answers_for_sammayael missionary From: Post_Your_Entries_Here Which is from: the_atheists_challenge I have spent several hours trying to answer your questions, Sammayael, or whoever you really are. The only thing I request is that you keep a fresh, objective perspective while reading these. I hope it helps... ___________You_Said______________ "How is it that i am to give all credit to god for my successes and take all the blame myself for my failures." ____________I_Say________________ Well, first of all, I don't necessarily believe that's true. It benefits no one to blame anyone for mistakes, even yourself. Failure is a given in life and the opportunity it presents is not to degrade or point out a person's weakness, but instead to teach you a valuable lesson about life. Failing leads to either repeating the mistakes or eventually learning, and thus successes and failures are both a credit to God. If God is made the Lord over your life and you respond through prayer and obedience to His direction then you can move the hand of God to Maximize your successes and avoid many failures. That's one of the major advantages of following Christ. Don't forget, the Enemy is always trying to destroy your life. Just as God has a plan and purpose for everyone's life, Satan has a strategy to take you out and both forces are actively pursuing you fighting over your soul. People walk through life every day getting pummeled by they-don't-know-what and knocked down repeatedly. Now many Christians don't even realize that they have victory over the devil, and over the world, through Jesus' Authority that He gave to us. Through their deception they actually work for the devil's plan rather than God's. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." Hosea 4:6 There are spiritual laws that are in effect that facilitate Success and if you apply them to your life you will be successful. They are fool-proof. You will always reap what you sew, for instance, so if you make choices that have undesirable consequences, then of course you will reap the seeds you planted. And conversely, if you make right choices, you will reap a harvest of goodness! I personally am thankful for this. It's good to know that if I make right choices then my life will consistently get better. All the glory goes to God for that! ___________You_Said______________ If god and his heaven are so infallible and perfect, why did the Morning Star and a third of the Angels rebel? ____________I_Say________________ For the same reason Adam ate the fruit and rebelled from his paradise. God gave Satan free will. Angels have free will. The angels that followed Satan were deceived. They followed the wrong leader and thusly share his fate. They should have known better. The Same exact thing happened on Earth with humans. God placed us in a perfect paradise. An environment so perfectly accommodating to all of our needs that nothing was to be desired. Satan deceived Adam and Eve into directly disobeying God. This choice to rebel doesn't make any sense, but we have to live with it, just like the 3rd of the angels do. Satan and Adam were not satisfied once they chose to believe in a LIE. (That they could be God.) The Bible makes it clear: You do the will of your father, whether He is the Father of Life or whether you choose the father of lies, your chosen God will be with you eternally. ___________You_Said______________ "If all things are god's will wasn't The Fall a foregone conclusion designed and planned by god himself? and if this is the case than the Devil himself is, in essence, the handiwork of God Himself which means, by logical extrapolation that God is the progenitor of 'evil' " ____________I_Say________________ Not everything that happens is God's will... Because he gave us all freedom to make our own destinies. However, God does know everything in advance, due to His omniscience. So God's design was initiated while he fully knew of Satan's rebellion, the fall of man and all the rest of the outcome, yet He did it anyway. Why? Well, the Bible teaches that what the devil plans for evil God can turn around and bring about good from the situation (Genesis 50:20, Romans 8:28, Jeremiah 29:11). Most importantly, He can bring Glory to himself in the midst of all the sin and rebellion. Ephesians 2:7 Paul writes - "And so God can always point to (humans) as examples of the incredible wealth of his favor and kindness toward us, as shown in all he has done for us through Christ Jesus." God could have easily scrapped the whole thing after the fall. In fact, He DID decide at that point to destroy mankind. But out of his Love He offered us a second chance to avoid his destructive Wrath. He's got a plan, let Him work it. God's plan for us is perfect and outlines the actions and achievements available to us according to our highest possible potential. But due to our free will, we have the ability to act outside of God's plan. However, none of us seem to function at our highest potential or anywhere near it. We all fall short. God's will differs from our will. God does not WILL for us to sin. We choose to. In fact, according to the Bible, God's Will is that not one person goes to hell. 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord isn't really being slow about his promise to return, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to perish, so he is giving more time for everyone to repent. " ___________You_Said______________ "If we are formed in His image, our flaws are His flaws. Free will is our gift and our curse, but it proceeds from Him so while we are responsible for our sins, He is not blameless, just as the man who leaves a loaded gun is not blameless for the child who kills himself or a playmate upon its discovery. it's called negligence. " ____________I_Say________________ We are formed in the Image of God But we are not God. You may look like your dad, but you are not your dad. If you choose to shoot your friend, it is not your dad's fault. It was your choice, even if you, or society, chooses to blame your dad, or the gun manufacturer, or the bullet companies, or the store who sold them to your dad. He may be irresponsible, but your dad is not guilty of murder. Your dad is accountable for his negligence only if he never instructed his child on the dangers of guns. Once he does, the child is accountable, and once learning of the fearsome power of the gun he will be constantly tempted to rebel against his dad's teaching. Should he choose to relinquish his control to the temptation, he will certainly reap the consequences of his actions... Then, he will be tempted to avoid any accountability by blame_shifting. Likewise, humans have been sternly warned about the deadly consequences of sin. Once we as humans first became aware of sin, we've been chasing it ever since. The beauty of free will is that we are not confined to make the same mistakes others have made. The tragedy of free will is that we make the mistakes and fail to learn from them. ___________You_Said______________ "Also, why should something so finite as a human lifetime determine something like how one spends 'eternity' " ____________I_Say________________ A lifetime is enough time. Each of us have plenty of opportunities to decide where we want to spend eternity. God is a just God, and He is not trying to trick you. I would never put my trust into the hands of anything other than a perfect judge to decide my eternal destination. There's no possibility for mistakes in God's court. Each of our lives are structured in such a way that we, based on "the hand that we're dealt", are expected to produce a certain amount of right choices. "To those whom have been given much, much will be expected." Ultimately, it all comes down to One choice in all the time that you've been given. Assuming an average lifespan of 75 years, that gives the average person 1,609,200,000 chances (1 for every waking second) to make one single decision to choose life. Those odds ( 1 : 1.6 Billion) are astoundingly favorable I'd say. ___________You_Said______________ "and as there are still people on this earth who have not heard "His Word" are those people and their ancestors just arbitrarily and automatically damned because of that? " ____________I_Say________________ All I can tell you is what the Bible says. Do not attempt to be the judge of someone else, lest you yourself be judged in the same way. Each of us has the "law written on our hearts and on our foreheads," or we know the difference between right and wrong because God has given us our spirits and our consciences. Each of us must appear before God and give an account of every idle word, thought, deed and motive. Each of us will be judged according to our own standard. ___________You_Said______________ "Sort of flies in the face of the whole 'Merciful and Loving God' sales pitch." ____________I_Say________________ God's Mercy and Love will only be fully experienced on that day when you meet him face to face. Until then... you still have the opportunity to realize the partial Mercy and Love of God, which is still enough to blow any human's mind. ___________You_Said______________ "I challenge YOU to address even one of my questions directly without resorting to the same circular arguments that your proselytizing predecessors around here have." ____________I_Say________________ The problem is, you are trying to understand spiritual things with your earthly organic brain. There is not a compatible conversion formula aside from the Word of God. Use your spiritual devices of prayer and faith. If you ask God, and really want and expect Him to answer you, He will make Himself as Real and Alive to you as much as you can possibly allow Him to. Give Him permission to prove His Love and Mercy to you. He has been patiently awaiting the invitation ever since you abandoned him. He is faithful though, and will never abandon you. ___________You_Said______________ "I know you will resort to it, and thus fail, but here is my challenge, laid out before you. " ____________I_Say________________ Whether or not any others have previously given you these same or similar answers I don't know. These are the answers I offer based on my own experience and knowledge. I do not profess to be an expert or scholar, not even a wise man. I am merely a servant, acting in obedience to my Lord's Commands. 041113 ... 28 usc 1983 So this life is long enough to justly determine how one spends eternity? Really? I guess you sort of have to believe that, but doesn't it seem just a little unfair to you? What on Earth could a frail, intellectually weak, always-under-attack-from-Satan human possibly do to deserve eternal damnation? If I steal--and let's even say I steal a lot--should I really burn forever? Forever? Don't you think I'd have sufficiently learned my lesson after a day on fire? How about a year? How about a million year? A billion? Forever just keeps on going. I think a minute in the lake of fire would be too long a sentence for theft. Regardless of the rationalization, being burned alive for any length of time is cruel. There's no way I could support a God who would do such a thing and call it not just fair, but merciful. Should we really expect less mercy and fairness from our God than from our fallible legal system? 041113 ... 28 usc 1983 Because ultimately what we're dealing with here is a punishment so disproportionate to the crime that it shocks the conscience. The law would never allow us to sentence a theif to eternity in fire. Why would you? 041113 ... 