"If God Exists...x shouldn't happen" argument

[Delibirb]

Unless it is also his will that we must suffer to truly improve?

 

Omnibenelevolent means all loving, or all good. But nowhere does it say either of those two things cannot existing sumtaneously with a need to allow for suffering. A parent should effectively be all loving of there children, but they will still punish the child when needs must, or act in ways the child cannot understand because the parent knows it is best for them.

 

And if we operate under the idea that absolute good does not exist, we can assume instead that God being all good means he infact always acts upon the best of intentions instead of always doing what seems 'absolute good'

 

It's again like the example a child; It's often within the parents power to avlieviate the chlds suffering, but it's only through that suffering that the child can really become an independant person.A child who has everything handed to them from youth will probably become a bit of a brat.  It is possible that whilst God is all-powerful, and all loving, he chooses to allow us to suffer because it is the only way we can tryly grow as individuals under the ideas of free will he desires.

 

I'ma little annoyed at myself that it's just variations of 'God works in mysterious ways', but it's a decent point to consider I feel. Because God should have a vastly gtreater scope that us; His actions should be more oft than not hard to quantify.

A parent needs to punish children because they are not omnibenevolent nor omnipotent. Even an omnibenevolent being would be hard-pressed to not create some consequence for their children in order to improve them and help them grow. However, their consequences would scale appropriately to the actions of the child; ie not eternal damnation and torture.

 

A being that is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent would have no need to punish its creations, as it could either will its creation to be better, or create a positive, reward-based lesson to teach it otherwise. The former would of course be infringing upon free will, which if you think it exists, is less than preferable and apparently not what your God wants to do. The latter would be what an omniscient being would know to be the most omnibenevolent course of action. The fact that we get incredibly harsh consequences ranging from genocide to infinite soul-enslavement would imply He is either not omniscient, which is whole separate can of worms, or not omnibenevolent, which still means I don't think he should be worshiped.

 

As cold as this next bit may seem, I feel mentioning it may be important. Feel free to disregard it as even I understand the dark implications, and how difficult it may be to swallow. Anyone who believes there is a God, and believes that He is omnibenevolent, disregarding His recorded actions of cruelty, anger, jealousy, vanity, and irrationality, by declaring them to be goodness in a way they do not understand, is in an emotionally abusive relationship with God. He is, in that case, an abuser. That person knows He has hit them/other people, and He has an open threat to cause them/their soul harm if they go against him in any capacity at any degree, but remains loyal to Him and devotes themselves to Him anyway. They are being emotionally manipulated and abused.

[vla1ne]

I want to preface this by saying that I do not believe in God either and that this isn't my own argument, so I don't fully understand, nor do I particularly care to because I think it's pretentious and contrived. The justification I have heard, however, to the first point is that because God is the source of all good things, so people physically cannot do good things without believing in Him. So, when a person who "claims" not to believe in God does good it means that some part of their subconscious actually does believe in God. That being said I basically agree with everything you have to say here. God, especially Old Testament God, has never seemed particularly benevolent or forgiving to me. Jesus seems simply puzzling to me, because the idea is that Jesus is meant to come to die so that humans may be absolved of their sins, however by killing humans have again permanently stained themselves in sin, so what was the point in the first place?

i already know about that particular angle, but to that, the question becomes: if we all get our morals from god, how are there Christians that are absolute criminals, and how are there atheists and people of other religions, that are practically saints? to say we all get our morals from god is to basically imply that if a person believes in, and desires to follow the will of said god, then they can do no wrong, via divine morality wellspring, and if a person does not believe in, and has no wish to follow the will of god, then they would, by all means, be a worse person than any in the first category.

[Aerion Brightflame]

A parent needs to punish children because they are not omnibenevolent nor omnipotent. Even an omnibenevolent being would be hard-pressed to not create some consequence for their children in order to improve them and help them grow. However, their consequences would scale appropriately to the actions of the child; ie not eternal damnation and torture.

 

But relative to the child isn't the adult effectively omnipotent or benevolent? When we were children, I imagine we thought our parents could do and solve anything for us (Most people, some probably had different ideas with parents), what if that's a similar case here. Suppose God isn't actually omnipototent, he just appears to be omnipotent relative to us? Would that distinction settle some of the issues you have with God being a dick?

 

I also (And I await to be corrected upon tis) don't think the punishment is torture. Hell is simply a place where one is not contact with God in certain branches of Christianty. There is no fire and brimstone, devils with pointed sticks and stuff (I believe that was a view of hell popularised by Dante). I'm not too clear on that myself, but it's the interperation of it I was taught at school, so I await correction imminately.

 

Again,I think you make assumption about omnipotence and omnibenevolence that you can't make; I.E.that you know what the absolute good choice to make in that situation is, which is unfair to make. We are all subjected to individual biases around everything, we cannot see what makes all views compelling (Most of us anyway, some might be blessed with that unique trait). If we cannot see that, we cannot presume to know what an omnibenevolent (Or near omnibenevolent) creature would do. We can guess within the boundaries of our own morality, but there is nothing to say our sense of morality is the same as that of Gods.

[Delibirb]

But relative to the child isn't the adult effectively omnipotent or benevolent? When we were children, I imagine we thought our parents could do and solve anything for us (Most people, some probably had different ideas with parents), what if that's a similar case here. Suppose God isn't actually omnipototent, he just appears to be omnipotent relative to us? Would that distinction settle some of the issues you have with God being a dick?

 

I also (And I await to be corrected upon tis) don't think the punishment is torture. Hell is simply a place where one is not contact with God in certain branches of Christianty. There is no fire and brimstone, devils with pointed sticks and stuff (I believe that was a view of hell popularised by Dante). I'm not too clear on that myself, but it's the interperation of it I was taught at school, so I await correction imminately.

 

Again,I think you make assumption about omnipotence and omnibenevolence that you can't make; I.E.that you know what the absolute good choice to make in that situation is, which is unfair to make. We are all subjected to individual biases around everything, we cannot see what makes all views compelling (Most of us anyway, some might be blessed with that unique trait). If we cannot see that, we cannot presume to know what an omnibenevolent (Or near omnibenevolent) creature would do. We can guess within the boundaries of our own morality, but there is nothing to say our sense of morality is the same as that of Gods.

Paragraph 1: I certainly didn't believe my parents were perfect, and I suspect most children don't, because they do get punished sometimes.if God isn't omnipotent, He's not a God so I have no reason to worship him. Your point here is nonexistent.

 

Paragraph 2: Dante Algieri did popularize the layout of Hell, being fire and brimstone, but as I understand it, Hell was considered a place of pain and fear for the soul to go before that; it was generally understood to be torture, even if not explicitly stated. Even if not, this interpretation of a literally Hell bas largely been indoctrinated into the religion and many, possibly most, Christians/Catholics believe it to be the case. Its nice of you to think my soul won't be going somewhere too awful, but you're still in the minority and that's still a fairly cruel judgement to pass that I wouldn't make it to paradise.

 

Paragraph 3: Again, I don't need to know the definitive best course of action to be able to see that what has been/is God's will isn't it. Given you think we're created in God's image, and He supposedly wants us to make the right choices by His morality, then we should therefore have the same morality as Him, and are just more easily swayed to turn immoral due to mortality and free will. Given He made us and is omniscient, neither of those are justifications for the things He has done to us or allowed to have happened.

[vla1ne]

But relative to the child isn't the adult effectively omnipotent or benevolent? When we were children, I imagine we thought our parents could do and solve anything for us (Most people, some probably had different ideas with parents), what if that's a similar case here. Suppose God isn't actually omnipototent, he just appears to be omnipotent relative to us? Would that distinction settle some of the issues you have with God being a dick?

 

I also (And I await to be corrected upon tis) don't think the punishment is torture. Hell is simply a place where one is not contact with God in certain branches of Christianty. There is no fire and brimstone, devils with pointed sticks and stuff (I believe that was a view of hell popularised by Dante). I'm not too clear on that myself, but it's the interperation of it I was taught at school, so I await correction imminately.

