot holes". I assume that many people do not critically analyse their own perception of the faith and address the various issues individually - when it is convenient - rather than making sure that it all fits together. In other words: The "free will" debate and the inherent conflict in this likely does not even occur to a whole lot of people.

I'm almost reluctant to ask, but how do you combine these things? Why do people pray to a god who doesn't answer? Why the fascination with supposed miracles if god isn't interested in people's lives on earth? And doesn't this supposed disinterest clash with a lot of stories about divine intervention that the bible wants to tell us about?

A god who only concerns himself with the souls of the deceased once they enter his domain would actually make some sense, simply because he cannot be expected to lift a finger in the mortal world. Yet still millions of Christians pray for blessings and salvations, for liberation from their issues ranging from deathly sickness to monetary concerns. Crusades were launched because "god wills it" - which, by the way, brings me to my next question: Do people still believe that god wanted this sort of stuff? If not, why do they keep following the organisation that claimed it and continue reading and living by their books? To me as an -outsider- it all just seems like an extremely obvious lie. I actually get various Christian TV channels here thanks to Sky, and have zapped in a couple times just out of curiosity. I couldn't believe the level of indoctrination in cartoons meant for little children, or the blatant money-grab by some "televangelists" who promise god's blessing if you pay them a couple hundred bucks. Just last night I watched some Rod Parsley and a guest preacher raving on about how you can get "double portion" if you send them $200. Now, I actually expect a lot of Christians are very angry about these folks for what I think is abusing their religion, but the question still stands - why do people believe this stuff? Obviously it must be a very lucrative business, ever since the church itself was selling letters of indulgence absolving people of their sins in medieval times.

I don't really want to tread on anyone's religious feelings; some of my friends are religious (none of these is from East Germany though, to lend credence to the original topic's survey) and I usually just try to avoid the subject as it's somewhat awkward when two so very opposite worldviews clash. But I also know that some believers are rather laid-back and happy to discuss their feelings, and considering how far we got already, maybe we can exchange some more opinions in a relaxed manner. I'm kinda curious not because I am looking to get religious myself nor to make fun of those who are, but rather to better understand them.

From where I stand now, it feels as if faith is rooted in a mixture of people's fears and desires - that there has to be something greater than people, that we do not just cease to exist after we die, that all our deeds are judged justly at some point, and that there is something or someone who might help you no matter what and/or who is always with you. The saturation of these perceived needs coupled with the strong feeling of solidarity and support you get in a proper community of worshippers might make for a strong "addiction" that is even capable of overriding apparent conflicts, essentially resulting in everyone having their own personal version of their god and being convinced that everyone else is wrong, not even considering that others feel the same about oneself and that the others have just as much (or little) reason to be right.
At least those are the motifs I would suspect.

Ahtman: Thanks a lot for that list, it was an interesting read!

Manchu wrote:Along those same lines, I think how individuals imagine God to be like says more about them than it does about God.

Definitively. There seem to be many, many different interpretations and re-interpretations of the various texts, not to mention all the translations of translations... Everyone, from the ancient scribes copying and translating these texts to the modern day average worshipper, may understand them differently based on what they want to read. Maybe that's how Christianity and Islam got separated in the first place.

 Polonius wrote:

 Lynata wrote:

To me as an outsider, many statements made by Christians seem incredibly contradictory, and what he mentioned about this god's supposed omnipotence and the existence of murderers and free will is one such example. Most modern day sermons present the god as a merciful being whilst still stressing the omnipotence. When someone dies a tragic death, it's brushed off with sayings like "the good Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away", and when the sad relatives ask why, they get "the ways of the Lord are unfathomable" in return. You don't need to be a believer to see that something doesn't add up here; maybe it helps to be a non-believer as faith may (or even should) override logic.

I'm not sure it's an official christian view, but there's little to suggest that God is in any way interested in our lives on earth. the reason should be painfully clear: what's the point of having free will, if god is saving kittens and averting disasters?

