The Specious Love Of God

[Dhampir]

Does it not make sense that a perfect god would have the capacity for evil?

[Ouroboros]

He should. Omnipotence would include ability to act evil.

[Golden Meadows]

He should. Omnipotence would include ability to act evil.

If you define evil as being anti-god and good as being for god then it seems clear that God cannot do evil - he does not have a split personality. Does this make sense?

 

Only we who are not God can choose to be anti-God or pro-God and this included the devil. Does this make sense?

 

When we suspect God of doing evil we really mean that somebodies description of God, i.e xtianity does things that our conscience, whatever you want to call it, thinks is evil. We assume that the sense of right /wrong good/evil we have in some way is given to us by God, leaving aside atheism for the moment. If there is contradiction between mankinds sense of right/wrong and what "God" does it follows that it must be a false God. This is the conclusion I have reached about xtianity - its a false God in essence.

 

Please show me the error in my thinking.

[Dhampir]

The error is in the definition. If god was all there was, and there was no evil, then that means that there was no good either, god was just there. However, he was able to create the capacity for differentiation, which therefore rendered his actions within the scope of that differentiation.

 

That is to say that if certain actions that would otherwise be defined as evil can't be when carried out by god, then his good actions aren't really good either. They just are. (by 'just are' I mean they're just actions.)

 

Think of a puppet show. The performance may be depicting a bloody conflict, and the actions of the puppets may be considered evil, but the puppeteer controlling them is doing neither good nor bad.

[Ouroboros]

He should. Omnipotence would include ability to act evil.

If you define evil as being anti-god and good as being for god then it seems clear that God cannot do evil - he does not have a split personality. Does this make sense?

 

Only we who are not God can choose to be anti-God or pro-God and this included the devil. Does this make sense?

That's why the definition of omnipotence conflicts the definition of benevolence. Omnipotence in the view you present above means "omnipotent, but only to do good."

 

The definition of "good" is also shaky, since "anything God does is good". Meaning whatever God does, even if it seems evil to us, it is still not evil in God's world. Good has two definitions. The one when we do good or evil, and the other that whatever God does it always is defined as evil.

 

If someone kill someone, and God told him to do it, then it was good.

 

If someone kill someone, and the Devil told him to, then it was evil.

 

When we suspect God of doing evil we really mean that somebodies description of God, i.e xtianity does things that our conscience, whatever you want to call it, thinks is evil. We assume that the sense of right /wrong good/evil we have in some way is given to us by God, leaving aside atheism for the moment. If there is contradiction between mankinds sense of right/wrong and what "God" does it follows that it must be a false God. This is the conclusion I have reached about xtianity - its a false God in essence.

Not really. Like I said above, it's two different definitions of the word good. But if we judge God based on the definition that applies to humans, in essence if God was tried in a human court, then yes, God is evil.

 

Please show me the error in my thinking.

Your thinking is not wrong, it's just one out of many views. And whichever view one takes, there will be conflicts.

 

One problem with the definition of good and evil is that no one can really declare a perfect definition of it. It's not really black and white. They are relative terms, just like hot and cold.

 

Have you ever done the hot, cold and luke warm water experiment?

 

Get 3 buckets. Fill one with hot water, one with cold and one with luke warm.

 

Put one hand in the cold bucket, and the other in the hot water bucket. Keep them there for a minute (or two).

 

Then put both hands in the luke warm bucket.

 

The hand from the cold water will tell your brain the lukewarm water is hot.

The hand from the hot water will tell your brain the lukewarm water is cold.

 

So which is it? The senses works by relative comparisons and not absolute values. And actually the eye works the same way, that's why your eye have to move all the time. The eye is doing micro-movements to be able to see: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/mhennig/pub/...oe_NIPS2003.pdf

 

 

The error is in the definition. If god was all there was, and there was no evil, then that means that there was no good either, god was just there. However, he was able to create the capacity for differentiation, which therefore rendered his actions within the scope of that differentiation.

And the whole question has been a problem for a very long time. The Gnostics and the Essenes have high-god that is neither good or evil, and the demiurges are divided in good and evil forces.

