Stop posting that. If you have evidence, put it here.
Shaggy staggering strawman.
KJV God And/Or Jesus As Role Models
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
Stop posting that. If you have evidence, put it here.
Shaggy staggering strawman.
Fallacy. Why would not condeming people to suffering mean they must be forced to spend time with him?
Genesis 1 is in Hebrew.
----
To which you instantly lose the ability to say 'god is good'. If good to us is not the same as good to god and bad to us is not the same as bad to god - which is what you're actually saying, then the statement 'god is good' is utterly meaningless. Whose version of 'good' are you using to make the statement?
Furthermore, if this god was to say to us: "Be good", what's he even talking about?
Which is curious considering as a christian you probably believe in a life part 2 that involves a large portion of the human race and no evil whatsoever.
Which is interesting in that - if we take your statements as true - it means the bible is lying. In that bible, for instance, it says that god stopped the sun and other such events that go completely against physics. We do live in a world also where many christians claim that such miracles occur - that this god reverses cancer and all sorts of diseases etc, (although he seemingly doesn't like amputees). If we trust christians and the bible, we do live in a world like that.
Interestingly of which does not really answer anything. While sure, it answers why one man beats another man up, it doesn't answer the question as to why our system works on predation, why tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados, disease etc kill people left, right and center, or why you actually end up in hell considering nobody actually chooses to be there any more than they choose for their parachute not to open.
'Choice' is insufficient as an excuse.
Which just goes to argue against your god. Let me explain: You're a really loving individual, (towards someone). If you knew that they were going to be shot, if you knew of any suffering, you would prevent it. Remember, saying that you give someone the choice, (being loving), is not an indication that they choose to suffer or that, being loving, you wouldn't stop it.
For instance: Would you allow your child to ride a bicycle even though in doing so they might crash and die? Yes, you'd allow them to ride the bike, (all the while providing methods with which to prevent suffering and risk of death), but this does not argue that your child chose to die. Now, you know that they are in fact going to get half a mile down the road, crash and then die. You are saying that it would be unfair to save them from that outcome. I suggest that such a statement is utter nonsense.
Can you kindly show me just one instance where you would not remove the suffering, (that wasn't chosen), should you have the foreknowledge of and ability to do so?
Should I assume that you're the kind of parent that allows your child to put their hand in the plug socket? You could say, in preventing them from doing so, that you're removing free will. You're not, you're removing unchosen suffering. When they stick their hand in the socket, it's not like they wanted the 50,000 volts. You're not removing free will, you're being a loving individual.
What you'd do is allow them to stick their fingers in the socket, being loving and smart enough to turn the power off at the mains first. You prevent the unwanted outcome. You cannot use 'free will' because nobody chose it.
If you're up to it, kindly try and defend the account in Genesis, (in hebrew is fine). Kindly try to defend the presence of the snake and the fall of man.
Last edited:
Not so much a judgement, but held against a standard.How much unconditional love and selflessness you have within you. Forget the man created portrays of God via scripture...it contains far too much bias and prejudice which is a reflection of the writers,the culture and often, political intent.
The God seen in the overall consensus of thousands of Near Death Accounts (of which there is that portion of ourselves that is already part of God) is much more forgiving and logical.Seems most half decent people,whether God believers or not...at least make it to the first level of Heaven (the third realm)
By the way near death accounts do have as their central theme ...God ,despite your past denial of this. You simply have not studied enough accounts to realize this!
It's only a fallacy according to what you believe. I believe suffering is being without God, and is therefore the reason Hell is considered to be such a bad place. Obviously being with God and being without him are mutually exclusive at any given point in time. Thanks for having me clarify.
Indeed, but (so far as I know) the earliest historical copies we have are in Greek, and therefore the Hebrew versions that you can find are translations.
If I'm mistaken, then, of course, I will amend my request to having him read it in Hebrew if he can.
Touche. I'm impressed. "God is Good" is a meaningless statement. Statements such as Trustworthy or Just, however, are not.
Heh, if the Kingdom of Heaven comes, I'll be dead, and so will the rest of humanity. At least, the part of me which contains certain aspects of my human nature had better be. I think that's what they had in mind when they wrote "for all have sinned." A part of everyone is evil, and a part is good. The final coming will probably consist of everyone taking their pick between them.
