Christians: Why would an all-good God base our salvation from Hell on whether or not we believe in a 2,000-year-old supernatural story?

[Lyra]

The premise of orthodox Christianity is boiled down to the following points:

 

1) that we are all destined -- and fully deserve -- to roast in Hell for all eternity, because in the eyes of a "all good and perfect" Creator, telling small lies or stealing a candy bar is just as bad as killing millions of people and therefore we're doomed just by being alive;

(In some denominations, this goes even further by saying that the reason why we're all evil is because two people ate a magic apple, and now their genetic sin is our problem)

 

2) That somehow the above scenario is justified because "God is so perfect that even a small sin is infinite," and although he lacks common sense and compassion he is somehow still perfect and to be worshipped;

 

3) that the ONE and ONLY way to avoid our fully-deserved fate of Hell is to believe in a story written in an ancient book 2,000+ years ago, and to fully believe that the supernatural and bizarre events described (God came down as a person, was born to a virgin, sacrificed himself for a blood sacrifice that's never explained why it's needed, he rose from the dead, etc) are actually real. 

 

4) That God's sacrificing his son was a benevolent thing to do. Think about it -- if your neighbor committed a horrible crime and was going to prison, and the only way to bail him out was to have your own son crucified, would you do  that to your child to pay for someone else's problems? Any decent parent and person would say hell no!!

 

How can you take this seriously? First off, points 1 and 2 and 4 show how morally wrong the whole premise is, and how unethical and evil this religion's portrayal of God is. And point 3 is basically saying that the way to be saved in the afterlife is to believe an unbelievable story - like trying to force yourself to believe in Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, long after you've hit the age of critical reason (around age 7) where those types of childhood magic characters are no longer believable.

When I was 7, I grew out of believing in Santa. I wanted to believe, but I simply couldn't buy it anymore. So if an adult has this reaction to the Bible story, they deserve hell, and this lines up with a benevolent God?

 

Please explain how this is:

 

1) Ethical, in way  that lines up with God being the all-good and all-loving being he's claimed to be

and

2) Logical/rational as something that is likely to be real

[LogicalFallacy]

Someone brought up a great point I hadn't thought about.. or did I read it. Basically Jesus contradicts the 1st amendment commandment:

 

Thou shalt have no other gods before me

[OrdinaryClay]

Lyra, You confuse your disbelief of the supernatural with your judgments of God's moral character. By muddling the two together you have a form of circular reasoning. IOW, you justify the "rediculousness" of it all because the supernatural nature of God does not exist. If you assume, just for arguments sake, that Christ is who He said He is, then it puts the situation in a different light.

 

Let me make a comment on item 4, your view is strictly self centered. You are basically saying that only your feelings matter and that the feelings of the person receiving the mercy do not matter. For example, the person receiving the mercy has a father also.There are many, many non-Christians who believe that selflessness is a high morality. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This must be why god selflessly demands our unquestioning loyalty and worship; and then selflessly condemns to hell all who refuse to conform.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

This must be why god selflessly demands our unquestioning loyalty and worship;

Yes he does.

 

and then selflessly condemns to hell all who refuse to conform.

Who are you to judge God? Are you omniscient? Are you eternal? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Yes he does.

 

 

 

Who are you to judge God? Are you omniscient? Are you eternal? 

I am a man.  Who are you that you would worship him?

[midniterider]

 

Who are you to judge God? Are you omniscient? Are you eternal? 

 

Claiming that something is above scrutiny automatically makes it suspect. It cannot be trusted.

 

 

This must be why god selflessly demands our unquestioning loyalty and worship;

Yes he does

 

That which demands our unquestioning loyalty is suspect. It cannot be trusted.

 

 

[Astreja]

 

Who are you to judge God? Are you omniscient? Are you eternal? 

 

According to your silly mythology, I am an earthbound entity tainted with "original sin" -- an apparently intractable condition caused by two nescient mortals nomming fruit from a tree that bestowed upon them knowledge of good and evil.

 

You cannot deny anyone the right to judge your imaginary friend without destroying the alleged need for the sacrifice of Jesus, and thus destroying Christianity itself.

[florduh]

I am fully qualified and entitled to judge yours or anyone else's definition of a god. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@OrdinaryClay,

 

Please read the following topic and post your response here.  Thank you in advance.

 

Have a good day,

TheRedneckProfessor

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

If you assume, just for arguments sake, that Christ is who He said He is, then it puts the situation in a different light.

 

Who are you to judge God? Are you omniscient? Are you eternal? 

No compelling reason to make the assumption that you propose.

 

Lyra has standing - nay, even a duty - to judge characters in sacred writings put forth by various of the competing religious systems demanding our attention.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

I am fully qualified and entitled to judge yours or anyone else's definition of a god. 

The definition is not what's being judged.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

No compelling reason to make the assumption that you propose.

 

Lyra has standing - nay, even a duty - to judge characters in sacred writings put forth by various of the competing religious systems demanding our attention.

