Good questions… I don’t know. I suppose heaven is a place that no-one in thier right mind would ever want to leave, but then there are people with the same opinions about thier hometowns!! Certainly Satan (according to the legends) was able to rebel against God while in heaven, and was kicked out (along with cohorts of angels) for his rebellion.
No, God doesn’t always get what he wants - that would imply that he wanted the WTC attack to occur. He has given his creation free will, and this includes the freedom to do terrible things. However, this doesn’t mean that he is not omnipotent - merely that he choses not to use the power that he possesses. A human analogy is the U.S. choosing not to nuke Afghanistan off the face of the planet - they could have done so already, but they haven’t. Surely this doesn’t mean that they don’t have the capacity? The One who spoke Creation into being would have very little problem swatting a few 767’s. But he didn’t - and I don’t know why.
Since humans were made “in the image of God” it is not surprising that we share certain charactaristics. One could say it is us who have Godly needs rather than the other way around.
God made us in Its image; God is pure and uncorrupt, so the evil in us can’t come from God; everything came from God (It created everything, including Satan); therefore, there is no evil in the world. Only free will and choices and circumstances that we don’t understand.
And why don’t you quit reading stuff that’s not there into posts? It’s more than obvious that I was indicating what it was that the flaming bigot had recanted. Read much?
I didn’t watch the program at all; I read the link I provided, and from what the article said Falwell didn’t sound the least bit contrite or sincere. However, I accept the possibility that I’ve been the victim of yellow journalism.
Oh, I don’t doubt that for a moment. No matter how much wailing and gnashing of teeth went on during his apology, I think Falwell’s (and Robertson’s) true feelings were expressed last week.
That’s a very traditional “Hollywood” look at heaven and hell. I suppose hell has walls of fire and a dude in red pajamas poking you with a pitchfork forever. And I also guess that angels must be naked babies with wings. Sorry, but that’s not biblical. I’ve heard hell described as spiritual separation from God, and “the second death,” but I’d dismiss all the traditions of men regarding heaven and hell. The “I want to be with my wife” argument quickly fails when challenged with biblical reference.
So, Dale, there’s biblical evidence that you’ll be reunited with your loved ones in Heaven even if your loved ones were sent to Hell? Really? Which book, chapter, and verse says that?
Are your rent checks getting cashed?
People have said we cannot understand God’s reasons. In fact, we are such limited primates that we have only a limited conception of what God is, and rely on anthropomorphism or some such thing.
I don’t understand how people can be so certain of what God is like?
Someone above suggested the possibility of a deity who gave everyone a chance to ask forgiveness after they died. What would be wrong about that? Would heaven get overcrowded? Would the “true belivers” during life feel they had been cheated out of something? Heck, give the churchgoers an extra shiny halo, let then stand one step closer to the supreme glory. But as long as you are being taken care of, why do the rest of us poor schmucks have to be relegated to neverending torment and despair?
The basic issue of whether a deity/ies exists or not is tough enough. I don’t understand how people can claim such certainty as to specifics.
In my opinion, as long as you’re just making up the story, why make the main character such a bastard?
You know, without a degree in theology I suppose I’ll forever confuse the parts of the Bible that don’t mean what they say with the parts that actually do mean what they say. You wouldn’t believe how many times I’ve heard, “Oh, this part is gospel but that part’s not literal” or “I know The Bible says X but it really means Y” It’s frustrating to say the least.
For me, the story of Job, Sodom and Gomorrah and vivid tales of eternal damnation never inspired a feeling of “Wow, how impressive. Isn’t He powerful?” It was always more like, “Wow, He said I’d spend eternity in torment if I don’t believe in Him, obey Him, and love Him.” That’s a pretty heavy threat to lay on a child. Ever see an old-fashioned fire-and-brimstone church service? There’s far more “you don’t want to go to Hell, do you?”-type fear-mongering than reverence going on there, let me tell you.
Funny, isn’t it, that an all-powerful God couldn’t compel His servants to create a document that is clear and unambiguous? Apparently Leroy, the manager of the tech-writing team where I work, is superior to God in this aspect.
If we can’t be certain of what God is like, how can we be certain that we have only a limited conception of what God is?
If “people” can’t be certain of what God is like, then said “people” should include all theologians and the authors of the Bible and Koran. Maybe “God” is nothing more than the laws of Nature with a supernatural-sounding anthropomorphic name given to them. Maybe the “people” who came up with the idea that any gods exist in the first place shouldn’t be so damn certain, either.
Here’s the deal. You try to explain to me what the hell is going on, and I’ll tell you which parts I don’t understand.
If you have trouble communicating your ideas, don’t worry-not everyone has the skills necessary to deal with the general public. It’s nothing to be ashamed of.
The downside would be that we’d be living in a world of emotional infants – a world where people are insulated from any foul consequences that may arise from their foolish, irresponsible or malicious actions.
Should we demand a world where “no one could possibly hurt someone else”? That would be like saying, “I want to be able to get as drunk as I want, and drive as fast as I want, but no harm had better result from my actions – and if someone does get hurt, then it’s your fault, God!” If protection from harm is the only goal worth pursuing, then your hypothetical world would be a great idea. However, if goals such as maturity, emotional growth and personal responsibility are to be valued as well, then that world would be a disaster.
Never underestimate the power of human foolishness and irresponsibility. People don’t always need an incentive to do something stupid or pointless. As evidence, consider the number of accidents that occur because some reckless fool decides to go play around with a gun… or a knife… or a car.
A world of emotional infants.
Only if “wrongdoing” is the same as “having negative consequences.” The two are not equivalent; for example, having malicious intent or attitude and committing a malicious action are both considered wrongful. (Example: Hating Jews is considered wrong, even if no Jews are actually harmed in the process.) Clearly, adopting the proper character is just as important as avoiding harmful actions – and to be irresponsible is to develop the wrong kind of character.
You would also be extrapolating beyond the evidence at hand. My postings have said *absolutely nothing about abortionists, gays, or any specific reasons why God allowed this travesty to occur. In fact, I have repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly emphasized that we can’t always discern the reasons why a sovereign god might allow such things.
In other words, please don’t put words into my mouth… especially when they bear absolutely no resemblance to what I actually said.
JubilationTCornpone wrote, re A world where God intervened every time someone was endangered:
You’re not thinking this through, JTC.
In a world where God intervened every single time an action would otherwise harm someone, and prevented harm from occurring, the action would be indistinguishable from an action that wasn’t harmful at all. Stabbing my brother with a kitchen knife would be no more harmful than playfully hitting him with a pillow, because God would prevent the kitchen knife from harming my brother every single time.
In such a world, where no harm can befall anyone, concepts such as “irresponsibility” and “malice” would have no meaning. Is it irresponsible or malicious for me to have a pillow fight with my brother? No. And in a world where knives are never allowed to be more harmful than pillows, having a knife fight with my brother would not be irresponsible or malicious either.
The rationalists here are wasting their time. People infected with the God virus apply a closed system of belief in which ‘God exists’ is non-falsifiable. All phenomena are deemed to corroborate the belief, and no phenomena are considered capable of falsifying the belief. When someone is saved from harm, it is assumed God helped or responded to human desire. When not, it is assumed God plays a higher purpose game which we can appreciate dimly if at all. Either way, the belief is intact.
As a corollary to the above, it follows that the outcome of events makes no difference to the God believer, since the belief system survives any experience. Taking it one step further, believers may say they are praying for a given outcome (a life saved, a disaster averted, whatever) but in fact it doesn’t really matter to them what happens, since any outcome is still compatible with the “loving, caring God” scenario.
You cannot rationally argue out what wasn’t rationally argued in.