28 usc 1983 "Each of us will be judged according to our own standard." That is patent nonsense as it would allow evil people who commit the most atrocious crimes--we're talking Bin Laden and abortion clinic bombers here--to enter the pearly gates because they genuinely believed that there was a moral justification for their evil. 041113 ... missionary Conversely, is it fair that if you accept God's Free Gift of Salvation, that you're reward is Paradise forever? Wouldn't 1 day of Bliss be a good deal? I mean, it's free! What about 1 year of Heaven? A million years? An Octillion? Isn't that a bit too nice? A free gift that eliminates all your fears and provides all your needs here on earth and then proceeds to bless you infinitely in the afterlife? I am not in any position to make those distinctions. Let God decide what's fair or not. 041113 ... missionary Do you think that good and evil are objective opinions to be decided by each of us? I think that God pretty clearly lays it all out in plain hebrew, and we all instinctively know good from evil. Abortion clinic bombers, etc. may rationalize their actions externally, but they undoubtedly suffer an internal hellish guilt that renders them sleepless and insane. They know they are wrong. 041113 ... 28 usc 1983 "Your dad is accountable for his negligence only if he never instructed his child on the dangers of guns. Once he does, the child is accountable..." You're completely wrong. The father will be charged with criminal negligence depending on how he stored the gun and how old the child was. He doesn't protect himself by simply telling his son that guns are dangerous. In Fla. v. Mevec, a father was convicted of felony negligence when his 12-year-old son killed another boy with a .357 magnum that had been stored under a couch. Notably, the father had repeatedly told his son of the danger of guns. Children don't know enough to appreciate the danger of firearms, even if you tell them. Humans don't know enough to appreciate the danger of "sin," even if God tells them. 041113 ... 28 usc 1983 "Conversely, is it fair that if you accept God's Free Gift of Salvation, that you're reward is Paradise forever? Wouldn't 1 day of Bliss be a good deal? I mean, it's free! What about 1 year of Heaven? A million years?" So you're refuting my point about a dubious feature of your religion by invoking another dubious feature of your religion? Yes, eternal bliss is also unfair. 041113 ... missionary You're absolutely right. And God, knowing that we fail time after time after time of being told, "NO!" was merciful and loving enough to pay our penalty for sin. We had a debt we couldn't pay He paid a debt He didn't owe. Allowing for our forgiveness, so that God, being so pleased with Jesus's Sacrifice, forgets all about our sin and puts it away from him (as far as the east is from the west). 041113 ... 28 usc 1983 "Abortion clinic bombers, etc. may rationalize their actions externally, but they undoubtedly suffer an internal hellish guilt that renders them sleepless and insane. They know they are wrong." No they don't. You can always imagine that there is some inner guilt that never externally manifests, but you're only doing that to rescue your dubious point that deep down, we all have the same morality. All external evidence strongly suggests otherwise. Muslim extremists and more moderate Muslims in Saudi Arabia, for example, routinely argue about whether jihad is moral. In this country, we disagree whether stem cell research and abortion are immoral. Or what about euthenasia? Some Christians think that a person has something like a duty to live as long as possible, regardless of agonizing pain, because suicide is in all cases a sin. I strongly disagree, and think that it's despicable that fundamentalists would dare to deny a terminally ill person the right to die with dignity. So whose morality is God's? If I were to assist a terminally ill person in his suicide, I would not only not feel guilty, I'd feel good. But would I be secretly deep down guilty? Maybe the Christians secretly feel guilty. Either way, people have different senses of morality, so please retract your statement that every man is judged by his own standards. I mean, think about it--it doesn't make sense anyway, because you're first saying that everyone is judged by his own standards, then saying that everyone has the same standards. The second assertion renders the first meaningless. 041113 ... 28 usc 1983 "You're absolutely right. And God, knowing that we fail time after time after time of being told, "NO!" was merciful and loving enough to pay our penalty for sin." You're skirting the issue. You said that God wasn't morally responsible for humans' potential eternal damnation because he told us. My point was that reasoning would never hold up in court. If the father is negligent, so is God. 041113 ... Zao Lithos "As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts" (Is 55: 9). You cannot convict God base on a court of human laws. God's laws are superior. Human laws like that one are often forced due to social pressure looking for somewhere to point its finger, not out of justice or fairness. 041113 ... missionary Suffering draws us away from our selfish world and brings us closer to God. Now, I did request that you keep an open mind please. There is no reason that we can't discuss this in a mature and civil manner. I appreciate your willingness to understand my perspective as I seek to understand yours. This way we may both learn something. Please don't get angry or defensive. You are not under attack. I am not personally insulting you, am I? ... Did you give that person life? Then what makes you think you can take it away. "There is a time to live, a time to die." We all have a preset time to die. To circumnavigate the natural order set in place by God is an attempt to overthrow God's Authority (just like Satan) and declare emphatically that we know better than God. We don't. You see that you just use court laws to prove a point. Now allow me to do the same. The courts of both God and man declare murder is illegal. So why is it that you think its ok to justify that murder if the person is suffering? We all suffer to some degree, do we not? By the way, my comparison to the guns and the dads was an allegorical statement. 041113 ... 28 usc 1983 So what if God said that killing Jewish babies was right? Could we still not question him? I think we could, because a God whose morality is so clearly wrong, which, once again, shocks the conscience, is not a God worth worshipping. So is God's morality unquestionable, no matter how wrong it seems? If God wants me to kill Jewish babies, but I know in my heart that doind so would be wrong, should I just assume that my moral compass needs an adjustment? You may have trapped yourself here. 041113 ... 28 usc 1983 "The courts of both God and man declare murder is illegal. So why is it that you think its ok to justify that murder if the person is suffering? We all suffer to some degree, do we not?" First, it's not legally murder. Second, this is an area where the law lags behind morality, or at least my sense of it. And the reason for this might Here's an allegory for you adapted from David Hume: If a boulder is about to drop on me, may I step out of the way without "taking awa God's power to give life and death" in precisely the same way that one does so when one commits suicide? I suppose reasonable people can disagree on the morality of euthenasia. No, sorry, I actually don't believe that. I believe that if you think euthenasia is wrong, you only feel that way because you're selfish, you want your religious beliefs to apply universally, and you're going to ignore the obvious injustice of forcing a person to suffer until his last breath. The father and gun analogy was "allegorical," but it was a poor analogy because that is a situation where both morally and legally the father would be negligent, and therefore the analogy undermined your case against God's negligence rather than supporting it. 041113 ... 28 usc 1983 "Did you give that person life? Then what makes you think you can take it away. ...We all have a preset time to die." But who is to say when that time is Once again, how do I know it wasn't my time to die when that boulder was going to crush me? Because I had the option to step out of the way? Well, that wouldn't support an argument against suicide, because who's to say your time to die isn't when you put a gun to your head and pull the trigger? So contravening God's plan for life and death cannot be the true reason against euthenasia. The true Christian reason has to be that humans have a duty to live as long as they can (not necessarily as well as they can--quality of life seems a non-issue). In light of the reality of human suffering, this imperative--live for as long as you can--seems clearly immoral in many instances. 041113 ... 28 usc 1983 "Now, I did request that you keep an open mind please. There is no reason that we can't discuss this in a mature and civil manner. I appreciate your willingness to understand my perspective as I seek to understand yours. This way we may both learn something. Please don't get angry or defensive. You are not under attack. I am not personally insulting you, am I?" I disagree with those who claim that one should simply allow another to hold his opinions unchallenged because to state a contradictory opinion is something of an affront to that person's freedom or peace of mind. Only a person indifferent to or ignorant of the pervasive ways that religion has and continues to manifest itself in our everyday lives would claim that certain types of religion and secular morality are both equally valid. People--the electorate, the law-makers, the law enforcers, and the law interpreters make decisions based on religious beliefs that affect us all. Take the gay marriage initiatives, for instance. I think that to deny homosexuals the myriad legal benefits associated with legal marriage is a willful violation of that group's civil rights. The fundamentalists who want to ammend the Constitution to ban gay marriage are motivated by their beliefs. To me, their beliefs motivate and justify injustice. Our beliefs are antithetical. To hold one position is to deny the truth of the other. You might say that I have a right to my beliefs, and I would say the same of you, but we don't and indeed can't think that the poistion of the other is equally valid. You must think I'm misguided if you truly believe what you say, and vice versa. 041113 ... smurfus rex it's like watching the last two pieces on a chess board...and they're both kings... by the way, the question about what happens to people who've never in their life heard The Word was not really answered... 041114 ... 28 usc 1983 "You're absolutely right. And God, knowing that we fail time after time after time of being told, 'NO!' was merciful and loving enough to pay our penalty for sin." Well, he paid for original sin, but the fact that Jesus came to Earth and died doesn't change the imperative to live without sin or the eternal punishment for failing to do so. Giving us some different rules about how to avoid being burned forever is not merciful, and is not any different than telling a child "no." If our actions on this Earth determine our eternity, humans will never understand the gravity of their actions, so no matter how many different ways God supposedly tells us to do or not do something, eternal punishment can never be just. And once again, if God considers it moral to burn people forever, I have to disagree. My first instinct would be that a deity who practiced eternal punishment could not be the one true God. He'd be more like the Devil. I suppose you could say that one has to accept God's morality as is, on faith, even when it strikes you as not just immoral, but more evil than anything a human has ever done (given that humans can only inflict finite suffering). But I would argue that when faith forces you to advocate obviously immorality, it ceases to be virtuous. 