|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted August 20, 2013 09:23 AM |
|
|
Right then. Here is another question that may amuse you:
How can any rational person believe in a religion centered around a supposedly loving, good and merciful god, that makes believing in it (him) a prerequisite for being eligible to gain any benefits at all and not go directly to hell?
Explanation: Suppose, you've been a good person, but not a Christian. but you were honest in life, kept faith to your spouse, have been a good parent to your children, never did anybody any harm and would have passed the eternal-life-in-heaven test easily - IF you had believed in Jesus. Which you didn't, though, for whatever the reason.
Now can you imagine this Jesus guy holding judgment over you, concluding, "well, not too bad a record here, this soul, but unfortunately, since this soul didn't believe in me, it damned itself to eternal hell. Next one".
I mean, isn't it obvious that this clause makes it an obvious fraud with the intention to force people into the folds of the Church and get a power grip on them?
Because: why would a god described the way he is, insist on people believing in him, no matter what else they would do? Wouldn't he be satisfied, if the world was a good place, people believing all kinds of things, but being good, honest people mostly, instead of the kind of hellhole it sometimes is, lots of people not being good and honest, but supposedly believing in him?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 12:51 PM |
|
|
The way they explained it to me in my Orthodox theology class a while ago is that there is, of course, no physical Hell and that Hell is a state of the soul. God does not put the soul in this state, it puts itself into a state of emptiness and death, some kind of a void, if it rejects the love that God has for it.
This is because God's love is a matter of METAPHYSICS; it's what holds the universe together, and what sets us apart from death. There is no true existence without it, as he is existence, not just a judge or vain tyrant that punishes people for not worshipping him (an aspect that people - who don't invest much thought in the subject - focus far too much on, in my opinion. Which is only logical, as they see it as the most directly important for them). Death, in theology, does not mean the concept of earthly passing away, but rather, an all-pervasive death, the death of your very being, a shadow over every man that Christ defeated through his sacrifice and resurrection. I was taught that Christ's greatest victory was that over death; again, not the bodily one, but in the transcendent sense. This death, this void, is pretty much all the hell you get in Orthodox tradition. It still sucks, sure, but it's not God's vanity that sends you there.
The essential thing for our existence like this is that God loves us enough to have made us free. If we wish to free ourselves from his gift of existence, we reject him and return to the void. It's an ill-advised decision, but it's open. If God sent everyone to Heaven, or if all existence was eternal, we wouldn't be free to choose against it. Same goes for God sitting on Earth all the time and punishing us on the spot for anything bad we do. You raped a chick, bam, lightning bolt. Rape stops due to fear of GOD the TYRANT, not due to man's progress. All the world's problems are solved by GOD the MASTER, instead of him letting MAN the PET find out how to do it. Mankind would become a slave race under a divine overlord.
Of course, there are many who have never heard of Christ or been told of his teachings. In a way, I understand that embracing God's love is not tied to your creed; understanding the creed can simply help. A specific religion is not that essential to be in harmony with God, just like it didn't prevent disharmony with him when it came to Catholics in the middle ages or preachers blessing soldiers' knives in the Balkans in the '90s.
It's all a bit more complicated, in a good way, really. There are no automatic pitchforks for Hindus and atheists.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 02:14 PM |
|
|
That's not the real point, though, isn't it?
I mean, customer protection here on Earth means, I can get something, test it 14 days, and if I don't like what I got I sent it right back.
That's not, how it is supposed to work here, though.
Here, it's a much more fishy deal.
Why would I have to believe NOW, when I haven't got the slightest clue about how the afterlife may look, if there is one. Hell. Heaven. (or the metaphysical states, that is with or without god, that's just not important for the point). God, if we are at it. Satan as well.
Because it would seem that later is too late, right?
Take John 6:40+
Or what about those actively believing something else. The Asian folks. Will they get a moment to consider after death? "Oh my, look there, I won't be born again, seems I was wrong. Can I reconsider under the impact of the moment?"
Or will they simply die, because they didn't believe?
My understanding of things says, you have to believe NOW, then you will reap the benefits later. If you don't believe now - sorry, no benefits later.
I mean, consider that would be standard business practice.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 02:48 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 00:46, 21 Aug 2013.
|
JollyJoker said:
That's not the real point, though, isn't it?
Or what about those actively believing something else. The Asian folks. Will they get a moment to consider after death?
Since you know Love and that's knowing God, why would you not think that if THEY were of Love they would not enter?
JollyJoker said:
My understanding of things says, you have to believe NOW, then you will reap the benefits later.
My cantankerous friend, you're on the outside looking in and since so many "supposed" Christians are working overtime to hose things up why would you think you could see the light?