Miracles, by definition, are one-time exceptions to the laws of physics. So, if you ask me "do the laws of physics hold true in all situations?" my answer would be "They will unless God decides otherwise." I fail to see any contradiction. My computer program will run as I designed it to unless I enter the command for it to do otherwise.
If you are asking why we no longer see miracles, I'd say it's because we no longer need them. In the new world, reasoned faith is infinitely more useful than blind faith was in the old days. Also, the US and other first world countries aren't big on miracles. Even the church has taken to not announcing them any longer. Perhaps there still are miracles and we just haven't heard of them?
You use "evil" too freely. Are tsunamis and earthquakes evil? You are assuming that God thinks the greatest evil is death. In all likelyhood, he doesn't.
But, I do think people choose to go to hell. Look at people like stranger. If the alternative was living in Heaven with God, I believe he'd pick hell quite readily. I'll admit it tempts me at times.
It's not God's choice which hurts us, it's ours. If I were suddenly named king of the world, with an army of people to support me, what would I do to prevent suffering? Would I forbid driving cars lest anyone be killed in a car accident? Make drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol illegal? What about fattening foods? I could force everyone to have a healthy diet. What about wars? I could implant everyone with a device to prevent them from thinking hurtful thoughts against each other. Would you live in my world, or yours? Is a Huxlean society so much better and more preferable than ours is?
I disagree. Humans are not omniscient. If God were to stop every action of ours which he knew was going to cause us harm, we would not always know why. Instead, we would feel like hamsters in our cages, carefully prevented from acheiving the outcomes we wished.
Furthermore, you are assuming that even if God were to build each of us a palace, feed us every day, and never let us fall, we would be happy. This is simply not true. I'm reminded of the story of the emperor who threw a fit because his dinner was late. Simply speaking, harm is relative. Since you are typing to me on a computer, I can only surmise that you are one of those individuals wealthy enough to own one, as opposed to the multitudes who have never had one. Similarly, I am from a rather wealthy family, and must say I have escaped from the vast majority of negative human experiences. I have never had someone I loved die or broken any of my bones or otherwise seriously injured myself. I never seriously lacked for food, drink, or good company. And yet I think my life is miserable sometimes. Why? Because compared to my everyday life, some days are worse and some days are better. I'm reminded of the old story of the emperor who threw a fit because his dinner was late one day, while outside his palace, the serfs threw a celebration because they had managed to catch a small animal to eat. Happiness and misery are both relative terms, unlike evil and good.
Finally, sometimes misery is necessary for us to grow.
Yeah. I can. My first year at MIT, I got swamped by the workload and did quite poorly in school. I felt lonely and like I didn't know anyone very well. Yet I would not for anything in the world have had my parents stop me from going there that year.
I'd let my kids stick their fingers into candles. If they're old enough to understand the consequences of their actions and still want to put a finger in the outlet, I'd let them. Hell, I'm not going to follow my kids to college to make sure that they never stick their fingers in outlets, or even to make sure that they don't kill themselves in car accidents.
Even if it helps them learn? If I could prevent any harm from ever touching my kid, wouldn't he be incapable of doing anything for himself? He'd not know how to walk, because I'd catch him every time he was going to fall. He'd never play games, because losing is frustrating and I'd let him win. He'd never drive a car (at least not well) because every time he was about to hit something, I'd redirect the car.
And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
Are you saying that Adam didn't know the consequences? Or that he never should have had the option in the first place? Because if you're saying the latter, I hope you realize that you're hoping that God never gave us the chance to disobey him. The God who would stop people from dying or hurting themselves is also the god who would demand that you behave according to HIS rules, and remove your will to do otherwise. There's no reason he would impose part of his morality (saving lives) and not any other part (do unto others). Would you live your life under compulsion?
PS- Thanks. You've given me some food for thought.
Having read and considered the above, I contend that it remains a fallacy.
Your original statement made the implication that it is necessarily either one or the other but these cannot be considered the only options, (especially when talking of an omnipotent entity).
Right now I am not in hell, not suffering and am "without god". Here you will likely contend that while I am not with god, god is with me, (and hence I am not without god I just don't know about it or - as some theists might contend - don't care). If this is the case, the original statement remains a fallacy because it instantly gives rise to a third option.
Right you are, (although if I'm right the Hebrew is a translation of Greek which is a translation of Hebrew)?