041114 ... 28 usc 1983 "You are not under attack. I am not personally insulting you, am I?" You sort of are, and I'm sort of insulting you. Which of course doesn't preclude our proceeding cordially, which I think we are, for rhetorical strategy as much as intuitive civility. But why should I feel insulted? Some might argue that even by advocating your beliefs publicly, you're not forcing anyone to adopt them. And they'd be right. And people should be able to believe what they want. However, your beliefs affect public policy that affects us all. I think for instance that the anti-gay marriage initiatives that passed during the 2004 election are regressive and immoral, and they passed thanks to people who subscribe to your its-moral-if-god-says-so philosophy. So the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists are not just personal beliefs that enrich the lives of adherents, because they affect non-Christians and Christians alike. You may not directly want to force everyone to be a fundamentalist Christian, but you would have your country live by fundamentalist Christian values. This doesn't mean you don't have a right to your beliefs; it does mean, however, that I have a stake in your beliefs, as does everyone else who has to live with the consequences of legislation motivated by Christianity. You have a stake in my beliefs as well, because if you believe everything you purport to, then you believe that atheists go to hell. If I'm trying to change people's minds about God, I'm in effect trying to drag people to hell with me. As a Christian, you have to be deeply concerned about that. 041114 ... 28 usc 1983 "You see that you just use court laws to prove a point. Now allow me to do the same. The courts of both God and man declare murder is illegal. So why is it that you think its ok to justify that murder if the person is suffering? We all suffer to some degree, do we not?" Yes, we all suffer, but the universality of suffering is little comfort to those whose short time left on earth is guaranteed to be filled with unspeakable suffering. but I suppose those who are suffering from painful terminal diseases should be comforted by thoughts of God, and how they'll be with him soon, right? Fine, but why can't they end their suffering and be with God a little sooner? Because they can't take away God's power of giving life and death? It can't be that, because you wouldn't say that a person who is about to be hit by a bus can't step out of the way to save his life. Taking a positive step toward saving one's life only usurps God's power to the same extent that taking a positive step toward ending it dies. So maybe we're just not allowed to take away God's power of death? It can't be that, because being a fundamentalist Christian I'm almost certian that you think war and the death penalty and killing in self defense are in at least some situations moral. So really, the rule is simply that no one can ever commit suicide. Ever. But where's the virtue in wringing every drop of pain out of a dying person? Is God a sadist? What more could a terminally ill elderly cancer patient have to prove to God before he's allowed to die peacefully? 041114 ... 28 usc 1983 "You cannot convict God base on a court of human laws. God's laws are superior. Human laws like that one are often forced due to social pressure looking for somewhere to point its finger, not out of justice or fairness." No, that's a law based on the idea that people sometimes owe a duty to others, and that to breach that duty is sometimes a crime (or tort) if the person owed a duty is harmed. Parents always owe their children a duty to protect them. This is worthwhile social policy, not mere finger-pointing, and any God worth worshipping should hold up to the standard it sets forth. Are laws "often forced due to social pressure looking for somewhere to point its finger, not out of justice or fairness." No, not often. Sometimes social policy rather than equity can motivate law, but usually that social policy is somehow useful. An example of law not rooted in valid social policy or equity would be the bans on gay marriage passed by initiaqtive in this election. Keep in mind, though, that those laws were passed by common folk who know far less than judges and legislators about equity and useful social policy. 041114 ... 28 usc 1983 "Conversely, is it fair that if you accept God's Free Gift of Salvation, that you're reward is Paradise forever? Wouldn't 1 day of Bliss be a good deal? I mean, it's free! What about 1 year of Heaven? A million years? An Octillion? Isn't that a bit too nice? A free gift that eliminates all your fears and provides all your needs here on earth and then proceeds to bless you infinitely in the afterlife?" Once again, you make that argument in jest, but it can't work as a refutation of my point that eternal damnation is an unjust punishment because I believe in earnest what you state ironically. While eternal bliss is less viscerally despicable than eternal damnation, it is just as unfair if only given to people who believe in Jesus. 041114 ... 28 usc 1983 "it's like watching the last two pieces on a chess board...and they're both kings..." I'm not a chess player, but I think the last two pieces are always kings. wink 041114 ... 28 usc 1983 "Now, I did request that you keep an open mind please." I am. If I weren't keeping an open mind, every time you asserted that God's laws were superior to man's, I'd say, "No, because God doesn't exist," and every time you quoted scripture I'd say, "That was written thousands of years ago by ignorant middle eastern guys who subjugated women and never bathed." I have been assuming for the sake of argument that God does exist, and that only your interpretation is flawed. 041114 ... smurfus rex well...the last two pieces *could* belong to the same player... :D 041114 ... globalfruitbat This is very interesting tor ead. i am going to have to come back to this more than once to really take everything in! I would like to thank both of you for proviing somehting that is quite rare: A cordial, intelligent, yer contreversial debate in a polite way. It's like watching a highly stylized duel. 041114 ... 28 usc 1983 "Don't forget, the Enemy is always trying to destroy your life." If you mean what I think you do when you say "destroy," then this makes no sense. Why would Satan want to destroy sinners' lives? If he allowed them to live comfortably, they'd never suspect that they were on the wrong path and never repent. They'd die in their sins and Satan would have their eternal souls forever. Why would Satan settle for inflicting a little worldy damage when he could just wait a little longer and allow the sinner to be thrown in the lake of fire with him? You might argue about what you meant by "destroy." Maybe you just meant that Satan makes sinners feel good, but in some unseen, unfelt way they are decaying. That would be in my opinion a cheap cop-out, but it is similar to your reasoning that everyone has the same morality (regardless of explicit statements to the contrary) and that those who don't adhere to that morality actually feel guilty deep down--so deep down that they don't really feel it. But elsewhere you said that Satan is constantly "pummeling" sinners who don't know why they are being attacked. This implies that the sinner must actually feel that something in his life is wrong and needs fixing. Once again, it makes no sense for Satan do sound any such warning for the future damned. "There are spiritual laws that are in effect that facilitate Success and if you apply them to your life you will be successful. They are fool-proof." This can be disproven empirically, since it implies success correlates with Christianity. This is obviously untrue. There are many cases of successful non-Christians and unsuccessful Christians. Of course, you may argue that success is not only monetary. Perhaps to you success is communion with Jesus, and if this is so then your statement that Christianity leads to "success" makes sense, but is so obvious that it needn't be stated. But maybe success is something else. Maybe it's a satisfying home life, or self-fulfillment. Of course, with respect to this standard, there are still cases of successful non-Christians and unsuccessful Christians. I suppose you could always argue that an apparently successful non-Christian isn't really successful, or that an unsuccessful Christian isn't really Christian, but that reasoning would be a hard sell in every single case, which is the standard you hold yourself to when you say that God's spiritual rules are "foolproof." 041114 ... 28 usc 1983 Your stance on what is moral and by what standards a person will be judged by God is inconsistent. First you said that God judges everyone by personal standards of morality, then you said that everyone instinctively has the same morals. These two views are inconsistent, and your attempt to reconcile them is unconvincing. First you say, "Each of us will be judged according to our own standard." This implies that personal morality--which may vary greatly from person to person--determines God's judgment. Indeed, this means that whatever a person truly believes is moral and immoral determines whether he goes to heaven or hell. But this seems unfair. Under this rule, people would go to heaven when they really should go to hell. Those who believe suicide bombing is honorable and moral go to heaven. Sociopaths also go to heaven since they are unconcerned about the moral implications of committing what many would consider immoral acts. This rule would also send some people to hell who don't deserve any punishment whatsoever. For instance, those who believe that failure to pay library fines is the depths of moral depravity might go to hell (provided they die unrepentant with overdue books). Perhaps even children would go to hell for eating too many cookies when they knew they weren't supposed to. You correctly noticed the injustice of this, and despite the fact that it plainly contradicts what you said earlier, you said, "Do you think that good and evil are objective opinions to be decided by each of us? I think that God pretty clearly lays it all out in plain hebrew, and we all instinctively know good from evil." If for the sake of argument, your statements are the product of consistent thought and not misstatement, when you say 1) we are judged by our own standards, and 2)that all of our standards are the same, you are in effect saying that 3)we are all judged by the same standards. This must be true, because judgment by objective moral standards is only fair if everyone has the same standards. You say, "Abortion clinic bombers, etc. may rationalize their actions externally, but they undoubtedly suffer an internal hellish guilt that renders them sleepless and insane. They know they are wrong." This is not demonstrably true. Some people may rationalize immoral behavior, but in order for the assertion that everyone has the same morals to hold up, no one can ever not feel guilty having committed an "objedctively" immoral act. This is clearly not the case. We may again turn to our helpful friend the sociopath, who is insane (because he is a sociopath) but certainly not suffering from guilt that robs him of sleep (again, because he is a sociopath). But given that fundamentalists don't give much credence to scientists (and concepts that they may have created like sociopathy), let's use another example. Let's go back to euthenasia. Some people (myself included) feel that mercy killing is not immoral, and that denying a person the right to die is actually immoral. I have never killed anyone, but I know that I would not feel guilty for doing so if that person were suffering and wanted to end his life. Dr. Jack Kevorkian assisted many suffering, terminally ill people to commit suicide. His fight to legitimize doctor-assisted suicide eventually got him sent to prison. Do you honestly believe that he is insane from the "guilt" of having alleviated the suffering of dying cancer patients? Of course not. Do those who sent him to prison feel guilty? No. They both feel that they were morally right, and this is just one of the many examples of genuinely different opinions regarding morality. Your assertion that we all share the same morality is false, and therefore to judge people by an objective standard of morality is unjust. So really, either approach to judgment--objective or subjective--is unfair. The "whatever you personally think is moral" standard is unfair, as it allows sinners into heqaven and casts non-sinners into hell. The objective standard is unfair as well, because human beings have demonstrably different moral standards, and to require a Hindu to keep the Sabbath holy and worship Jesus to get to heaven is monstrously unjust. But God must have some standards by which to judge, right? Maybe God only judges Christians, or maybe God doesn't judge anybody. Maybe God doesn't even exist. 