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?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@OrdinaryClay, I am still waiting for you to tell me who you are that you would worship god.  I see you've found the courage to address others in this thread.  Are you afraid to face the idea of what your slavish devotion to jesus says about you?

 

TRP

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

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, it is not necessary to assume that Yahweh exists in order to judge his character, just like we can judge the character of Sauron without assuming that he exists. What does exist is the belief in Yahweh that many people have, a belief that keeps people trapped in a religion of fear and confusion. Those that already believe that Yahweh exists are forced to rationalize how an all-good god could also behave like a tyrant, otherwise, their faith falls apart.

 

If their faith falls apart, then they are forced to either live in a reality where they are destined for sadistic, eternal torment after death because they cannot in good conscience go on worshiping a tyrant or to accept that Yahweh's nature is contradictory.

 

If I assume for now that he does exist, then what is it exactly that has led you to conclude that he is good? Is it simply because he says so, or is it because he is actually good? If it is because he actually is good, then can you demonstrate how this is so?

[ag_NO_stic]

[nutrichuckles93]

 

 

No, it is not necessary to assume that Yahweh exists in order to judge his character, just like we can judge the character of Sauron without assuming that he exists. What does exist is the belief in Yahweh that many people have, a belief that keeps people trapped in a religion of fear and confusion. Those that already believe that Yahweh exists are forced to rationalize how an all-good god could also behave like a tyrant, otherwise, their faith falls apart.

 

If their faith falls apart, then they are forced to either live in a reality where they are destined for sadistic, eternal torment after death because they cannot in good conscience go on worshiping a tyrant or to accept that Yahweh's nature is contradictory.

 

If I assume for now that he does exist, then what is it exactly that has led you to conclude that he is good? Is it simply because he says so, or is it because he is actually good? If it is because he actually is good, then can you demonstrate how this is so?

Quoting this just because these thoughts are exactly what I've been trying to figure out how to say. And it's brilliantly stated.

 

We CAN judge the character of Yahweh to be contradictory/unsavory. It's how we know the notion of him to be rubbish.

[midniterider]

I guess Ordinary Clay cannot  articulate why he judges God (his imaginary friend) as worthy of worship since has has not done so.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

@OrdinaryClay, I am still waiting for you to tell me who you are that you would worship god.  I see you've found the courage to address others in this thread.  Are you afraid to face the idea of what your slavish devotion to jesus says about you?

 

TRP

I'm nobody and inconsequential. Maybe I missed your point?

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

No, it is not necessary to assume that Yahweh exists in order to judge his character, just like we can judge the character of Sauron without assuming that he exists. What does exist is the belief in Yahweh that many people have, a belief that keeps people trapped in a religion of fear and confusion. Those that already believe that Yahweh exists are forced to rationalize how an all-good god could also behave like a tyrant, otherwise, their faith falls apart.

 

If their faith falls apart, then they are forced to either live in a reality where they are destined for sadistic, eternal torment after death because they cannot in good conscience go on worshiping a tyrant or to accept that Yahweh's nature is contradictory.

 

If I assume for now that he does exist, then what is it exactly that has led you to conclude that he is good? Is it simply because he says so, or is it because he is actually good? If it is because he actually is good, then can you demonstrate how this is so?

The characteristics that are part of God's (the Christian God) definition, such as omniscience, etc ..., do require the assumption even for the case of argument, of His existence.

[nutrichuckles93]

No, it does not. You just want to insist that so that you can continue to insist that we have merely rebelled against your god. Which is not the case. In fact, your god's lack of omniscient presence is why most of us have decided he does not exist. The bible has turned out to be full of false promises and ideas, so clearly your god is not omniscient. Nor does he even exist at all other than in your mind.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

No, it does not. You just want to insist that so that you can continue to insist that we have merely rebelled against your god. Which is not the case. In fact, your god's lack of omniscient presence is why most of us have decided he does not exist. The bible has turned out to be full of false promises and ideas, so clearly your god is not omniscient. Nor does he even exist at all other than in your mind.

