On the killing of the innocent: there is a caveat in Christianity that those who die before having the chance to come to Christ (i.e. all the children and others killed) are immediately accepted into the arms of God so long as they lived a good life according to their beliefs. So, if a Voodoo Priest who dedicated his life to helping others (not that uncommon an occurrence) and had never before been taught Christianity were to die, then he would fall under the innocent category (which includes children and babies.).
Also, a big part of my personal belief is in different degrees of glory. (note, this is some big mormon stuff.)
the first degree of glory, the Terrestial Kingdom, is a bit better than earth: here are sent the murderers, the rapists, and your general bad people.
the second degree of glory, the Telestial Kingdom, is where those who, while they lived a decent life, didn't make the necessary covenants and such. This kingdom has been described as so glorious and splendid, that if you saw it, you would immediately kill yourself just to be there. So, in order to get here, all you have to do is be a decent person.
the third degree of glory, the Celestial Kingdom, is where God resides. here is sent the ones who made the proper covenants and stuck to their covenants, here is also where the innocent are sent.
there is a "hell" of sorts, outer darkness, where Satan and Cain reside, which can be entered only by committing the "unforgivable sin", or knowing the truth (not just believing it) and then rejecting it, or "open rebellion" against God. So, the worst you can really do is basically earth if you are a complete scumbag, minus the death/destruction.
I know this doesn't really line up with other Christian beliefs, but still, it's there.
I've heard this before and this bugs the living crap out of me. This basically means that my youth pastor is the person responsible for me going to hell because he told me the gospel. If I didn't know and no one ever bothered to convert me, I would've gone to heaven because I'm doing pretty well as is. In a odd sort of way, a person that goes out massacring babies left and right would guarantee a 100% success rate for heaven entry for those beings and thus would be a saint in my eyes, stuff like this is why these exceptions are completely bull*****.
I'll tell you some of my experiences with God... I belive there's a God, I repeat, but I highly doubt there's something such as an all-loving father... If any, gnostics were right and our God is indeed a poor god-complex crybaby aeon who can't stand his toys doing else and lives only to troll them (Ialdabaoth).
Except the Gnostics also believed in an all-loving, infinitely good God.
Ok so God know how much I've want to travel to other places and marry a foreign woman. I have litterally prayed for it since 12 because adults told me "pray and He will give to you". Well, I met a Korean exchange student when I was 15, we REALLY liked each other but she was very shy and maleable, so since I live in a place flooded with racism towards asians, her classmates invented stories about me that ultimately led her away, and it really hurted me since they did whatever so I couldn't fix my image. Worse, it was a nun school, a catholic school, I asked the nuns for help and they did nothing since I was even young for having a gf and it seemed they participated in that little racist "lie the asian" game as well. Well so God lets me know a foreign woman, and then, he doesn't helps his son (me, I think) go thru all those lies regardless of the prayers.
Years later, I get introduced to another foreign lady, and when I thought maybe God listened to me already, it turns out she was just using me to know where to have fun, then dumped me.
Look, being heartbroken sucks, and being lonely sucks. I understand that.
What I don't understand is the proclamation that God cannot possibly be good because you didn't end up marrying a girl who was 12 at the time, or a girl whom you claim was using you, especially when both of whom apparently were not interested in you as a significant other, let alone as a marriage partner.
When I asked a priest about it, he told me "God is not a genie in a lamp"...
Well, the claim that Christianity cannot be correct because you suffered disappointment is a very odd one when you consider the history of Christianity.
So, for once I'm supposed to belive God cares ENOUGH about me to give me what I ask him if I keep on praying, but at the same time, if God just DOESN'T feels like it he then ignores people. Because if God gives me only what I need let me tell you he knows no s*** about me, since my mother has been the one to make sacrifices enough for it, and those spititual or material stuff I need help with... Well God has never done anything besides the basics.
What are the "basics," exactly?
Well you could say the guy pretty much died in my place because he is no longer useful for God and I still have to give enough elbow grease if I hope to be an useful puppet and go to experience eterinty in a palce where I'll lose al my freedom and individuality?
Why do you keep repeating that?
Quote from Valanarch »
And guess what, God has failed that test. You cannot be good if you kill innocent people. That is simply fact.
He cares for human life dearly. Why if he does not care for human life has he commanded us to not take it?
There are any number of alternative explanations for that commandment. He could, for instance, be preserving him for his own amusement. If we're playing an MMO together, and I tell you not to kill any more mobs, it's probably not because I value the lives of the mobs; more likely I simply want to farm them myself. This is especially true if I can be observed energetically killing the mobs even as I tell you not to, as God is described energetically killing large numbers of people in the Old Testament.
Who exactly is these innocent people of who you speak? Are we talking about the Old Testament people God brings to judgement? Those where nations of serial killers and child murderers. Not innocent by any means.
To pull a you: that's what Hitler said about the Jews.