JollyJoker said:
If you don't believe now - sorry, no benefits later.
This will probably sound like another load of rubbish but here goes.
I've served all others around me the best I could from about the age of 25 onwards (my mystical event)and it was not for the here or Heaven later; but, if rewards had been the motivation, it would be "now" by a longshot. Imitating Christ made me what I never could have been without him, the most lasting of all my satisfaction came from learning and always working-at being the best husband, father, brother, uncle, friend and all else when it came to other people; shoot I even worked on my "strangership"<L> Reward was never an expectation, I still hope for Heaven but I have to live on Earth and tolerate all you rebellious and imperfect creatures.  <jk>
Btw, where's da tunes mon? Ya dig...enough to find them?
MOD EDIT: Formatting fixed.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 03:46 PM |
|
|
That's not the point either - the rewards, I mean.
The point is that it would seem that it's not enough JUST to live a "good" life, doing no harm, care for your family and friends, be a good spouse and parent and screw no one over - not thinking about religion AT ALL or simply not wanting to think about life after death, god or not, religion, prayer, you name it. That it wouldn't be enough to JUST be a halfway good human instead of a Christian.
Think politically. No one forces you to vote a certain party or vote at all, and whether you did vote or something has no repercussions on what happens after the vote.
But in religion? It would be like this: Party X promises to ban all taxes, provided it wins - but only for those who voted for them. If you didn't, heck, you have to pay EVERYTHING YOU OWN for taxes and will be forced to slowly starve to death.
See the pitch? If they win and you voted - fine. If they win and you didn't - dear me. If they lose and you did - nothing lost. If they lose and you didn't - no difference.
Bottom line is: if there is the slightest winning chance for them - go for them, because if you don't you can only lose.
And now the question: Is there any relevant difference between 2 persons living basically the same life in terms of social relations, but one is a Christian and the other is not?
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 04:18 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Bottom line is: if there is the slightest winning chance for them - go for them, because if you don't you can only lose.
This guy has the solution.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 04:30 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 16:32, 20 Aug 2013.
|
JJ, this is not about a choice between gods. The Hindu pantheon doesn't exist alongside the Abrahamic God. It's all the same metaphysical God, if you will, viewed from different perspectives. No religion sees itself as a party vying for dominance on the spiritual level; it may seem so on the EARTHLY level, but never on the spiritual one. Comparing this to elections may work when we're talking mass manipulation, which is one of the misuses of religion, certainly, but we're discussing theology here. The essence of a creed.
Every religion, considering itself to be the closest thing to RIGHT at the moment, will tell you that it's better to follow it than not to. They believe their philosophy is right, and their creed allows better understanding of it. But John 6:40, which you quoted, says that those who truly believe in Christ and follow his teachings, ergo living in harmony with God, will attain eternal life. It doesn't say that everyone else will automatically go to Hell. Christ was the first to warn the pharisees that it's not enough to abide by a creed lawfully, but to hold pureness in your heart. Without it, no creed makes sense.
Understandably for a profoundly non-religious person, you're rather stubbornly looking at this from a very earthly perspective, trying to impose correlations where there are none, such as between God and political parties or God and customer service. You're talking soul economics. This is a different thing altogether.
To conclude, just carefully reread this part of my previous post:
Quote:
Of course, there are many who have never heard of Christ or been told of his teachings. In a way, I understand that embracing God's love is not tied to your creed; understanding the creed can simply help. A specific religion is not that essential to be in harmony with God, just like it didn't prevent disharmony with him when it came to Catholics in the middle ages or preachers blessing soldiers' knives in the Balkans in the '90s.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 04:54 PM |
|
|
But how do you come to the conclusion, that there is a God and you will connect with him if the mindset is right?
Is it because you read the Bible and made your own interpretation because you didn't like it at face value?
Or have you "outgrown" the Bible and are believing in some "cosmic force" with which you will live in harmony provided you lead a worthy life.
I mean, doesn't the Bible clearly state that they who have faith in Jesus and believe that he is the human born son of god who died to repent for all human sin and was resurrected 3 days after his death, will not die, but instead live forever (or something like that)?
Isn't FAITH not the ONE AND ONLY actual prerequisite? I mean, you CAN lead a life quite apart from all harmony, provided you find it before you draw your last breath right?
So I'm not sure that this can be interpreted in the way you would like it to be - sure, you can believe what you believe, but a Christian is called a Christian because be believes what I said above, not because he is a philosophical idealist.
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 05:13 PM |
|
|
JJ,just for you:
In the Bible is written(Corinthians 13:13):
"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
That means the Holy book tells you that Love is always greater than Faith.Any doubt about that is unfounded.