 

Again,I think you make assumption about omnipotence and omnibenevolence that you can't make; I.E.that you know what the absolute good choice to make in that situation is, which is unfair to make. We are all subjected to individual biases around everything, we cannot see what makes all views compelling (Most of us anyway, some might be blessed with that unique trait). If we cannot see that, we cannot presume to know what an omnibenevolent (Or near omnibenevolent) creature would do. We can guess within the boundaries of our own morality, but there is nothing to say our sense of morality is the same as that of Gods.

i understand that your post is not quite directed towards me, but i feel as if it's a good springboard to clarify some things on my own end. i'm not speaking for kano, but i think some of, if not many of, his views on this particular topic may mirror mine. that being said:

 

in the case that he is neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent (or even semi omnipotent), then he fails in at least one of the criteria that i require to recognize a being as a monotheistic god, and he fails in at least two of the criteria i require for a god to be worshiped. by the wording of the bible, he's clearly not omnipotent, so the question is whether or not he's semi-omnipotent, which has more than a few caveats to it. and so far as remote benevolence goes, it is literally laughable as a bible concept, till he decided sacrificing himself to himself was a thing.

 

as far as the afterlife goes, so long as i'm left alone, to so whatever my supposed soul wishes, i could care less, my criteria is basically, leave me be, neither heaven, nor hell, and after that i'd consider it fine. but god isn't really saying much on the topic, so i'm inclined to say that no god cares all that much about humanit, which is fine, so long as they don't attempt to demand anything of humanity, as oh so many gods appear fond of doing.

 

i'm not saying i know the absolute best choice in any situation, and i don't think kano is either, but what i am (and believe kano is also) saying, is that for nearly every action and ruling that god made in the bible, i can think of multiple better solutions, that are nearly the exact opposite of god's own actions. all of which, if we're to take gods feats and boasts of power seriously, would have been childs play. and not just us, i have difficulty believing that any average human, (assuming that they had average human interests at heart) could not have come up with better ideas than the things we see out of either the OT or the NT god, or pretty much any brand of monotheistic Abrahamic diety, be it spun by catholics, jews, muslims, christians, mormons (funny enough, the autocorrect of mormon is moron), protestants, ect. and that's the reason that at least i, cannot fathom why people worship such a being.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Paragraph 1: I certainly didn't believe my parents were perfect, and I suspect most children don't, because they do get punished sometimes.if God isn't omnipotent, He's not a God so I have no reason to worship him. Your point here is nonexistent.

 

Paragraph 2: Dante Algieri did popularize the layout of Hell, being fire and brimstone, but as I understand it, Hell was considered a place of pain and fear for the soul to go before that; it was generally understood to be torture, even if not explicitly stated. Even if not, this interpretation of a literally Hell bas largely been indoctrinated into the religion and many, possibly most, Christians/Catholics believe it to be the case. Its nice of you to think my soul won't be going somewhere too awful, but you're still in the minority and that's still a fairly cruel judgement to pass that I wouldn't make it to paradise.

 

Paragraph 3: Again, I don't need to know the definitive best course of action to be able to see that what has been/is God's will isn't it. Given you think we're created in God's image, and He supposedly wants us to make the right choices by His morality, then we should therefore have the same morality as Him, and are just more easily swayed to turn immoral due to mortality and free will. Given He made us and is omniscient, neither of those are justifications for the things He has done to us or allowed to have happened.

For reference I'm not Christian. I don't need to be Christian or even religious to argue to religious side of things because the points I am making are not to do with scripture and are instead to do with ideas that happen to be floating in my head around omnipotence. Because I think it's interesting to consider;

 

I don't think God needs to be perfect for my argument to be valid, he just needs to be effectively all powerful relative to us. That doesn't mean he has to actually be all-powerful, or all-knowing, he just has to be sufficiently so relative to us that we cannot distingush the difference. It satisfies the condition for God being a being worthy of worship, and renders he also capable of making misakes. I would also say, that if a being of such power did exist any mistakes he did make would be correspondingly greater in magnitude. You could suppose that the suffering we endure is simply an overextension of the idea that mistakes deserve punishment instead of the intention (It's a contrary point to something I argued earlier sure, but for the most part I'm just following logical points that come into my head rather than approach this with a singular idea from the outset). If we suppose the limitations it's power are things we cannot comprehend, why would it being of any less worth of worship?

 

If you actually want to take Dante's depcition of Hell as the fate that awaits us, then the majority will find themselves within Limbo, the place for the unbatized and virtious pagans. Which is essentially just a inferior version of heavan rather than outright torture. To the mind that doesn't believe in God, that should be a fate they do not fear. It is only the 7 Sins (And fraud and trechary) that lead one to true tortures, and it would those individuals whom God would seek to punish anyway by all metrics, because they lived in opposition to what He intended.

 

If we act upon the assumption that we are made in God's image, I don't think that means we have to have His sense of morality. Again, I use the metaphor of parent and child; A child is made in the image of it's parents, it is cultivated by them. But a child does not have to have the same sense of morality as a parent; It will, through free will, form it's own morality, even if trace elements of it's parents exist here. I suppose the same is true here. Whilst we may or may not be made in God's image, it is the free will he grants us that allows us to have our own unique morality. If that was not the case, then they would be only one moral code to have, which is not the case.

[Delibirb]

For reference I'm not Christian. I don't need to be Christian or even religious to argue to religious side of things because the points I am making are not to do with scripture and are instead to do with ideas that happen to be floating in my head around omnipotence. Because I think it's interesting to consider;

 

I don't think God needs to be perfect for my argument to be valid, he just needs to be effectively all powerful relative to us. That doesn't mean he has to actually be all-powerful, or all-knowing, he just has to be sufficiently so relative to us that we cannot distingush the difference. It satisfies the condition for God being a being worthy of worship, and renders he also capable of making misakes. I would also say, that if a being of such power did exist any mistakes he did make would be correspondingly greater in magnitude. You could suppose that the suffering we endure is simply an overextension of the idea that mistakes deserve punishment instead of the intention (It's a contrary point to something I argued earlier sure, but for the most part I'm just following logical points that come into my head rather than approach this with a singular idea from the outset). If we suppose the limitations it's power are things we cannot comprehend, why would it being of any less worth of worship?

 

If you actually want to take Dante's depcition of Hell as the fate that awaits us, then the majority will find themselves within Limbo, the place for the unbatized and virtious pagans. Which is essentially just a inferior version of heavan rather than outright torture. To the mind that doesn't believe in God, that should be a fate they do not fear. It is only the 7 Sins (And fraud and trechary) that lead one to true tortures, and it would those individuals whom God would seek to punish anyway by all metrics, because they lived in opposition to what He intended.

 

If we act upon the assumption that we are made in God's image, I don't think that means we have to have His sense of morality. Again, I use the metaphor of parent and child; A child is made in the image of it's parents, it is cultivated by them. But a child does not have to have the same sense of morality as a parent; It will, through free will, form it's own morality, even if trace elements of it's parents exist here. I suppose the same is true here. Whilst we may or may not be made in God's image, it is the free will he grants us that allows us to have our own unique morality. If that was not the case, then they would be only one moral code to have, which is not the case.

The fact that we can tell the difference, or even believe that we can would suggest there is a difference. I'll repat myself again, I'm not arguing God doesn't exist. I'm arguing that if He does exist in the way that is widely believed, then He is not worth devoting oneself to and is in fact a cruel, despicable being that should be hated and avoided. You could suppose anything to get the answer you want, but if God is omnipotent, then he is not omnibenevolent and therefore doesn't deserves worship; if He's not actually omnipotent and just appears so to us, He's not a God/is lying to us about His power and deserves no worship.

 

You would think it's only the seven sins that send one to Hell, but that's not what God-fearing zealots, nor the majority of religious advocates, are claiming. Certainly most agree that not believing in God is grounds for damnation, as well as being LGBT in any capacity, and other things that reasonably should not be damnable. Just because you're not Christian/Catholic and you don't think Hell works that way doesn't mean that's what the people who are think. And what they think is what I'm discrediting.

 

A child is made by a set of biological rules at the time of conception, using semi-randomly selected information from each parent. God is claimed to have personally created us, with His omnipotence and omniscience, fully aware of what He was designing. If he wanted us to make moral decisions, he would have based our morality upon his own. Therefore, whatever we find immoral, He would as well. So, either He is decidedly immoral and therefore not omnibenevolent and detestable, or He didn't create us (in his image or otherwise) and is lying to us. Neither makes Him worshipful.

[vla1ne]

The fact that we can tell the difference, or even believe that we can would suggest there is a difference. I'll repat myself again, I'm not arguing God doesn't exist. I'm arguing that if He does exist in the way that is widely believed, then He is not worth devoting oneself to and is in fact a cruel, despicable being that should be hated and avoided. You could suppose anything to get the answer you want, but if God is omnipotent, then he is not omnibenevolent and therefore doesn't deserves worship; if He's not actually omnipotent and just appears so to us, He's not a God/is lying to us about His power and deserves no worship.

just to address this, you don't have to be all-powerful(omnipotent) to be all loving. it helps, so far as application of power, but it's not mandatory. you can be powerless, and still benevolent, you simply won't be able to act much on said love. i don't think that god is either of those things, but he wouldn't have to be one, just to be the other.