Any nation is composed of a broad spectrum of humanity. Men, women, children, elders. Rulers and servants, merchants and philosophers, cops and criminals. Even in the worst places on earth, most of them are innocent - certainly, if we claim to value human life at all, most if not all of them do not deserve to die. This is why genocide is wrong. You simply cannot say, "This nation is evil." Ever. Even if every blood libel spouted by the anti-Semites in the runup to the Holocaust were true, even if rabbis actually did practice child sacrifice, that still would not come close to justifying the attempted extermination of the entire race, most of whom were not rabbis. A fifteen-year-old girl of Gomorrah deserves to be consumed in a rain of heavenly flame precisely as little as a fifteen-year-old girl of Frankfurt deserves to be shipped to a concentration camp. ("Holocaust", from the Greek hólos 'whole' + kaustós 'burnt'.)
Furthermore, there are several instances when God specifically kills or commands the killing of infants. So unless those were some awfully precocious little psychopaths, we may safely conclude that some divine victims, at least, were innocent.
And let's not get even get started on how the entire edifice of Christianity is predicated on the killing of an innocent man.
So please, dispense with this intellectually lazy and morally diseased thinking that leads you to defend a genocide because your priest told you the perpetrator was the good guy and the victims were the bad guys. Use. Your. Brain.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
On the killing of the innocent: there is a caveat in Christianity that those who die before having the chance to come to Christ (i.e. all the children and others killed) are immediately accepted into the arms of God so long as they lived a good life according to their beliefs. So, if a Voodoo Priest who dedicated his life to helping others (not that uncommon an occurrence) and had never before been taught Christianity were to die, then he would fall under the innocent category (which includes children and babies.).
And what of the people who know of Christianity but choose not to accept it?
Also, a big part of my personal belief is in different degrees of glory. (note, this is some big mormon stuff.)
the first degree of glory, the Terrestial Kingdom, is a bit better than earth: here are sent the murderers, the rapists, and your general bad people.
the second degree of glory, the Telestial Kingdom, is where those who, while they lived a decent life, didn't make the necessary covenants and such. This kingdom has been described as so glorious and splendid, that if you saw it, you would immediately kill yourself just to be there. So, in order to get here, all you have to do is be a decent person.
the third degree of glory, the Celestial Kingdom, is where God resides. here is sent the ones who made the proper covenants and stuck to their covenants, here is also where the innocent are sent.
If the entire point of creation is to judge souls, then how can God be good? Not creating the world would have allowed souls to be with God in this third degree forever. Creating the world just means that some of the souls will damned, which means that creation was an evil act.
there is a "hell" of sorts, outer darkness, where Satan and Cain reside, which can be entered only by committing the "unforgivable sin", or knowing the truth (not just believing it) and then rejecting it, or "open rebellion" against God. So, the worst you can really do is basically earth if you are a complete scumbag, minus the death/destruction.
It's not an analogy at all. You actually think death by an effing volcano is analogous to someone doing your math homework for you?
This is more a reply to everyone else who saw my analogy and everything as flawed.
With the analogy I wanted to establish the premise that, just because someone doesn't do something that is immediately beneficial to you doesn't mean that they don't care for you or that they are not good.
With that established, I intended to go into the crap I wrote regarding physical and spiritual existence. If we accept the premise that our physical existence is but an iota compared to the eternity that is supposed to be our spiritual existence, and that the purpose of our physical life is to find and accept God, then the pain and suffering we experience now are all but irrelevant. The random nature of life itself may exist so that we find the incentive to give ourselves to humility and accept God as sovereign. Rather difficult to claim that you are in command of your life when you see a volcano blow up somewhere nearby, after all.
Just because we don't benefit from God's love right now on physical Earth, doesn't mean that we won't benefit from it in Heaven and vice versa.
This is also why I brought up the deal about Christians and non-Christians. Non-Christians cannot accept the above because they don't believe in it. A Christian ostensibly believes in it. The way I see it, the beef Valanarch and others have is because they're non-Christians. I can accept that, since I'm an non-Christian myself.
But, given my understanding of Christianity, I explain it as the above.
At least... This is how I wanted to spread it out. Because I was sleepy when I wrote the first post and I wanted to sleep before I got onto the rest. But people focused on the whole "your analogy sucks!" (rightfully so) and ignored the "just answer the question".
Now... have at it.
As for Valanarch's questions about why God chose to do all of this in the first place- I have no idea. Adam and Eve I guess? I dunno. Ask a priest or a pastor.
You cannot imagine why anyone would find it difficult to walk a path of faith? Really? Have you been doing it long?
I'm not a Christian.
And, yes, I actually do find it confusing. If you truly believe that God is your savior and that you are promised Heaven and eternity after death, then why are you worried about what happens here and now?
Temptation is temptation because you consider it better than whatever else you have now. But if you truly believe in God, what can possibly tempt you?
And that's why I think most people are Christians in name only.
----
Valanarch- In spite of people saying that the OT God (and ergo the Jewish God) is the same as the NT God (and ergo the Christian God), I really can't see it based on what I've read of the OT and NT.
So, my understanding is that the way Jews conceive of God is very different from the way Christians conceive of God. That's about all I can say without looking like an idiot so I'll leave it at that.
It's not an analogy at all. You actually think death by an effing volcano is analogous to someone doing your math homework for you?
This is more a reply to everyone else who saw my analogy and everything as flawed.