041115 ... 28 usc 1983 You say, "Failure is a given in life and the opportunity it presents is not to degrade or point out a person's weakness, but instead to teach you a valuable lesson about life. Failing leads to either repeating the mistakes or eventually learning, and thus successes and failures are both a credit to God." Some failures cannot be learned from. If I fail to maintain my car, my brakes go, and I crash into a tree and die, there is no chance to learn. Many failures destroy people. There is not always a second chance. A theory of God doesn't require that all failures be instructive, but since you asserted it as part of your God concept, I thought I'd show briefly that it was untenable. 041115 ... 28 usc 1983 "God gave Satan free will. Angels have free will. The angels that followed Satan were deceived. They followed the wrong leader and thusly share his fate. They should have known better." Ok, so the angels are dumb. Or maybe Satan is just really crafty and slick (two words fundamentalists often use instead of "intelligent" to describe persuasive non-Christians). But if he isn't acting randomly or isn't simply stupid, free will doesn't explain Satan's rebellion. I have free will (I think). If I wanted to, I could go drink drain cleaner right now. But I'm not going to. Why? Because it would hurt. And beyond that, there's no potential benefit whatsoever. Generally people refrain from doing non-beneficial, harmful things unless they are indifferent to the results of their action or are unable to evaluate consequences. I know the standard answer is that pride motivated Satan to rebel. But wouldn't his knowledge of God's omnipotence keep that pride in check? Assuming Satan is fully aware of God's omnipotence, he must have been acting irrationally. Or he's just an idealist. Maybe Satan had a legitimate complaint against the way God ran the heavens, and although he knew he couldn't prevail against an omnipotent God, he rebelled on principle. So maybe Satan is kind of like a civil rights leader--probably more like Malcolm X than Martin Luther King, Jr. Whatever Satan's motivation, there are obvious issues of fairness. Let's assume that angels, the Devil, and humans have free will, so they are therefore free to rebel and thereby damn themselves forever. Being omnipotent, God had the power to chose how to make angels, Satan, and people. If free will allows rebellion, some will inevitably rebel. Being omniscient, God therefore created man knowing that some of his creations would fail his test and burn for eternity. One must ask whether an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being would give his children free will knowing that some of them would end up damned forever. One must question whether or not free will is worth the price. 041115 ... 28 usc 1983 "In fact, according to the Bible, God's Will is that not one person goes to hell." So why make hell? Because of free will, right? Do you honestly believe that free will is worth the eternal punishment of the majority of people who have lived? Could you honestly sit on a cloud blissfully strumming a harp knowing that untold billions were gnashing their teeth in neverending abject misery? I bet you could. And so could other Christians, who would say, "Oh, they had their chance. They heard The Word and The Good News and they blew it! They each had billions of chances to see the light, since every second affords a person like a thousand chances to change his mind and get saved, and if you multiply that number by the number of seconds a person is alive, that's a really big number even when you subtract sleeptime. And a really big number means a really big chance that you shouldn't have blown." I would expect that despicable rationalization from many Christians. I would not expect it from a being who was all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. Once again, because he gave people free will and knew some would rebel, God had to know that he'd be sending some people to hell. If God chose to send some to hell because he wanted everyone to have free will, then God has perverse values. Of course, we supposedly can't judge God. He knows more than us, and we should trust his judgment, even if his values seem to be patently wrong (see my argument above regarding this reasoning). But okay, fine, we can't question him. But what if we could? If there were a passage in the Bible that said, "All of my laws are to be followed absolutely, except when they appear completely unfair or possibly even evil. In such cases, please assume that someone has distorted my word." What then? Just imagine that you're allowed to question God. Is eternal damnation still fair? 041115 ... 28 usc 1983 Many Christians say that non-believers lack moral discipline, that they choose non-belief because it's easier than living a moral Christian life. This is untrue. I'm not a non-Christian because I don't want to give up killing babies. I'm not Christian because I think that Christianity is immoral both abstractly and practically. 041115 ... 28 usc 1983 Something more on free will. Supposedly, everyone has free will, so everyone can choose Jesus and be saved. (Let's put aside for a moment the fact that there are some who die without ever hearing a pitch for Jesus.) There are still some who, by virtue of the circumstances of their birth, are more likely to choose God. Free will is not random. People act based on information, on reason. People believe or disbelieve for reasons. Let's suppose that there are two doors, one leading to heaven, the other to hell. Imagine that every person who ever has lived or who will ever live is lined up, and each must choose a door. It would be unfair to just let the humans choose randomly (although interestingly, this method would probably yield to a higher salvation percentage than the actual system Christians believe in). There has to be a way to inform people. So let's imagine that there are pamphlets sent out to everyone's home a week before the choice is to be made, telling which door leads to which eternity. But other pamphlets are also sent out that say just the opposite. Some pamphlets never arrive at the homes of the intended recipients. Some are printed in the wrong language. Some people don't have mailboxes. It turns out that people with green eyes, who are a minority, were sent what will turn out to be the right information (though some of them didn't or couldn't have receievd their pamphlets). While in line, some share their opinions on which door leads to heaven. Some who share their opinions don't seem very credible. Some who got the wrong pamphlet are very persuasive. Either way, there is no consensus on which is the right door. Still, the right door leads to heaven, the wrong door leads to hell. Does this seem fair at all? I mean, each person hasthe ability to choose, and information that leads to the correct door is out there somewhere, but it is unjust to expect everyone to make the same choice simply because that choice is available. Ultimately, choice has to be rational. If rational alternatives exist (which they do both in this analogy and in real life), then it is unfair for a choice between a series of equally valid alternatives to lead to ultimate reward or ultimate punishment. Beyond that, in the analogy and in real life, the system arbitrarily favors one group over another. White people born in the United States are more likely to believe in Jesus, so they are therefore more likley to go to heaven. This is not fair. If an omnipotent being set up a system that would determine who goes to hell and who goes to heaven, one would think that he'd at least give everyone an equal chance. Sons of fundamentalists shouldn't have a better chance of going to heaven because their parents ingrained in them certain values, and yet according to fundamentalist belief, that's precisely what they've been given by God. 041115 ... Sammayael my last question, although someone has been filling in rather admirably - and going back to one of my previous questions, is this: If His ultimate plan for his creation is its End, why did he bother? It gives the appearance then, that we are little more than players on a stage or monkeys on a string doing our little dance for Whomever until such time as He sees fit to drop the curtain. It is the universally troubling aspect of almost every religion throughout history: God/The Gods, what have you, created Man in Their Image simply so that Their newly-made creatures could pay them homage. He who will seemingly damn us for our pride, created us in His own. I once aspired to the ministry, I know the Scripture you quote quite well, but it does not assuage me...the more i sought to know and understand the Heart and Mind of God so that i could better spread His word, the less i found i was able to believe. I no longer saw Him, and when i prayed i was convinced that if He was even there, He no longer heard me. At times, since then, i have been as much a devil in my own right. I have long since become the reverse of the Catholic saint, Augustine. 041115 ... 28 usc 1983 God has to be perfect, and to me, a perfect God couldn't be a "jealous God." Jealousy is a human flaw. In fact, if God exists, I don't even think he cares if we believe in him. Why should he care? How could a perfect being be so insecure that he'd need to be constantly acknowledged? Also, my perfect God would have a sense of humor. I know, I know, there's no point in speculating what might have been, since this is the God we're stuck with. But what if it isn't? What if the God that inspires Christians is actually a false God? What if the real omnipotent being is somewhere out there, waiting for humans to figure out that the Christian God is false and reject his teachings? Either way, I don't think that the real God would damn anybody forever for not figuring that out. That would be a God I could support. 041115 ... 