IMHO sin alone will do it, once someone steps out of the will of God it is a death spiral, at some point that person will realize that they were wrong, and need God, and Jesus will come to them if they seek (and they will - eventually).
Yes, like it except once you caught it you are cured.
When one stops believing in religion, that’s when one’s truly saved.
Well yeah, I know that’s what you think. You’re not the one who said “True courtesy in the giving of gifts considers the taste of the recipient.” It’s pretty obvious that your God (like most envisionings of most gods) has pretty clear ideas of what it wants and it’s It’s way or the highway. By comparison the idea of a god that accomodates the preferences of others is quite novel.
What about your namesake?
Considering the results that following Yog Sothoth and other Lovecraftian entities tends to have, yes; not worshiping a Lovecraftian god is more likely to save you than not. Being Eaten First isn’t really all THAT much of a bonus. And avoiding attracting their attention before they DO eat humanity tends to result in a lower chance of something Unnameable happening to you.
Yog won’t save you even if you believed in him.
I also prefer to serve rather then be served. I do meditation also. It separates me from the bondage of self even if for a short while. I think you are being humble and he is working through you more then you know. In such a busy world it is so hard to be spiritually aware. That is why prayer and meditation are so important to me. Thanks for sharing!
When interspersed with a discussion about Lovecraftian gods, this takes on a whole new meaning.
The entire “salvation” thing makes no sense.
Who are people going to be “saved” from…except the vengeance of the fearsome god they seem to think exists?
If the god wants vengeance…why would it give “salvation” from that vengeance?
The part of the Bible at John 3:16 dealing with salvation is particularly vexing.
Essentially what it says there is: The god of the Bible is willing to forgive humans for offending it…but only on the condition that they first torture and kill its son!
That really makes sense to you folk?
That really is something to brag about in your god?
Imagine if you offended some fellow human…and the person told you, “I am willing to forgive you, but only if you first torture and kill my son”…what would you think of that individual?
Talk to me about this…I’d really like to hear what you people have to say on it.
God asked Abraham, not a human asking another human. God is the creator and he wanted to know if Abraham who was not god but a human, would do his will or not. He put him to the test. God puts us to the test all the time and we either follow him of fail to do his will and do our own will.
God did not make Abraham kill his son but Abraham proved his faith. In John 3 :16 God willed his own sons death on a cross to save us from our sin. God gave the ultimate sacrifice. Humanity put Jesus on the cross and crucified him. We crucified him because his ways were so above our ways.
You missed the lesson in that story. “Thy will be done, not mine”. Not only Abraham but Jesus was true to what God asked of them. I understand it and I don’t find the need to brag about it. It is what it is. If you don’t believe it that is fine.
Your example doesn’t make sense to me? Jesus died so that we would be forgiven. Jesus had to die as that was his lifes mission from birth. It was to save us from ourselves.
If you get a chance during lent go to ‘The Stations Of The Cross’ at a local church. This will explain the Crucification story step by step. It is only a half an hour and you may see it from a different angle. Pax~
Why? That is my point…why?
Why is it that your god is going to allow you to be “saved”…but only on the condition that its son first had to be tortured and killed.
I did the Stations of the Cross" in St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican…right after serving Mass in that magnificent church. By the way, I also went to Castle Gondolfo and had a general audience with Pope Pius XII.
I know what the Crucifixion story is about step by step, Perciful. There was a time when I didn’t realize what a brutal, barbaric story it actually is.
But I am asking you now… why is it that your god is going to allow you to be “saved”…but only on the condition that its son first had to be tortured and killed.
Why is it so verboten that Der Trihs makes these comments? Would anyone else who consistently knocked down some other ridiculous meme be trashed like Trihs is? Yes, he says basically the same things again and again, but as long as people continue behaving as if religion is necessary and sensible, and act as if there exists some all-powerful, prime-mover God, then why shouldn’t he? I mean, the God bullshit never stops, so why should he?
I think his raison d’etre is to constantly remind people that God-belief is bullshit and religion is something best kept to yourself because–at best-- it is a personal concept that has no value in the public sphere, and at worst, it is destructive, divisive, and hugely counter-productive.
People may get tired of hearing it, but as long as people are going to treat fairy-tales as if they have some kind of importance to the world at-large then they should expect to be ridiculed and countered at every turn.