With the analogy I wanted to establish the premise that, just because someone doesn't do something that is immediately beneficial to you doesn't mean that they don't care for you or that they are not good.
Many people die without finding God. So how does it help you at all if you die and are then damned to eternal suffering in Hell?
As for Valanarch's questions about why God chose to do all of this in the first place- I have no idea. Adam and Eve I guess? I dunno. Ask a priest or a pastor.
As I said, since I am Jewish I asked a rabbi. This is the one time that I have gotten a rabbi to admit that they didn't know something.
You cannot imagine why anyone would find it difficult to walk a path of faith? Really? Have you been doing it long?
I'm not a Christian.
And, yes, I actually do find it confusing. If you truly believe that God is your savior and that you are promised Heaven and eternity after death, then why are you worried about what happens here and now?
Temptation is temptation because you consider it better than whatever else you have now. But if you truly believe in God, what can possibly tempt you?
And that's why I think most people are Christians in name only.[/quote]
Agreed. There are so many Christians who don't care for the sick and the poor and are instead selfish and care mostly for themselves. If they are going to Heaven, why does it matter?
Valanarch- In spite of people saying that the OT God (and ergo the Jewish God) is the same as the NT God (and ergo the Christian God), I really can't see it based on what I've read of the OT and NT.
So, my understanding is that the way Jews conceive of God is very different from the way Christians conceive of God. That's about all I can say without looking like an idiot so I'll leave it at that.
Many people die without finding God. So how does it help you at all if you die and are then damned to eternal suffering in Hell?
Paul has an answer to that in the NT.
He essentially states that, as long as people follow the goodness in their heart (he reasons that all people know God by heart if they truly listen), they're good.
Afaik, it directly contradicts the Gospels and the core tenets of Christian belief. I'm sure a pastor would have an answer to my confusions about it. Probably I misunderstood what Paul wrote.
If your soul starts in Heaven with God believing in God, then why does God cause physical existence to happen? If everything starts in Heaven and goes to either Heaven or Hell and physical existence is merely an iota, than why would God cause physical existence instead of keeping the souls in Heaven? All that it does is damn people to Hell unecessarily instead of letting them enjoy eternal paradise forever. Also, I cannot accept a God who kills the innocent. Accepting just because you don't have Control is no different from submitting to any other tyrant who comes along. Submitting to the powerful just because they have power is not something that should be done.
It would probably do you good to actually read further before you ask things, cause I state that I have no idea right in the next passage.
Heck, you could have just deleted this after seeing it, because my answer will remain the same.
Regarding killing- That's... sort of the point I'm making with the whole belief of non-Christian vs. Christians. The way I see it, death is meaningless to a Christian. Death is not final, and is merely the step that leads you to the next path of your life. To a non-Christian, death is final.
Agreed. There are so many Christians who don't care for the sick and the poor and are instead selfish and care mostly for themselves. If they are going to Heaven, why does it matter?
Well, they do directly contradict what Jesus preaches in the Gospels. There's that.
But that's really what I'm not concerned with in that particular passage. I refer more to the fact that people who claim to be Christians show doubts in the promises of God, and that in of itself to me suggests that they're not really Christians. I mean, if they don't doubt God's promises, then why would they be tempted by what exists here on the physical world?
Hence, Christian in name only.
I'm sure Highroller would have interesting things to say to this.
If your soul starts in Heaven with God believing in God, then why does God cause physical existence to happen? If everything starts in Heaven and goes to either Heaven or Hell and physical existence is merely an iota, than why would God cause physical existence instead of keeping the souls in Heaven? All that it does is damn people to Hell unecessarily instead of letting them enjoy eternal paradise forever. Also, I cannot accept a God who kills the innocent. Accepting just because you don't have Control is no different from submitting to any other tyrant who comes along. Submitting to the powerful just because they have power is not something that should be done.
It would probably do you good to actually read further before you ask things, cause I state that I have no idea right in the next passage.
Heck, you could have just deleted this after seeing it, because my answer will remain the same.
Agreed. There are so many Christians who don't care for the sick and the poor and are instead selfish and care mostly for themselves. If they are going to Heaven, why does it matter?
Well, they do directly contradict what Jesus preaches in the Gospels. There's that.
But that's really what I'm not concerned with in that particular passage. I refer more to the fact that people who claim to be Christians show doubts in the promises of God, and that in of itself to me suggests that they're not really Christians. I mean, if they don't doubt God's promises, then why would they be tempted by what exists here on the physical world?
Hence, Christian in name only.
I was agreeing with you. I was saying "Why does it matter if you gain wealth and power if you are going to be damned to hell for it". If they honestly believed in all of this, they wouldn't be selfish and cruel.
If a tsunami hits Japan and kills a bunch of Buddhists who have chosen not nto believe in Jesus. They have done nothing wrong but they still die and go to Hell because they haven't accepted Jesus.
Second, provide an example in which killing innocent people is a good action.
The first 2 are willing choices. And no one who is a good person and actually believes that the fetus is alive has an abortion.
But there's more to it than that. You're trying to argue that God is wrong because he created death itself. I want you to justify this statement.
No, that was not my argument. My argument was that Christian God is uncaring because God created the world to have natural disasters that kill innocent people and often send their souls to Hell.
