Can’t God just snap his fingers and take away the “torment?” Is he not omnipotent?
Also, you still have the problem of determining what god is “true” and which ones are “false” without any evidence for any of them.
They belive there is objective evidence. I don’t know what that is, but they have the idea that it’s something, as near as I can tell, that’s self evident.
It’s not morally evil because it hurts anyone. It’s morally evil because we were created to worship God and obey him. So, if we fail to do that, we’re doing an immoral act. As far as I can tell, that’s the idea.
You can’t “believe” in objective evidence. It either exists or it doesn’t. If it exists you don’t have to believe it.
And it’s obviously not self evident, because billions of people don’t see it.
Really, if you take away a priori belief, you have no evidence at all.
A god who fails to provide evidence for his own existence, any clear message to “obey,” or any defined embodiment for worship.
So it’s immoral because God says so? I disagree. If it doesn’t hurt anybody, it can’t be immoral. A God who would punish people for a sincerely held, but mistaken belief in a “false” God cannot himself be called moral or good.
God could, but then He would be denying us of our free will. Those who experience the energies as torment are doing so because of their own choice, both past and continuing. Whether the presence of God is torment or bliss is up to the individual. When we say God will judge a person, we are using the word in the sense of recognizing the person’s state, which has already been chosen by them. As to the question why communion with His energies will happen at all, I can only say that that was the whole point of His creating man, and beyond that you’d have to take it up with Him.
As I studied Eastern Orthodoxy, I found myself agreeing with its conclusions, and so came to believe in God as described by the EOx. I obviously can’t offer any falsifiable proof for His existence, but this is where faith comes in. I certainly don’t expect you to believe in Him on my say-so, but that’s ok, because I’m not out to convert anybody here.
Sure, they start this way, but in all cases they retreat the faith argument eventually - God doesn’t give evidence because it would ruin people’s faith.
As for Judaism and sin, I never got taught that there was original sin, or that sin would cut someone off from God. (I was brought up the Reform side of Conservative.) Yom Kippur services have you repent a long list of sins, as well as sins you don’t know you committed, in order to be written in the Book of Life for the next year. In a sense, this seemed to be a literal interpretation of “the wages of sin are death.” But I don’t remember any mention of hell - perhaps my Rabbi was too nice a guy to threaten us. 
Well, I guess they’d say that your views of what’s moral and good are wrong, and that God isn’t held to your standards. If he says “Believe in me or you’re doomed”, what choice do you have?
But I’ve met devout Thor-worshippers. And I know that my (non-Christian) religious beliefs are self-evident to me. So Diogenes’ point stands – from any outside point of view, there is an equal amount of evidence to support any religious belief.
Say we propose a hypothetical agnostic who’s decided to take up Pascal’s Wager and choose a religion out of fear of divine retribution. Our hypothetical agnostic was raised on Mars, so has no bias for or against any religion. There is nothing whatsoever to aid his choice, because all religions can boast precisely the same amount of objective evidence to support their view – that is, none. If he chooses Christianity, he’s risking Niflheim, Hades, and Na’ar.
Sure, but they aren’t looking from an outside point of view, and while I agree with you that our hypothetical Martian agnostic is out of luck in picking a god, they wouldn’t.
I am absolutely going to hold God to my standard of morality. A God who is not at least as good as I am will get no love from me. He can fry me if he wants to but that won’t make him right.
What evidence do they have that the Martian doesn’t have? Their decision is influenced by cultural bias or a priori assumptions, not on objective evidence. There is no way for them to know that they’re right no matter how much they believe it.
“As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport”. You’re making the assumption that your opinion on moral issues is somehow worth something…that you’re entitled to form independent moral opinions, instead of just blindly obeying the divine will.
Sure it’s subjective…but they’re stuck in the middle of it and think their subjectivity is objectivity.
Since I have no way of knowing what or even if the divine will is, I have no choice but to follow my own conscience.
I would also add that even the choice to “blindly follow” a perceived divine authority is still an act of individual moral autonomy. It is still a subjective, personal choice about what constitutes morality.
Well that’s my whole point. They’re making assertions about “false gods” when they have no way of determining what god is real.
From a personal moral standpoint, I don’t see how God can punish people for choosing the wrong deity if he has given human beings no way to tell what is true.