Whether I think you rebelled or not is immaterial. The thread is about judging God's moral character. The question at hand is whether you need to judge the entire definition or just cherry pick the definition. Throwing out red herrings does not change that fact.

[florduh]

"The thread is about judging God's moral character."

 

No, the thread is actually about OC's description of a character in a story. We may judge that character by the qualities ascribed to him, just as we may judge the morality and intelligence exhibited by Forrest Gump. 

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

The characteristics that are part of God's (the Christian God) definition, such as omniscience, etc ..., do require the assumption even for the case of argument, of His existence.

 

No, his other characteristics do not need to be assumed either. If he is not all-good and his nature is contradictory, then that casts doubt upon all of his other qualities. If the Bible is wrong about one characteristic, then it could be wrong about all of them.

[florduh]

This is getting stupid. Discussing a fictional character doesn't make that character real.

 

Show me how this God is NOT fictional and we can discuss the traits of an actual thing in existence. That people may like or dislike a character in question does not show that it's a real person/god/Kilingon/fairy/elf or anything else and is not evidence of existence.

 

Get it yet?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

I'm nobody and inconsequential. Maybe I missed your point?

False humility belied by the arrogance of your behavior.  This is typical of christianity.

[sdelsolray]

 

...

[This] thread is about judging God's moral character.

...

 

Actually, according to the OP, it is more than just that.  Read the following (from the OP) to see why:

 

"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"

 

Your attempt to control the scope of the discussion in this thread is comical.

 

The characteristics that are part of God's (the Christian God) definition, such as omniscience, etc ..., do require the assumption even for the case of argument, of His existence.

 

To you, perhaps.  For others, not so much.

[Stranger]

 

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

 

Greetings

 

I am assuming this is the thread you spoke of in another post.   If not, let me know, but i will try and address this one. 

 

God made the salvation of mankind based on 'faith'.   Why?   Because that distinguished the believers from the non-believers.   It distinguished the people of God, from those who are not of God. 

 

In other words, some say I will just say I believe it.    But God is not looking for that.  He is looking for those who  'believe'.  And He knows the difference.   And, you can't make yourself believe something you don't believe.  You either believer, or you don't.  But that belief distinguishes the people of God from those who are not of God.

 

Does that help?

 

Stranger

 

 

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Greetings

 

I am assuming this is the thread you spoke of in another post.   If not, let me know, but i will try and address this one. 

 

God made the salvation of mankind based on 'faith'.   Why?   Because that distinguished the believers from the non-believers.   It distinguished the people of God, from those who are not of God. 

 

In other words, some say I will just say I believe it.    But God is not looking for that.  He is looking for those who  'believe'.  And He knows the difference.   And, you can't make yourself believe something you don't believe.  You either believer, or you don't.  But that belief distinguishes the people of God from those who are not of God.

 

Does that help?

 

Stranger

 

 

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

 

Religious dogma doesn't get much traction around here.

[Stranger]

 

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

 

Religious dogma doesn't get much traction around here.

 

Well, the question was asked based on what the Christian believes.   So I tried to answer.   

 

Stranger

[LogicalFallacy]

"That God's sacrificing his son was a benevolent thing to do."

 

This concept  of God having a son, that is really himself, that he sacrificed to himself to save mankind from a fate he created is per se oxymoronic.

 

I keep asking Christians - what are we being saved from? Certainly not Satan - Satan has no power except God gives it to him. Satan isn't going to judge you and send you to hell, God is!

 

Oxymoronic I say.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Greetings

 

I am assuming this is the thread you spoke of in another post.   If not, let me know, but i will try and address this one. 

 

God made the salvation of mankind based on 'faith'.   Why?   Because that distinguished the believers from the non-believers.   It distinguished the people of God, from those who are not of God. 