If a tsunami hits Japan and kills a bunch of Buddhists who have chosen not nto believe in Jesus. They have done nothing wrong but they still die and go to Hell because they haven't accepted Jesus.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I disagree that God sends people to hell.
The first 2 are willing choices.
So? They're still examples of innocent people being killed, aren't they?
And no one who is a good person and actually believes that the fetus is alive has an abortion.
What do you mean "actually believes the fetus is alive"? Of course the fetus is alive. Indeed, for the majority of abortions, that's the whole point.
No, that was not my argument.
How is that not your argument? You're saying God is wrong for killing innocent people. Death kills 100% of all innocent people. How is your objection not to death itself, or if it is a specific type of death, why is that type of death a problem and other types of death not?
If a tsunami hits Japan and kills a bunch of Buddhists who have chosen not nto believe in Jesus. They have done nothing wrong but they still die and go to Hell because they haven't accepted Jesus.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I disagree that God sends people to hell.
Then explain who does.
The first 2 are willing choices.
So? They're still examples of innocent people being killed, aren't they?
I'll rephrase the question to clarify what I meant. When is the murder of the innocent without their consent a good thing?
And no one who is a good person and actually believes that the fetus is alive has an abortion.
What do you mean "actually believes the fetus is alive"? Of course the fetus is alive. Indeed, for the majority of abortions, that's the whole point.
Um, no. People who are getting abortions don't believe that they are murdering babies. And they also don't count fetuses as people.
No, that was not my argument.
How is that not your argument? You're saying God is wrong for killing innocent people. Death kills 100% of all innocent people. How is your objection not to death itself, or if it is a specific type of death, why is that type of death a problem and other types of death not?
Actually, I was just trying to stick with the example that I had already chosen. Yes, I object to death. And before you point out all of the benefits of death that the world needs, God is omniscient and omnipotent. He could have found a way around that.
I'll rephrase the question to clarify what I meant. When is the murder of the innocent without their consent a good thing?
You mean when is the killing of an innocent without their consent a good thing, right? If it's murder, it's not a good thing, and if it is a good thing, it's not murder.
And you yourself admit that there are benefits of death later on in this post.
Um, no. People who are getting abortions don't believe that they are murdering babies. And they also don't count fetuses as people.
They might not count fetuses as people, but they certainly count them as being alive. That's the point. They get abortions to make them not-alive.
And of course fetuses are people. I don't count abortions as murder, but I certainly count them as the killing of human life.
Actually, I was just trying to stick with the example that I had already chosen. Yes, I object to death.
So that is your argument: you're arguing against death itself.
And before you point out all of the benefits of death that the world needs, God is omniscient and omnipotent. He could have found a way around that.
Why is he required to? Your preemptive defense against the benefits of death is an acknowledgment that there are benefits of death, that is to acknowledge there is good in death.
So if there is good in death, why are you arguing God to be evil for making death?
This thread is talking about Christian God. Who else would judge and send souls to Hell?
I'll rephrase the question to clarify what I meant. When is the murder of the innocent without their consent a good thing?
You mean when is the killing of an innocent without their consent a good thing, right? If it's murder, it's not a good thing, and if it is a good thing, it's not murder.
Ok fine. Now answer your rephrased question. When is the killing of an innocent human being without their consent ever a good thing?
And you yourself admit that there are benefits of death later on in this post.
Yes, the world benefits from death. That does not make the action of killing a good thing.
Um, no. People who are getting abortions don't believe that they are murdering babies. And they also don't count fetuses as people.
They might not count fetuses as people, but they certainly count them as being alive. That's the point. They get abortions to make them not-alive.
And of course fetuses are people. I don't count abortions as murder, but I certainly count them as the killing of human life.
Then I have to say that this is a difference of opinion and that you should talk to someone who has actually had an abortion and ask them if they feel that they were killing a person.
Actually, I was just trying to stick with the example that I had already chosen. Yes, I object to death.
So that is your argument: you're arguing against death itself.
Yes. There is no reason for an omniscient and omnipotent God who actually cares to create death. There are so many less wasteful options.
And before you point out all of the benefits of death that the world needs, God is omniscient and omnipotent. He could have found a way around that.
Why is he required to? Your preemptive defense against the benefits of death is an acknowledgment that there are benefits of death, that is to acknowledge there is good in death.
So if there is good in death, why are you arguing God to be evil for making death?[/quote]
I never said that God is evil. I said that he is not good and he is uncaaring. God could have created the universe in a way that would have had the benefits of death without there actually being death. But he didn't, which means that he does not care for human life and kills for no reason.
My argument was that Christian God is uncaring because God created the world to have natural disasters that kill innocent people and often send their souls to Hell.
Only within the context of a non-Christian, as I have been trying to say all this time.
And if you are a non-Christian, why exactly are you trying to figure out ways to make Christianity fit into your world-view? You reject something on the basis of its own failure of logic and internal reasoning, not by trying to force your own internal logic into another system with its own internal logic.
My argument was that Christian God is uncaring because God created the world to have natural disasters that kill innocent people and often send their souls to Hell.