 

Think of a puppet show. The performance may be depicting a bloody conflict, and the actions of the puppets may be considered evil, but the puppeteer controlling them is doing neither good nor bad.

That's an interesting viewpoint. Unless the puppeteer takes side which puppets he likes more.

[Golden Meadows]

The error is in the definition. If god was all there was, and there was no evil, then that means that there was no good either, god was just there.

That is why I used terms like pro-god and anti-god for good and evil because without created beings they have no meaning, i.e God cannot be anti-God, he cannot be divided in himself.

 

However, he was able to create the capacity for differentiation,

They key word is "created". When he made beings with free-will they could choose God (i.e pro-god) or they could choose to oppose God (i.e anti-god).

which therefore rendered his actions within the scope of that differentiation.

No. This cannot be with the true God, it can only apply to false gods. The true God can never be divided in himself, i.e he cannot be anti-God. Do you see why I am using this terminolgy? I am trying to emphasise the point that God is simply God and can never be in revolt against himself, the choice of good and evil does not exist for him only for the creature with free-will that he made.

 

That is to say that if certain actions that would otherwise be defined as evil can't be when carried out by god,

No. Evil is anti-god in its nature. Using my terminology I will rephrase to show why this statement cannot be true: "That is to say that if certain actions that would otherwise be defined as anti-god can't be when carried out by God". Does this make my point clearer?

 

then his good actions aren't really good either. They just are. (by 'just are' I mean they're just actions.)

He cannot oppose himself, only we can do that, therefore in absolute terms words like good and evil are nonsensical when applied to God.

 

Please feel free to shoot the above down without mercy - I like to find out new things.

[Golden Meadows]

Hansolo:That's why the definition of omnipotence conflicts the definition of benevolence. Omnipotence in the view you present above means "omnipotent, but only to do good."

I use the teminology of pro-God or anti-god for good and evil becaue it exposes what I think is an logical fallacy. God cannot be divided in himself therefore the issue of doing bad (i.e attacking himself) or doing good does not arise. It is a meaningless statement. It can only apply to creatures separate from God who have a capacity to oppose him or not, i.e creatures with free-will. There is no conflict between his omnipotence and benevolance -this could only applies to false god, e.g xtian "god" as best as I can determine.

 

The definition of "good" is also shaky, since "anything God does is good". Meaning whatever God does, even if it seems evil to us, it is still not evil in God's world.

The key word is "seems". We can lack information which renders an act of God apparently evil but that doesn't make it so. Any true evil which we experience is also evil to God because he is the author of our sense of right and wrong. If a "god" does something which is in clear violation of mankinds sense of right and wrong then its not the true God we are dealing with.

 

Good has two definitions. The one when we do good or evil, and the other that whatever God does it always is defined as evil. {you mean good?}

God gives us the means to know what is anti-god (ie evil) and what is pro- god (i.e good). God never does evil because thats like saying God can be anti-God, i.e opposed to himself.

 

 

If someone kill someone, and God told him to do it, then it was good.

yes because it was pro-god and not anti-god.

 

If someone kill someone, and the Devil told him to, then it was evil.

Yes because it was anti-god.

 

When we suspect God of doing evil we really mean that somebodies description of God, i.e xtianity does things that our conscience, whatever you want to call it, thinks is evil. We assume that the sense of right /wrong good/evil we have in some way is given to us by God, leaving aside atheism for the moment. If there is contradiction between mankinds sense of right/wrong and what "God" does it follows that it must be a false God. This is the conclusion I have reached about xtianity - its a false God in essence.

Not really. Like I said above, it's two different definitions of the word good. But if we judge God based on the definition that applies to humans, in essence if God was tried in a human court, then yes, God is evil.

The whole key to argument I make is that God cannot oppose Himself, he cannot be anti-god, he cannot do evil, for that it was anti-god is.

 

Please show me the error in my thinking.

Your thinking is not wrong, it's just one out of many views. And whichever view one takes, there will be conflicts.

I learn from this kind of dialogue, even if i turn out to be wrong I usually grow in understanding.

 

One problem with the definition of good and evil is that no one can really declare a perfect definition of it. It's not really black and white. They are relative terms, just like hot and cold.

