What about those who are seeking a personal relationship with God, but…not Seriously?
I have no idea how I screwed up and gave my last post that odd look, but I’ll try not to do it again.
DAVEW0071 said:
But, Dave, it’s not the wicked who are being punished. Take the example of Gandhi, mentioned by several others in this thread. By definition–or at least by the definitions which have been used in this thread–Gandhi would go to Hell for the “wickedness” of not buying into Christianity (as, indeed, the large majority of people on the planet don’t). On the other hand, Hitler could conceivably be in Heaven under these dogmas–if he had suddenly “seen the light,” as it were, and accepted Jesus as his personal savior, and then Russian artilery obliterated his bunker, he would be “saved.” (I’ve had this conversation with fundamentalist Christians more than once.) So we could have Hitler in Heaven and Gandhi in Hell–this strikes you as “perfect and righteous?” Perverse and ridiculous is how it strikes me. I can’t help “believ[ing] that God is vindictive and mean” under these beliefs.
If it’s any comfort to you–and it won’t be–I don’t really believe in a mean and vindictive God. But that’s because I don’t believe in Christian theology–by definition, then, I am going to Hell under these beliefs. But since I don’t believe such a place exists, or that a God who would send me there for disbelieving unlikely stories exists, I can live with that.
If the punishment for sin was death, that would be pretty fair. Death isn’t the punishment, though: we’re expected to believe that god would burn a person forever and ever in Hell as punishment. There is nothing so heinous a person can do in a finite lifetime to deserve eternal torture. Even if you deliberately spent every waking moment committing murder, beating up old ladies, and molesting every child you could find, you would not deserve eternal torture.
In addition, the goof that merits you this punishment isn’t sin at all, as any kind of sinner can get into heaven. No, the crime is disbelief, or simply worshipping the wrong way. The murderous old-lady-beating child molester will go to heaven if he finds faith. Ghandi and I will go to hell while the righteous people chill out in heaven with Jeffery Dahmer.
It doesn’t make sense that a perfect being would create the world and its inhabitants, anyway. Why, if god is perfect and complete, would he feel the desire to create us? Certainly not from altruism if he knew from the outset that he’d be casting the vast, vast majority of us into eternal torment sooner or later. If I knew I had a genetic disorder that would cause each of my children to have a 99.9% chance of suffering and dying from a horrible disease, I wouldn’t have kids. Having kids under such a circumstance would be selfish and cruel.
Davew said:
Well, then complain to my85car and FriendofGod – they’re the ones describing God that way. The rest of us are just holding up a mirror to show how it looks.
David B said:
He then proceeded to say this:
David: Perhaps you should wear your moderator hat more often…Like when you’re posting to the forum that YOU moderate. I notice a large fraction of the flames in this thread originate on your keyboard…At least Manhattan drops his flames in a forum he’s not responsible for. Your hostility belongs in the pit, ¿que no? I’d think you would be the one trying to keep it level and debating instead of instigating the hostilities, especially since GD is
Unless I’m mistaken, debates don’t hinge on insults. But since you’re flinging them around so freely, I’ll take this brief moment to follow your lead and say you’re not acting like a moderator, but a complete jerk. Not to mention a hypocrite. Or at least that’s what I thought it was called when somebody holds everybody else to a higher standard than the one he follows.
Of course, not all xtians believe there is an afterlife. If you read the original biblical text the evidence is rather lacking. I don’t know about the OT, but NT really doesn’t go into the fire and brimstone speil. Not that I’m a fundie apologist or anything.
I was wrong. My error was not the content I put here, but the language used. I was enraged, but that’s no excuse. I’ve already apologized to Mr. B. and it won’t happen again.
I read **David B. ** posts as raging that none of the fundies who post here will DEFEND their beliefs, but still insist upon posting them. Saying the “Bible says it, and that settles it” is **not ** a debate.
I mean, it’s not that hard to do. I mean, there *are * fundamentalist seminaries and divinity schools. I really doubt that the only thing going on in there is fundies spouting verses of the Bible to each other.