 

In other words, some say I will just say I believe it.    But God is not looking for that.  He is looking for those who  'believe'.  And He knows the difference.   And, you can't make yourself believe something you don't believe.  You either believer, or you don't.  But that belief distinguishes the people of God from those who are not of God.

 

Does that help?

 

Stranger

 

 

 

Stranger,

 

The Christian God of the Bible knows more than this difference. 

He knows everything.  Moreover, he's always known everything.   So then, please answer me this.

 

Why didn't God simply create the New Heaven described in Revelation and populate it with only those perfected people and angels that He foreknew would love, obey and worship him?

 

Here are some advantages this scheme has over the one God allegedly carried out.   

 

1.  Nobody ever disobeys God.

2.  With no disobedience there is no need for God to judge or punish anyone.

3.  There is no need to create Satan or any of the other angels who fell.

4.  There is no need to create Adam and Eve and put them to any kind of test.

5.  With no Fall from Grace, no human ever suffers from such things as death, disease, deformity or decrepitude.

6.  With no Fall, no human ever intentionally does any harm to any other human.

7.  With no war in heaven, no angel ever intentionally does any harm to another or to any human.

8.  Instead of God's physical creation being held in bondage to corruption (see Romans 8 : 18 - 25) for thousands of years, it is created as an imperishable and incorruptible heaven from get go.

9.  All those whom God foreknows would love Him receive exactly what they desire the most - eternal bliss in His presence.

10.  God is honored, worshiped and glorified for His mercy, because He could have created those whom He foreknew would burn in Hell forever - but He chose not to.

11.  God is honored, worshiped and glorified for His love, because even though He actually didn't die on the cross to save us from our sins (there is no sin) He was prepared to do so.

12.  God is honored, worshiped and glorified for His goodness, because everything He creates is good from the outset and remains good forever.

13.  God is honored, worshiped and glorified for His justice, because He doesn't violate the free will of anyone.

 

Those who would have freely chosen to love and worship Him are given their due reward in heaven.  

Those who would have freely chosen to reject and deny Him never actually exist as anything more than unexpressed thoughts in His eternal mind.  An unexpressed thought cannot have it's free will violated because this thought is not a living being and never becomes a living being.  Therefore, God does no harm to them, they do not harm themselves and anyone they would have harmed is also spared their suffering.  Since God knows both good and evil, but only ever does good, creating only that which is good is the truest possible expression of His holy character and divine nature.  Not only does God do no evil, He creates everyone already perfected and unwilling to ever choose to do or become evil.  Just as they are described in the last chapters of the book of Revelation.

 

So, please answer my question Stranger.

 

Why didn't God simply create the New Heaven described in Revelation and populate it with only those perfected people and angels that He foreknew would love, obey and worship him?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Greetings

 

I am assuming this is the thread you spoke of in another post.   If not, let me know, but i will try and address this one. 

 

God made the salvation of mankind based on 'faith'.   Why?   Because that distinguished the believers from the non-believers.   It distinguished the people of God, from those who are not of God. 

 

In other words, some say I will just say I believe it.    But God is not looking for that.  He is looking for those who  'believe'.  And He knows the difference.   And, you can't make yourself believe something you don't believe.  You either believer, or you don't.  But that belief distinguishes the people of God from those who are not of God.

 

Does that help?

 

Stranger

 

 

 

Please study the term non-sequitur, because your post is a non-sequitur to the post you were responding to.  Put another way, you didn't address his questions at all.

 

 

Well, the question was asked based on what the Christian believes.   So I tried to answer.   

 

Stranger

 

You failed to address his questions.

[Stranger]

 

 

Stranger,

 

The Christian God of the Bible knows more than this difference. 

He knows everything.  Moreover, he's always known everything.   So then, please answer me this.

 

Why didn't God simply create the New Heaven described in Revelation and populate it with only those perfected people and angels that He foreknew would love, obey and worship him?

 

Here are some advantages this scheme has over the one God allegedly carried out.   