This is a very important point. If a person believes in God then I think my argument holds true. If I don't believe in God then there is no absolute measure for good and evil, and would pan out in the final analysis to "might is right"

[Dhampir]

First, good and evil are relative concepts, meaning that until the sets of actions came about necessitating relativity, there was no good or evil. Another way of looking at it is there's nothing that could've been considered evil; we can just say everything was good.

 

In terms of an eternal and omniscient god, such as the god of christianity, which I assume we are referring to, your definition of 'pro-god' vs. 'anti-god' is flawed since, as an all knowing entity, everything that proceeds out from it must be pro-god, which means there really is no such thing as evil, according to your definition. I actually know of a sect that believes this very thing.

 

Relative to us, actions are the determinant of good and evil, given the complexities of what amounts to an action being good or bad. An action for one person may be considered good, but for another person may be bad. And since no one really knows what 'anti-god' is, that's all we can really go on.

 

I once posited that god can't be evil, in that his understanding of the concept does not apply to us, in the same way that no one, except a certain buddhist sect, sees the killing of bacteria through bringing them into our lungs as evil. That to me makes more sense, of course that means relative to us, he's neither good nor evil.

[Ouroboros]

I think we have similar views, but to be more specific, when I refer to God, I usually intent it to mean God of the Bible.

 

When it comes to understand if an act was good or evil, and if it came from God or not (Christian God), the Old Testament is full of stories that we would consider evil or immoral, and many were sanctioned by God. Now, if we can look at those events and see them as evil, there are a couple of explanations, 1. God never did those things or gave those commands, 2. Those events and commands are still good, even if we consider them evil, because by definition "whatever God does is good", and not "God does good things", which would immediately show that we have different defintions going, good is either "human good" or "god good", and they don't always look the same.

 

The problem with "God good" actions are that they don't agree with "Human good", and many times would look more like works of the Devil than God. No one can know.

 

Here's an interesting twist, the local God Chemosh gave the Moabites victory against Israel according to the Mesha Inscription. Now, of course next battle they lost, because Jahweh gave Israel the victory, according to the Bible. If Mesha had ordered the Moabites to go further, kill all men and boys and elderly, and keep the virgins to become sex slaves, would it be considered good or evil?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele

 

The Bible of course don't say Chemosh won over Jahweh, but they just drew back because they were disconcerted. Hah! Yeah, right...

[Golden Meadows]

I think we have similar views, but to be more specific, when I refer to God, I usually intent it to mean God of the Bible.

Same here even though I don't believe him. We assume a model for discussion and Yahweh is the most familiar to us.

 

When it comes to understand if an act was good or evil, and if it came from God or not (Christian God), the Old Testament is full of stories that we would consider evil or immoral, and many were sanctioned by God. Now, if we can look at those events and see them as evil, there are a couple of explanations, 1. God never did those things or gave those commands, 2. Those events and commands are still good, even if we consider them evil, because by definition "whatever God does is good", and not "God does good things", which would immediately show that we have different defintions going, good is either "human good" or "god good", and they don't always look the same.

Your point 2) I take as being another version of "God did not say that", i.e false God since I assume mankinds sense of right/wrong comes from God therefore they should not be opposed.

 

The problem with "God good" actions are that they don't agree with "Human good", and many times would look more like works of the Devil than God.

Agreed

No one can know.

In the final analysis this is so. It takes an act of faith to believe even in his existence, and the way xtians describe God it involves believing in something we think is very bad.

 

Here's an interesting twist, the local God Chemosh gave the Moabites victory against Israel according to the Mesha Inscription. Now, of course next battle they lost, because Jahweh gave Israel the victory, according to the Bible. If Mesha had ordered the Moabites to go further, kill all men and boys and elderly, and keep the virgins to become sex slaves, would it be considered good or evil?

I dont think pagans then, or now even, can provide any evidence for all an all powefull diety. The gods of paganism are more realistic in that they dont try to claim what monotheism does for its God, instead the gods of paganism picture life as it is rather than what we think it should be. It is a puzzle.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele

 

The Bible of course don't say Chemosh won over Jahweh, but they just drew back because they were disconcerted. Hah! Yeah, right...