Fundamentalists have thought about these issues and, I’m sure, have come up with serious responses to the arguments David B., myself, and several others have made here. Apparently, the fundies who post here either (1) haven’t bothered to learn the bases of their own religion, or (2) believe that us atheists/agnostics/jews/nonfundamentalist Xians/etc. aren’t worthy of being told.
If it’s #1, don’t bother posting on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance until you’ve fought your own on the issue you claim to be the expert in. If it’s #2, if were so unworthy, why you bothering to witness to us in the first place?
(BTW, this isn’t directed at you, **Joe **, I don’t know your personal beliefs.)
If you want to fight for my soul, than fight dammit!! Don’t merely spout and then decry any contrary arguments as mere flaming.
Sua
Well, I imagine I’m going nowhere with this reply, but in the spirit of this board and forum, here goes.
FWIW, DavidB, I agree with you. The two posters you mentioned have fallen in love with the “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” mode, and hope to literally scare the hell out of nonChristians. I pity them for their narrow interpretation of their faith.
That being said, I also have to say that part of the human condition is the attempt to put God in a box, say “That’s what God is like” and be done with it. I’m guilty of it myself, although as I study the Bible more, I’m being weaned away from this.
The comment was made that it’s not just the wicked who are damned, it’s the non-believers. Whether you like it or not, that’s actually the point. It is faith, not works that save a person. Gandhi was a good man, who did great, altruistic things. But our standards of judging are not God’s standards. God does not qualify or quantify sin. He condemns it, whether you’re Albert Schweitzer or John Wayne Gacy. If you think it’s unfair that Gacy would gain entry to heaven through a profession of faith (assuming that faith is real), then you probably don’t believe the Apostle Paul should gain entry either, since he was running around killing Christians before his conversion. Again, our standards are not God’s. I actually can understand excoriating God for this. Although, I prefer to acknowledge God’s superiority as Supreme Judge and let God be God. I believe that we answer to God; God does not answer to us.
To address the issue of “death” versus “eternal damnation”, that also is God’s prerogative. He condemns sin, it is what separates us from Him, and Christianity teaches that He has provided a way of reconciliation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
As always, you can take this or leave it. I only present it as an attempt to enlighten the open-minded and intellectually curious.
The Dave-Guy:
Clarification: I certainly don’t believe that God is vindictive and mean. I don’t believe that God exists, but if he existed in the form claimed by many Christians on this board and elsewhere, he would be vindictive and mean. Any god who would allow his children to burn in hell forever merely for not subscribing to the correct religion is vindictive, mean, cruel, and unjust.
Many Christians claim that God is good and just and loves us, but at the same time God will send his children to eternal torture for the “crime” of not worshipping him correctly. I, apparently, love my own children far more than God loves me. My love for them is unconditional. If they should ever choose to do something that is reprehensible in my sight, I will condemn the behavior but love them still. Furthermore, I bet I could begin to understand why they chose to do reprehensible things. This is called “empathy”.
If a god exists who is perfect and loving and just, surely he could see why I cannot believe in him.
Holly, why do you assume that since God condemns sin that He does not love the sinner? Your illustration is exactly on target. Don’t you discipline your children? And you never stop loving them. Don’t they sometimes feel your discipline is harsh and unfair? Yes. But you are the creator of the standards by which they must live, and you are also the judge, jury and the person through which their sentence is carried out.
The stakes are admittedly higher in the case of God’s reaction to sin in mankind, but the analogy still holds (as well as any analogy can). God doesn’t wish anyone to be separated from him eternally, but he can’t abide sin. If he provided what appears to be a narrow door through which we can be reconciled, why cuss him for that? In a way, it’s God’s playing field. There is no exclusivity, for, as Paul writes in Romans 3:29,30, “Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.”