I think that answers very clearly your question.
Also:
Corinthians 13:1-3
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, it profits me nothing."
This one is comparison between Faith(as you think of it as the only thing needed) and Love.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 06:18 PM |
|
|
Bak, if your child is about to get raped and you can stop the rapist, you do, because you love your child. If God exists but doesn’t do so - he just lets people suffer - he's not loving in the same way as we understand the term. At this point, religious people like to say things like "You wouldn't coddle your child and prevent them from making every mistake, because then they wouldn't learn, and so God does the same". There are many problems with that analogy. There are two related reasons why parents don't do this, neither of which applies to God.
First, parents don't have perfect knowledge of their children's preferences. While they know that some things are definitely bad for their children, others are more questionable. For example, I wouldn't want to have sex with a guy, but I wouldn't say that it would be bad for my hypothetical son if he ever wanted to do so. On average, when applied properly, it causes children to be happier than they would have been if they had been forced to act as if they had their parents' preferences, but even in a good case, it leads to children making mistakes. God, being omniscient, doesn’t have the limitation of not having perfect knowledge of people's preferences, so He could protect people from their mistakes without making them less happy.
Second, parents want to teach their children to make decisions on their own, both because it isn't feasible for parents to always make decisions for their children, and because the parents won't always be around. God is eternal and omnipresent, so that's not a limitation He shares.
Another problem with the analogy is that if a parent saw that their child was either about to do something bad or have something bad done to then, they would intervene. If your child was going to commit rape, and you could stop them, you would. If your child was going to be raped, and you could prevent it, you would. You wouldn't have any qualms about not letting them decide for themselves in situations like this.
But God doesn’t stop every rapist, which shows that He's not a loving parent as we use that term. If we still say that he's ommibenevolent, that benevolence clearly has a different meaning than when it's applied to humans. If rape and torture are part of an omnipotent and omniscient God's plan, and yet we still call that plan "good", either we're really messed up or are worshipping a Lovecraftian deity.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 07:03 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 19:20, 20 Aug 2013.
|
MVass:
I distinguish three main points you are trying to make here.
1) "He could protect people from their mistakes without making them less happy."
Happy, MVass? We both know how much more there is to life than being happy. It's not about God snapping his fingers and making us happy, nor would we know happiness if we didn't know sorrow. Mankind is a collective of individuals. We prefer to find our own happiness.
2) "Second, parents want to teach their children to make decisions on their own, both because it isn't feasible for parents to always make decisions for their children, and because the parents won't always be around. God is eternal and omnipresent, so that's not a limitation He shares."
Let's put it like this. If you lived forever and were omniscient, would that mean you would never teach your children to make decisions and think on their own? Would you prevent their self-fulfillment like that, and also rob them of the chance to teach their own children anything? You are talking about binding yourself to controlling every next generation, every single person in your family, forever, until you realize that instead of a family, what you have is a plethora of idiots that you need to select and right click somewhere in order for them to move. Now that's Lovecraftian. Or communist. Whichever term brings more dread to Americans these days.
3) Why does God let evil happen to his children, by his children?
For the same reason a tsunami takes all those homes away, or galaxies collapse to dust. You should understand it more than anyone. Evolution is the laissez-faire of nature. Had there not been calamities threatening to destroy us, tigers trying to eat us, men trying to rob us, we wouldn't be what we are today. Without learning for ourselves how to overcome these obstacles in ourselves as well as in the world around us, we will never be what we have potential to become one day. We were given a chance, not a guarantee. If we fail, if we go dodo or cro-magnon on this, someone else, somewhere far away, won't. We are very small beings in a very large universe. It's a matter of statistics.
Also, when speaking of God lending aid, take a look at the rate by which great people, brilliant innovators, charismatic leaders and ingenious teachers are born and our civilization influenced. In a way, we need no God's helping hand other than the one he's given us. Statistics.
You were always the first to explain why laissez-faire is the most morally feasible principle, and lament people's lack of understanding towards that notion.
God stopping every rape on the planet would be moving us all one step closer to servility and idiocy. Us managing to extinguish rape ourselves... now that'd be something, wouldn't it? That's something truly benevolent.
JJ:
Will get to you shortly, mate.
EDIT Thumbs up for Master_Learn.
Did you read the Bible, JJ? Was it a while ago? Skipping the boring bits, getting to hot Samson on Delilah action?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 08:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We both know how much more there is to life than being happy. It's not about God snapping his fingers and making us happy, nor would we know happiness if we didn't know sorrow.