The following passage is from the above article you referance:

" And I killed all the people of the city as a sacrifice for Kemosh and for Moab....Go, take Nebo from Israel." And I went in the night and fought

 

against it from the daybreak until midday, and I took it and I killed the whole population: seven thousand male subjects and aliens, and female subjects, aliens, and servant girls. For I had put it to the ban for Ashtar Kemosh. And from there I took the vessels of Yahweh, and I presented them before the face of Kemosh."

 

 

It seems they were given the same kind of advice by their God as the Israelites were given by theirs in those terrible OT atrocities. The only difference is that here its done as a sacrifice to their God. I wonder if the accounts of the Israelite massacring whole populations had the same motivation and the biblical text we have have now are "cleaned up" versions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

p.s I looked checked out your link in previous post about eyes but it was way over my head, is this your area of work/reserach?

[freeday]

ok, mr. grinch, i will take the baite.

 

i have brought this point up before, you keep looking at God's love and mercy as you would look at it. you want it to be fair for all humans. but it just isn't, throughout the old testament, the resounding message is, you will recieve his love and mercy if you love him. if you reject and denounce him. then don't expect much.

 

if you believe in the awsome power of God, then how can we even question him. Job questioned God about his suffering, the answer he got was before you criticize me, could you manage the creatioin as well as i do? shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity.

 

but if you don't believe in him, then this is just your standard christian hogwash. and you have nothing to worry about. whatever comes your way is just by sheer chance and good or bad luck.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

could you manage the creatioin as well as i do?

 

Yeah. Probably better, seeing as how I wouldn't play games with someone's happiness at the whim of Satan.

[Checkmate]

Thanks for the standard sheep answer. The Conditional Terrorism of God. Love me or else! "Thank you lord, may I have another?" Talk about "spiritual abuse"!

 

Thanks for demonstrating how correct we unbelievers are for rejecting your tribal delusions. We have peace and you don't, since you must live in abject TERROR of damnation and torment. A damnation and torment that isn't coming.

 

Can't you see it yet? We're not mocking your "god". "He" doesn't exist. We're mocking YOU for being stupid enough to put yourself through this emotional and spiritual wringer. Why do this to yourself? Why do it to your children? Why try and drag US into your delusional psychosis? It isn't necessary. Are you afraid of becoming an atheist? You don't have to go that far. Join Open_Minded. She seems to have a god-belief that doesn't involve terrorism. She even calls it Christianity.

 

Don't be stupid your entire short life.

 

Also, you mentioned that I want "fairness" for all humans. Bullshit. Nowhere did I use the word "fair". That's YOUR interpretation/delusion. I already know that LIFE isn't "fair", and that there is no god holding any scales of justice. I stopped looking for fairness from an impartial universe a LONG time ago.

 

I said "how does this make sense?" How can YOU call god "love"? How is MURDER the same as LOVE?

 

You still haven't addressed HOW "Love me or else" is "love". It's terrorism no matter how you slice it.

[Ouroboros]

p.s I looked checked out your link in previous post about eyes but it was way over my head, is this your area of work/reserach?

Not at all. I'm just a jack of many trades. I love to read about things here and there and learn about whatever, so I come over things over time that just of some unknown reasons get stuck in my brain and then some day in a discussion it pops up and comes in handy to explain something. No, Computer Technology is my niche.

 

The problem was that I knew about the fact that the eye has to constantly move for you to see. But I tried to find a good article that explained it, but couldn't find anything but this high-science article. Sorry about that. Put it this way, have you ever looked at a spot of some color for a minute or two, and then looked into a white wall? If you have you can see this exact same spot on the wall, but with the contrast color. It's because the nerve endings in your eye have adjusted to the first color. Nerves don't measure absolute values, but relative values, or changes.

[Ouroboros]

The following passage is from the above article you referance:

" And I killed all the people of the city as a sacrifice for Kemosh and for Moab....Go, take Nebo from Israel." And I went in the night and fought

 

against it from the daybreak until midday, and I took it and I killed the whole population: seven thousand male subjects and aliens, and female subjects, aliens, and servant girls. For I had put it to the ban for Ashtar Kemosh. And from there I took the vessels of Yahweh, and I presented them before the face of Kemosh."