[Delibirb]

just to address this, you don't have to be all-powerful(omnipotent) to be all loving. it helps, so far as application of power, but it's not mandatory. you can be powerless, and still benevolent, you simply won't be able to act much on said love. i don't think that god is either of those things, but he wouldn't have to be one, just to be the other.

I never said omnibenevolence was a prerequisite of omnipotence. Just that the God being argued for would have to be both to be deserving of worship.

[VCR_CAT]

Okay, so now that I'm not laden with a sucky sinus infection and my thinking capacity is actually closer to full, I can really start addressing posts.

 

 

there is no redemption. the thing you call sin, is literally the fault of your own god. humans knew nothing of good and evil, nor could they. it was only after the apple that they could, and as such, you cannot blame them. it is illogical as all hell to claim that humans should shoulder the burden of your gods mistake. it's sins of the father, multiplied by infinity, and thrown full force at the son, and all decendants, while the father gets off scott free.

 

"16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."

 

How much knowledge of good and evil do you need to understand "Yo do this and you're gonna get fricked up"? Does an animal need to understand good and evil to know what's going to cause pain and what's not? And this isn't even animals, these are people created to be able to think. Frick, this is even if you're taking Genesis literally. Which, in all actuality, could very well be mostly parable based on similarities and differences it has compared to other Mesopotamian creation myths.

 

 

the idea behind the bible does not matter, because the idea, and all parts following are flawed at their very foundations, on at least a hundred different points.

 

And your basis for this statement is...?

 

 

indeed, it is my belief, and you would have me believe that i deserve to burn eternally for it. even without you saying as much, that is your gods stated punishment for said belief. (lake of fire, and all that, alongside jesus claiming none shall enter heaven but through him, which has, until this day, been defined as believe in jesus or go to hell forever.) your malleability on the topi does not match that of your god, who is clear as day on it.

be it display or punishment, it was not required, and again, it does not change my point, at all. it simply cements your god being a dick for no other reason than he can. he could just as easily have left well enough alone if he were so inclined to respect the free will that he never wanted humans to have in the first place. he had a hand in hardening the heart of the pharaoh, and as such, had a hand in killing thousands, in what amounted to a holy pissing contest. humans are not what matters to your god, else he would not have killed as many as he did, the worship is what e was after, and it's shown repeatedly, throughout the book, that that was his goal all along.

 

So you're taking the lake of fire imagery literally as it is convenient to your narrative. You mention that you've "read the bible" and "studied it". To what degree? Did you approach leaders who've gone over more studying and really dug into it, or is this all from your own casual reading? Did you read all of it, or only some of it? The important parts, or only parts that have lead to your current shaping?

 

Because yes, there is a lot of language of the second death, a lot of it in Revelation which, is really not a book that anyone should just be reading and taking literally. Revelation is frickin' basting in metaphor and imagery, and taking it all literally is definitely A Pretty Bad Idea.

 

As well, you're focus on actions is incredibly specific. You ignore most of the new testament and focus on the blood and war of the old testament, actually picking out a lot of parts of who's involved and why such things are going on. Next you're going to tell me Sodom and Gommorah is an act of evil on God's part despite the part where he willingly accepts that even if one good person is found in either city they'll all be spared.

 

There's also the question of "didn't have to" or "what is required", because again you're falling into the same pit of "God does not meet my appropriate definitions, therefore..." The trap you've fallen into is the assumption that everything must be an easy fix, and that for no other reason whatsoever would a life be lost or pain be felt. You're ignoring the narrative of reconciliation that humanity's history and the bible's overall arc is steeped in. I mean, if you're talking about an easy fix, this is talked about in Revelation, as mentioned, where heaven and earth is renewed into a new heaven and new earth. The redemption after the fall. This big metaphorical image even talks heavily of the number of people found from implicitly all over time at this event. If the image is an all-powerful God then it is a God that exists outside the framework of time, which acts as relative. For why he chose to have time work as it does for us, for why this history long creation narrative of suffering, redemption, punishment, and growth; I can't say because I can't speak for the intentions of God. That involves a greater digging into the Bible beyond what studying I've done.

 

As for "Why" this must happen and "Why" everything had to happen this way rather than the easy route where nobody was killed by divine judgment and nobody suffered any plagues, the best answer I can give is that this is a part of creation, it's a part of a bigger narrative that's a part of the why the world was created at all. Genesis says that man was made in God's image, and I honestly believe that the desire to create, creativity, is a significant part of this.

 

As for "The worship is what he's after", no. Not at all. Relationship is what he's after, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have grilled the Pharisees so harshly. Did you read the new testament at all? I mean honestly, the parable of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the frickin' prodigal son. That's the image that Jesus gives of the Kingdom of Heaven, and this is seen in how Jesus interacts with his disciples, with people, and with others.

 

Actually, here's a nice image. Consider Paul who was once called Saul. When he was called Saul, he was a devout Jew who had a hand in reporting many early Christians to the Jewish authorities where they were arrested and found their deaths. You're probably aware of how he converted; how he encountered Jesus, was stricken with blindness, and met with a Christian who played a part in removing the blindness. Now when the blindness is removed, he experiences something like "scales" leaving his eyes. When I did an exegetical essay on this passage, I looked up the original text on this passage. I figured it wasn't very important, but what I found was actually very significant. The original greek word for "scales" was "Lepros" which, obviously, had its roots in "Leprosy". This is incredibly significant because leprosy was believed to be a product of sin and spiritual uncleanliness. Now remember, Paul was once a devout jew; he followed the religious rights, the sacrifices, the holidays, he did the whole shebang. So how come, despite his religious acts, he's given an image of spiritual uncleanliness?

 

There's a lot more to the old testament than a simple cycle of divine wars and punishments, and it goes a lot deeper than you may realize. You seem to ignore so much of what was going on, and if you're going to talk why I'd appreciate if a bigger consideration of the big picture was taken. Again, you're free to believe that is what you wish to believe, but if you are to think that you words are going to have as much of a persuasive effect on me as mine are probably having on you, then you're going to be mistaken.

 

 

did you conveniently forget the fire killing hundreds of people for burning the wrong incense? or the fire killing the 250 people who burned the right incense? or after that, burning the people who had any complaints (instead of explaining patiently like a good leader)? the plague was pretty much a death sentence, as agreed on by most who read the bible, and under the context, he's already killed hundreds, and kills even more even after the plague, what exactly tells you the plague was nonfatal, when literally everything else surrounding said plague, was a death sentence?

 

Convenient? Yes. Intentional? Oh heck no. I've been like sick all week, so I actually do appreciate this reminder. A lot of Exodus is Israel learning to be the nation of priests that God intends them to be, which, actually speaking of, you forgot to mention the individual who died instantly for trying to steady the Ark of the Covenant after they stumbled. There's actually a lot of interesting parallels in the 40 years that Israel spends in the desert, and the 40 days and nights that Jesus spends in the desert. These are all very intention parallels, as the suffering of the Israelites and the deaths they experience in the desert shape them as a nation with the intention of being the nation of priests that God wants them to be. A generation passes and the new one moves on. Also, I'm sure there's a lot, lot more to this that I am simply saying; so don't take this as the only answer. Actually, if anything this conversation has done is piqued my interest in asking an old youth pastor of mine/old friend to have coffee and talk over these; really cement what I know about these passages and what's going on.

 

 

 

For everyone else as well, remember what Jesus came to do. As the punishment of sin is death, Jesus came to die for that sin in a death that in every bit parallels the sacrificial lamb of the passover meant as a scapegoat for the community's sins. There was the passage I mentioned in Ephesians where your earthly acts and morality doesn't mean as much as you think it does in the face of eternal fate, and that Jesus's death and forgiveness means something for people in their salvation, and for the people that died before. The best answer I can give for everything is how this is all in the face of a redemption and forgiveness narrative that concludes with the second coming and the renewal of heaven and earth. Absolutely I'm going to ask more knowledgeable and learned people in these topics because I don't think anyone should just simply ride from their own understanding on these topics, nor should they even be able to. My knowledge is limited and it's already been quite some time since my years in bible college. So, definitely I'm going to dig deeper into these because they are good questions and interesting thoughts to follow through, and if anyone is interested in my findings I can post them once I have, though I can't give a guarantee when that will be.

[vla1ne]

Okay, so now that I'm not laden with a sucky sinus infection and my thinking capacity is actually closer to full, I can really start addressing posts.

 

 

 

"16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."