The real question is: on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, why aren’t their more posts like Trihs’? If people constantly posted discussions about the deep significance of Pencil-gnomes and how they make our femurs vibrate uncontrollably, what do you expect the reaction would be?
Yes; if I get repetitive on the subject, it’s because I am responding to the same kind of assertions that have been made again and again in the past. It’s not like religion has new arguments or evidence for itself.
Pretty much. I don’t post with diatribes against, say, astrology because people here seldom if ever post in support of it. I don’t post against the belief that severed rabbit feet bring good luck, because people don’t post in support of that here. People DO post in support of religion here, however; my posting against religion is in response that. If I or someone else - and I seem elected as Resident Blunt Atheist - doesn’t post criticism, then such threads will just be full of believers congratulating each other on their enlightenment or arguing over which of their fantasies is more appealing, and ignoring even the possibility that the whole idea that religion is morally and factually wrong.
I’m sorry if I offended you in any way. I would love to go to St Peter’s Basilica before I die.
In the stations from Mary’s perspective “I knew it had to be so I cried quietly”. Mary accepted everything and kept it in her heart.
I can’t say why God allowed Jesus to be tortured and killed except so that he would not have to destroy the earth from it’s sin. Jesus paid the ransom for many. He was killed by us. Crucify him the crowd shouted.
I may not go to heaven at all. I may have to suffer a lot more. I don’t know what Gods will is for me. I don’t have all the answers. I just have great faith and hope and love. I am willing to follow my faith to the end.
Der Trihs,
It doesn’t bother me if you post against believers. If not you it would be someone else. You are the ying and I am yang. It would be a pretty boring world if we all thought the same way.
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Note my prior post.
Because there are ample opportunities to condemn belief in threads that are open to that topic. This thread is not one of them.
And since you have made the same rtepetitive posts in so many other threads, there is no need for you to interrupt one more thread to post them again.
= = =
I’m going to hold off Warning you guys on the grounds that you were probably just not paying attention, but here is the situation:
A poster who wandered into a discussion of Anthropogenic Global Warming and announced that it did not matter because the Rapture was going to occur in the next couple of years would be threadshitting.
A poster who wandered into a discussion of whether person A should be ratified as a new Supreme Court Justice to announce that the U.S. Constitution was a foolish notion and that no one should consider themselves bound by any of the articles therein would be guilty of threadshitting.
Wandering into a thread discussing a particular point of theology to announce that it is all silly nonsense is threadshitting.
The next poster who does that here will be Warned.
If it is that important to make some similar earthshaking point, open a new thread to discuss it.
[ /Moderating ]
Some denominations teach that you must earn your salvation by doing good deeds and refraining from sin.
Other denominations teach that salvation is a gift given by the Grace of God. It’s available to everyone. When you live in a state of Grace, you still make mistakes and “sin,” but you try to avoid doing that so much. Everyone messes up. That’s human. You ask for forgiveness, forgive those who have hurt you, and keep the faith.
In my own personal beliefs, I don’t believe in hell. And I don’t think that heaven is exactly a place the way we may have pictured it – but something even better.
For the record, this was in the past so unacceptably alogical to me that it’s one of the reasons that, despite feeling that there’s some personal evidence for me that there is a god, he or she is probably not the one described in the Bible.
These days from outside the religion, I can think of at least a few ways that the idea of “God had to sacrifice his son to save all humanity” could be reconciled with a coherent plan put forth by a not-fully-omni God – mostly that if we assume a) such a son could only be deliberately created (not accidental or random) and b) God values us primarily for our free will and not our praise or good behavior, then the idea of God creating a portion of itself to teach an object lesson without interfering directly in free will is at least logically coherent.
As to why “God needed to send His Son to be killed”- that is why to me only Incarnational Theology works (whether it be Trinitarian or Oneness, tho I think Trin is more Biblical)- that “The Son” is not a created entity distinct from Father God but an extension or aspect or “ever-begotten person of one substance with the Father”. Therefore, God is not beating up on someone else to satisfy Divine Justice- it is God Himself taking upon Himself the whip, the cross, the spikes, the crown of thorns & the spear. God visits His Wrath upon Himself, absorbs & transmutes it into Redeeming Love & Resurrection Power which eventually will be offered to every human who has & will ever live. Thus, His descent into Hades- which I do not consider only a past event.