A truly loving God...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Let's see if I have this straight. You understand the choice that you have (i.e., between God's system and any other system), you understand the results of both choices and yet your altruistic nature has somehow transcended even God's love--- so concerned are you for the nameless countless masses--- that you have no choice BUT to reject God's system on ac ...[text shortened]... ng on practically every point other than spelling. Even there you failed, only not as much.

My post if made from an assuption that Christianity is accurate. I do not believe in a God and therefore would not consider myself to have rejected him.
You are incorrect in your initial interpretation of my post. My point is that if we take Christian teachings as read (for example having to choise to follow or not to follow God) then why can they not accept that we are forced to choise? And that by the very fact that some will 'choise' to not follow God, not ever creating them in the first place would be a mercy as it would prevent them from ever entering hell. Is it not evil to create a being you know will spend an infinity being tortured? Especally if you love them? The claim by Christians that 'God loves you and wants you to save yourself' is crazy as it was God who put you in the situation of needing to be saved in the first place, and he knows exactly who will not be saved.

So as I said, I have no religious beliefs. I am meerly trying to highlight a point that I veiw to be a logically falability within Christianity. If you'd like to explain to me why I'm wrong, or if you still don't understand what I'm trying to say, further comments would be much appreciated. (As for my spelling, I'm dyslexic and can't really be bothered to make sure they are all perfectly accurate. If there are any overly henious mispellings you think I should correct in future, then tell me.)

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
My post if made from an assuption that Christianity is accurate. I do not believe in a God and therefore would not consider myself to have rejected him.
You are incorrect in your initial interpretation of my post. My point is that if we take Christian teachings as read (for example having to choise to follow or not to follow God) then why can they not ...[text shortened]... re any overly henious mispellings you think I should correct in future, then tell me.)

Your fundamental problem is your thinking, not your spelling. If you are unable to see the value in freedom, I can't imagine where to even begin explaining anything beyond that.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your fundamental problem is your thinking, not your spelling. If you are unable to see the value in freedom, I can't imagine where to even begin explaining anything beyond that.

I don't really see what point you are trying to make. What freedom are you talking about? Freedom of choice? This is the point I'm trying to discuss. Not whether there is a value in freedom but whether there is freedom at all. Why not even give a shot at explaining why you think I'm wrong? Just saying my points are incorrect doesn't get us anywhere.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If you are unable to see the value in freedom, I can't imagine where to even begin explaining anything beyond that.

Please explain the value of freedom, it does seem to be the only way human creation can be justified.
Surely it is a lot easier to accept the illusion of freedom outside of a theological framework, since within it gives rise to the questions raised in this post - namely, why would god create some beings he knows will be subject to eternal damnation? This can't be the work of a good god, surely?

Originally posted by cpbrown
Please explain the value of freedom, it does seem to be the only way human creation can be justified.
Surely it is a lot easier to accept the illusion of freedom outside of a theological framework, since within it gives rise to the questions raised in this post - namely, why would god create some beings he knows will be subject to eternal damnation? This can't be the work of a good god, surely?

Of course it can, if God is not as fully omnipotent/omniscient as many Christians seem to like to think.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Of course it can, if God is not as fully omnipotent/omniscient as many Christians seem to like to think.

So the true Christian God creator of the universe etc. etc. is required to be fallible to account for the faults in the world? Interesting interpretation of perfection.

Theology to me is a bizarre passtime - changing your God to suit your human needs - building your own truths based upon your own subjective understanding of the way things are. No two religious believers, with all the certainty of their metaphysical gods believe the same thing, and yet anyone who dares open their eyes and throw out all their hopes and predispositions - will stumble across exactly the same liberation, the same condemnation, and the same understanding of this life.

Originally posted by cpbrown
So the true Christian God creator of the universe etc. etc. is required to be fallible to account for the faults in the world? Interesting interpretation of perfection.

Theology to me is a bizarre passtime - changing your God to suit your human needs - building your own truths based upon your own subjective understanding of the way things are. [b]No two r ...[text shortened]... exactly the same liberation, the same condemnation, and the same understanding of this life.[/b]

You make a lot of assumptions here.

Care to elaborate on the BOLD portion? It seems like it could be read several different ways.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You make a lot of assumptions here.

Care to elaborate on the BOLD portion? It seems like it could be read several different ways.

in clarification of the nonbold section, i'm just stating that a god who is not all powerful / all knowing is an interpretation of god many people do not share (as you're well aware from your previous forum post) - highlighting the highly subjective nature of religious belief - in response to which I wrote the bold section:

religion is a "truth claim" - many people want to know the truth ... and by opting in to a religious framework, they accept an ultimate truth - however, there are as many interpretations of religious truths as there are believers, so it seems odd that people should 1) claim religion to be universal in nature or 2) in any way objective.
however, non-believers can unite in an acceptance of the lack of truth that is available to us, which is liberating (we are held only to our own standards - hedonism is the only reason to continue living), condemning (we'll never have any meaning) - and honest, in its absolute simplicity - there is very little to disagree upon when there are no beliefs.

Originally posted by cpbrown
in clarification of the non[b]bold section, i'm just stating that a god who is not all powerful / all knowing is an interpretation of god many people do not share - highlighting the highly subjective nature of religious belief - in response to which I wrote the bold section:

religion is a "truth claim" - many people want to know the truth ... and by o ...[text shortened]... n its absolute simplicity - there is very little to disagree upon when there are no beliefs.[/b]

I agree with this. Once you reach a state of disbelief, then what you believe becomes mainly founded in logic. It is much less subjective or open to interpretation. I feel that Christianity does not hold up to any logical analysis.