Life is a live fire exercise. You're given your life to do with as you wish. God is interested in the result, but he's not a fairy godmother. He loves every person, but really only the immaterial bits.

I'm pretty sure the view of the divine being hands off is referred to as a major tenant of "deism" and you're in good company if you follow it's practices. It was a pretty serious philosophy during the Enlightenment and several of the founding fathers of the US were deists as well.

A few things....
The Biblical God shows that man can have a personal relationship with Him. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Peter, Paul to name a few all had personal relationships with God. God wasn't some divine watch maker to them. Jesus taught that God is our heavenly Father, and that when you had seen Jesus you had seen the Father. The new testament epistles are filled with language encouraging a personal relationship with Christ, who is the only way to gain access to the Father(which are in fact the same being as part of the Holy Trinity).

To the problem of Evil, I.E why does God allow bad things to happen.
1) The earth is cursed...blame Adam and Eve if ya want.
2) If God intervened in every situation then there would be no need for the expression of human goodness which comes from being free will moral agents. We would all be a bunch of robots.
3) We don't have all the answers...no matter how much we might like to think we do.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

1) The earth is cursed...blame Adam and Eve if ya want.

But then there's the issue of why did YHWH let the snake into the garden? Why did he let Adam and Eve eat the apple in the first place, or make the tree so easily accessible to them? Why did he not inform them of the potential consequences? It may be fair for YHWH to require things of people, but in doing so, it's only fair if the people are properly informed.

2) If God intervened in every situation then there would be no need for the expression of human goodness which comes from being free will moral agents. We would all be a bunch of robots.

You say that like it's a bad thing. If everyone were content, perfect, and happy, there'd be no reason to worry about free will or not being a robot in the first place.

3) We don't have all the answers...no matter how much we might like to think we do.

Cop-out. We may not have the answers to every question, but we're perfectly entitled to look for them.

 Fafnir wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

1) The earth is cursed...blame Adam and Eve if ya want.

But then there's the issue of why did YHWH let the snake into the garden? Why did he let Adam and Eve eat the apple in the first place, or make the tree so easily accessible to them? Why did he not inform them of the potential consequences? It may be fair for YHWH to require things of people, but in doing so, it's only fair if the people are properly informed.

He did inform them of the consequences, and he gave them a choice.

Free will is both the biggest gift and the biggest curse at the same time.

I have decided, unilaterally, that this video is topical in any thread even tangentially related to religion.

 poda_t wrote:
that's... kind of ignorant. Bit of a late joiner here, but, let's have a look at those lovely wonderful things that make our lives exciting: narcotics. Just because they happen to be banned and controlled substances doesn't mean that their repression removes it from the public and reduces the interest in those drugs. The criminality associated with anything dealing with narcotics makes people cautious, some will stay away from it because it's criminal, others will simply excercise caution in the manner in which they do what they do. Religion was the same thing. Back in Czechoslovakia religion was repressed quite heavily, but it really didn't stop any sort of faith based activity. I know when my mother ran into her teacher at a mass they had both happened to have attended in a different city, they both stared at eachother like a deer caught in headlights, sure, but that was simply a product of their caution, and niether knew how the other would react... incidentally they both pretended like nothing happened, and had a bizzare relationship for some time where neither tried to make the other irate.

Just because the soviet block repressed religion doesn't mean that religion got stamped out. People just found clever ways of getting around things.

Repression didn't stop religious practice, but it certainly made it harder to do. A truly devoted person would still worship in whatever way was possible, but lots of people on the outskirts of the faith would probably just drift away. Think of all those people who only attend christenings and Easter ceremonies - most likely they'll just stop attending all together.

Now, people are very adaptable, and one of the best tools we have for adaption is to believe whatever is needed to make our lives more a little easier. So it's unlikely those folk will straight up say 'I used to attend church a few times a year, but I found the threat to future promotion and possible social exclusion too great and so I whimped out'. More likely they'll stop believing altogether. Then, when they have kids, they'll make no effort to pass that old faith onto their kids.