I'd personally question this. I suppose we could go into some long drawn out discussion on what 'trust' really means and relates to but it's probably not necessary. I will ask a question if that's ok though because it is, at this time, the thought bouncing its way through my brain:
1. It would require agreement that the god featured in the NT and the god featured in the OT are in fact the same god. As long as that's satisfied, we'll continue
2. For now we won't get into a debate as to actual clarity but can hopefully agree for sake of the question that god in the NT made it clear that evildoers and the like would go to hell and burn or [insert alternative here]. Alas he did not do the same in the OT - he didn't mention the issue.
The OT people were trusting god and yet he didn't inform them about where they were headed. That, to me at least, doesn't prompt trust of that individual or consideration that it is 'just'. Telling people not to do things is fine and dandy but not informing them that they'll burn forever as a consequence is surely the most important thing to make mention of?
I am unsure if I have got that across as well as I would have liked. Apologies if not.
I suppose from there we could look to the bible and perhaps see if there is reason to consider a god depicted therein as untrustworthy or just. Several things spring to mind, perhaps 2 Th 2:11;
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. (some bibles replace delusion with persuade but the context is clear)
Of course such passages can and will be debated but I wouldn't submit that sending powerful delusions signifies trustworthiness or justness.
1. I think we should probably recognise a difference between people doing that which to others/or a god, might be considered wrong or 'evil' and people specifically being evil. I disagree with the statement that a part of everyone is 'evil', although it is an inevitable fact that we'll do things that someone else wont like.
2. If there will come a time when one can just 'switch off' that evil part of themselves, why not make it now, here, before hell?
I somewhat disagree with the last part, there are claims to miracles pretty much every day of the week if one looks around the internet. Given the complete lack of any serious evidence for any of them, we either pretend that are all plausible or all implausible.
The point was simply that, should the christian god be true, we live in what some have referred to as a cartoon universe where you could find yourself in a position where literally anything goes should this god will it to be.
Again we therefore have a problem in that our 'evil' and god's 'evil' are two entirely different things and hence entirely counter productive. I'll actually give you this one having spent some time going through the biblical statements of what this god considers to be evil. Most are... well, peculiar at best.
Out of interest perhaps, what is the 'evil' of satan if the non-evil of god is predation and disasters like tsunamis etc?
I completely disagree although I can't speak for anyone other than myself.
What you'd do to prevent suffering would vary but would - in a human system - typically outlaw that which has the greatest short term risk and put restrictions on things with possible or probable long term risks in a manner that compromises needs and desires with safety.
Having said that, as a "king" the issue isn't one of 'love' and nor does it really address the issue in that - should your queen, whom you love more than anything - be about to face extreme and permanent ongoing suffering - you'd prevent it if you had the ability to.
Here is the problem with your statement: You're viewing a world that this god didn't want, a world that wasn't supposed to be. Instead, we should be viewing it from how the world was intended to be, how it should have been: It involved no harm, (debatable of course, some believe that animals were dying etc).
If he prevented the harm, we'd be none the wiser than Adam and Eve before the fruit. Is that a bad thing? We can't say yes to that, it's how god originally designed it to be and it was only one man and womans error that it ceased being so.
I don't assume it at all - hence why I'm not personally a fan of the heaven concept. Nowhere have I suggested that god live our lives for us. For the sake of discussion I mean it more in OT terms of rescuing your loved ones from Egyptian slavery.
We need to remember the bigger context here. We're not just talking about some brief moment of suffering, we're talking eternity. If you knew your wife was about to fall into the pits of hell, would you not pull her free? If the answer is yes, you're already vastly more loving than the christian god who will leave you there.. forever.
Man, I'd be doing everything in my power to rescue mine - who knows, I'd probably even take some time out to save you too and you're a stranger to me. I wouldn't build you a palace or buy you diamond earrings but they're inconsquential to the point.
In context that's not really true. We're talking ultimately about eternal torture. Having said that, you are seemingly under the impression that people actually want that.
Sure, and many of us donate to those that can't. Why do we do that?
Apologies but you can't claim necessity, merely that it does happen and so you adapt to it and, typically, manage to navigate past it. Of course this can't be related to eternal suffering where there is no ability to "grow".
"Dad, I'm grown up and understand that should I put my hand in this here fire, my hand is going to burn, become useless for life probably and be somewhat extraordinarily painful. I'm going to do it".