 

How much knowledge of good and evil do you need to understand "Yo do this and you're gonna get fricked up"? Does an animal need to understand good and evil to know what's going to cause pain and what's not? And this isn't even animals, these are people created to be able to think. Frick, this is even if you're taking Genesis literally. Which, in all actuality, could very well be mostly parable based on similarities and differences it has compared to other Mesopotamian creation myths.

 

 

 

And your basis for this statement is...?

 

 

 

So you're taking the lake of fire imagery literally as it is convenient to your narrative. You mention that you've "read the bible" and "studied it". To what degree? Did you approach leaders who've gone over more studying and really dug into it, or is this all from your own casual reading? Did you read all of it, or only some of it? The important parts, or only parts that have lead to your current shaping?

 

Because yes, there is a lot of language of the second death, a lot of it in Revelation which, is really not a book that anyone should just be reading and taking literally. Revelation is frickin' basting in metaphor and imagery, and taking it all literally is definitely A Pretty Bad Idea.

 

As well, you're focus on actions is incredibly specific. You ignore most of the new testament and focus on the blood and war of the old testament, actually picking out a lot of parts of who's involved and why such things are going on. Next you're going to tell me Sodom and Gommorah is an act of evil on God's part despite the part where he willingly accepts that even if one good person is found in either city they'll all be spared.

 

There's also the question of "didn't have to" or "what is required", because again you're falling into the same pit of "God does not meet my appropriate definitions, therefore..." The trap you've fallen into is the assumption that everything must be an easy fix, and that for no other reason whatsoever would a life be lost or pain be felt. You're ignoring the narrative of reconciliation that humanity's history and the bible's overall arc is steeped in. I mean, if you're talking about an easy fix, this is talked about in Revelation, as mentioned, where heaven and earth is renewed into a new heaven and new earth. The redemption after the fall. This big metaphorical image even talks heavily of the number of people found from implicitly all over time at this event. If the image is an all-powerful God then it is a God that exists outside the framework of time, which acts as relative. For why he chose to have time work as it does for us, for why this history long creation narrative of suffering, redemption, punishment, and growth; I can't say because I can't speak for the intentions of God. That involves a greater digging into the Bible beyond what studying I've done.

 

As for "Why" this must happen and "Why" everything had to happen this way rather than the easy route where nobody was killed by divine judgment and nobody suffered any plagues, the best answer I can give is that this is a part of creation, it's a part of a bigger narrative that's a part of the why the world was created at all. Genesis says that man was made in God's image, and I honestly believe that the desire to create, creativity, is a significant part of this.

 

As for "The worship is what he's after", no. Not at all. Relationship is what he's after, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have grilled the Pharisees so harshly. Did you read the new testament at all? I mean honestly, the parable of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the frickin' prodigal son. That's the image that Jesus gives of the Kingdom of Heaven, and this is seen in how Jesus interacts with his disciples, with people, and with others.

 

Actually, here's a nice image. Consider Paul who was once called Saul. When he was called Saul, he was a devout Jew who had a hand in reporting many early Christians to the Jewish authorities where they were arrested and found their deaths. You're probably aware of how he converted; how he encountered Jesus, was stricken with blindness, and met with a Christian who played a part in removing the blindness. Now when the blindness is removed, he experiences something like "scales" leaving his eyes. When I did an exegetical essay on this passage, I looked up the original text on this passage. I figured it wasn't very important, but what I found was actually very significant. The original greek word for "scales" was "Lepros" which, obviously, had its roots in "Leprosy". This is incredibly significant because leprosy was believed to be a product of sin and spiritual uncleanliness. Now remember, Paul was once a devout jew; he followed the religious rights, the sacrifices, the holidays, he did the whole shebang. So how come, despite his religious acts, he's given an image of spiritual uncleanliness?

 

There's a lot more to the old testament than a simple cycle of divine wars and punishments, and it goes a lot deeper than you may realize. You seem to ignore so much of what was going on, and if you're going to talk why I'd appreciate if a bigger consideration of the big picture was taken. Again, you're free to believe that is what you wish to believe, but if you are to think that you words are going to have as much of a persuasive effect on me as mine are probably having on you, then you're going to be mistaken.

 

 

 

Convenient? Yes. Intentional? Oh heck no. I've been like sick all week, so I actually do appreciate this reminder. A lot of Exodus is Israel learning to be the nation of priests that God intends them to be, which, actually speaking of, you forgot to mention the individual who died instantly for trying to steady the Ark of the Covenant after they stumbled. There's actually a lot of interesting parallels in the 40 years that Israel spends in the desert, and the 40 days and nights that Jesus spends in the desert. These are all very intention parallels, as the suffering of the Israelites and the deaths they experience in the desert shape them as a nation with the intention of being the nation of priests that God wants them to be. A generation passes and the new one moves on. Also, I'm sure there's a lot, lot more to this that I am simply saying; so don't take this as the only answer. Actually, if anything this conversation has done is piqued my interest in asking an old youth pastor of mine/old friend to have coffee and talk over these; really cement what I know about these passages and what's going on.

 

 

 

For everyone else as well, remember what Jesus came to do. As the punishment of sin is death, Jesus came to die for that sin in a death that in every bit parallels the sacrificial lamb of the passover meant as a scapegoat for the community's sins. There was the passage I mentioned in Ephesians where your earthly acts and morality doesn't mean as much as you think it does in the face of eternal fate, and that Jesus's death and forgiveness means something for people in their salvation, and for the people that died before. The best answer I can give for everything is how this is all in the face of a redemption and forgiveness narrative that concludes with the second coming and the renewal of heaven and earth. Absolutely I'm going to ask more knowledgeable and learned people in these topics because I don't think anyone should just simply ride from their own understanding on these topics, nor should they even be able to. My knowledge is limited and it's already been quite some time since my years in bible college. So, definitely I'm going to dig deeper into these because they are good questions and interesting thoughts to follow through, and if anyone is interested in my findings I can post them once I have, though I can't give a guarantee when that will be.

 

when you tell a child not to do something, what's the usual outcome? exactly. and this is prior to your supposed good and evil knowledge. on top of this, there is absolutely zero reason for your god to have even exposed them to such a threat to their lives. this is like a parent putting their 3 year old child on a balcony, telling them not to fall off, and then punching them in the face if they fall. the child, (and adam and eve) knew nothing about gravity, and had never been in such a situation, nor is it likely that they'd have seen such a situation. just because you understand the words, doesn't mean you understand that it's wrong, or even why it's wrong. in fact this is before the concept of death supposedly existed for humans. get the point? adam and eve, were for all intents and purposes, lacking common sense, because nothing in their world had ever harmed them. this was their very first mistake, so again, i ask why are they being punished to such an extreme degree, for acting the same as any child placed in a similar situation?

 

 

 

magic. there is no shortage of magic, or whatever you wish to call it, in the bible. the foundation itself is therefore flawed, because you haven't even proven magic, yet you're claiming a magical being created everything.

 

 

 

 

literally is the mainstream belief. seven rings ma have been invented, but it's taken over nearly the entirety of biblical afterlife discussion. and again, your gods morals aren't half as flawless as you seem to believe, what he considers punishable by death, is often so trivial that any human would be considered insane for acting upon sad urges, such as sending bears to kill kids who mocked a bald prophet.

 

is the old testament nonexistent now? they remain acts, done by your god, if i killed millions for little reason before turning 18, would yo say that at 25, i deserve to be released from prison? same concept, clearly your god didn't care one bit for those who didn't kiss his ass, and that hasn't changed in the NT, it's just less obvious. hell if we take the apocrypha seriously, even jesus took quite a while to get past the wrathful god phase.

 

no, i never said everything had to be an easy fix, what i did say, was that i can think of far better ways of resolving the same situations that were presented to your god, if we're to go by the assumption that your god cares about other people even half as much as i do.

 

even jesus doesn't get a free pass; "Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth!  No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine"

 

i love my family more than jesus, i don't even believe in jesus as a supernatural being. so according to jesus, i'm not even worth him. but continuing;"

 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. 10:12 And when ye come into an house, salute it. 10:13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

"

i trust you remember what happened to those two cities right? and taking this even half literally, if a town says they don't want to worship/follow jesus/god. then they're meeting the same fate, if ot worse, than those two cities. jesus says this. so what exactly about this is even remotely tolerant? again, i reject the concept of god completely, so clearly i'm out of the bounds for god's mercy if measured by this verse.

