Here we go again.
Please give us your definition of “atheist”.
Ah, but it could be argued that man could never compose an accurate description of God, because man is limited and God is not. Could an ant ever hope to perfectly understand and describe a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier?
It only explains part of the mistranslation problem with the Hebrew word “Sheol” being translated into “Hades” in the NT and agreeing that it actually only meant grave. “Gehenna” was clear enough what message Jesus was trying to portray hell was like. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a strong case of all of places of where the traditional view of hell being completely a mistranslation when Jesus spoke or some other NT writer and each and every time were simply all based on mistranslations.
But the OT and NT are quite different. There really isn’t a hell portrayed in the OT the way most Christians today accept it. But nor is there some kind of heaven. That’s why they had to go out and invent their own religion of what they wanted heaven and hell concepts to be like.
I think there was more than one place in bold type where it showed to be one of torment. But universally have any spiritual value? Does any traditional view of eternal torment give one spiritual value? Jesus elsewhere has about a dozen places or so where he speaks of hell the way most today still accept it today. Imagine for thousands of years, the best translators that the church had access to, and they were mistaken on all accounts. It would make one wonder what else they had screwed up so bad, starting with heaven. Since you read that article, you probably paid attention the Catechism of the CC which states:
In recent years, despite the CC always maintaining the traditional views of hell, it does say as of late it, it has been trying to move in a separationist direction. In that article it gives many views of what Catholics believe, but concludes by saying: * Concerning the detailed specific nature of hell … the Catholic Church has defined nothing. … It is useless to speculate about its true nature, and more sensible to confess our ignorance in a question that evidently exceeds human understanding.*
Concerning what sadist actually means. I think it was clear what the OP meant by it. I remember somewhere that Samuel Johnson wrote that dictionaries are to be used as a guide, and that they weren’t infallible and that the best of them cannot be expected to be quite true. They are a great starting place. I can think of other names to describe this character if sadist doesn’t do it for you, and you want to argue on whether or not he really derived pleasure from it. I don’t think people today think much of their God having genitalia, so obviously most think there would not be any sexual pleasure from it. And rather such a being derives pleasure or not from it, does it really matter? Whether he did or didn’t, the acts that he carries out is not moral compass or guide for the rest of us, and definitely not something anyone should be emulating. If someone says, to be god-like, and tries to emulate this character, they’ll end up either in prison or the mental asylum.
If it’s true that humans can’t understand God, they can’t rule out the idea that God inflicts pain for its own sake. That statement involves analyzing God.
Would an ant be so stupid as to worship a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, or think that a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier gives a shit about it?
Yes, I am smarter than your god. I am also smarter than Sherlock Holmes, Lex Luthor and Doc Savage.
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike—McKown
Which is to say he is withholding information. For what reason? As a test? It’s not difficult to believe so much as it’s difficult to understand the point of the exercise if you don’t already believe in it.
Well, again, you’re mostly talking to people who don’t believe in God. So they’re not claiming to know more than him. They’re more interested in what you believe
Ok, I won’t argue with that one, except to note that without God’s perfect understanding, we cannot know the alternatives to God’s acts. He may choose the most merciful path every time, but because only God knows his plan, we’ve no way to know this.
Hold on, now. You wrote:
I’m using the American Standard Bible here, for clarity.
Joshua’s orders, from Joshua 1:1-5:
God’s orders were not to influence others to be followers, but to provide a land for the chosen people.
The Flood, Genesis 6:5-8 and 7:1:
God acted not to increase his base of followers, but to start creation over, using a righteous man instead of the other wicked men. He wanted people to be better to one another.
The Plagues, Exodus 5:1-2 and 7:4-5
God acted to save his chosen people from bondage, not to gain more followers.
So can you cite where God inflicted pain to increase his base of followers?
God doesn’t withhold information, He reveals it. If He gave us all the information then free will would be pointless.
:rolleyes: You can’t reveal something unless you withheld it first. I am sure you can understand this.
There’s something of a false dilemma there since he could certainly give you more information than you have if he did exist. And why does free will matter?
Ok, I can accept your take, here.
And this.
I meant that the Book of Revelation’s spiritual value, and whether it should even be in the Bible, is disputed.
Yes, the mutability of doctrine over the years should give one pause. I’d say it’s a feature, not a bug, but these sort of fundamental shifts over time do give the whole affair a very human, rather than divine, appearance.
Yes, the OP used it correctly. Sadist only works if you don’t further stipulate that God’s cruelty has concrete benefits to God, such as making more followers.
It mattered to the OP, hence the thread. I think there is some moral value to the Bible, but it’s mixed in with a lot of appalling cruelty of the ancient world, so without a separate moral system to tell which is which, it has little value as a guide on its own.
By getting rid of the competition and only leaving ‘his faithful’, he increases his following.
His people prosper, others fail - his following increases.
His methods inflicted pain - dying by drowning, axe or by pestulance (etc) - all cause pain. Pain he directly ordered or caused to happen.
- Your god doesn’t have free will
- Your god does have free will, but doesn’t have all the information
- Your logic has a whole the size of the state of Texas in it.
Agreed, the benevolence of God is just as much an item of faith as the existence of God. Both must be accepted without evidence, or the whole enterprise falls apart.
It’d only be stupid to a third party with superior knowledge to the ant’s (or a particularly logical ant skeptic). The ant isn’t in a position to know the nature of the carrier, or whether the carrier loves the ants, it must go on faith and interpret signs and omens.
This will only occur if worshipping the carrier makes the ant’s life better, irrespective of the reality of the belief, or if the worship is a tradition that persists even as the benefits diminish in light of alternate ways of understanding the world.
I was referring to our free will. Since we don’t fully understand the nature of God, we don’t know if He has free will.
If God told us the exact nature of His plan then we would follow it to the letter and we would be no better than computers.
Deuteronomy 7:6: For thou art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God: Jehovah thy God hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth.
So, if the Israelites are objectively superior people, then of course God favors them. But, being merciful, he allows anyone to be saved and enter Heaven.
So you can see my posts. Can you please give us your definition of “atheist”?
This is the heart of the matter.
If one accepts the idea of a benevolent, omnipotent, omnicient God, whose nature is imperfectly captured in the Bible, then one can explain away most any perceived shortcoming of that God. I have tried to do that in this thread, to illustrate this. I think I’ve been modestly successful.
That said, the acceptance of such a God is not based on logic or rationality. Instead, it is an irrational, emotional belief, and one that can not be advocated for using logic and reason, because it does not originate from those sources.
Theists should understand that this basic belief in a God cannot be argued about with reason.
Atheists should understand that criticism of aspects of a particular conception of a God, is of limited value in addressing this underlying belief.
Presumably he could tell you, but won’t.
What would that matter? Why does God care about free will to the point he won’t answer some simple questions from the beings he created- even going so far as to create them to not only be ignorant of what he’s doing, but unable to understand it?