This smacks of Stephen Colbert’s roast of the president when speaking about jews, muslims, and all the others when he said that there are infinite ways to come to accepting Jesus Christ. =P
Really?
You asked us to do some research.
Luckily the oldest known written copy of the Bible has been digitized and placed on the internet for us to review (pretty cool actually).
There are a bunch of interesting additions to the Bible you have read that are not in the oldest known copy. Of particular interest (actually many other differences that are interesting too) is the Gospel of Mark makes no reference to Jesus appearing to people following the resurrection. Apparently this was a later addition.
Link is above, you can go check it out for yourself. No need to rely on other people’s interpretations. It is just not there…at all.
Does God have to be “worth” worshiping?
Posit a mean, nasty SOB of a God. A wrathful god who will kick your ass in a big way if you cross him.
You may not like such a god but it would behoove you to worship him just the same.
Now consider the Christian god. Supposedly this is a kind and loving god (disregarding the Old Testament version of God).
Unfortunately that God, the Christian god, seems only kind and loving to those who worship him. Everyone else gets to burn in hell.
Hmm…sounds a lot like the wrathful God I started with.
That said you had best get to worshiping ala Pascal’s Wager right? Be sure to make your check payable to your local church.
Whack-a-Mole’s link barked at me in German and made me jump out of my skin!
I think this is the one you mean, Whack-a-Mole, and thank you for the pointer, it’s a wonderful site.
Sorry. Dunno what it up with their website. Your link seems to work better overall but then I still got barked at in German (German HTML so even scarier) there as well.
Guess they still have some work to do on the web site but mostly working and valuable.
Question… Would you have knowledge of the same jesus/god you do now if the BIBLE had not been published and if billions of people in history had not carried forth “the word”? Why does this GOD depend on so many people to perpetuate his/her/its own will? Especially with the knowledge that people are almost completely unreliable, untrustworthy, selfish heathens; but oh we’re so lovable. This theology makes me feel like a bastarded pet. Would a perfect god not prefer to just tap into the essence of our beings through more non-traditional methods? I would rather a logical answer to this question.
fyi - I don’t doubt the existence of a god to appease my own ego, nor am I ridden with d’evils. I question, doubt, and conceptualize my own existence and that of things beyond my own control because I have the ability to do so. In that, I believe I am less ignorant then most of these holier-than-now shits that parade their own hypocrisy promoting their brand-x ignorance in a bottle.
I doubt it would work. Not only is there no way to know exactly which version of a wrathful God you are supposed to worship upon pain of eternal torment; I doubt that just going through the motions would be enough. He’d know if you secretly despised him, and you’d probably burn anyway. And that assumes that a god as evil as described doesn’t just send everyone to Hell for the fun of it, and that being in “Heaven” under his thumb is desirable, for that matter.
A world like that, we’d be better off trying to find a way to destroy souls and hoping he doesn’t bother to stop us.
That’s the problem of Pascal’s Wager. Well, one of them. We don’t what it is the god in question is actually looking for.
Is merely pretending to worship him good enough? I mean, you go through all of the steps. But it’s dishonest. But you have done all of the rites laid out. So, if he prizes honesty above rite, then you have the problem of staying true to your beliefs by refusing to worship him. But then you’re not worshiping him so you’re in trouble again.
Would he be happy with someone who doesn’t satisfy his/her doubts about something before embracing it? That would indicate a lack integrity.
This can go on, and on.
I agree Pascal’s Wager has problems. Was trying to point out the absurdity of the Christian position.
God loves you!
If you don’t love him back he will see you live in eternal torment!
So I work to love God because if I don’t love God I will suffer unimaginable pain.
If I succeed in loving God it is a love premised on a faulty basis such that I would say it cannot be truly called love (even if the person is brainwashed enough to buy it God would know the difference…unless God is content with a love that is rotten at its core). If you cannot bring yourself to love something that promises eternal damnation if you don’t you are likewise screwed.
Truly seems damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Absurdity is part-and-parcel of christianity. Thread-relevent case in point:
-
God decides to punish people who sin, for…some reason. Call it Reason A.
-
God decides to provide a way to get out of the punishment - conditionally.
-
He does this by arranging a horrific atrocity - basically a human sacrifice. People who are glad this happened, or whatever, evade punishment.
The one thing we can certainly derive from this is that Reason A is less important to God than having people be happy about an atrocity. This on its own is pretty freakish.
And then we’re told that this all happened because God loves us - when clearly that’s not the case. If he loved us, he’d just let us off, because love doesn’t set conditions and hoops to jump through - particularly not a condition like being happy about the slaughter of an innocent.
Logically, the only way I can think of that this situation isn’t irrational is if Reason A is a sham, and the only reason God’s doing all this is to incentivize the reaction of worship. That’s the only way it makes sense for Reason A to be so casually discarded. Of course, this means that God is the sort of person who shoots people who speak ill of him, to encourage people to praise him. And the absurd part is, we’re supposed to consider this guy the ultimate good.
This is a good response. You should write movie reviews; I can imagine your of The Wizard of Oz review being something along the lines of: Woman is transplanted to strange new place where she murders the first person she meets. She then later picks up co-conspirators whereupon they continue the killing spree.*
*I can’t for the life of me recall where I read a similar review. Pardon my memory.
I take it by your irony you find some flaw in my logic. Care to point out what it is?
Or perhaps you think I made some error regarding a detail (as I would have to to imply that Dorothy deliberately killed either witch - in the fiction, it was not murder but accidental manslaughter). So, what details do I have wrong? Is there no threat of punishment of sinners? Was Jesus not crucified in a horrific manner? Is there not a connection between Jesus’s otherwise pointless death and us avoiding punishment?
Rather the opposite. begbert2’s “review” is much better than the standard view. Your Oz example is of the actions of a more-or-less good bunch of people being warped to appear evil; begbert2 is simply portraying evil as evil. It’s the people who try to portray God’s actions as good who are doing the warping. Remove the “God” label, and talk about God’s actions like it was a real person acting that way and he’d be condemned by almost everyone.
Hrm, I guess I wasn’t clear.
2 separate issues: your review of the issue was good.
And, in a different vein, but similar to the concise review, was the Oz bit. I should have been more clear that I was equating that, not any of the logic, or trying to say that you confused anything by some kind of misrepresentation. I suppose a smiley would have done the trick.
To review:
Your post was quite good, logical and apropos. My response was poorly worded and not thought out; I was too busy being amused I guess.
ETA: I think any review of the posts I’ve put in here would bear out that I disagree his death on the cross had meaning, and that Christianity is hogwash based upon bad logic, and flawed reasoning based on counterfactual accounts of history. I will make it a point to do better.
Eh, no biggie. Miscommunication on messageboad, film at eleven.
And btw, have fun in hell.
e
I would ask Tetrahydrocannabiol; If God is Love as John says he is, Why does he need any more? It is like asking to fill an already barrel of water.
Too late to edit…I shouild have said an already barrel full of water…Sorry.
Too late to edit…I should have said an already barrel full of water…Sorry.