Only within the context of a non-Christian, as I have been trying to say all this time.
How is this different if you look at it as a Christian? Christian God is omnipotent, omniscient, and created everything. Christian God created the world in a way that kills the innocent and sends them to Hell 65% of the time. How is that good from any viewpoint?
And if you are a non-Christian, why exactly are you trying to figure out ways to make Christianity fit into your world-view? You reject something on the basis of its own failure of logic and internal reasoning, not by trying to force your own internal logic into another system with its own internal logic.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
I honestly don't know. I am probably just bored so I am doing this.
How is this different if you look at it as a Christian? Christian God is omnipotent, omniscient, and created everything. Christian God created the world in a way that kills the innocent and sends them to Hell 65% of the time. How is that good from any viewpoint?
Rewarding sinners makes sense to you?
And, as I wrote earlier, I don't know why physical death would mean anything beyond the beginning of spiritual life and judgment for most conventional Christians.
How is this different if you look at it as a Christian? Christian God is omnipotent, omniscient, and created everything. Christian God created the world in a way that kills the innocent and sends them to Hell 65% of the time. How is that good from any viewpoint?
Rewarding sinners makes sense to you?
And, as I wrote earlier, I don't know why physical death would mean anything beyond the beginning of spiritual life and judgment for most conventional Christians.
Yes, but there are good people who are not Christians who, according to Christianity, would still be sent to hell. Eternal damnation of the good nonbelievers is not a good act.
This thread is talking about Christian God. Who else would judge and send souls to Hell?
Again, no one.
When is the killing of an innocent human being without their consent ever a good thing?
Demonstrate that it's a bad thing.
Yes, the world benefits from death. That does not make the action of killing a good thing.
That doesn't make any sense. Are beneficial things not good things?
Then I have to say that this is a difference of opinion and that you should talk to someone who has actually had an abortion and ask them if they feel that they were killing a person.
It doesn't matter if they felt they weren't killing a human being, because they still were regardless. And no, I'm certainly not going to get up in someone's face about it, I'm sure that was a very stressful time for them, and as I said, I am pro-choice, but I have a large qualm about people claiming that abortion isn't the killing of human life. We should acknowledge it for what it is.
Yes. There is no reason for an omniscient and omnipotent God who actually cares to create death. There are so many less wasteful options.
What are those wasteful options? Further, why does death show that God does not care?
This is what confuses me about your position. You seem to concede that there are necessities that death takes care of, but you object to death anyway, even though it's pretty clear the existence of death has numerous benefits. So what is the problem with death, exactly?
I never said that God is evil. I said that he is not good and he is uncaaring. God could have created the universe in a way that would have had the benefits of death without there actually being death.
What is your problem with death?
But he didn't, which means that he does not care for human life and kills for no reason.
This thread is talking about Christian God. Who else would judge and send souls to Hell?
Again, no one.
Then what makes your soul go to Hell in Christianity? If I understand correctly, it directly says that God judges your souls based on your actions in life. So, you are wrong.
When is the killing of an innocent human being without their consent ever a good thing?
Demonstrate that it's a bad thing.
Why do I have to demonstrate that murder is a bad thing?
Yes, the world benefits from death. That does not make the action of killing a good thing.
That doesn't make any sense. Are beneficial things not good things?
Death is necessary. That doesn't make it good. That also doesn't make killing good. Are you seriously trying to argue in favor of the morality of murder?
Then I have to say that this is a difference of opinion and that you should talk to someone who has actually had an abortion and ask them if they feel that they were killing a person.
It doesn't matter if they felt they weren't killing a human being, because they still were regardless. And no, I'm certainly not going to get up in someone's face about it, I'm sure that was a very stressful time for them, and as I said, I am pro-choice, but I have a large qualm about people claiming that abortion isn't the killing of human life. We should acknowledge it for what it is.
It doesn't count as a person until it can function outside of the womb.
Yes. There is no reason for an omniscient and omnipotent God who actually cares to create death. There are so many less wasteful options.
What are those wasteful options?
Have soil be fertile enough to support life without decomposition being necessary and creating an infinite amount of easily accessible uninhabited worlds to compensate for exponential population growth are the main 2 things.
Further, why does death show that God does not care?
The vast majority of people do not want to die. God could have created the universe in a way that would have made death unnecessary and not included death. But he didn't. Instead he makes us continue with an exercise of futility that we never get to see the end of and that we suffer and toil through but are almost never able to achieve our ultimate goals. That is not how I would define "caring".
This is what confuses me about your position. You seem to concede that there are necessities that death takes care of, but you object to death anyway, even though it's pretty clear the existence of death has numerous benefits. So what is the problem with death, exactly?
It has benefits for the world as a whole. It does not have benefits for individuals or human society. It is an inherently wasteful process that kills off key portions of humanity and wastes much of the talent and creativity of our species. It causes us pain and anguish when those close to us die. God could have prevented this by making the world differently. But he chose not to.
I never said that God is evil. I said that he is not good and he is uncaaring. God could have created the universe in a way that would have had the benefits of death without there actually being death.
What is your problem with death?
See above.
But he didn't, which means that he does not care for human life and kills for no reason.
