You cannot lie about believing in God, so don't worry about discrimination.

Great Debates
41

Since God does not follow his own law all of the time, God may directly ask us to violate his law (breaking the “do not worship idol” commandment).
To clarify this point:

God decrees: “thall shall not lie”
Anything which asks you to lie, must be necessity be asking you to break Gods decree - and must by all rational and reasonable necessity be used as the yardstick with which to tell the true God from any false one. By following the orders of any God who asks you to lie, you are by default following the orders of an Idol, in relation to the commandment. To accept this command to lie, is to show zero resolution of faith in the strength of Gods own word and his own truth, trust and promise.

However!!! We recieve evidence that the actual God does ask people to lie, and rewards them as a result. For, if they were to disobey a direct command from God, their faith would equally be weak and undeserving of the gift God offers as truth and eternal life in his presence.

In this sense, we have a liar paradox presented in the form of Proxy.

Is it really contradictory to use ‘time’ itself as the medium for the paradox? I mentioned earlier that God was basically taking the stance:

It’s not really a lie, because after my needs were served, I fessed up to it. Since I am God, my needs are perfect, and you cannot judge them; though I judge you based on the vantage point of my perfection.

Sometimes it is warranted to create a person who lies, for the sole purpose of eternal seperation from me in eternal chaotic torture. Sometimes it is important to create a person who lies and spends an eternity of heaven with me as a result. Neither of these negates your necessity to follow my rules or your percieved free-will, or the percieved free-will of the person who chose to lie for me. I am perfect, so everything is different for me; your logic and reason cannot comprehend me, I cannot be judged by reason and integrity alone; but by faith.

If you should be commanded to kill your child by me, I may actually let you kill your child before deciding that you had faith in me. That is for me to know, and for you to find out. However, do not ever murder people, and consider all Gods false who ask such acts of you; for theirs is not the Kingdom, but the land of temptation.

Remember above all, that I am perfect - and that changes everything. You are obviously flawed and cannot comprehend this. You were not created in my image, but rather the shadow of my image - the path is narrow and few will enter - the Lord works in mysterious ways. Do what you must and what you want, the time is now, but be patient and discipined; but understand that I exist and will always be set to call upon you to test your faith. I am perfect and you are not. Know this and find everlasting life.

-Justhink

42

Doesn’t fly. God is not bound by human laws, just as parents are not bound by the laws which they impose on their children, and just as employers are not bound by the laws levied on their employees.

In other words, the whole “But God doesn’t follow his own laws!” argument simply doesn’t fly.

43

That strikes me as a rather petulant answer, akin to a young child telling his parents, “If you really loved me, you’d let me go out and have a good time!” It’s the sort of answer which starts with a desired conclusion in mind, and tailors the premises accordingly.

For a more honest discussion of human suffering – from both atheistic and theistic viewpoints – I refer you to the debates recorded here.

44

The belief you offer as proof of your assertation is not a religious belief. All devout muslims do not share that belief, nor is that belief limited to devout muslims. I’m confused as to why you brought it up.

45

“”""""""Doesn’t fly. God is not bound by human laws, just as parents are not bound by the laws which they impose on their children, and just as employers are not bound by the laws levied on their employees.

In other words, the whole “But God doesn’t follow his own laws!” argument simply doesn’t fly.""""""""""

You are absolutely correct, God has no Laws to follow; as he is designated to have created all Law including those which allow Him to have an opinion or to exist.

This is much more correct:

God doesn’t follow the Laws he sets for people to follow.

God demands that other people break the laws he designates them to follow in order to become his most cherished saints of his word.

If they do not break Gods law, they are codemned to eternal suffering - but since it is God being deceptive and masking himself as an Idol - even if someone has enough faith in Gods law for man to not follow this command or suggestion of Gods; they will also be condemned to hell.

Moral: No matter what God does, all that matters is that God is perfect; not honest, not meaningful, not kind, not merciful, not transparent, not bent on confusion, not capable of accountability, and not able to express accountability in such a way as we mere humans would understand it, without undermining his authority to act at all; or even the possibility to humor his claim.

Do you not see a problem with Gods’ use of the least faithful of his law and their trust in his law, as the vessels of his most divine providence and consent? Do you also see, in light of that, the problem with those who obey the commands of God, will be necessarily condemned to eternal brimstone for doing so, because God understands this to be necessary in order for everything to work divinely?

Does it not strike you as irrelevant what you do in light of this observation?
Do you not see how the entire Bible itself could be a momentary lie of Gods, that he requires in order to send people to eternal hell, before he fesses up and tells the truth again?
Does the demand of faith, without evidence or consistency for applying that faith, strike you as a bit absurd?

How exactly can a person lie about believing in something so absurd; that to either believe or disbelieve in it renders different results each time and for each person? Without a clear aknowledgement of what is considered the basic evidence required to eat food long enough to survive living; how can a person of Biblical theology even make a point that someone else is playing games with language?

If you can confess absolute devotion to God and the Bible and manage to eat food, kill people and lie for a lifetime, then why should anyone be condemned for applying either a rational or irrational standard to the evidence of belief and/or faith?

-Justhink