 

It seems they were given the same kind of advice by their God as the Israelites were given by theirs in those terrible OT atrocities. The only difference is that here its done as a sacrifice to their God. I wonder if the accounts of the Israelite massacring whole populations had the same motivation and the biblical text we have have now are "cleaned up" versions.

Kind of. I read it again, but it didn't really say that Kemosh commanded them to kill the whole population, or to save virgins as sex slaves. Kemosh only gave the word to attack and take them out. It was Mesha's interpretation of the command to slaughter everyone. While in the Bible, God Jahweh does say "kill everyone, but spare the virgins to take for yourself". And how gruesome isn't that, and I'm sure Christians would react with more despise towards the Moabites than their own Bible. *sigh* It shows how moral is not absolute in any way, because if it was, then Christians would judge their own god the same way, or give other gods the same slack.

[EdwardAbbey]

 

Is the God of the Bible™ a “loving God” or is he the “devil of hell”?

 

 

 

If there is such a thing as a devil, then the Gawd of the bible is the one who definetly fits the bill. It is the picture of the most blood thirsty tyrant ever. it is the picture of something with a really big problem. Mainly it's inflated ego.

[freeday]

Thanks for the standard sheep answer. The Conditional Terrorism of God. Love me or else! "Thank you lord, may I have another?" Talk about "spiritual abuse"!

 

Thanks for demonstrating how correct we unbelievers are for rejecting your tribal delusions. We have peace and you don't, since you must live in abject TERROR of damnation and torment. A damnation and torment that isn't coming.

 

Can't you see it yet? We're not mocking your "god". "He" doesn't exist. We're mocking YOU for being stupid enough to put yourself through this emotional and spiritual wringer. Why do this to yourself? Why do it to your children? Why try and drag US into your delusional psychosis? It isn't necessary. Are you afraid of becoming an atheist? You don't have to go that far. Join Open_Minded. She seems to have a god-belief that doesn't involve terrorism. She even calls it Christianity.

 

Don't be stupid your entire short life.

 

Also, you mentioned that I want "fairness" for all humans. Bullshit. Nowhere did I use the word "fair". That's YOUR interpretation/delusion. I already know that LIFE isn't "fair", and that there is no god holding any scales of justice. I stopped looking for fairness from an impartial universe a LONG time ago.

 

I said "how does this make sense?" How can YOU call god "love"? How is MURDER the same as LOVE?

 

You still haven't addressed HOW "Love me or else" is "love". It's terrorism no matter how you slice it.

 

i will agree with you that life isn't fair. have seen it to many times. but with my beliefs, as stupid as you may think they are, i feel that everything happens for a reason. good or bad. i am content with the fact that God is far superior in his knowledge than i am. i can not see the whole picture, as where he can. the only thing i will differ on you would be that i don't find my belief to be burdensome. i don't see it as the emotional wringer that you suggest it is. i feel it has made me a better person.

[freeday]

I am still content to say that God's love is just. The most loving act of eternity is described in Romans 5:8, “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Anyone who ignores God’s love, who rejects Christ as Savior, who denies the Savior who bought him (2 Peter 2:1) – that person will be subject to God’s wrath for eternity (Romans 1:18), not His love (Romans 6:23).

[Asimov]

How is it a demonstration of "justice" to play favourites to his groupies?

[Antlerman]

I am still content to say that God's love is just. The most loving act of eternity is described in Romans 5:8, “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Anyone who ignores God’s love, who rejects Christ as Savior, who denies the Savior who bought him (2 Peter 2:1) – that person will be subject to God’s wrath for eternity (Romans 1:18), not His love (Romans 6:23).

Wow freeday, someone strike a nerve with you there to come back a half hour later with this reply? If I love my son, and offer my love to him, and if he turn his back on me, do I love him still, or do I seek to destroy him for pissing me off? If the later, then my love is INSINCERE. It would be about me not getting what I want.