Demonstrate how one flows from the other.
Does not care for human life-He takes it from all, often at inopportune times, and even from those who have not fully experienced life
Kills for no reason-I just demonstrated why death is unnecessary for the physical world. And if it is a matter of bringing souls back to God so that they can be judged, why create the world at all?
Then what makes your soul go to Hell in Christianity?
Nothing.
Why do I have to demonstrate that murder is a bad thing?
Murder is the word for immoral killing. Demonstrate that God is behaving immorally.
Death is necessary. That doesn't make it good. That also doesn't make killing good. Are you seriously trying to argue in favor of the morality of murder?
See above.
It doesn't count as a person until it can function outside of the womb.
Why not?
Have soil be fertile enough to support life without decomposition being necessary and creating an infinite amount of easily accessible uninhabited worlds to compensate for exponential population growth are the main 2 things.
The vast majority of people do not want to die. God could have created the universe in a way that would have made death unnecessary and not included death. But he didn't.
Yes, you're correct, he didn't. But you have to demonstrate that God is uncaring about humanity. You have to demonstrate that one leads to the other.
Instead he makes us continue with an exercise of futility that we never get to see the end of and that we suffer and toil through but are almost never able to achieve our ultimate goals.
... What?
It has benefits for the world as a whole. It does not have benefits for individuals or human society.
First of all, if it benefits the world as a whole, how does it not have benefits for individuals or human society, seeing as how we are part of the world?
Second, I don't see how you can say death does not have benefits for individuals. You would prefer someone be prevented from dying forever?
It is an inherently wasteful process that kills off key portions of humanity and wastes much of the talent and creativity of our species. It causes us pain and anguish when those close to us die. God could have prevented this by making the world differently. But he chose not to.
I've heard this before and this bugs the living crap out of me. This basically means that my youth pastor is the person responsible for me going to hell because he told me the gospel. If I didn't know and no one ever bothered to convert me, I would've gone to heaven because I'm doing pretty well as is. In a odd sort of way, a person that goes out massacring babies left and right would guarantee a 100% success rate for heaven entry for those beings and thus would be a saint in my eyes, stuff like this is why these exceptions are completely bull*****.
Look, being heartbroken sucks, and being lonely sucks. I understand that.
What I don't understand is the proclamation that God cannot possibly be good because you didn't end up marrying a girl who was 12 at the time, or a girl whom you claim was using you, especially when both of whom apparently were not interested in you as a significant other, let alone as a marriage partner.
Well, the claim that Christianity cannot be correct because you suffered disappointment is a very odd one when you consider the history of Christianity.
What are the "basics," exactly?
Why do you keep repeating that?
I'm going to challenge that statement.
To pull a you: that's what Hitler said about the Jews.
Any nation is composed of a broad spectrum of humanity. Men, women, children, elders. Rulers and servants, merchants and philosophers, cops and criminals. Even in the worst places on earth, most of them are innocent - certainly, if we claim to value human life at all, most if not all of them do not deserve to die. This is why genocide is wrong. You simply cannot say, "This nation is evil." Ever. Even if every blood libel spouted by the anti-Semites in the runup to the Holocaust were true, even if rabbis actually did practice child sacrifice, that still would not come close to justifying the attempted extermination of the entire race, most of whom were not rabbis. A fifteen-year-old girl of Gomorrah deserves to be consumed in a rain of heavenly flame precisely as little as a fifteen-year-old girl of Frankfurt deserves to be shipped to a concentration camp. ("Holocaust", from the Greek hólos 'whole' + kaustós 'burnt'.)
Furthermore, there are several instances when God specifically kills or commands the killing of infants. So unless those were some awfully precocious little psychopaths, we may safely conclude that some divine victims, at least, were innocent.
And let's not get even get started on how the entire edifice of Christianity is predicated on the killing of an innocent man.
So please, dispense with this intellectually lazy and morally diseased thinking that leads you to defend a genocide because your priest told you the perpetrator was the good guy and the victims were the bad guys. Use. Your. Brain.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And what of the people who know of Christianity but choose not to accept it?
If the entire point of creation is to judge souls, then how can God be good? Not creating the world would have allowed souls to be with God in this third degree forever. Creating the world just means that some of the souls will damned, which means that creation was an evil act.
What is more unfrogiveable than murder/rape?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Explain how you can be good if you kill innocent people on a regular basis and damn them to eternal suffering?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
This is more a reply to everyone else who saw my analogy and everything as flawed.
With the analogy I wanted to establish the premise that, just because someone doesn't do something that is immediately beneficial to you doesn't mean that they don't care for you or that they are not good.
With that established, I intended to go into the crap I wrote regarding physical and spiritual existence. If we accept the premise that our physical existence is but an iota compared to the eternity that is supposed to be our spiritual existence, and that the purpose of our physical life is to find and accept God, then the pain and suffering we experience now are all but irrelevant. The random nature of life itself may exist so that we find the incentive to give ourselves to humility and accept God as sovereign. Rather difficult to claim that you are in command of your life when you see a volcano blow up somewhere nearby, after all.
Just because we don't benefit from God's love right now on physical Earth, doesn't mean that we won't benefit from it in Heaven and vice versa.