You are engaging in the same circular reasoning. Pretending a character is something it is not portrayed as in the sacred writing changes the thought experiment.

[florduh]

 

The definition is not what's being judged.

It is YOUR God you're referencing, right? The "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?" That's how you define God.

 

Your definition of God you assumes it be the REAL God, of course. Believers in thousands of other gods would beg to differ. I take issue with all the definitions.

 

 

[midniterider]

 

The definition is not what's being judged.

 

No, we're actually judging an imaginary half-baked sub-personality in your head that you invented. You call it God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. You're trying to re-infect us with it but we respectfully decline. Ok, not respectfully, but we still decline. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

The definition is not what's being judged.

 

Yes, it is the definition that is being judged. The Christian god is defined as all-good and it is completely fair to judge that definition of god as bullshit if it has not been demonstrated how it can be all-good while also behaving like a sadistic psychopath. 

[nutrichuckles93]

 

 

Yes, it is the definition that is being judged. The Christian god is defined as all-good and it is completely fair to judge that definition of god as bullshit if it has not been demonstrated how it can be all-good while also behaving like a sadistic psychopath. 

Ah, yes. But how can we, as mere mortals, chose to define the Christian god as a sadistic psychopath? Our feeble minds cannot comprehend. Only He can determine what is right, so maybe our definition of sadism is actually what is good!!

 

Sorry, had to play Yahweh's advocate for a moment (love that term!) Couldn't resist.

[Astreja]

 

Ah, yes. But how can we, as mere mortals, chose to define the Christian god as a sadistic psychopath? Our feeble minds cannot comprehend. Only He can determine what is right, so maybe our definition of sadism is actually what is good!!

 

Sorry, had to play Yahweh's advocate for a moment (love that term!) Couldn't resist.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I think the Talking Snake™ Incident is sufficient in itself to guarantee in perpetuity the rights of any human to judge Yahweh.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

As I mentioned earlier, I think the Talking Snake™ Incident is sufficient in itself to guarantee in perpetuity the rights of any human to judge Yahweh.

Would that be a result of us having the knowledge of the difference between good and evil? Perhaps if we know the difference and we know what evil is, then we could sufficiently define Yahweh as evil according to his actions, based on that knowledge.

 

The only way that Yahweh could be all-good is if he is above his own laws and is able to arbitrarily redefine what "good" means whenever it suits him.

 

It's been a while since I have posted anything here and it is good to do it again.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

It is YOUR God you're referencing, right? The "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?" That's how you define God.

 

Your definition of God you assumes it be the REAL God, of course. Believers in thousands of other gods would beg to differ. I take issue with all the definitions.

 

 

You are confused between judging whether he exists and His moral character. Which is the typical double speak from atheism. Judging the definition includes judging whether he exists. Judging His moral character must assume he exists and then judge His character within that context.

 

Even if you don't believe my God exists if you are going to pretend to judge Him then you must accept the entire definition for the sake of your judging. That definition has Him to be omnipotent, omniscient and eternal. Once you place yourself in that context your moral vantage point for judging Him is unsupportable.

[disillusioned]

 

You are confused between judging whether he exists and His moral character. Which is the typical double speak from atheism. Judging the definition includes judging whether he exists. Judging His moral character must assume he exists and then judge His character within that context.

 

Even if you don't believe my God exists if you are going to pretend to judge Him then you must accept the entire definition for the sake of your judging. That definition has Him to be omnipotent, omniscient and eternal. Once you place yourself in that context your moral vantage point for judging Him is unsupportable.

 

And yet somehow you feel able to judge Him good. Interesting.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

And yet somehow you feel able to judge Him good. Interesting.

 

Ordinary Clay is special, at least according to Ordinary Clay.

 

Since his reappearance here a few days ago, his narcissistic personality disorder has been steadily coming to the forefront of his posts.  Of course, he has always attempted to hide that disorder behind his set of sky fairies and his personal religious dogma.

[florduh]

 

You are confused between judging whether he exists and His moral character. Which is the typical double speak from atheism. Judging the definition includes judging whether he exists. Judging His moral character must assume he exists and then judge His character within that context.

 

Even if you don't believe my God exists if you are going to pretend to judge Him then you must accept the entire definition for the sake of your judging. That definition has Him to be omnipotent, omniscient and eternal. Once you place yourself in that context your moral vantage point for judging Him is unsupportable.

No, I'm still judging by your definition because that's all we have to work with here. If you claim your God is revealed in the Bible then certain traits and actions as described in the story are open to judgment. A character in any story who does the things attributed to Bible God, well, they can seem a bit unsavory. That doesn't make that character real.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

And yet somehow you feel able to judge Him good. Interesting.

 

Something tells me that'll fly right over his head.

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

You are engaging in the same circular reasoning. Pretending a character is something it is not portrayed as in the sacred writing changes the thought experiment.

What you write is a reply to something you imagine I wrote. You are confused.