 

i trust you haven't forgotten about our loved jesus telling you to pluck your eyes out and cut your limb off if you can't help but sin, bodily mutilation, is clearly approved by him as well. lots of fun stuff eh? even his talk of loving your neighbor, and not throwing the first stone, he doesn't often apply to himself, because he sees himself (god) as perfect and just. in fact, the only reason he didn't flat-out kill everybody before, or during the Crucifixion is because he was caught up in his own weird self sacrificial event.

furthermore:

"

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

"

again, taken even half literally, and in combination with 10:12-10:16, he's essentially saying he'll be the only one doing the killing/smiting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

i didn't forget, there were simply more than enough bodies in my examples to push my point well enough. i'd fully expect there to be parallels, the writer of jesus chapters came centuries  after. if he couldn't even write some symbolism into his bit, then he'd never have gotten a single follower, but mormons exist, so narrative ability is apparently not a large criteria for gaining followers. but continuing, even if there's parallels, i'd expect at least that much from somebody writing a sequel, it still doesn't give me anything to work with.

 

 

 

 

speaking of not just anybody understanding, this is supposedly divine revelation, as written by 40+ authors, if a god inspired it, and said god had any magical ability, why then, would a common person, the very people he wishes to form a relationship with, be unable to understand it? from m perspective, that's a sheet cover-up. if i want a relationship, i make it plain and clear. why would anyone write in morse code when trying to talk to regular civilians? if you want a relationship, you make it easy to understand for all. yet another reason i doubt both the ability, intent, and intelligence, of this deity.

[VCR_CAT]

when you tell a child not to do something, what's the usual outcome? exactly. and this is prior to your supposed good and evil knowledge. on top of this, there is absolutely zero reason for your god to have even exposed them to such a threat to their lives. this is like a parent putting their 3 year old child on a balcony, telling them not to fall off, and then punching them in the face if they fall. the child, (and adam and eve) knew nothing about gravity, and had never been in such a situation, nor is it likely that they'd have seen such a situation. just because you understand the words, doesn't mean you understand that it's wrong, or even why it's wrong. in fact this is before the concept of death supposedly existed for humans. get the point? adam and eve, were for all intents and purposes, lacking common sense, because nothing in their world had ever harmed them. this was their very first mistake, so again, i ask why are they being punished to such an extreme degree, for acting the same as any child placed in a similar situation?

 

Your whole point here is based entirely on the assumption of who Adam and Eve are, ie. children. Were they children, and if so, how do you know this? Because there's a lot more that implies they were closer to adult age with, y'know, a pre-frontal cortex. Don't just make assumptions of the text just to fit your own narrative. What if they didn't lack common sense? What if it really was a stupid screw-up that's the fault of the humans? There's enough there to suggest it was such, but so far all you've shown is that you refuse to accept that explanation and skew the interpretation to fit the one that you would rather believe.

 

 

magic. there is no shortage of magic, or whatever you wish to call it, in the bible. the foundation itself is therefore flawed, because you haven't even proven magic, yet you're claiming a magical being created everything.

 

Okay so the foundation is flawed because it has a God that can do things beyond the natural realm. And?

 

 

literally is the mainstream belief. seven rings ma have been invented, but it's taken over nearly the entirety of biblical afterlife discussion. and again, your gods morals aren't half as flawless as you seem to believe, what he considers punishable by death, is often so trivial that any human would be considered insane for acting upon sad urges, such as sending bears to kill kids who mocked a bald prophet.

 

is the old testament nonexistent now? they remain acts, done by your god, if i killed millions for little reason before turning 18, would yo say that at 25, i deserve to be released from prison? same concept, clearly your god didn't care one bit for those who didn't kiss his ass, and that hasn't changed in the NT, it's just less obvious. hell if we take the apocrypha seriously, even jesus took quite a while to get past the wrathful god phase.

 

Literally isn't the entire mainstream belief, nor does the mainstream belief define what is true about the text. Your arguments thus far have consisted of either making assumptions of the text simply to fit your narrative, or to, either intentionally or unintentionally, misinterpret them so as to fit your narrative. Each time you've brought up any sort of discussion regarding hell, you speak as if you're ignoring the entire new testament narrative of salvation; putting blinders on as if to go "BUT THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS" as you take a text literally. The ideas of the seven rings were made up by man, and the concept of a literal burning lake of sulfur is taking a highly metaphorical text literally. Saying "But that's what everyone does" doesn't excuse ignorance.

 

Regarding Elisha's curse upon the young men, you're taking the text out of context, because there's more to that than just a couple youngsters hoppin' out of a bush and calling an old man a couple of names. There's the question of Bethel, the city of which those people came from, and how they've viewed God from then. There's the part of divine judgment and the consideration of an all-knowing God, which actually let's pause and take that into consideration. So far your examples (Egypt, Canaan, the youths of Bethel) have been "But God killed them", and these examples have been of, yes, divine judgment. Now we already know that in the case of Canaan that not everyone was killed; that there individuals such as Rahab in Jericho that was spared and probably many other far less note-worthy cases that weren't killed and actually joined Israel. We know the Canaans practiced bestiality and incest and we know how Egypt treated once citizens of their nation, but then the Pharaoh ordered the killing of all Hebrew children to reduce their population (speaking of conveniently forgetting, if ever you wanted a more poetic reason to the plague of the first born).

 

 

no, i never said everything had to be an easy fix, what i did say, was that i can think of far better ways of resolving the same situations that were presented to your god, if we're to go by the assumption that your god cares about other people even half as much as i do.

 

even jesus doesn't get a free pass; "Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth!  No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine"

 

i love my family more than jesus, i don't even believe in jesus as a supernatural being. so according to jesus, i'm not even worth him. but continuing;"

 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. 10:12 And when ye come into an house, salute it. 10:13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

 

First, the case of the rejection of family in the face of Jesus, is a misinterpretation on your part. You read it as "No but that means you hate your family now!" which is, again, another literal interpretation. But frick, it's not even a veiled metaphor. The case here is if the preference of one would require the rejection of the other, such as the family demanding you reject Christianity and give it up, it's saying that instead of just giving up the faith you should remain strong in it. It doesn't mean actually reject and hate because Jesus is the still the one to say to love your neighbor as yourself.

 

Ah, Matthew 10:12-16, where Jesus says that if a city, house, people, etc. reject and be inhospitable, to let it be and not act against them; that's the point of this passage, to say to leave the judging to God and to simply be on your way and don't provoke the situation. At this point you're not so much taking it literally but cherry picking details to try and make it say something else.

 

 

i trust you remember what happened to those two cities right? and taking this even half literally, if a town says they don't want to worship/follow jesus/god. then they're meeting the same fate, if ot worse, than those two cities. jesus says this. so what exactly about this is even remotely tolerant? again, i reject the concept of god completely, so clearly i'm out of the bounds for god's mercy if measured by this verse.

 

i trust you haven't forgotten about our loved jesus telling you to pluck your eyes out and cut your limb off if you can't help but sin, bodily mutilation, is clearly approved by him as well. lots of fun stuff eh? even his talk of loving your neighbor, and not throwing the first stone, he doesn't often apply to himself, because he sees himself (god) as perfect and just. in fact, the only reason he didn't flat-out kill everybody before, or during the Crucifixion is because he was caught up in his own weird self sacrificial event.

furthermore:

"

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

"

again, taken even half literally, and in combination with 10:12-10:16, he's essentially saying he'll be the only one doing the killing/smiting.

 

Uh, YEAH, I brought up Soddom and Gemorrah. So of course I know that the case there wasn't a simple case of "They don't believe, so therefore they deserve to die."

 

But those aren't the details you choose to remember, are they. S&G wasn't a matter of unbelief, it was a matter of a city that was so messed up that a stranger arrived to stay with them and the citizens go "HEY YO, BRING 'EM OUT SO WE CAN RAPE AND KILL HIM". Which, in the culture at the time, raping a victim before killing them was one of the biggest ways to dishonor their person and disrespect them. It's one thing to physically torture, but it's another to completely bring them down and treat them as nothing before killing them. The parts that you choose to conveniently forget is not only terrible of a place that S&G was, but how the deal was "If there is one righteous person among them, I'll spare them all." So an angel goes down to sus that out, and turns out they're all horrible people. It wasn't a matter of belief at all; but you chose to interpret it that way to fit your narrative.

 

Oh yeah, regarding the pluck out eyes. Speaking of taking a text literally when you shouldn't zzz. Frick, the people back then, all of which did not have access to the teaching and schooling that we do today, would have understood the play on the "Eye for an eye" passage that Jesus was referencing and what he meant when he implied it would be better to harm yourself than another for sin. They would have understand he didn't mean to actually go mutilate yourself, so why can't you? But of course, actually looking into the text and figuring out what the teachings mean wouldn't fit your narrative.