This is also why I brought up the deal about Christians and non-Christians. Non-Christians cannot accept the above because they don't believe in it. A Christian ostensibly believes in it. The way I see it, the beef Valanarch and others have is because they're non-Christians. I can accept that, since I'm an non-Christian myself.
But, given my understanding of Christianity, I explain it as the above.
At least... This is how I wanted to spread it out. Because I was sleepy when I wrote the first post and I wanted to sleep before I got onto the rest. But people focused on the whole "your analogy sucks!" (rightfully so) and ignored the "just answer the question".
Now... have at it.
As for Valanarch's questions about why God chose to do all of this in the first place- I have no idea. Adam and Eve I guess? I dunno. Ask a priest or a pastor.
I'm not a Christian.
And, yes, I actually do find it confusing. If you truly believe that God is your savior and that you are promised Heaven and eternity after death, then why are you worried about what happens here and now?
Temptation is temptation because you consider it better than whatever else you have now. But if you truly believe in God, what can possibly tempt you?
And that's why I think most people are Christians in name only.
----
Valanarch- In spite of people saying that the OT God (and ergo the Jewish God) is the same as the NT God (and ergo the Christian God), I really can't see it based on what I've read of the OT and NT.
So, my understanding is that the way Jews conceive of God is very different from the way Christians conceive of God. That's about all I can say without looking like an idiot so I'll leave it at that.
Many people die without finding God. So how does it help you at all if you die and are then damned to eternal suffering in Hell?
As I said, since I am Jewish I asked a rabbi. This is the one time that I have gotten a rabbi to admit that they didn't know something.
I'm not a Christian.
And, yes, I actually do find it confusing. If you truly believe that God is your savior and that you are promised Heaven and eternity after death, then why are you worried about what happens here and now?
Temptation is temptation because you consider it better than whatever else you have now. But if you truly believe in God, what can possibly tempt you?
And that's why I think most people are Christians in name only.[/quote]
Agreed. There are so many Christians who don't care for the sick and the poor and are instead selfish and care mostly for themselves. If they are going to Heaven, why does it matter?
Yes, it is.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Paul has an answer to that in the NT.
He essentially states that, as long as people follow the goodness in their heart (he reasons that all people know God by heart if they truly listen), they're good.
Afaik, it directly contradicts the Gospels and the core tenets of Christian belief. I'm sure a pastor would have an answer to my confusions about it. Probably I misunderstood what Paul wrote.
It would probably do you good to actually read further before you ask things, cause I state that I have no idea right in the next passage.
Heck, you could have just deleted this after seeing it, because my answer will remain the same.
Regarding killing- That's... sort of the point I'm making with the whole belief of non-Christian vs. Christians. The way I see it, death is meaningless to a Christian. Death is not final, and is merely the step that leads you to the next path of your life. To a non-Christian, death is final.
Well, they do directly contradict what Jesus preaches in the Gospels. There's that.
But that's really what I'm not concerned with in that particular passage. I refer more to the fact that people who claim to be Christians show doubts in the promises of God, and that in of itself to me suggests that they're not really Christians. I mean, if they don't doubt God's promises, then why would they be tempted by what exists here on the physical world?
Hence, Christian in name only.
I'm sure Highroller would have interesting things to say to this.
Oh, and please fix that quote.
Ok, sorry about that. I will edit it.
I was agreeing with you. I was saying "Why does it matter if you gain wealth and power if you are going to be damned to hell for it". If they honestly believed in all of this, they wouldn't be selfish and cruel.
I will.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Your statement was, "You cannot be good if you kill innocent people." That is the statement I am challenging. I am asking you to demonstrate this.
First, God does both. Second, provide an example in which killing innocent people is a good action.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Some immediately come to mind: There's this. There's also this. There's also an ongoing debate in this country about this.
But there's more to it than that. You're trying to argue that God is wrong because he created death itself. I want you to justify this statement.
If a tsunami hits Japan and kills a bunch of Buddhists who have chosen not nto believe in Jesus. They have done nothing wrong but they still die and go to Hell because they haven't accepted Jesus.
The first 2 are willing choices. And no one who is a good person and actually believes that the fetus is alive has an abortion.
No, that was not my argument. My argument was that Christian God is uncaring because God created the world to have natural disasters that kill innocent people and often send their souls to Hell.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
So? They're still examples of innocent people being killed, aren't they?
What do you mean "actually believes the fetus is alive"? Of course the fetus is alive. Indeed, for the majority of abortions, that's the whole point.
How is that not your argument? You're saying God is wrong for killing innocent people. Death kills 100% of all innocent people. How is your objection not to death itself, or if it is a specific type of death, why is that type of death a problem and other types of death not?
Then explain who does.
I'll rephrase the question to clarify what I meant. When is the murder of the innocent without their consent a good thing?
Um, no. People who are getting abortions don't believe that they are murdering babies. And they also don't count fetuses as people.
Actually, I was just trying to stick with the example that I had already chosen. Yes, I object to death. And before you point out all of the benefits of death that the world needs, God is omniscient and omnipotent. He could have found a way around that.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
You mean when is the killing of an innocent without their consent a good thing, right? If it's murder, it's not a good thing, and if it is a good thing, it's not murder.