 

1.  Nobody ever disobeys God.

2.  With no disobedience there is no need for God to judge or punish anyone.

3.  There is no need to create Satan or any of the other angels who fell.

4.  There is no need to create Adam and Eve and put them to any kind of test.

5.  With no Fall from Grace, no human ever suffers from such things as death, disease, deformity or decrepitude.

6.  With no Fall, no human ever intentionally does any harm to any other human.

7.  With no war in heaven, no angel ever intentionally does any harm to another or to any human.

8.  Instead of God's physical creation being held in bondage to corruption (see Romans 8 : 18 - 25) for thousands of years, it is created as an imperishable and incorruptible heaven from get go.

9.  All those whom God foreknows would love Him receive exactly what they desire the most - eternal bliss in His presence.

10.  God is honored, worshiped and glorified for His mercy, because He could have created those whom He foreknew would burn in Hell forever - but He chose not to.

11.  God is honored, worshiped and glorified for His love, because even though He actually didn't die on the cross to save us from our sins (there is no sin) He was prepared to do so.

12.  God is honored, worshiped and glorified for His goodness, because everything He creates is good from the outset and remains good forever.

13.  God is honored, worshiped and glorified for His justice, because He doesn't violate the free will of anyone.

 

Those who would have freely chosen to love and worship Him are given their due reward in heaven.  

Those who would have freely chosen to reject and deny Him never actually exist as anything more than unexpressed thoughts in His eternal mind.  An unexpressed thought cannot have it's free will violated because this thought is not a living being and never becomes a living being.  Therefore, God does no harm to them, they do not harm themselves and anyone they would have harmed is also spared their suffering.  Since God knows both good and evil, but only ever does good, creating only that which is good is the truest possible expression of His holy character and divine nature.  Not only does God do no evil, He creates everyone already perfected and unwilling to ever choose to do or become evil.  Just as they are described in the last chapters of the book of Revelation.

 

So, please answer my question Stranger.

 

Why didn't God simply create the New Heaven described in Revelation and populate it with only those perfected people and angels that He foreknew would love, obey and worship him?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe it is because God did not want just perfect individuals.   He created Adam and Eve and they were perfect and without sin.   But, they were not as God.  They were not literally born of Him.   They were created by Him.   And God wanted those to be born of Him.   And so when God creates, He creates with His righteousness in view.  He must create so that nothing goes against His righteous character.  

 

So God did not want just sinless individuals.  He wanted those born of Him.  And so death and rebirth was the process He chose.  He now gets, not just sinless ones, but He gets ones born of Him and redeemed from sin.  And they are as righteous as God.   They are truly 'sons of God'.  They are of Him.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

Please study the term non-sequitur, because your post is a non-sequitur to the post you were responding to.  Put another way, you didn't address his questions at all.

 

 

You failed to address his questions.

 

Then explain where the failure lies.  Easy to say, you failed to address.

 

Stranger

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Then explain where the failure lies.  Easy to say, you failed to address.

 

Stranger

 

No.  I'm not your research assistant.  I suggested you learn what a non-sequitur is.  Apparently, you do not know what the term means or how it applies to the content of your response vis-a-vis the OP's questions you attempted to address, and now you want me to spell it out for you.  Again, no.  You will learn more if you do your own homework and not demand someone else do it for you.

 

And yes, it was quite easy to identify your blatant non-sequitur.

[Stranger]

 

 

No.  I'm not your research assistant.  I suggested you learn what a non-sequitur is.  Apparently, you do not know what the term means or how it applies to the content of your response vis-a-vis the OP's questions you attempted to address, and now you want me to spell it out for you.  Again, no.  You will learn more if you do your own homework and not demand someone else do it for you.

 

And yes, it was quite easy to identify your blatant non-sequitur.

 

Neither am I yours.  If you see a fault, then explain.  I see none.

 

Stranger

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Neither am I yours.  If you see a fault, then explain.  I see none.

 

Stranger

 

This explains much.