28 usc 1983 "Just as God has a plan and purpose for everyone's life, Satan has a strategy to take you out and both forces are actively pursuing you fighting over your soul." They're fighting over souls? Well, God doesn't "win" every soul, so does that mean he isn't all-powerful? If God is omnipotent, it wouldn't be much of a fight, would it? How can he lose to Satan unless he wants to? Free will again, right? But my point is, God knows exactly how he can convince a person to obey him. He must know how to win every soul. In fact, he knew how to win every soul, to defeat the Devil in the fight for each soul, from before the beginning, since he transcends time and space. It's actually not inconsistent to give everyone free will, but nonetheless make it so that everyone makes the right choice. How? God is omnipotent and omniscient. He can make any possible world he likes. He can make a world where everyone has an equal chance, everyone is equally informed, everyone is perfectly informed, and everyone is flawlessly rational. Everyone in such a world, despite having free will (and the attendant choice to do something nonsensical) would always choose morality, God's path, and thus would all be saved. That is the world God could have and should have made. So why didn't he make that world? Does God just enjoy a good show? I must admit, that world I described did sound kind of boring. But should a supreme being be so easily bored? 041115 ... 28 usc 1983 "[I]f you make right choices, you will reap a harvest of goodness! I personally am thankful for this. It's good to know that if I make right choices then my life will consistently get better." So, this seems to say that you will be rewarded by Jesus in this life, not just the next life. That seems unfair (for all the above reasons and more), but it also seems like it would be easy to disprove. Do you honestly believe that a Christian's life always gets increasingly better? You must know about the ups and downs of life that affect everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike. I suppose you could still say that those apparent "ups and downs" were no such thing. They were something else--something that doesn't disprove the assertion that a Christian's life always gets better. And you might get away with such a trick in the abstract, but let's say a Christian father's kid dies of cancer. Has his life improved? Is he closer to God now, maybe? Could that be the improvement? Then his wife dies in a car accident. Then his house burns down. So what are you going to say--that this terrible string of tragedies actually IS the improvement that Christianity promises (by virtue of some cheap technicality), or that this series of events is somehow impossible? Neither argument will be convincing. 041115 ... missionary Well, I understand your points, they are good points and everyone on earth has the same questions. I certainly have had them. But the answers are available to us! God's Ultimate plan has no end. Even our own end is just another new beginning. Do you mind if I ask what ministry you had aspired to? Was it Catholic Priesthood? You mentioned Saint Augustine that's why I say that. But he could be related to philosophy, theology, religion, etc. It doesn't matter since The_Reunification_of_The_Church is in the foreseeable future. I was just curious. It seems you have lost your faith. Or rather, inadvertently allowed your faith to turn into fear. (Afraid you were being lied to, and might miss out on some things in life.) It happens to many people if they take their eyes off Jesus and start focusing on themselves. Or if they starting feeding themselves from other sources in the world than their Daily Bread. (The world offers many, many alternatives.) Even people in the Bible faced times where, if it were me I would have been certain, that God had to have abandoned them... Abraham was promised a son from the wife he loved - and waited 26 years before he had Isaac. God tested his faith, and Abraham passed the test having a son at 100 years old. Changed the world forever! Joseph dreamt that his family would bow down to his rule. He was sold off into slavery by his brothers, spent 13 years in prison. Then in a matter of days he became 2nd in command next to Pharaoh, over all of Egypt. His family did bow before him too. There are many more if you're interested... The story of Joseph brings up an interesting point too, and since it's relevant to God's Ultimate plan I'd like to point it out... After Joseph was ruler of Egypt, his family (the Israelites) came to live in Goshen, Egypt's finest pastures. After hundreds of years of reproducing, the sheer size of their population threatened to overtake Egypt's natives and the Israelites were enslaved for a couple centuries until they were finally set free by God's demonstration of Awesome Power through Moses (the plagues/Red Sea). Anyway, while they were leaving, they were instructed by God to ask the Egyptians for Gold Earrings, Bracelets, etc, and essentially plundered the wealth of Egypt from them before heading out to the wilderness. Years later, (after using some of that gold to form cattle statues and declaring them as the "gods who delivered (them) from Egypt") God asked for the (2.6 million or so) Israelites to donate a little bit of that gold, (gold that He gave them) so that they could build Him a tabernacle (or house) and The Ark of the Covenant So that God could live among His people. My point is… When Joseph was in prison, and when the Israelites were made into slaves, and when they went through all of that just to go camping in the desert, all of these occurrences "proved" that God wasn't paying attention and He didn't care about His children! But when you look at the_big_picture, you see He had a plan from the beginning. Israel wouldn't have had the wealth, skill, education or strength to build God's House or receive God's promises had they not been enslaved by Egypt! They would have died in a famine! Analogously, as most things in the old testament are types_and_shadows of the future so amazingly and beautifully accurate that they deny any rational objection, it is still God's plan to Build a House and live among His people. He's just building_a_temple made up of living_stones, to dwell in forever. This is His Ultimate Plan. Jesus is the head of the Body (The Church) who is also The Bride of Christ, that God will fill with His Spirit in one glorious act of Unity. So many people are told certain promises by God and if they don't happen when we snap our fingers, we choose to "punish" God by turning away. Even though He's given you everything you need to see right from wrong and Truth from Lie. There is no temptation great enough to force our will to act. We choose our actions. Shoots of doubt spring up every day- and they are watered and will grow if you're not careful. If you don't weed them out they will fester and overtake your mind, bearing fruits of destruction, anger, rebellion, pride and especially confusion. God is not the author confusion, but clarity. If I am ever confused I recognize it as a spiritual attack. And immediately seek Understanding from the Source of all Wisdom. Sometimes I am left wondering. Most times, however I end up seeing things clearly. When you became "convinced that if He was even there, He no longer heard" you, what you actually were doing was having FAITH that He would not answer, and thus prayed accordingly. And God did what you expected Him to do... Nothing. 041115 ... missionary God is in control. We are not in a position to label our position as unfair. I did not choose to be born, did you? I did not create the universe, did you? We are GIVEN life. We are given the opportunities to start where we are, use what we have and do what we can. But we are given much more than that too. The Accountability of Free Will. It's a very ,very powerful responsibility of ours and we shouldn't abuse it. We are not some animals that are bound to the kill or be killed laws of nature. We have morality, intellect, words, writing and faith. We rule over all of nature, however we don't rule over our own bodies like we should. We let them rule over (control) us. God is in the unique position to give what He wants or take what He wants. He made a Testament, or covenant, or contract if you like, with all of Humanity and He will NEVER breech the terms of that contract. His Word is His Last Will and Testament, and if He dies then the heirs will receive all of His Estate (Which is an eternal Kingdom) according to the terms of that Legal Document (The Bible). Well guess what, He Did Die! He Chose to Die and willingly sacrifice His own Life for you and I, so that we wouldn't have to be bound to the same fate of His Enemy. This is the most noble, most supreme act of love ever committed. Jesus, after living his entire life faced with the same temptations and problems as we are, He never sinned once. What did He do wrong? Healed some people? Taught some people about loving their neighbors? Called some religious people greedy hypocrites? Was it fair that He, even God's own Son, was brutally executed? But again, the big picture shows His purpose… To enable the terms of the Contractual Will of God naming us a joint heirs and beneficiaries of all that remains when Evil is Crushed under His Heel. Hell was prepared for Satan and his entire kingdom. And all who are Citizens of God's Kingdom await the day when that LIAR is thrown down to get what he truly deserves. ! God, being perfect, is also Holy. God cannot and will not tolerate the Abomination of Sin in His Eternal House! And I don't blame God. I, knowing the destruction caused by sin, don't want to see any evil in heaven! Love is the Way of God. Sin is the way of Satan. God wins. Satan knows this so his temper tantrum is spent bringing down as many people as he can in the short time that he has. No, it wasn't fair that Jesus was beaten, whipped, stripped, maimed, tortured, kicked, punched, dragged, slapped, spat on, screamed at, falsely accused, humiliated, nailed to a cross, skewered, and then had the inner burden of guilt, psychological anguish and emotional turmoil of having committed every sin that ever has been or ever will be committed by humans placed upon him. Only to spend his final seconds feeling the presence of His loving Father leave Him so that he could be punished in Hell for 3 days. What kind of God would put their own Son through that just for the sake of freeing some "monkeys on a string"? What kind of Son would do that for His Father? 041115 ... m Love is the only answer irrational enough to answer those questions. 041115 ... Sammayael the interesting corollary to all of your references though is that God gave all of these people in the Bible some very clear, grandiose sign of Himself, the kind that needs no interpretation, as opposed to today, when, supposedly the onus is on you/me/whomever to realize that we've received a sign. My deepest, unanswered prayers were rarely, if ever, for myself, because i always thought that the answer to that sort of selfish "God, please give me this..." prayer deserved to be "No" whether by implication or some literal version of his voice saying so and that only the most truly needy and deserving ever had any right to pray that way. I refer to Augustine simply as he serves as the model for which i am the Diametric Opposite. For a time he led a life of sin and then recanted and repented - whereas I, conversely, walked in faith until the time and place where it was broken and have been, from time to time, quite the sinner. It was not any perceived suffering of my own that led me to my conclusions, but bearing witness to the unabated suffering of others whose faith was purer than mine and questioning His mercy in the aftermath. 