This perspective is hard to come by, I know. And I grieve for those who call themselves Christians who still haven’t fallen hip to God’s universal love and non-exclusivity. It doesn’t paint a very positive picture of us, and I’m embarrassed sometimes to be associated with them. I hope it’s evident that I strive to live differently in my faith.
Gotta say I don’t understand the proselytizing thing:
“Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their
reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.” (Matthew 6:1-6)
This following was a response I received to a direct question to a Catholic apologist site regarding the need to accept Jesus in order to achieve salvation. I asked because it is an issue that troubled me–the notion that God would condemn an otherwise righteous person (a pious Jew was the example I used, though I suppose Gandhi would serve the same purpose).
I realize this is not consistent with some Christian fundamentalist philosophy that has been quoted previously, but here’s part of the response anyway for anyone who might find it interesting.
“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation” (No. 847).
In other words, God’s grace is guiding and saving those who live sincerely and conscientiously good lives, but who have, for whatever reason, honestly never seen the embrace of Christ or the church as a personal religious obligation.
Pope John Paul II invokes this Catholic understanding in very hopeful and moving ways in his book, “Crossing the Threshold of Hope”. He notes the many common elements of belief between Christianity and what we would usually call “pagan” religions.
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions,” he says, because we are “guided by the faith that God the Creator wants to save all humankind in Jesus Christ”.
OK Dave, let’s try to start this thread over, and have a debate.
Minor point first - are you sure God does not qualify or quantify sin? From my 16 years of Catholic education, I think the Catholic Church disagrees with you. I learned a great deal about “mortal” and “venal” sin, and the distinctions between them.
Major point second - Sure, God’s standards are God’s standards, but they have to be good standards, don’t they? By “good” I mean Christian moral standards, the one’s God taught us. I think humans should apply this standard to God because (1) under Christian law were are obliged to judge good and evil and support the good, and (2) Christian moral standards are supposed to be absolutes (note the Christian dislike of moral relativism), and if they do not apply to God, they would be arbitrary.
So, the question that must be answered is whether the God of FriendofGod’s and My85car’s faith is good or not, and I believe that their God is found wanting if we apply Christian moral standards.
Now, I do not believe that the Christian God, if He exists, is evil. The problem is that the God described in the Bible **is ** evil under these standards. Therefore, the Bible must not be literally true. There has to have been errors by the humans who transcribed/made up the words. But, sez FriendofGod, the Bible is literally true. He is now in what is called a Catch-22.
I know this is a bit trite, but I think it’s a good start to a real debate.
Get to it!! 
Sua
I have long felt that people get the deity they want. (If The Supreme Being is all the omnis, then He/She/They can manifest in whatever way a person is most comfortable.)
I don’t feel that the continuing approval given to God for the plagues and things attributed to Him help the situation at all. It could just give Him the idea that we LIKE having a ruler who treats his subjects like sheep or some other domestic food animal.
If we start demanding higher moral accountability from the Godhead, I believe we will see better behaviour. To fail to call Him on the bad things He has allowed (or done directly) is to enable this type of anti-social activity…
God: “I was a hopeless co-dependent, and all my worshippers enabled me, until I found God.”
Catch it! Tomorrow at 3 P.M., only on Channel 4!
Sorry, couldn’t help myself - the good Doctor found ma funny bone.
Sua
Joe_Cool said:
Then you notice wrong. Or you don’t understand what a flame is. There is quite a difference between “your argument is lousy” or “you’re wrong, as usual” and “you son of a bitch.” If I have officially censured anyone for remarks I have made, I ask you to show them, right here and right now. Otherwise, when you realize you cannot because it never happened, I will be accepting your apology.
Bob Cos said:
That’s a good quote, Bob, and it is certainly more consistent with the idea of a loving God than “believe it or burn.” Unfortunately, “believe it or burn” is what we mostly hear–or at least what I mostly hear.
But…what does “who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart” mean? I’m an agnostic–I don’t know what’s out there, and I don’t believe anyone else does either. Would it apply to me? Or to outright atheists, for that matter? In other words, under this view, could DavidB and I still end up playing Yatze somewhere Up Yonder one day? (Assuming neither of us are creeps in real life, I mean–if I’m a serial killer by trade, I deserve what I get.)