This isn't a description of everyone, but it is part of the reason that in old Warsaw Pact countries you might see higher levels of atheism than elsewhere, and part of the reason why in countries with strong informal encouragement for religion, like in the US, you might see higher levels of belief than elsewhere.

 d-usa wrote:
He did inform them of the consequences, and he gave them a choice.

Free will is both the biggest gift and the biggest curse at the same time.

Except that's a terrible excuse. If a human parent left a bottle of poisonous cleaning chemicals out and their child drank it and died, we'd call them a horrible parent and say they are guilty of neglect. We would blame them even more if they used the pathetic excuse that they once told the kid not to drink it, so it's not their fault. We might even throw them in prison for it, depending on where it happened. But we certainly wouldn't say that the kid was using their free will, and we need to just accept that they made the wrong choice and the parent has no responsibility for the outcome.

And of course if the kid survived but the parent, on arriving at the hospital, beat the child to death for their stupid choice we'd call the parent a murderer and punish them harshly. Any claim that they were justified in that murder because the kid was their creation would be dismissed as the insane ranting of an inhuman monster.

So why should it be any different for god? According to the story god knew perfectly well that the apple was dangerous, but failed to take reasonable precautions to keep Adam and Eve from getting to it. And then once they did, he blamed them for it instead of taking responsibility for his failures. And, to make it worse, he punished them in the worst way imaginable: by forcing them to suffer the pain of aging and death, expelling them from paradise into a painful and horrible world, and condemning most of their descendents to eternal unimaginable torture. So, we must conclude one of three things:

1) God is a neglectful and incompetent parent, and deserves neither worship nor respect. His failure to act properly has caused suffering on an unimaginable scale, suffering that he could easily remove without any consequences (remember, god is omnipotent, so he can give you both free will and no bad things).

2) God is a sadistic tyrant who imposes arbitrary rules and then inflicts unimaginably cruel and disproportionate punishments for breaking them. Obviously this god also doesn't deserve worship or respect, but you'd better give it to him anyway or you're going to burn in hell.

3) God exists on an entirely different level from humanity, and transcends our limited knowledge of right and wrong. This is a popular justification, but it completely destroys other aspects of theology. If god exists outside of human morality, what exactly does it mean to say that god is "good"? Or that god "loves" us? If we can't say that god is "evil" for actions that are clearly evil by human standards, then saying god is "good" also ceases to have any meaning.

Unfortunately the omnicide and genocide performed by god and/or people acting under god's orders suggests that option #2 is the most likely one: god is evil, and you should obey him out of fear of hell. Any claims that god "loves" you should be taken the same way as an abusive spouse's claims to "love" their victim.



(And to preempt the inevitable argument: yes, I can talk about god as an atheist. God does not exist, but it still makes perfect sense to talk about god the mythological character, or god as he "exists" under a particular belief system that we are discussing. Obviously I don't fear god myself, but anyone who genuinely believes that he exists should.)

 Monster Rain wrote:
I have decided, unilaterally, that this video is topical in any thread even tangentially related to religion.

Ye Olde Man still forwards that to his clergy friends.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Any claim that they were justified in that murder because the kid was their creation would be dismissed as the insane ranting of an inhuman monster.

You probably want to rephrase that.

 Peregrine wrote:

(And to preempt the inevitable argument: yes, I can talk about god as an atheist. God does not exist, but it still makes perfect sense to talk about god the mythological character, or god as he "exists" under a particular belief system that we are discussing. Obviously I don't fear god myself, but anyone who genuinely believes that he exists should.)

Well, your first problem is assuming that evil is a thing separate from "Things I don't like." The distinction you're making is about elevating your own judgment, nothing more.

Your second problem is that you speak of God in human terms. This is something I will approach in an unusual fashion and say that God making Man in his own image entails a relationship between Man and God that renders them comparable. If Man is vicious/violent/aggressive at times, then so must be God.

The real problem, argumentatively, comes in if we're talking about the 3O argument; which some (but not all) participants are.