041115 ... Sammayael Have you ever spent time amongst the Sick and the Dying? Not a few hours or a few minutes, but a good steady span of months or years when the only thing that appears even remotely merciful is the End The agonies of Christ on his Cross were but one day, some of those people in the hospitals and hospices endure great agony for longer before they give up the ghost. THis also goes back to my great Quandary too, though. Why did Jesus Himself express doubt and hesitation that night on Gethsemanae? If He experienced a lapse in his Faith, it suggests fallibility and would seemingly undermine the perceived perfection of God's plan, by contrast though, being the Son of God, it would technically require no faith on His part as the outcome was known by Him to be a fait accompli, rendering the Sacrifice moot. 041115 ... Sammayael Grand Theater, even. 041115 ... missionary Jesus, in Gethsemane, feeling the enormous grief and pressure of the sins of the world nearly crushing his spirit, gasped out a plea to God asking if there was another way! Instantly submitting Himself to His Father's Divine Will, no matter how painful it was, shows how strong He really was. This was God coping with the limitations of the human body, rather than doubt expressing itself through hesitation. If anything, I think it testifies Volumes concerning the extreme amount of Faith He needed to get through the next few days. He knew exactly what was about to happen to Him. That would be so terrifying. I agree. Physical pain, drawn out for months is indeed tragic and emotionally and spiritually taxing. However emotional and spiritual turmoil coupled with horrendous, un-medicated physical pain while alone and having the sheer terror of being chased by an angry city-sized mob knowing that around every next corner there are only going to be more mockery, insults, accusations, saliva and striking blows against you from people who only days earlier welcomed you into the city as a Prophet, paints a pretty stark contrast to the medicated surrealistic calm of a quiet hospital bed surrounded by caring professionals and sympathetic loved ones. This does not take into account how He died, and modern science recreating His death admits that a normal human would have not lived much past the Crowning of Thorns. And the Infallibility of God is excused from question when Three_Days_Later He came walking out of His tomb. 041115 ... 28 usc 1983 "Analogously, as most things in the old testament are types_and_shadows of the future so amazingly and beautifully accurate that they deny any rational objection." Except, I suppose, from the many rational objections I've posed above, which you chose to ignore. A story from the Bible does not answer the following questions: Is eternal damnation ever fair? Could an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful being ever damn his children forever? God chose to give us free will, and we all value choice to some extent, but if the price of free will is massive damnation, is free will worth it? Are God's moral standards objective or subjective? (Remember, you vacillated between these two views). Do Hindus go to hell when they shouldn't, or do sociopaths go to heaven when they shouldn't? What can we say of the inherent unfairness of salvation with respect to geography and race? See above for more complete formulations of these questions. Because I asked these questions and so many more above. Also, you say again that we are "not in a position" to question God's morality. I find that to be a morally repugnant position. It's essentially a dereliction of your duty as a human being to make sure that others don't get away with practicing evil because they say that God told them it was right (regardless of any feelings they may have to the contrary). Also, this answer is a cheap cop-out. It is not an answer but a refusal to answer. It is the equivalent of me saying, "Well that Bible verse is invalid because God doesn't exist." I asked whether or not you personally believed God's apparent positions were just, whether or not the apparent injustice did not give you pause. I just want to see you type that you honestly believe that the obvious injustices that I've referenced above are actually just OR I'd like you to admit that God's plan, as you understand it, seems cruel and unfair, and that you're hoping it all wilol make sense when we die. 041116 ... 28 usc 1983 "[A description of Jesus's brutal death] paints a pretty stark contrast to the medicated surrealistic calm of a quiet hospital bed surrounded by caring professionals and sympathetic loved ones." I really dislike your ignorance of or indifference to human suffering. I disagree that a person's suffering is mitigated because they die in a hospital. But fine, let's assume that Jesus died a more brutal, less comfortable, "worse" death that the patient in the hospital. There are still those who have by any standard suffered equally or more. What about those who were exectuted the same way Jesus was? What about Jews in the Holocaust? What about all 6 million of them, Missionary? They were tortured, persecuted, their families torn apart, their way of life completely destroyed. And no one saved them in the end. From the perspective of some fundamentalists, they went to hell when they died because they didn't believe in Jesus. There is no way you can say that Jesus suffered more than each and every Jew in the Holocaust. Or can you? I suppose it depends on how willing you are to disrespect common sense in order to maintain a belief not worth saving. But then again, who cares about how brutal Jesus' death was in comparison to the deaths of others? Christians usually the crucifixion as proof they should feel guilty/greatful for Jesus "sacrifice," but what was Jesus sacrificing? He knew that God existed, because he was the son of God. He knew he was saved. He knew that all he had to get through was the pain of crucifixion and then he'd sit at the right hand of God, eternally blissful forever. Again, contrast this position with that of the Jews in the Holocaust. But there is another reason to not care about Jesus' suffering: Your God intends to punish "sinners" with horrific torture beyond that the most evil dictator could ever inflict--eternal damnation. That is suffering that is endless. No one on Earth, Jesus included, could ever suffer that much. Eternal suffering, Missionary. Eternal. I'd take crucifixion over that any day. So remember, while we're thinking about the significance of Jesus' brutal death, let's not forget what Jesus/God has planned for sinners when they die: A neverending nightmare of unspeakable pain that no human could ever inflict on this Earth. What's worse, Missionary, experiencing the great pain of a slow death when you know you're saved and that your soul is immortal, or languishing in hell for all eternity because you worshipped another God? 041116 ... 28 usc 1983 Because if I can make any sense of your ramblings about Jesus' suffering, I guess what you're saying is that since Jesus suffered greatly (you probably argue that he suffered worse than anyone ever), no human complaint about suffering is valid. The fact that another has suffered greater injustice does not invalidate another, arguably lesser complaint of injustice. But even if your implicit principle were true, some have suffered more than Jesus. I would argue that a person suffers more than Jesus even if he experiences a markedly less painful death, since he dies without certainty that heaven awaits him after death or the knowledge that his death is noble, worthwhile, and necessary. And let's not forget that Jesus/God intend to punish sinners in ways Jesus never experienced. 041116 ... 28 usc 1983 "Well, I understand your points, they are good points and everyone on earth has the same questions." I honestly don't believe that you understand any of my points, since you didn't specifically answer any of my questions. If by invoking the story of the 100-year-old dad, what you're actually saying is that none of God's plan makes sense to even you, and that you're simply hoping it all works out in the end, then fine. You can believe that. It's a cheap answer, I think, and it allows you to ignore the obvious injustice of Christianity, but it at least makes a bit of sense. But my question is: Why dabble in rationality at all when you'll always retreat to the the catch-all of divine mystery when your reasoning is inadequate? I think the reason is that Christians want to exploit the persuasiveness of logic without being subject to its restrictions. Your analogy about weeds of doubt growing if they are allowed to is telling. I believe it indicates a willful ignorance, a desire to supress your reason (and subsequently, your morality) in order to maintain your beliefs. It seems that one must mistrust his own mind to be a Christian. 041116 ... 28 usc 1983 "God is in control. We are not in a position to label our position as unfair. I did not choose to be born, did you?" I don't understand why you bring this up, because God would have a better defense against the injustice of the system he created had I actually chosen to be born, because by choosing birth you might argue that I implicitly agreed to the terms of existence, just or unjust. Because I didn't choose birth, I maintain the moral right to question the injustice of a world I never chose to take part in. I'm not sure what it indicates that you didn't see that this was a flaw in your argument or at the very least a statement which adds nothing to your argument. Generally, I don't think fundamentalists are very good at seeing the flaws in their own arguments. 041116 ... 28 usc 1983 "God is in control. We are not in a position to label our position as unfair. I did not choose to be born, did you? I did not create the universe, did you? We are GIVEN life." I'd choose non-existence over living in the world you believe in. 041116 ... 28 usc 1983 "God is in the unique position to give what He wants or take what He wants." That is a tyrant, not a loving God. Your reverence of power over all common understanding of fairness and morality is astonishing. "Might makes right." That is what God is for you. 041116 ... 28 usc 1983 "This does not take into account how He died, and modern science recreating His death admits that a normal human would have not lived much past the Crowning of Thorns." That might easily indicate that the account of Jesus' death is inaccurate. This is to say nothing of the validity of that particular "modern science recreation" or of the disinguenuousness of relying on objective evidence when it suits you and discounting it when it doesn't (i.e., evolution). I just wanted to point out your ignorance--willful or otherwise--of every possibility except the one to which you've anchored yourself. 041116 ... 28 usc 1983 "No, it wasn't fair that Jesus was beaten, whipped, stripped, maimed, tortured.." You seem to be exculpating God against charges of unfairness because Jesus was dealt with "unfairly" by his executors. This is nonsense, of course, both because of the disproportionate unfairness with respect to the quality and quanitity of unfairness (brutal execution of one vs. eternal damnation of billions), and of the inherent power differential which you acknowledge (and seem to perversely revere). 041116 ... 