SuaSponte said:
That’s definitely a major part of it. They just run around in circles – which is also the way their “logic” works – ranting about God. But they won’t think about it, because that would be questioning God. And God knows we can’t have that! Besides, why question if God will make sure that everything works properly, which He surely will because He is perfect. Jeez…
That’s another problem. One of 'em just keeps posting about how he’s being flamed and he knew he was gonna be flamed, etc. The problem is that he wasn’t flamed, with your one exception after he complained about being flamed. Jeez again…
Davew said:
Then I submit that God’s standards are wrong and that God is a petty tyrant for using such ridiculous standards. “It doesn’t matter if you’re good – it only matters if you bow down to me in exactly the right way. To Hell with the rest of you.”
I’ve said it before and it looks like I’ll be saying it again. Even if such a deity existed, I’d want no part of him.
Holly said:
Precisely. Thank you for saving me the time of typing in the very same example. These folks would have us believe that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. Bullshit. If you love somebody, you don’t toss them into eternal torture. Jeez, I know fathers whose own daughters have falsely accused them of terrible crimes like sexual abuse because of pseudoscientific “repressed memory” therapy, but they still love their daughters and fight to get them back.
Davew responded to Holly, saying:
Because he is not just condemning the sin – he is condemning the sinner to an eternity of torture. Not a lot of love shown there.
Sure. I give him a timeout. Maybe send him to his room. Maybe I even take TV away. But you know, it have never occurred to me to torture him for eternity (or even for a minute, for that matter) because he didn’t obey my rules. But then, I’m not a petty dictator…
I’ve been taught that anyone who desires to be “good” (we can spend a lot of time on that definition, obviously) is seeking union with God, whether they know it or not, because that’s God’s wish for us. So if you are one who holds a genuine concern for his fellow men and women, tries to live an ethical life, etc., etc., then, yes, you and DavidB are very likely eligible for the Yahtzee tournament up yonder.
Also, just to try to throw a wet blanket over some of the religious backlash here (not to say there haven’t been reasonable reactions): The Catholic Church also teaches that Hell may be absolutely vacant of souls. It’s presumptuous of us to “know” otherwise. God gets to decide who makes the cut, and the notion some of the gang is advancing here–that a just God would never comdemn someone to eternal damnation for not genuflecting, for example–is absolutely consistent with this thought. As a result, I never toss around the “I’m in the heaven club and you’re not” sentiment.
**
This is how I believe.
I believe that Godd speaks to everyone differently, just as we are all different. It makes sense, really, on so many levels. If we were made in His image, why on earth would he treat peopel so differently the same all the time?
Also, so many religions have so many parallells - I mean, someone with a semester of any comparative religions class could see that.
After much thought, I decided (thanks to this board) that I was a Uniterian Universalist.
Of course, in all honesty, the mere THOUGHT that some turban-wearing camel jockey (I am using terminology used about Muslims straight from the LBMB) would ascend to the same place as good Christian folks scares the hell out of most fundies (the ones we’re talking about, anyway).
They don’t even see this possibility as a GIOOD thing, even if they feel it unlikely. They don’t go, “Well, that would be great even if I don’t think it’s going to happen,” they genuinely get SCARED and PISSED at the thought of this!
I wonder why?
**
Well, some Protestant faiths are a lot less… Pragmatic than the RCC. Some go so far as to say that the Pope is the anti-Christ.
But when cornered, even the biggest fire-n-brimstone talker is going to admit that God gets the final and essentially only sauy.
This is usually followed, however, by them insinuating that their individual and direct pipeline to God tells him what He is gonna do, however, so it’s a wash.
Yer putz,
Satan :wally
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Two months, two weeks, four days, 11 hours, 18 minutes and 45 seconds.
3178 cigarettes not smoked, saving $397.35.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 50 minutes.