My original post tries to highlight a point where Christianity is illogical when we consider the majority Christian opinion about God being the creator and God being omniscient. I have never heard a decent explaination for our existance (in terms of the why) from a Christian. No one really seems to have any idea as to why God would bother to create. Explainations I have heard range from boredom (non Christian) to simply so that God has someone to worship him. How can he be glorious without someone to glorify him? I feel this opinion paints a picture of a fairly petty and ridiculous God.

From this lack of understanding as to why God would create people, I also go on to suggest that creating people is actually questionable in terms of morality. Creating people who are destined for hell seems evil. Leaving them in a state of nonexistance seems much more good then dragging them into an existance that is pure torture. So the question remains unanswered. Why would God create us? And am I wrong in thinking that Christian beliefs can only lead to the conclusion that God is evil for creating us? If I'm right then God is not all good. (If I'm wrong, an explanation would also be good, or I might have to belief I'm not.)

Originally posted by serigado
[b]Of course, things never carry on that way forever. One day, about age 18, we eat of the fruit, discover sex,

18??? Only in america...[/b]

I'm getting paid to teach 12 year olds about sex.

Get your mind out of the gutter, you sick bastards. I'm in a science class and we teach reproduction.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Would anyone here consider it unreasonable to suggest that a truly loving God should never have created life in the first place? By the very act of creating a being that he knows will not worship or believe in him he effectively condems them to an eternity of torture if we are to assume Christianity correct. Any argument about free will is irrelevant. W ...[text shortened]... will spend eternity in hell. If I was to end up in hell I'd much prefer to never have existed.

yeah a truly loving God will wipe all existence or never create anything. and you are under the impression that man and whatever else He created is doomed from the start just because some have the stupid idea of free will.

and you are kinda contradicting yourself. we haven't a choice because we are forced to choose? what kind of logic is this?

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
My post if made from an assuption that Christianity is accurate. I do not believe in a God and therefore would not consider myself to have rejected him.
You are incorrect in your initial interpretation of my post. My point is that if we take Christian teachings as read (for example having to choise to follow or not to follow God) then why can they not ...[text shortened]... re any overly henious mispellings you think I should correct in future, then tell me.)

you declare God loving by your standards: ie do not kill kittens or small babies.

what would pigs you slaughter for steaks say about you being loving? how would we know what makes god tick.

by my standards, god is loving. he gave me free will. so i am not his puppet ordained to hell or heaven from the instant i was born.

and if you believe god is illogical based on that horror book we call the old testament i say you have a flaw in logic

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
I agree with this. Once you reach a state of disbelief, then what you believe becomes mainly founded in logic. It is much less subjective or open to interpretation. I feel that Christianity does not hold up to any logical analysis.

My original post tries to highlight a point where Christianity is illogical when we consider the majority Christian opi ...[text shortened]... l good. (If I'm wrong, an explanation would also be good, or I might have to belief I'm not.)

here is my explanation.

i am a christian when it comes to jesus being the saviour and all and believing in the general message of the bible(be nice to God and to each other). anything else in the bible i believe only applies to that particular society(eg woman is an inferior being,noah's flood and the genesis).

so we consider a supreme being(one that doesn't have a boss) and call him God and declare him as almost omnipotent(almost because God cannot create a rock that he cannot pick up) and almost omniscient(we discuss that later). This being is also timeless(has no beginning in time because before big bang, the beginning of stuff, time did not exist). so being alone for a limitless amount of time, he must have gotten pretty bored.

Thus he decides to create a being with free will that will keep him amused. one that isn't bound absolutely to His will. one that can offer limitless branches in time. this takes care of the omniscience problem: He knows everything meaning all the possible futures. if there is no being with free will other than himself there is only one future. introducing a variable that is chaotic, the future branches out into infinite possibilities.
And although he knows all these infinite futures(he is cool) he cannot know on what branch you will end up.

As a result he did not know when he created us if we end up in heaven or hell. so he is not a sadist. (maybe just a little 😀)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yeah a truly loving God will wipe all existence or never create anything. and you are under the impression that man and whatever else He created is doomed from the start just because some have the stupid idea of free will.

and you are kinda contradicting yourself. we haven't a choice because we are forced to choose? what kind of logic is this?

Not all man is doomed from the start. Just those who do not "choose" to follow him.

Here is what I assume you believe: God creates humans with Free Will. Thus we can choose whether or not to follow him. We must choose either way, but we get no say in whether we wish to make the choice or not. We are forced to exist. Now some people will choose to follow God and thus be saved. Other people, who never had any say in their own existance do not, and burn in the eternal fires of hell. Now for me, I don't believe I made a choice not to follow God, I just don't believe in one. However from a Christian perspective this means I've choosen not to follow God. God doesn't condem me, I condem myself.

I hope this makes sence, the basic idea is this: If someone must choice between options A or B, then they are be forced either one way or another. Who says they wanted to make a choise in the first place?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you declare God loving by your standards: ie do not kill kittens or small babies.

what would pigs you slaughter for steaks say about you being loving? how would we know what makes god tick.

by my standards, god is loving. he gave me free will. so i am not his puppet ordained to hell or heaven from the instant i was born.

and if you believe god is illogical based on that horror book we call the old testament i say you have a flaw in logic

I'm not declaring God loving (or unloving) by my standards. Yes I think in human terms killing small kittens or babies is wrong. I think it is worse to create a being that will be tortured for eternity. I don't think there is anything a human could do that would be as evil as that.


I'm not saying God is evil or illogical based on the Old Testament, I'm trying to think more fundamental then that.