28 usc 1983 "But again, the big picture shows His purpose… To enable the terms of the Contractual Will of God naming us a joint heirs and beneficiaries of all that remains when Evil is Crushed under His Heel." First, please stop mangling legal terms. We can't be God's heirs because God can't die. Also, if we are beneficiaries of a trust (and I'm assuming Christ or God is trustee), then the dmaned should sue for breach of fiduciary duty. As trustee, God has a duty to look out for us and manage the estate we own in equity. And because he knows so much more than we could ever know, he has a responsibility to see that we don't squander the trust. Again, that is his duty, not ours. It's funny that you invoke contract law, because God's "contract" with people would be void or voidable for several reasons. The first defense against the enforceability of God's contract is lack of capacity. People are, with respect to God, mere infants who cannot fathom the implications of their decisions here on Earth. The second is amply suggested by God's ability (to your great satisfaction/moral indifference) to exercise arbitrary authority over all of his subjects. During contract acceptance there is the ever-looming threat of not just death, but eternal death. This is duress, and an inducement to assent to the terms of a contract made under duress is avoidable. Beyond that, God's unilateral contract is unconscionable, both procedurally and substantively. It is procedurally unconscionable because of the unintelligible language of the Bible (contradictory teachings and all), and because humans lack any bargaining power. It is substantively unconscionable because it leaves humans without any remedy for breach (God being the tyrannical monster that you know and love him as), and because the terms of the contract--Obey these laws or burn forever--are so grossly unfair that they shock the conscience. 041116 ... stork daddy oh my sweet civil action for deprivation of rights...i've appreciated these dialogues for your crystallization of many of the invalidating inconsistencies both within christian doctrines and between the doctrines and the social policies they so often are used wrongly to support. Sadly, however, convincing those so caught in their faith that they discount the probable in favor of the possible can often be a fool's errand. Don't get me wrong, what you're doing is all that can be done and demonstrates what you feel the appropriate method of evaluating a set of propositions (as religions are) is. As someone who attended catholic grammar and high school, however, I can attest to the fact that the points you raise were questions and assertions we never got a fair response to no matter how often we raised them. There was always a way for them to refuse to adopt an initial premise (no matter how silly it made them look) or shift rationales half way through. It seems that this christ or bust advocate is no different. He uses the tools of logic and probability based induction not as an epistimology but rather as a compromise in attempting to persuade you. There is no evidence he himself feels bound to follow the logical implications of any of the premises he adopts, or that he finds them a particularly valid way of viewing reality. On an unrelated note, I have always wondered how associations are made in the devoutly religious between the concrete world and their template of the notion of god. that is, where do they learn to fear god or love god. i find the psychology of religion a far more interesting question than whether or not an all loving god would damn all buddhists to hell. which you would think talking to most peoplehas a pretty obvious answer. as to spirituality, i do not feel it can be dismissed outright anymore than atheism can. however, as you've eloquently demonstrated, the more particular a religion or any set of propositions is, the more we can observe whether they are internally and externally valid. the more a religion claims to describe this world, the more we have reasonably objective standards by which to assess those claims. I know this wasn't quite responsive, but i should point out that barely as well were the postings of the person you're arguing with. me...i'm an irish atheist...i pray to god that i can believe in god. also...to the preacherman...i still want to know...can god create a hot dog so big even god couldn't eat it? also...what are your thoughts on god being omniscient while also allowing a non-deterministic free will? is it because god sits outside of time? and if so what does that mean? just curious as to your response. theologize away. 041116 ... 28 usc 1983 Stork, You’re right that the Missionary probably won’t be converted, but I bet if he were locked in a room with a persuasive atheist for long enough he might at least begin to question some of his beliefs. I don’t think I was trying to convince him, really, although it would be a pleasant surprise. My responses were more like rants. Either way, I don’t want Missionary to not believe in God, really, because God can be pretty innocuous sometimes, and you’re right that vague formulations of capital-H-him can’t be ruled out, but I don’t want anybody to believe in that particular God--the Jesus who is supposedly so grossed out by guys kissing and punishes you the same whether you rape a thousand schoolchildren or covet your neighbor’s speedboat. So anything I can do to help others, maybe younger kids, who might be struggling with the religion their parents handed them who might be encouraged by a little antichrist rhetoric. That said, none of my arguments are really original, and they have certainly been more eloquently stated elsewhere, but I think it helps to spread some boilerplate challenges to Christian dogma. The psychology of fundamentalist Christians is intriguing to me. Actually, it astonishes me how Christians can be so resigned toward what they believe will be the fate of sinners and even virtuous non-Christians while maintaining a belief that their religion is fair and good. The cognitive dissonance, you’d think, would be maddening. Can fear squelch cognitive dissonance? If I believed the stuff that fundamentalists do, I wouldn’t be spreading “the good news.” I would be spreading the bad news. I wouldn’t be cheerful and optimistic, I’d be frantic and deeply depressed. As a missionary, my pitch would be, “Look, man, I know this is fucked up, but God is up there and he is a fucking asshole. His name is Jesus Christ and he is very particular. He knows what he likes, and he knows what he’ll kill you forever for. Basically, you’ve got to do everything he says or you’re going to burn forever. In fire. He’ll never stop killing you, ever. So as far as conduct, we’re talking no murder, no stealing, all the obvious ones, but also you can’t work on Sunday. Unless it turns out to be Saturday. Some people say it’s Saturday. Those people are in the minority, though, and though it’s sad, they might end up in hell on a technicality. There are some other ones that are pretty hard, too, like you’re not allowed to be jealous of anybody. Remember, if you fuck up, you will burn in hell for all eternity. I know it sounds tough, and it is, but from here on out you’re pretty much going to have to lock yourself in a little room and read the Bible, trying hard not to think too much. That’s really the only safe thing to do. Keep in mind, if you doubt the divinity of Christ, you’ll go to hell as well. It’s not enough to follow the rules. You have to believe Jesus is the one true God, or you will go to the same place as Hitler and that guy who they based Dracula on--the one who impaled people anally. Now, for me, the part that I’m still struggling with is the infuriating, heart-breaking unfairness. Jews are going to hell, Hindus, petty thieves, people who heard God’s Word once from some inarticulate asshole with a neat haircut and a King James Version. But ministers’ sons are going to make out pretty well. Admittedly, this system is very elitist, which when you think about it really lends some credence to Bush’s assertion that he was God’s candidate. Embracing this reality is going to be difficult, because God doesn’t just want your physical obedience to his arbitrary laws, he wants your heart and mind as well. The sick bastard. I just hope I have enough time before I die to convince myself. Spread the word. I won’t be around for much longer. I’m going to hole up in my bunker. I’ve got an appointment for chemical castration on Monday, and after that it’s off to the Christian bookstore for some reading material. Then it’s into the bunker. It’ll be just me and my 700 Club tapes for a while. Until I die, that is. Pat Robertson isn’t so bad once you get used to his sanctimonious condescension. Did you know that a woman in Cleveland was just healed of her gout?” 041116 ... 28 usc 1983 "This does not take into account how He died, and modern science recreating His death admits that a normal human would have not lived much past the Crowning of Thorns." So Jesus had a superhuman body? Huh? I thought that Jesus was supposed to be a normal human being, or at least that he was embodied as a normal human being. What's the point of saying that Jesus' body could take more than the average amount of physical damage when one of the key features of Jesus is that he is the deity incarnate? He is God in a frail human body, isn't he? So how does it advance any of your arguments to say that Jesus could take a beating? Maybe it's because you value strength in general, and want to attribute to Christ any and all compliments you can think of. He was also a good carpenter, you know. Maybe it was sheer willpower, and that's certainly something which people count as admirable. But then, when your soul is powered by God, is such an exercise of will really impressive? Or is it even an exercise of will? Either way, Mel Gibson-funded snuff films aside, Christ's death doesn't inspire me like Christians think it should. There is worse suffering on Earth, and there is worse suffering waiting in the afterlife for those who had just as much willpower and just as much strength as Christ, but who only thought they were backed by the will of the one true God, as opposed to Christ who knew where he stood with God. Jesus knew he'd go to heaven/be one with God when he died. Doesn't that reassurance mitigate the supposed tragedy of his death? 041117 ... 28 usc 1983 "Jesus, in Gethsemane, feeling the enormous grief and pressure of the sins of the world nearly crushing his spirit, gasped out a plea to God asking if there was another way! Instantly submitting Himself to His Father's Divine Will, no matter how painful it was, shows how strong He really was. This was God coping with the limitations of the human body, rather than doubt expressing itself through hesitation. If anything, I think it testifies Volumes concerning the extreme amount of Faith He needed to get through the next few days." Jesus didn't need faith because he regularly talked to/was God. Also, if an expression of doubt can be described as originating from the "limitations of the human body," then how can any volitional wrong ever be immoral or indicative of weakness? We're all subject to the limitations of the human body. Therefore, if Jesus isn't responsible for his doubt, nobody is responsible for his doubt. 041117 ... 28 usc 1983 "God's Ultimate plan has no end." So what's in the works for after judgment? Heaven versus Hell softball? 041117 ... missionary Well, I must admit that I am not used to this style of debate. I am tempted to disregard all of your misquoting and twisting attacks because I feel you have violated some sort of Intellectual Mandate. However, I am compelled by my Love for you to carry on in the face of adversity. There is no code of ethics here. You are not required to subject yourself to my request that you behave in a dignified manner with civility or maturity. I realize that you don't seek to understand, but rather, to attack me. However other missionaries have faced considerably more irritating, inhospitable and even dangerous adversaries in history past and succeeded in their efforts. So, by all means, carry on! This is fun! Answers_for_anonymous_blatherskites 041117 ... 