 

And, back to 12-16, reading into it even a LITTLE bit shows to say "Don't provoke violence, don't kill, leave the judgment to God." For what Jesus is calling the followers to do is to stay out of trouble and don't kill people, cause violence, or w/e. That's a bad thing?

 

And, speaking of God doing the killing, let's go back to what I alluded to earlier regarding the deaths in the Old Testament, because there's something that's being ignored here. The idea that God, being the one that created life, is also the one with the authority to take life. People die, and the only people in the Bible who don't really explicitly die are Elijah and then Jesus after he's resurrected. Yeah, people die, death is a part of our life, and just as life is something to be created by God, so is death. The idea of God taking lives is an extension of sovereignty and authority over creation, that all you need to really do to say "But God killed people so he's a monster!" is point to how death is a part of creation at all, instead of going out of your way to misinterpret or take out of context many parts of the bible.

 

But does that make him a monster? No, I don't think so. If anything, it would be more evil to have people live forever on a world such as this. No, the idea is that the world now is imperfect, and those who die are then brought to the end where a new heaven and a new earth are created. And if we're going to talk salvation, there's really not much that needs to be done to achieve it, so long as you're sincere. Jesus died to forgive people of their sins, and it's a matter of faith and accepting God. To assume that people who died who either maybe didn't get a chance to get to know God, or are judged based on some bullshit technicality that you'd come up with is honestly just ridiculous. Those bullshit technicalities ignore the character or knowledge of God, that someone would go up to him and he would just go "Eh, you didn't meet criteria X, cya boi". That's not who God is, and that's why I believe that even in the end people will be given a chance to repent, and I also believe that even in the end, even when given a chance to repent, in the face of seeing everything before them, people will still choose to reject God.

 

 

i didn't forget, there were simply more than enough bodies in my examples to push my point well enough. i'd fully expect there to be parallels, the writer of jesus chapters came centuries  after. if he couldn't even write some symbolism into his bit, then he'd never have gotten a single follower, but mormons exist, so narrative ability is apparently not a large criteria for gaining followers. but continuing, even if there's parallels, i'd expect at least that much from somebody writing a sequel, it still doesn't give me anything to work with.

 

Acting like the bible is some collaberated narrative between writers separated by hundreds, and even thousands of years, is just silly. They're not writing a sequel because that's not how it worked; many of these are completely individual works, such as the Torah, or they were accountants of Jesus's story, such as the gospels, or they weren't even originally religious texts or that the writer knew they'd be taken as such, such as Paul's letters to the early churches in the roman empire. Also? Writer? You mean WriterS? The names of the gospels (Matthew/Mark/Luke/John) aren't just arbitrary names, those are the names of the people that wrote those individual books.

 

Please, if you're going to make accusations on authorship, at least spend a little time to actually understand how authorship for the bible works and how we came to know it.

 

 

speaking of not just anybody understanding, this is supposedly divine revelation, as written by 40+ authors, if a god inspired it, and said god had any magical ability, why then, would a common person, the very people he wishes to form a relationship with, be unable to understand it? from m perspective, that's a sheet cover-up. if i want a relationship, i make it plain and clear. why would anyone write in morse code when trying to talk to regular civilians? if you want a relationship, you make it easy to understand for all. yet another reason i doubt both the ability, intent, and intelligence, of this deity.

 

Because an objective truth isn't the point. A clinical prescription defeats the purpose. The point is relationship and community. Learning about what the Bible means and says is hard for just one person because you can't just read it at face value, but the idea is to study, learn, and understand, and not only that but to teach and learn from others as well. Being taught, asking questions from other people and digging deeper builds a stronger bond, and makes it much more personable. If God wanted an impersonal thing, to be treated on the same level as, say, gravity, I'm sure he would, but he didn't. The relationship, when learned in a community, isn't very hard to understand at all; that's the point of churches. If you're some midwestern middle-class dude sitting in his living room and reading only the Bible without any additional material to understand what it is you're reading, yeah you're not going to get the whole picture. That kind of happens when you take a translation of 2000+ year old text from across the world at face value.

 

There's also your crap arguments of "But if God is X, why didn't he do Y?" What's hilariously bad about this argument is how it assumes that being X demands that Y be done. Which, uh, no it doesn't? At all? God doesn't need to fit whatever definitions you establish to be God. At this point, your accusations, and for that matter Kano's accusations, hold little weight because it's all sort of "I think God's dumb because he didn't do X so that makes him dumb." For one, you don't know that your proposed method would actually be better with the intended goals in mind, and for two, especially in regards to ethics, you don't know if it would be better overall for all of mankind in eternity. Because that's totally knowledge you have access to, right?

 

Honestly, if you're just here to spout of misinterpretations or self-created definitions, you are quite honestly wasting your time. Just as your arguments are failing to convince me of anything, I am sure you didn't come here with the intention of being convinced. So what are you doing, then? Are you actually interested in the discussion or did you just want to slander?

[Tinkerer]

...so are we going to continue straying into deeper theological discussion or can we come to some kind of agreement in the department of the actual topic of this thread?

[Dad]

That's impossible, because no one is willing to accommodate the opposing party.  You're at a stale mate, and it won't budge.  This has been true about Christianity and religion forever.  And it always will be.

[Tinkerer]

That's impossible, because no one is willing to accommodate the opposing party. You're at a stale mate, and it won't budge. This has been true about Christianity and religion forever. And it always will be.

All I'm saying is that the topic of this thread speaks on the existence of God. The last page or so of posts have all been about trying to prove/disprove the omnipotence/omnibenevolence of God. Whatever result comes from the latter discussion doesn't matter, as either conclusion essentially is implying that God exists. I just wanted to refocus the topic to what it was to begin with.

[Dad]

But you can neither prove nor disprove it.  That's the point.

 

EDIT:  For the record, I'm a Christian.

[vla1ne]

as a minor preface, you can neither prove nor disprove any god. they're all magic. so the default, is not yes, or even maybe, but no, until given hard evidence of their existence (no, their given books do not count.). 
 

Your whole point here is based entirely on the assumption of who Adam and Eve are, ie. children. Were they children, and if so, how do you know this? Because there's a lot more that implies they were closer to adult age with, y'know, a pre-frontal cortex. Don't just make assumptions of the text just to fit your own narrative. What if they didn't lack common sense? What if it really was a stupid screw-up that's the fault of the humans? There's enough there to suggest it was such, but so far all you've shown is that you refuse to accept that explanation and skew the interpretation to fit the one that you would rather believe.
 
 
 
Okay so the foundation is flawed because it has a God that can do things beyond the natural realm. And?
 
 
 
Literally isn't the entire mainstream belief, nor does the mainstream belief define what is true about the text. Your arguments thus far have consisted of either making assumptions of the text simply to fit your narrative, or to, either intentionally or unintentionally, misinterpret them so as to fit your narrative. Each time you've brought up any sort of discussion regarding hell, you speak as if you're ignoring the entire new testament narrative of salvation; putting blinders on as if to go "BUT THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS" as you take a text literally. The ideas of the seven rings were made up by man, and the concept of a literal burning lake of sulfur is taking a highly metaphorical text literally. Saying "But that's what everyone does" doesn't excuse ignorance.
 
Regarding Elisha's curse upon the young men, you're taking the text out of context, because there's more to that than just a couple youngsters hoppin' out of a bush and calling an old man a couple of names. There's the question of Bethel, the city of which those people came from, and how they've viewed God from then. There's the part of divine judgment and the consideration of an all-knowing God, which actually let's pause and take that into consideration. So far your examples (Egypt, Canaan, the youths of Bethel) have been "But God killed them", and these examples have been of, yes, divine judgment. Now we already know that in the case of Canaan that not everyone was killed; that there individuals such as Rahab in Jericho that was spared and probably many other far less note-worthy cases that weren't killed and actually joined Israel. We know the Canaans practiced bestiality and incest and we know how Egypt treated once citizens of their nation, but then the Pharaoh ordered the killing of all Hebrew children to reduce their population (speaking of conveniently forgetting, if ever you wanted a more poetic reason to the plague of the first born).
 
 
 
First, the case of the rejection of family in the face of Jesus, is a misinterpretation on your part. You read it as "No but that means you hate your family now!" which is, again, another literal interpretation. But frick, it's not even a veiled metaphor. The case here is if the preference of one would require the rejection of the other, such as the family demanding you reject Christianity and give it up, it's saying that instead of just giving up the faith you should remain strong in it. It doesn't mean actually reject and hate because Jesus is the still the one to say to love your neighbor as yourself.
 