Let’s clarify- for Noachides & Abrahamists (Jews, C’tians & Muslims), it is forbidden to worship any but the One Creator God because we have received/accepted that Revelation. Thus while we may believe in angels & saints & spirits of the dead & perhaps even the possibility of elementals & totem animals, we are not to worship them. For those who in sincere error worship them, they are only held accountable to the extent they know of a One Creator God & deny Him supreme worship (there is a form of honor that is acceptable to show lesser supernatural beings).
For sincere worshippers of lesser beings who leave this realm & enter Eternity, God knows their hearts & how they would have responded if they had known of God, and there may well be an intermediate period of their learning & having opportunity to trust the One God before direct experience of His energies. In Eastern Orthodoxy, there is also teaching of Hades & Paradise before the Resurrection/Glorification & even some speculation about “toll-houses” in which spiritual difficulties are worked through before progressing onto God.
Paul wrote in I Corinthians 10:5-6 that there are beings called gods, many such gods and lords, but for us there is One Father God from Whom we exist and One Lord Jesus Christ through Whom we exist.
So it’s all right to believe that there are other beings that are sometinmes referred to as “gods”, as long as they are not worshipped. That seems simple enough. Is it still all right if I “call upon” one of these gods to help me out of a tough spot, or leave an offering to ensure good fortune?
Say I am a farmer. If I take up a handful of earth, place it in a mug of beer, and sprinkle some grain over it in order to gain the good graces of the local “Harvest God”, am I doing anything wrong? I am not worshipping; I am simply accepting that perhaps this entity has the ability to affect the growth of seeds and grain. For all I know, that power may have been granted by God. Is it inherently wrong to put my faith in a supernatural being who is not God?
That’s an ancient, time-honored, faux-sublime piece of bullshit. People believe it because they need to, not because it makes any genuine, honest sense when considered carefully and philosophically.
Free will is entirely delusory. It does not exist. Human beings do not possess free will, no matter how strongly they may imagine they do. The concept does not even make any coherent sense.
Free will is too complex a philosophical topic to be explored here in any detail. Suffice to say that free will can only mean randomness and can only result in random behavior, random opinions, and random beliefs. If it’s not random, it’s determined, and hence not free.
Besides, people who believe in your assertion quoted above simply don’t grasp the real meaning of the word “omnipotent”. An omnipotent being would have no trouble at all forcing us to think, believe, and act as It wished while simultaneously granting us free will. An omnipotent being has no limits or restrictions by definition! As you believers say, “nothing is impossible with God”.
I don’t see how withholding punishment infringes on free will anyway. People still made their own decisions (at least to the extent that decsion making is possible).
I would argue that the imposition of a punishment/reward system for behavior is what undermines free will. True free will would be that which does not have any consequences. If everybody went to Heaven no matter what, then “good” behavior would mean a lot more because it would be engaged in for its own sake and not with expectation of reward or fear of punishment.
You can’t put a gun to someone’s head, tell them to give you your wallet or you’ll kill them and then pretend they gave you their wallet of their own “free will.”
Hell, or the withholding of salvation, however it is envisioned, is a gun to the head which invalidates any pretense that humans have free will.
Incidentally, ambushed is correct in saying that the concept of “free will” is rather more akin to an article of faith than a demonstrable fact. Much human behavior is rather predictable given certain variables. We know how to produce a sociopath or a pedophile, for instance. There are also such variables as mental illness, brain injury, drug induced psychosis, etc. which can produce erratic or violent behavior- even “evil” behavior- but do those people have free will? The Texas tower killer had a brain tumor that made him psychotic. Did he have free wil? Recently we had the case of the woman who drowned her children to “save them from satan.” Did she have free will?
How about people in comas? What will do they have? How about mentally challenged people?
It seems clear to me that free will is, at least, not available to everyone, and it’s debatable whether such a thing exists at all. I have seen no evidence that it does.
Regarding free will, the Church has never taught that it means the freedom to do whatever one wants (e.g., I cannot choose to become a bird and go flying through the air), but that it is the freedom to choose the good or the evil, to act according to our true nature (which is good) or to embrace the corruption currently afflicting us, to accept God or to reject Him. As for the insane and mentally incompetent, etc., their state is like those of infants: in this temporal world they cannot turn towards or away from God, but ultimately will have the same opportunity to accept or reject him that the rest of us have.
Regarding the issue of eternal punishment and free will, I could expound on it here at length, but it has been treated both more eloquently and more accurately than I am capable of by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros in his lecture The River of Fire, which is generally considered to be the best introductory Orthodox explanation of this issue available in English.