And you yourself admit that there are benefits of death later on in this post.
They might not count fetuses as people, but they certainly count them as being alive. That's the point. They get abortions to make them not-alive.
And of course fetuses are people. I don't count abortions as murder, but I certainly count them as the killing of human life.
So that is your argument: you're arguing against death itself.
Why is he required to? Your preemptive defense against the benefits of death is an acknowledgment that there are benefits of death, that is to acknowledge there is good in death.
So if there is good in death, why are you arguing God to be evil for making death?
This thread is talking about Christian God. Who else would judge and send souls to Hell?
Ok fine. Now answer your rephrased question. When is the killing of an innocent human being without their consent ever a good thing?
Yes, the world benefits from death. That does not make the action of killing a good thing.
Then I have to say that this is a difference of opinion and that you should talk to someone who has actually had an abortion and ask them if they feel that they were killing a person.
Yes. There is no reason for an omniscient and omnipotent God who actually cares to create death. There are so many less wasteful options.
Why is he required to? Your preemptive defense against the benefits of death is an acknowledgment that there are benefits of death, that is to acknowledge there is good in death.
So if there is good in death, why are you arguing God to be evil for making death?[/quote]
I never said that God is evil. I said that he is not good and he is uncaaring. God could have created the universe in a way that would have had the benefits of death without there actually being death. But he didn't, which means that he does not care for human life and kills for no reason.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Only within the context of a non-Christian, as I have been trying to say all this time.
And if you are a non-Christian, why exactly are you trying to figure out ways to make Christianity fit into your world-view? You reject something on the basis of its own failure of logic and internal reasoning, not by trying to force your own internal logic into another system with its own internal logic.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
How is this different if you look at it as a Christian? Christian God is omnipotent, omniscient, and created everything. Christian God created the world in a way that kills the innocent and sends them to Hell 65% of the time. How is that good from any viewpoint?
I honestly don't know. I am probably just bored so I am doing this.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Rewarding sinners makes sense to you?
And, as I wrote earlier, I don't know why physical death would mean anything beyond the beginning of spiritual life and judgment for most conventional Christians.
Yes, but there are good people who are not Christians who, according to Christianity, would still be sent to hell. Eternal damnation of the good nonbelievers is not a good act.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Demonstrate that it's a bad thing.
That doesn't make any sense. Are beneficial things not good things?
It doesn't matter if they felt they weren't killing a human being, because they still were regardless. And no, I'm certainly not going to get up in someone's face about it, I'm sure that was a very stressful time for them, and as I said, I am pro-choice, but I have a large qualm about people claiming that abortion isn't the killing of human life. We should acknowledge it for what it is.
What are those wasteful options? Further, why does death show that God does not care?
This is what confuses me about your position. You seem to concede that there are necessities that death takes care of, but you object to death anyway, even though it's pretty clear the existence of death has numerous benefits. So what is the problem with death, exactly?
What is your problem with death?
Demonstrate how one flows from the other.
--------
Really? Because I don't find you acting holier-than-thou interesting.
Mayhap it's an attempt to goad a response.
Seriously though, I would be interested in getting into a conversation with online Christians about what I've written here.
Then what makes your soul go to Hell in Christianity? If I understand correctly, it directly says that God judges your souls based on your actions in life. So, you are wrong.
Why do I have to demonstrate that murder is a bad thing?
Death is necessary. That doesn't make it good. That also doesn't make killing good. Are you seriously trying to argue in favor of the morality of murder?
It doesn't count as a person until it can function outside of the womb.
Have soil be fertile enough to support life without decomposition being necessary and creating an infinite amount of easily accessible uninhabited worlds to compensate for exponential population growth are the main 2 things.
The vast majority of people do not want to die. God could have created the universe in a way that would have made death unnecessary and not included death. But he didn't. Instead he makes us continue with an exercise of futility that we never get to see the end of and that we suffer and toil through but are almost never able to achieve our ultimate goals. That is not how I would define "caring".
It has benefits for the world as a whole. It does not have benefits for individuals or human society. It is an inherently wasteful process that kills off key portions of humanity and wastes much of the talent and creativity of our species. It causes us pain and anguish when those close to us die. God could have prevented this by making the world differently. But he chose not to.
See above.
Does not care for human life-He takes it from all, often at inopportune times, and even from those who have not fully experienced life
Kills for no reason-I just demonstrated why death is unnecessary for the physical world. And if it is a matter of bringing souls back to God so that they can be judged, why create the world at all?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
No, I don't think you're pretending to be sanctimonious and condescending, I think you're actually being sanctimonious and condescending.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Nothing.
Murder is the word for immoral killing. Demonstrate that God is behaving immorally.
See above.
Why not?
Yes, you're correct, he didn't. But you have to demonstrate that God is uncaring about humanity. You have to demonstrate that one leads to the other.
... What?
First of all, if it benefits the world as a whole, how does it not have benefits for individuals or human society, seeing as how we are part of the world?
Second, I don't see how you can say death does not have benefits for individuals. You would prefer someone be prevented from dying forever?
Ok, and?