28 usc 1983 Misquoting? I quoted you directly. "Twisting attacks"? I twisted nothing. Violated some sort of "intellectual mandate"? Your attempted responses have thus far been non-sequitors, whereas I've responded directly to you. You say it's "some sort" of mandate because 1) you know you're right no matter what, 2) it seems like I'm right (or at least that I've brought up questions you can't adequately answer). Therefore, I must have used some sort of trickery to make your position look so bad. The alternative to this is that I used no trickery, and your position looks bad because it is bad. What is an intellectual mandate, anyway? I'd be more impressed with good reasoning rather than official sounding terms. Dignified manner? Civility? Maturity? You don't deserve to be so condescending. And your focus on procedure rather than substantive is further indicative of the weakness of your position. And I'm no more anonymous than you, "missionary." I've already made my points, but I'm sure if you rattle off more fundamentalist rhetoric it will probably inspire me to respond. I don't particularly look forward to it, and I don't think it will be very "fun." I think you must make that statement in bad faith because it can't be fun to try to rescue your world view. about "seeking to understand you": I don't particularly care about understanding you personally, and I already understand your point of view, because it doesn't depart whatsoever from standard Christian fundamentalism (save for some statements likely made carelessly on your part, for example that we are judged by our own standards rather than an objective one). You set yourself up in a position of authority and knowledge when you call yourself a missionary and fantisize that you can provide answers to questions that remain unanswerable from the fundamentalist perspective, but you haven't proven that you can legitimately claim authority or knowledge. This response of yours is without substance. You haven't responded to anything but what you perceive as my improper tone. Should it really take so long for you to answer the questions I asked? Pick a small one, I don't care. Or a big one. Is hell fair? Here, I'll give it its own question so you don't overlook it again: Is hell fair? If you don't understand the question, look above because I've posed it on this page about a half dozen times in different ways. Remember, this is kind of a two part question. The first part is about the fairness of hell in general (like how is it fair to burn forever if you steal a few times). The second part is about the fairness of hell in the global context (like how is it fair to send Gandhi to hell). 041118 ... 28 usc 1983 And what type of debate are you used to? The type where I politely allow you to quote scripture that doesn't actually answer any questions and then we all pretend that everyone's point of view is equally valid? 041118 ... 28 usc 1983 "However, I am compelled by my Love for you to carry on in the face of adversity." I love you too, Missionary. But I'm not IN love with you. Actually, I have two objections to the concept of universal love. First, I think it's impracticable (and therefore any assertion of universal love is disingenuous). Second, I think it cheapens individual love. I mean, are you saying that you love Hitler as much as your mom? Or would you say that it's a different type of love, but it's still love. But if that's so, why call it love? I think the reason you call it love is to try to disarm people with a display of love and positivity. Personally, I don't support the exploitation of love as a tool for proselytization. The way many Christians practice their beliefs, love is a pretext and masks the unloving nature of fundamentalist policy. 041118 ... missionary But_first_a_question ... 041121 ... 28 usc 1983 So you tell a story about how an innocent kid dies when he's bitten by a rattlesnake, and suggest that his death is unfair in a world with no afterlife. There are many problems with the point you are trying to make. First, yes, it is fair. There's nothing wrong with the idea of having no consciousness. Death with no afterlife would be like a dreamless sleep. While people don't like the idea of not existing while they're alive, they don't think much of it after they die because they're dead, can no longer perceive loss (or anything else), and can't imagine what they're missing. Besides, anything other than non-existence would probably become maddeningly dull after a billion years. Of course, anyone would prefer non-existence to hell, which by contrast to a dreamless sleep would be like an endless nightmare. Second, it doesn't have to be fair. I don't contend that we live in a world that has ordered itself by rules that humans do or should consider fair. That does not preclude that we demand fairness from each other, or from any deity who wishes to be worshipped as "God." So is that all you have? Still not going to answer my questions? Is hell fair? Is it fair for petty thieves? Is it fair for Gandhi? 041121 ... smurfus rex if you were to go off sheer volume, this blathe would be more correctly titled 'answers for missionary'. there are books that aren't this long. :) 041121 ... smurfus rex but if I may offer a morsel: I think Christians should do as Thomas Jefferson did, when he created what has become known as the "Jefferson Bible"...remove the Old Testament and everything after Acts. The teachings of Christ are found in the first five books of the New Testament. The interpretations of the teachings of Christ are found in every book thereafter. Although, it must be kept in mind that those first five books were written by men who have not yet been conclusively proven to have had direct knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth. Even the most accurate of the Gospels is at best a second-hand account. Serious, credible Biblical scholars claim no more accuracy than that. I'm also of the opinion that the Gospel of Thomas is a more accurate recording of the type of teaching that Jesus would have given. It seems like more of a report of the events, instead of a story. I am not of the opinion that Jesus died to save his contemporaries and their posterity from sin. Jesus died to set an example. And the example was that of a man who was willing to die to defend his beliefs. And the core of his beliefs was that you should serve your neighbor *better* than and *before* you would serve yourself. That is the root of "the last shall be first and the first shall be last". Take care of the lowest segment of the society before worrying about taking care of yourself. My good Missionary, you've got Jesus all wrong. The new covenant with God (from whom Jesus was separate) was one of embrace, instead of punishment. People who remained selfish would create their own punishment. God is the father in the prodigal son parable...whenever you decide to stop partying and come home, he'll be waiting. And he won't say, what took you so long? Jesus led by example, or at least, that was the intent. His example was service. Serve your fellow man and you will create the kingdom of God on earth. The kingdom of God is a community whose residents do not want for food, shelter, clothing, or companionship. Hell is not fire and brimstone; Hell is living outside of the community. Somewhere along the way, it was forgotten that Jesus simply taught a new interpretation of God. Jesus' God was not punitive, he was merciful. He was not jealous, he was accepting. He was not wrathful, he was forgiving. He did not hate sinners, he embraced them. The God that ultra-conservative fundamentalist "Christians" follow is the old God. The old God worked for the Jews of the Middle East. The old God still has a grip on the world because people are more comfortable following what they are familiar with. Strom Thurmond is a terrific example of this. How can a man in his 90's possibly be considered a good candidate to represent his modern constituents? Because he was familiar. New God is in projects like Habitat for Humanity, canned food drives, Comic Relief, and Planned Parenthood. New God says, "how can I help you", not "do as I say". New God wants everyone to cooperate instead of compete. New God doesn't have a "Chosen People", he has all people. New God doesn't care what you call him, as long as you're helping each other. New God is communist, rather than capitalist. :) New God would say to the atheist, "Believe in me or not, it's up to you. Just share your toys and help a brother out." He wouldn't have to say, "believe in me or you'll burn forever in Hell", because professed belief in him is not the goal, service to humanity is. Your good deed for the day is all the worship New God needs. The time for groveling and genuflection is over. 041121 ... smurfus rex P.S. As far as the "Religion" demographic is concerned, I would check the box next to "Other". I don't have a problem with Jesus, just his fan club. 041122 ... missionary Funny, whenever I see the "religion" check box, I always check "none" Since religion is a ritualistic system designed to control human behavior, I want no part of it. Jesus came to free us from religion. He was constantly getting in the religious people's faces telling them they have it all wrong. They don't know God and they certainly don't get humans. Jesus clued the world in to this: It's not about religion. It's about Relationship. Everything is related. Everyone is related to everything else. This is an uncontendable fact. Jesus showed us that we are built for relationships. And more specifically, we are designed for a Spiritual relationship with God. 041122 ... just being picky I'm not arguing with your statements, but you might want to back up your claim that something is an uncontendable fact with some facts. Not claims or opinions, but facts...things that can be proven without exception through experiment... 041122 ... 28 usc 1983 And how starkly the anti-religious, all-about-relationships, non-controlling Jesus that you now claim to believe in contrasts with the Jesus that sends Gandhi to hell forever. 041122 ... Sammayael i don't particuloarly men to be disrespectful, but i think that's where the whole rather circular argument about having to take it on faith comes in. what i "believe," for lack of a better word, are those things by which i have come to know them empirically, wherei can weigh out a certain cumulative amount of data and arrive at a conclusion. anything i ever had faith in has ultimately not justified the amount of belief i invested 041122 ... smurfus rex One small bit about Jesus' mission... He intended to bring the Jews back to what he believed was the original message. He was not out to change the Jewish faith (not a jot or a tittle), he just wanted to bring them back. AND, his message was intended for the Jewish people only, at first, and when the Jews had come back to the Father, THAT was when the apostles were to take the message to the Gentiles. But it was taken to the Gentiles a little earlier than he expected, which is just as well, since the Jewish leaders of his time were quite resistent to any threat to the status quo. And just for future reference in similar discussions, non-Christians are surprisingly well-versed in the teachings and history of the Christian faith. You may learn more from a pagan than you would from your pastor. Just a thought... 041123 what's it to you? who go blather from