 

To be honest, I best love "God" by not believing in him because of the bigger picture of life you describe. If I put God into it as others would portray him as all wise, all knowing, all loving, all caring, all compassionate, leaves me with a picture that is twisted and distorted making me resentful of his selfishness in burning people alive for not accepting extremely unclear expectations, and allowing millions to suffer unbelievable horrors in this world alone because "he has a plan we don't understand".

 

I honor life, and love, and peace by accepting the unfairness of life and NOT holding any expectations of some God who is supposed to care! By rejecting these sorts of beliefs, I find peace in life, love in my heart, and fellowship with humanity. If I feel joy in my heart from this approach, then life is served, and whatever notion of God ANYONE may have is served and honored by my disbelief. The end result of any "faith" should be love being served. The theology of rejection is ANYTHING but that!

 

Are you sure you're not in conflict?

[julian]

i will agree with you that life isn't fair. have seen it to many times. but with my beliefs, as stupid as you may think they are, i feel that everything happens for a reason. good or bad. i am content with the fact that God is far superior in his knowledge than i am. i can not see the whole picture, as where he can. the only thing i will differ on you would be that i don't find my belief to be burdensome. i don't see it as the emotional wringer that you suggest it is. i feel it has made me a better person.

 

"but with my beliefs, as stupid as you may think they are, i feel that everything happens for a reason. good or bad."

 

Why do you feel this way? What is the source of that reason (the reason things happen)? Why should one believe in this source?

 

"i am content with the fact that God is far superior in his knowledge than i am. i can not see the whole picture, as where he can."

 

Not only are your beliefs without reason (not to mention ignorant by definition, because you are in essence refusing to look at the world), but saying that some "god" is "far superior in his knowledge" with no real support for that statement is ignorant as well.

 

"the only thing i will differ on you would be that i don't find my belief to be burdensome. i don't see it as the emotional wringer that you suggest it is. i feel it has made me a better person."

 

Of course you would say your beliefs have made you a better person, but is that an objective opinion? I think not. The fact is that if you give up everything for unsupported and ridiculous beliefs, that is not good at all.

[freeday]

I am still content to say that God's love is just. The most loving act of eternity is described in Romans 5:8, “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Anyone who ignores God’s love, who rejects Christ as Savior, who denies the Savior who bought him (2 Peter 2:1) – that person will be subject to God’s wrath for eternity (Romans 1:18), not His love (Romans 6:23).

Wow freeday, someone strike a nerve with you there to come back a half hour later with this reply? If I love my son, and offer my love to him, and if he turn his back on me, do I love him still, or do I seek to destroy him for pissing me off? If the later, then my love is INSINCERE. It would be about me not getting what I want.

 

To be honest, I best love "God" by not believing in him because of the bigger picture of life you describe. If I put God into it as others would portray him as all wise, all knowing, all loving, all caring, all compassionate, leaves me with a picture that is twisted and distorted making me resentful of his selfishness in burning people alive for not accepting extremely unclear expectations, and allowing millions to suffer unbelievable horrors in this world alone because "he has a plan we don't understand".

 

I honor life, and love, and peace by accepting the unfairness of life and NOT holding any expectations of some God who is supposed to care! By rejecting these sorts of beliefs, I find peace in life, love in my heart, and fellowship with humanity. If I feel joy in my heart from this approach, then life is served, and whatever notion of God ANYONE may have is served and honored by my disbelief. The end result of any "faith" should be love being served. The theology of rejection is ANYTHING but that!

 

Are you sure you're not in conflict?

 

i am sorry if it appeared as if i was aggitated. that was not my intensions. you know i am very much a literalist in most aspects. the above sentence in red, i think that God spells out his expectations very clear. follow them and there is no risk of eternal suffering.

 

how is God served and honored by your disbelief? you are a very smart individual, just think if you believed God to be the creator, how much of that knowledge could be used to glorify his name. instead, you have indepth conversations of how he doesn't exist. and very convincing ones might i add. i wonder how many guest this site has that may read one of your posts and it puts them even closer to deconverting.

 

 

Not only are your beliefs without reason (not to mention ignorant by definition, because you are in essence refusing to look at the world), but saying that some "god" is "far superior in his knowledge" with no real support for that statement is ignorant as well.