Ah, Matthew 10:12-16, where Jesus says that if a city, house, people, etc. reject and be inhospitable, to let it be and not act against them; that's the point of this passage, to say to leave the judging to God and to simply be on your way and don't provoke the situation. At this point you're not so much taking it literally but cherry picking details to try and make it say something else.
 
 
 
Uh, YEAH, I brought up Soddom and Gemorrah. So of course I know that the case there wasn't a simple case of "They don't believe, so therefore they deserve to die."
 
But those aren't the details you choose to remember, are they. S&G wasn't a matter of unbelief, it was a matter of a city that was so messed up that a stranger arrived to stay with them and the citizens go "HEY YO, BRING 'EM OUT SO WE CAN RAPE AND KILL HIM". Which, in the culture at the time, raping a victim before killing them was one of the biggest ways to dishonor their person and disrespect them. It's one thing to physically torture, but it's another to completely bring them down and treat them as nothing before killing them. The parts that you choose to conveniently forget is not only terrible of a place that S&G was, but how the deal was "If there is one righteous person among them, I'll spare them all." So an angel goes down to sus that out, and turns out they're all horrible people. It wasn't a matter of belief at all; but you chose to interpret it that way to fit your narrative.
 
Oh yeah, regarding the pluck out eyes. Speaking of taking a text literally when you shouldn't zzz. Frick, the people back then, all of which did not have access to the teaching and schooling that we do today, would have understood the play on the "Eye for an eye" passage that Jesus was referencing and what he meant when he implied it would be better to harm yourself than another for sin. They would have understand he didn't mean to actually go mutilate yourself, so why can't you? But of course, actually looking into the text and figuring out what the teachings mean wouldn't fit your narrative.
 
And, back to 12-16, reading into it even a LITTLE bit shows to say "Don't provoke violence, don't kill, leave the judgment to God." For what Jesus is calling the followers to do is to stay out of trouble and don't kill people, cause violence, or w/e. That's a bad thing?
 
And, speaking of God doing the killing, let's go back to what I alluded to earlier regarding the deaths in the Old Testament, because there's something that's being ignored here. The idea that God, being the one that created life, is also the one with the authority to take life. People die, and the only people in the Bible who don't really explicitly die are Elijah and then Jesus after he's resurrected. Yeah, people die, death is a part of our life, and just as life is something to be created by God, so is death. The idea of God taking lives is an extension of sovereignty and authority over creation, that all you need to really do to say "But God killed people so he's a monster!" is point to how death is a part of creation at all, instead of going out of your way to misinterpret or take out of context many parts of the bible.
 
But does that make him a monster? No, I don't think so. If anything, it would be more evil to have people live forever on a world such as this. No, the idea is that the world now is imperfect, and those who die are then brought to the end where a new heaven and a new earth are created. And if we're going to talk salvation, there's really not much that needs to be done to achieve it, so long as you're sincere. Jesus died to forgive people of their sins, and it's a matter of faith and accepting God. To assume that people who died who either maybe didn't get a chance to get to know God, or are judged based on some bullshit technicality that you'd come up with is honestly just ridiculous. Those bullshit technicalities ignore the character or knowledge of God, that someone would go up to him and he would just go "Eh, you didn't meet criteria X, cya boi". That's not who God is, and that's why I believe that even in the end people will be given a chance to repent, and I also believe that even in the end, even when given a chance to repent, in the face of seeing everything before them, people will still choose to reject God.
 
 
 
Acting like the bible is some collaberated narrative between writers separated by hundreds, and even thousands of years, is just silly. They're not writing a sequel because that's not how it worked; many of these are completely individual works, such as the Torah, or they were accountants of Jesus's story, such as the gospels, or they weren't even originally religious texts or that the writer knew they'd be taken as such, such as Paul's letters to the early churches in the roman empire. Also? Writer? You mean WriterS? The names of the gospels (Matthew/Mark/Luke/John) aren't just arbitrary names, those are the names of the people that wrote those individual books.
 
Please, if you're going to make accusations on authorship, at least spend a little time to actually understand how authorship for the bible works and how we came to know it.
 
 
 
Because an objective truth isn't the point. A clinical prescription defeats the purpose. The point is relationship and community. Learning about what the Bible means and says is hard for just one person because you can't just read it at face value, but the idea is to study, learn, and understand, and not only that but to teach and learn from others as well. Being taught, asking questions from other people and digging deeper builds a stronger bond, and makes it much more personable. If God wanted an impersonal thing, to be treated on the same level as, say, gravity, I'm sure he would, but he didn't. The relationship, when learned in a community, isn't very hard to understand at all; that's the point of churches. If you're some midwestern middle-class dude sitting in his living room and reading only the Bible without any additional material to understand what it is you're reading, yeah you're not going to get the whole picture. That kind of happens when you take a translation of 2000+ year old text from across the world at face value.
 
There's also your crap arguments of "But if God is X, why didn't he do Y?" What's hilariously bad about this argument is how it assumes that being X demands that Y be done. Which, uh, no it doesn't? At all? God doesn't need to fit whatever definitions you establish to be God. At this point, your accusations, and for that matter Kano's accusations, hold little weight because it's all sort of "I think God's dumb because he didn't do X so that makes him dumb." For one, you don't know that your proposed method would actually be better with the intended goals in mind, and for two, especially in regards to ethics, you don't know if it would be better overall for all of mankind in eternity. Because that's totally knowledge you have access to, right?
 
Honestly, if you're just here to spout of misinterpretations or self-created definitions, you are quite honestly wasting your time. Just as your arguments are failing to convince me of anything, I am sure you didn't come here with the intention of being convinced. So what are you doing, then? Are you actually interested in the discussion or did you just want to slander?

 
adam and eve, had zro knowledge of good and evil. this is laid out, literally in your book. adults or not, they had never, as far as your book tells us, actually knew of good and evil, the apple is explained to be the knowledge of good/evil - right/wrong ect. in other words, they were akin to infants, knowing nothing of what they were actually doing when they ate said apple. age has nothing to do with experience, they had never been introduced to the concept of good and evil, or right and wrong, it's only the apple that gave them said knowledge, again, as explained by your book. until they ate the apple, they had no idea what "wrong" was. not in the sense that you or i do. i twisted nothing. my example, is drawn from the words of the bible, the fruit was the knowledge of right and wrong, until they ate the fruit, they knew nothing of right and wrong, and as such, they are again, comparable to children in that sense.
 
 
 
 
 
there's literally nothing about this universe that points to supernatural abilities. if your reasoning for giving your god a pass on magic, is because it's magic, then it'd be extremely dishonest to not give the same pass to any and every other god story. i doubt you do that though, and i assume it's for some similarly circular reason. first prove said deity both exists, and can do said feats. otherwise the bible's nothing more than 40+ writers of a pre-modern superhero/villain story.
 
 
 
 
 
 
you may have misread, i said, the nine rings ma have been invented, acknowledginf those as tack-ons later, but the lake of fire, is directly from jesus. mark 9:42-48, jesus's description of hell is a fire. [spoiler=in his words]
9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 9:49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

is that literal or figurative now? because it sounds rather literal to me considering magical being who apparently came to rescue people from said hell of his own creation. when your god kills all life on earth,  is that somehow metaphorical? when your god rains plagues, is that metaphorical? when your god razes cities, is that metaphorical? and yet somehow revelations is metaphorical? even though your god, as described by his many fans, would be willing and capable of doing such actions? when i draw links, the only thing you do is say i'm interpreting them incorrectly, but what's funny about that is, only the negative is ever incorrect when read literally. the narrative, taken at face, is literally advocating amputation, and your god, has been shown very fond of such harsh punishments since the OT, it lines right up with god's past values, yet it's not literal right?
 