"Sure, go for it".
Is this an accurate reflection of your position? If so not only will I state that I don't believe it whatsoever, (especially if you actually have sons/daughters), but that you're in the wrong if we take our god given understanding of right and wrong into consideration.
I suppose at least in this instance your son can withdraw their hand once they've had enough - no such thing supposedly exists in hell - regardess to how they might eventually realise the error of their ways. All the screaming for help falls on deaf ears so do consider that. You let your son go ahead, he does so and eventually finds himself screaming to be saved. What then?
This was never the suggestion.
That implies that they can learn, (which means the harm suffered is not going to be fatal or of any overly extreme degree). In regards to hell, there is no learning to be done - it is permanent.
So, let's try your analogy once more but with the addition. Your son is old enough to understand and chooses to throw himself in a fire - which will definitely lead to his demise. Does "go ahead son" still apply?
Actually, falling is not a necessary part of walking or learning to walk. It happens - because of weak legs and so on, but that's not an implication that it's necessary, or that catching him will somehow prevent him from being able to walk. Most people I know tend to use those round wheeled things that help their legs strengthen while preventing them from falling, the elastic cord that keeps them upright or other such devices. The point of such devices is to help them walk without the pain of falling.
Well, we could examine both.
1. In the first instance being told of consequences is pointless if one has no knowledge of good or evil, (which they didn't).
2. This is the important one and is relevant to the discussion. Consider for a moment the scenario we find ourselves in:
(i) Put someone you love beyond words in a lovely garden.
(ii) Tell them not to eat something that is there for some reason or another
(iii) Allow the most evil entity in the entire universe to tempt and corrupt them.
In human terms this is equivalent to putting your child into playground and telling them not to eat the sweets on the slide. Then allowing a paedophile, (if you consider them about the most evil people you can find), to corrupt your children. Who would allow it?
Christians sometimes make the 'free will' claim but this does not work. It doesn't work because the removal of the most evil entity in the entire universe does not negate A&E's ability to eat from the tree in any way whatsoever.
Any genuinely loving individual would remove that evil entity. Doing so doesn't negate free will of the child so the problem I have here is answering the question: Why is the snake allowed to corrupt them?
The story, the way I see it, would work more efficiently if Adam and Eve were walking along and said: "Hey, there's that fruit we were told not to eat. Forget that idiot, let's try it anyway". That is along the lines of your son putting his hand in the candle analgoy. The story in Genesis is entirely different because it specifically puts the most evil entity in the universe right on their doorstep already knowing that it will corrupt them. Unless god is unloving or an imbecile, that's a very intentional act to ensure a certain outcome.
Love does not ensure that one suffers and yet this is - to me - the only valid explanation for the presence of the most evil entity in the cosmos.
Kind regards,
“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
God cannot judge Me. ”
In the Near Death Experience, there is the overwhelming consensus that there is not only no judgement yet also no being held to any standard or even forgiving. It is simply a matter of acceptance.
Don't tell me to forget the gods of The Holy Babbles. Tell the theists.
The vast majority do not report anyone telling them that they are God or Jesus or even mentioning such. Some report a presence and/or being which makes a bit more of an impression than other beings there. They then assume that being is God or Jesus or Buddha or UnderDog or whatever.
If the majority of reports are mostly accurate, there is yet extremely little indication of any possibility of any gods. You claim we are part of God yet that negates God as being anything separate & superior.
Obviously, YOU have not studied it enough to realize you are full of bull.
IF the Near Death Experience is adequately proven, it will be very strong evidence, if not proof, of no gods.
God cannot judge Me. ”
In the Near Death Experience, there is the overwhelming consensus that there is not only no judgement yet also no being held to any standard or even forgiving. It is simply a matter of acceptance.
Don't tell me to forget the gods of The Holy Babbles. Tell the theists.
The vast majority do not report anyone telling them that they are God or Jesus or even mentioning such. Some report a presence and/or being which makes a bit more of an impression than other beings there. They then assume that being is God or Jesus or Buddha or UnderDog or whatever.
If the majority of reports are mostly accurate, there is yet extremely little indication of any possibility of any gods. You claim we are part of God yet that negates God as being anything separate & superior.
Obviously, YOU have not studied it enough to realize you are full of bull.
IF the Near Death Experience is adequately proven, it will be very strong evidence, if not proof, of no gods.