 

"the only thing i will differ on you would be that i don't find my belief to be burdensome. i don't see it as the emotional wringer that you suggest it is. i feel it has made me a better person."

 

Of course you would say your beliefs have made you a better person, but is that an objective opinion? I think not. The fact is that if you give up everything for unsupported and ridiculous beliefs, that is not good at all.

 

 

i think Job supports my reason for feeling finite. i don't think that me being a better person is an objective opinion, i can personally say i lived a very immoral life prior to recieving Christ. my belief has changed me for the better.

[julian]

i think Job supports my reason for feeling finite. i don't think that me being a better person is an objective opinion, i can personally say i lived a very immoral life prior to recieving Christ. my belief has changed me for the better.

 

Please do show us how it supports you feeling finite (and do note that merely quoting scripture does not amount to any real support at all). I would also like to remind you that this isn't about feeling finite, this is about lacking the perspective to verify one's beliefs. If you do not search and blindly rely on what is handed to you, you cannot seriously claim any sort of validity.

 

On morality, the fact is that non-Christians live perfectly moral lives (furthermore, Christians have time and again shown themselves to be devoid of any shred of semblance of decency). There is nothing to say that you could not have changed without "recieving Christ" as you term it (and this is accepting what you say for the sake of argument). I could go on, but you get my point.

[Vigile]

i will agree with you that life isn't fair. have seen it to many times. but with my beliefs, as stupid as you may think they are, i feel that everything happens for a reason. good or bad. i am content with the fact that God is far superior in his knowledge than i am. i can not see the whole picture, as where he can. the only thing i will differ on you would be that i don't find my belief to be burdensome. i don't see it as the emotional wringer that you suggest it is. i feel it has made me a better person.

 

This statement, while noble in christian circles, is just pure stupidity. You are so willing to give your god the benefit of the doubt that you refuse to even question absurdity. This is just crazy. Ebola turns an African child to mush in a matter of days, well, god knows better than I. Conjoined twins are born and one twin drains the lifeblood of the other twin - god must have a plan. A kitten falls down a dry well and starves to death - god must be punishing the mama cat.

 

Why is it that you cannot see that this logic can be applied to litterally anything? The Totem is wiser than I, therefore there must be a reason it didn't rain this spring. My daughter bled to death because I didn't get her medical attention. The higher power must have had a higher purpose; maybe it's testing me.

 

That events in the world are purely random is plainly obvious but you christians try and cram everything into a tight little world where god is in control of everything. When it obviously isn't so you claim "his ways are higher than our ways, who are we to question why?" This is so utterly irrational that it makes you guys look sillier than children who still believe in Santa because you are actually adults who still believe in the equivelent of Santa.

 

 

 

How can this possibly make you a better person?

 

Christian: "well alls I knows is I ain't god"

Atheist: "Your faith is just a mask for your ignorance."

[freeday]

i think Job supports my reason for feeling finite. i don't think that me being a better person is an objective opinion, i can personally say i lived a very immoral life prior to recieving Christ. my belief has changed me for the better.

 

Please do show us how it supports you feeling finite (and do note that merely quoting scripture does not amount to any real support at all). I would also like to remind you that this isn't about feeling finite, this is about lacking the perspective to verify one's beliefs. If you do not search and blindly rely on what is handed to you, you cannot seriously claim any sort of validity.

 

i believe the word of God in the scripture to be true, that is the only resource i have to relly on for information about him. so if you denounce the scripture, i have no other sources to prove his authority over man.

 

On morality, the fact is that non-Christians live perfectly moral lives (furthermore, Christians have time and again shown themselves to be devoid of any shred of semblance of decency). There is nothing to say that you could not have changed without "recieving Christ" as you term it (and this is accepting what you say for the sake of argument). I could go on, but you get my point.

 

christians are very guilty of not being decent. i heard one today talking very prejudicely. it makes me sick to my stomach. but we are all guilty of sin. and that is what the Savior was for. we can not use this as an excuse to dismiss christianity. I get your point, surely i could have changed my life without accepting Jesus. but what would have been my motivation. i can't think of a stronger motivation than the love of Christ.