 
elisha's curse is exactly what i mean by trivial killing. if your god exists, and has anywhere near the power modern Christians, Catholics, ect, boast about, then why would he need to kill anybody over how they view him or his prophets? and if he wants them to follow him, why is murder his main answer? (like those who weren't virgins on their wedding nights, those who follow another god, no matter what god that may be, those who reject worship of your god, those who prophetize ) he could literally kill or replace their god, and issue new rulings. and the end result would be the same. not wanting to interfere with free will is bull, since murder is the ending of any free will that you may have had, absolutely, so he clearly doesn't care about that. and even further, what exactly this is what kano and i were talking about, your god's actions, are not worthy of worship, they align more with the image of a pissed off demon than a benevolent god claiming to love humans. let's revisit the verse shall we:[spoiler='the quote]
"From there Elisha went up to Bethel.  While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him.  “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!”  The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord.  Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)[/size]"

sending bears to kill kids? what about that is supposed to inspire love? or be inspired by love? those kids did, exactly what kids and young teens do, they act stupid. they were basically murdered for being youths. ever seen a bear mauling? it's not a peaceful death, and yet that's the way your god saw fit to deal with kids. i'd post images to cement the point, but i don't think they're forum appropriate. the point stands. your god, is vain, greedy, and sociopathic to a disturbing degree. look at the torture of job, to see yet another clear display of this.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
i didn't read it as "hate your family" i read it as love jesus more than your family. and i simply refuse to do that. if it comes down to it,  i'm not putting your god, or any god, above my family. the fact that i don't love jesus, and the fact that i love my family, are irrelevant. the fact is, even if i chose to love your god, i would always put my family before him. period. if it ever came down to something for him, or something for my family, then it would be family, every time. 
 
i'm not pulling from air, again, you already know what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, the verse says it'll be more pleasant in those places, than it will be for any town that rejects a christian messenger. there is no stretch in my words, the words themselves are right there, in context.you, are the one who has added an extra layer. there was no criteria, other than the rejection of said messengers. the end result, was stated to be worse than those two cities, but there was nothing at all, saying that the reception had to be the same. you are the one who read in that condition. I, took the verse at face value. you, added more conditions than were present in the verse. 10:15 does not say, that you need to be at the same level as sodom and gomorrah, there is nothing in that verse that claims such. it says you merely need reject those spreading the word, and not allow them access to your city/home, to earn a worse treatment. in other words, according to the verse, as quoted, if you reject said messengers, and tell them to gtfo (there is no statement in said verse that says said rejection need or need not be violent), you qualify for the punishment. sodomy need not be present either. you, added extra conditions to the verse, i, simply took the verse as is, and pointed out what happened to sodom and gomorrah to remind you of what the end result was. my statement, was 100% proper in the given context. only when adding all the extra layers that you have, does it even remotely slide out of place.
 
that doesn't fly, your claim, holds no grounds for a few reasons, first, claiming "they just knew better because those were the times they lived in" does not answer the question of how they knew better, when they apparently believed in faith healing at the exact same time (exactly how many cancer patients are opting for faith healing over science?). the pluck out your own eye comment, in full context, is mentioned above, alongside hell, the lake of fire. how exactly does this turn from literal to parable? by ignoring the rest of the book. this was in the exact same set of verses where he tells his disciples how he will die (is that a parable as well?), and the same one where he explains how those who accept the children, receive him, and via receiving him, receive god, and the same one where he drives out an evil spirit from a child and many other unproven miracles. this entire set of verses, is filled with literal things, stated as law, yet, while you can accept the exorcisms, and the acceptance of children possessed by demons, and the death prediction, yet not the amputation advocation? sure. they can tell the clear line between parable and reality, and yet these same kinds of people burned 'witches' a couple hundred years down the line, and believed in exorcisms, and eternal damnation? yeah, that's the flimsiest argument you've given yet. hell, eye for an eye, leg for a leg, ect, was a literal law not too far before the statement by jesus here. what exactly about their education makes them so knowledgeable about this? 
 
 
yeah, that's what i just said. and taken at face value, that verse, as i said above, is basically saying that whatever city rejects a messenger of christ, will get a worse treatment than even sodom or gomorrah. again, there are no other criteria to qualify for punishment, other than telling said messenger to GTFO, 
 
 
 
and here i reject your claim. for multiple reasons, starting with because by that same token, parents would have the right to kill their kids as punishment, because they birthed them. and your god (jesus and yaweh) both agree with this statement of mine as is mentioned in the bible. and finishing with your god does not direct me. no matter how much you may like to think it does. i am my own being, independent of deity, no matter what you believe my origin to be. his "right" to kill any living being he fancies does not exist. he may have said the ability to do so, and might even want to, but that does not mean he has any inherent right to do so. creation does not equal the right to destruction, when the creation is affirming it's own existence. 
 
 
 
your god's not a just  monster because he kills, but also because of why he kills. we've been over this. if given the same level of power attributed to your god, in pretty much every example where your god kills, or smites, i can think of a better solution that would kill less, and convert more. hell even the redemption plan would work better than his. even without turning the earth into an easy life, i can think of more ways to use omnipotence to gain followers, promote good behavior, and spread love. it's that simple, i can do god, better than your god can.
 
the stated only way of entering heaven, is accept god, and worship him/jesus. so no, i neither worship, nor accept your god. if i die, and i encounter your god (or even if your god showed up in front of me in this life, not on some bullshit symbolic way, literally god showing up and telling me he's god, which god he is, and demonstrating his abilities), then i will gladly acknowledge it's existence, but i will still not worship it. because as it is described in the bible, it is still little better than those it kills according to my own moral compass.
 
 
 
 
that's not what i'm saying. what i'm saying, is that the bible, is written by humans, and said humans, likely read at least a few of the earlier chapters, considering they felt so inclined to add new ones. some of which conflict, (many being revised countless times, with some verses being thrown out completely, and others being assembled in completely different manners) the most drastic examples being the book of mormon, the quran, and the NT. as separate, conflicting volumes all attempting to follow the OT. that's what i mean. also, in literally your next quote, you clearly see that i know there's multiple authors, yet you still see fit to add this bit? stop that.
 
 
 
 
no, personal to me, is a personal relationship, your book's not personal, it's as far from personal as it gets, it's third person, from third person, from gods know how many other people, from centuries ago. your god wants a relationship with me? then tell it to tell me that itself. i don't take orders from books. and i don't care for any deity that claims it wants a relationship, and only sends post cards from centuries past to be interpreted by shady priests. also, i don't do group-think. i want a one on one, and if your god can't do that, then it clearly doesn't want a relationship.
 
 
that's what we've been telling you from the start. your god, does not meet our criteria for worship. in other words, if he's said to be X, but doesn't do Y, then he fails out test, and  as such, we do not worship him. that's the entire point. why would we worship any being that doesn't match our own criteria for goodness? he can be whatever he wants, but if he doesn't fit out criteria, then he may as well never expect us to worship him. worship implies we see a being as far above us, we don't see your god as such, and your attempted justifications for said gods actions, have not changed this one bit. the actions, and his results, when considering his power level, are extremely sub par for what we know of omnipotence. if i can imagine better than his results, then his omnipotence is clearly weaker than mine would b if granted the same abilities. it's that simple. if the results are this fa below expectations, then i don't see your god as a being worth worshiping. he may meet your criteria, but we have higher expectations.
 
 
 
I'm mainly here to simply see if any of you can convince your god to manifest in reality. that's the only way i'd be convinced that it exists, but that's something that i have yet to see. at this point, this discussion is nothing more to me than a discussion on superman's existence and morals, in comparison to his actions. he exists because magic is not an argument, and i've seen nothing better in any situation. magic is not an answer, the existence of the natural, is also not an answer, and the fastest way to convince me, has never occurred. so i'm rather bored of the "does he exist" argument, because unlike the "i have a car" argument, showing me the god, appears to be impossible unless i willingly agree to believe in the fairy tale beforehand. so much for omnipotence 
 
 
lastly, this whole misinterpretation thing, is bollocks. unless your god comes down directly (in the modern age), and confirms the exact meaning, you are more guilty of conjecture than i am. unlike you, i am speaking at face value, taking the verses, and saying exactly what they say, and asking you why exactly you can't do so, usually leads to it's a parable" or some other such excuse, while the positive words appear to be believed as real advice more often than not, the negative ones, seem to always be either just stories, or in need of some completely separate passage to be read "properly".

[Delibirb]

All I'm saying is that the topic of this thread speaks on the existence of God. The last page or so of posts have all been about trying to prove/disprove the omnipotence/omnibenevolence of God. Whatever result comes from the latter discussion doesn't matter, as either conclusion essentially is implying that God exists. I just wanted to refocus the topic to what it was to begin with.

Proving God does not have one of the requisite factors of being a God proves He does not exist. Not as a god, anyway. I'm just delivering it in such a way that it seems I believe in their God as a flawed being because attempting to outright claim total nonexistence bears no fruitful discussion, and I'm conceding that there is little way of proving total nonexistence anyway.

[Dad]

"All gods are magic."

 

I don't understand.

[vla1ne]

"All gods are magic."

 

I don't understand.

in other words, all gods are considered supernatural beings with abilities akin to magic. the level of ability varies, but they are all considered to be magical (aka supernatural) beings.

[Dad]

Ah okay, I was unsure what you meant.  Thanks for clarifying.