Of course we'd know happiness if we wouldn't know sorrow. The two aren't dependent on each other at all, as they're separate feelings. It's nonsense to suggest that we need bad things to enjoy good things - it's a coping mechanism, nothing more. And while it's an empirical fact that currently there are unpleasant parts of life, it's not logically necessary, and if we can, we should remove them and be happy as much as possible. There's nothing more to life than being happy.
As for "We prefer to find our own happiness", that's true for one meaning of that statement and false for another. The correct meaning is more completely stated as "We prefer to find our own happiness by incorporating certain subjective preferences that we have, rather than having other people's preferences imposed on us, because to a certain extent what makes people happy varies from person to person, and while there is a good amount of commonality between people due to their nature, there is also a good amount of difference, so forcing one person to live the life that another person prefers usually won't result in the first person's happiness." The incorrect meaning is "The process of searching for happiness has an intrinsic value that is independent of the happiness that it produces."
Not to mention that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being would snap its fingers and make everyone happy. If He can and doesn't, he's either not omnibenevolent, or the "benevolent" in "omnibenevolent" means something different from what it usually does.
Quote:
If you lived forever and were omniscient, would that mean you would never teach your children to make decisions and think on their own?
I'd also have to be omnipresent, so it would be possible to always make decisions for my children, and if not omnipotent, I'd at least have to be significantly more powerful than any human is now. If I could make my children happier by making all of their decisions for them, then of course I would. Being a good parent requires caring about your children's happiness, and if in this scenario I could make them happier by making all of their decisions for them (without it requiring too much of an effort from me), then to do so would be good parenting. It's not Lovecraftian, because I'm making them happy.
Quote:
For the same reason a tsunami takes all those homes away, or galaxies collapse to dust.
As an atheist, I say, "So, for no reason." A Christian, however, can't say that, because it's all part of "God's plan". Not to mention that evolution directly contradicts the Book of Genesis.
God cannot be omnibenevolent if he's a sink-or-swim parent. Causing your children to suffer as part of a plan while you can prevent it is in no way benevolent.
Also, servility and idiocy? You seem to be forgetting that you're talking about an omnipotent being. If He wanted to, He could make us eternally happy, safe, free, and intelligent, all at the same time.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 08:47 PM |
|
|
mvass,I'll give an example just to make you think for a while.
In the New Testament we read about Christ getting crucified in order to pay with his life for our sins.
In your line of thought an allmighty God would not do such a thing.There is NO NEED FOR HIM TO SEND HIS SON AT ALL(according to your logic).
There would be contradiction here.
Explanation-we as human beings have learned one of the most important lessons in life-Everything Has A Price.
That Law is represented by the coming of Christ and the Price He pays willingly to prevent greater destruction.
This price goes not only for what we do,but for what god do.
So if he can and he doesn't,maybe the price is too high?
Second example-if we don't train our muscles,our body slowly gets weaker.If we live easy lifes,then we slowly get weaker,compared with the possible dangers,that may come to us.More comfort-more laziness-more inactivity-more dumb people.
The hardships in life give us our strength to overcome them.
Some day we can use our strength to wipe out the reasons for such events and will lead more conscious life and happy life.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 08:53 PM |
|
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 08:57 PM |
|
|
Or our understanding of omnipotence is exaggerated/misplaced.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 09:03 PM |
|
|
master_learn said:
Or our understanding of God's power is exaggerated/misplaced.
Omnipotence has a definition, if it doesn't match God then you should use a different word to describe it.
____________
none of my business.
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 09:27 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
That just suggests that God isn't omnipotent.
Or omnimalevolent.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 09:30 PM |
|
|
baklava said:
JJ:
Will get to you shortly, mate.
EDIT Thumbs up for Master_Learn.
Did you read the Bible, JJ? Was it a while ago? Skipping the boring bits, getting to hot Samson on Delilah action?
Of course I read the Bible - not the whole Bible, though. And "hot" isn't exactly the word I would use there.
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 09:34 PM |
|
|
seraphim said:
mvassilev said:
That just suggests that God isn't omnipotent.
Or omnimalevolent.
Not choosing to help somebody is a decsion. The god of the bible is omniscient, it should now what some people will suffer. It also is omniscient, it should be able to alter the future of individuals for the better without affecting freewill. Certainly, loosing 4 limbs is not going to help somebody on his road to believe in god.
Either the god of the bible or indeed any monotheistic religion is pure evil and simply does not care about its subjects, despite know the tragic fate of some of its subjects or it simply does not exist.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Nixonite
|
|
posted August 20, 2013 09:48 PM |
|
|
Deos God really not care? Or is it that there is some sort of afterlife and the pain and suffering of this life will be nothing compared to it?
I would choose door number two.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
