04 Jun 08
1 edit
====================================
The probability that this god of yours who is supposed to be a god of love, but who also condemns children to eternal suffering for the faults of their parents, actually exists, is so low that I think it can be neglected (also, if there really is such a god,
======================================
So you think the One who said "Suffer the little children to come unto Me. For to such belongs the kingdom of God." is a monster?
I don't think you can prove the things you charge God for. I was not arguing from the standpoint of one's kids remaining children forever. Eventually, though they are children of someone they become adults.
I don't think you have any clear hard proof that children unable to discern a responsible discison are eagerly punished by God. Rather what I read is the Jesus said "It is not your Father's will that one of these little ones perish"
Is Jesus Christ your "monster?"
04 Jun 08
Originally posted by jaywillI was talking about the monster god you were painting. If he will not punish anyone for not having been educated about Christianity by their parents, there is no reason for the parents to fear that their children will end up in hell because of their (the parents'😉 actions. So your "do you want this on your conscience?" scenario only works with a monster god.
[b]====================================
The probability that this god of yours who is supposed to be a god of love, but who also condemns children to eternal suffering for the faults of their parents, actually exists, is so low that I think it can be neglected (also, if there really is such a god,
======================================
...[text shortened]... 's will that one of these little ones perish"[/b]
Is Jesus Christ your "monster?"[/b]
04 Jun 08
1 edit
==========================
I was talking about the monster god you were painting. If he will not punish anyone for not having been educated about Christianity by their parents, there is no reason for the parents to fear that their children will end up in hell because of their (the parents'😉 actions. So your "do you want this on your conscience?" scenario only works with a monster god.
=====================================
So you abducate all responsibility to help your kids with math or English because it would be a "monster" educational system who would flunk them just because they never got such help?
So you would not warn your kids about breaking the law because it would be a "monster" justice system who would punish a kid who never had such training?
Perhaps on some philosophical bases you would rather save face and take a chance. Why educate them to anything then? It would be monsterous for them to have to suffer consquences of the absence of such training.
I think at best your attitude is self serving and reckless. It does kind of allow you to save face and gamble - maybe things will just turn out right.
05 Jun 08
Originally posted by jaywillYou are being internally incoherent.
[b]==========================
I was talking about the monster god you were painting. If he will not punish anyone for not having been educated about Christianity by their parents, there is no reason for the parents to fear that their children will end up in hell because of their (the parents'😉 actions. So your "do you want this on your conscience?" scenari ...[text shortened]... t does kind of allow you to save face and gamble - maybe things will just turn out right.
On one hand you say you must educate your children about God or they might end up in Hell.
On the other hand you say that God understands that some people haven't heard about Jebus through no fault of their own, and he won't hold this against them.
Can't you see these two statements are contradictory???
Your analogies with educational systems or criminal justice systems are flawed, since you are making the assumption that an educational system will let someone uneducated pass if they haven't been educated, or a criminal justice system that will let murder slide if the individual hasn't been told it is wrong. These assumptions are fallacious.
05 Jun 08
Originally posted by jaywillRead through your own post. I don't think it says what you mean to say. It appears to support you opponents position.
So you abducate all responsibility to help your kids with math or English because it would be a "monster" educational system who would flunk them just because they never got such help?
So you would not warn your kids about breaking the law because it would be a "monster" justice system who would punish a kid who never had such training?
Perhap ...[text shortened]... . It does kind of allow you to save face and gamble - maybe things will just turn out right.
05 Jun 08
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI stated that something was sensible and in customary fashion you athiests warped it to imply the opposite extreme.
Read through your own post. I don't think it says what you mean to say. It appears to support you opponents position.
I said that if you close the door to your own salvation at least do not close the door to your loved ones in case you find you were wrong.
Then that concept was warped to make it sound like something I never intended, which is "Oh! God is eager to torment uninformed children. What a monster! "
And you will notice I left room for the fact that I do not know everything. I ended my advice with "maybe".
Doing what I considered sensible and safe was warped by the skeptic to mean "Oh, your monster God is eager to torment the uninformed child."
05 Jun 08
Originally posted by jaywillBut doing what is sensible and safe - by assuming that God is a monster - only shows that you believe God is, or might be a monster. And the post I was commenting on seemed to show that quite nicely.
Doing what I considered sensible and safe was warped by the skeptic to mean "Oh, your monster God is eager to torment the uninformed child."
As I said, you seemed to be arguing against yourself.
05 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNope, Quite the opposite.
But doing what is sensible and safe - by assuming that God is a monster - only shows that you believe God is, or might be a monster. And the post I was commenting on seemed to show that quite nicely.
As I said, you seemed to be arguing against yourself.
You on the other hand, are so on an ego trip, that you would find the least possible precaution to take for your self and for your loved ones.
It seems that some perverse pride drives you be able to congradulate yourself in the end that in no aspect did you prepare for the possibility that there is God.
This is mentally unhealthy, I think. It borders on obsession.
05 Jun 08
Originally posted by jaywilljaywill, you are forgetting something.
Nope, Quite the opposite.
You on the other hand, are so on an ego trip, that you would find the least possible precaution to take for your self and for your loved ones.
It seems that some perverse pride drives you be able to congradulate yourself in the end that in no aspect did you prepare for the [b]possibility that there is God.
This is mentally unhealthy, I think. It borders on obsession.[/b]
Suppose some other jealous deity is the one that is real. Then, by giving the Bible to your kids, you just exposed them to a belief system that could prove to be the cause of their unending suffering in hell or whatever place this other jealous deity sends idolaters.
You call it 'playing it safe', but to me it seems like an awfully big risk.
05 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by TheSkipperSkipper,
jaywill, you are forgetting something.
Suppose some other jealous deity is the one that is real. Then, by giving the Bible to your kids, you just exposed them to a belief system that could prove to be the cause of their unending suffering in hell or whatever place this other jealous deity sends idolaters.
You call it 'playing it safe', but to me it seems like an awfully big risk.
You're not the only guy who can take an imaginative flight of fancy.
If I wanted to I could probably pretty much match you with zany ideas with a silly grin.
I use to call people like this "flight heads".
My own father was a very theologically liberal Presbyterian minister. When I got all excited about Zen Buddhist writings and was about to travel to Japan to study Zen, he didn't discourage that. He said "Well, how do you know Zen is the answer. Have you looked at Islam?"
I was kind of surprised that a Christian clergymen would be standing there telling me that perhaps I should look into Islam.
He was very very magnanimus. Magnanimy has its place. You can find some truth in the Quran. You can find some truth in teachings of Confucius. You can find some truth in Buddhism.
You can find some amount of truth in many many faiths.
You can even find some amount of truth in the Humanist Manfesto probably.
My father exposed us to the Gospel. He did not force it upon us.
06 Jun 08
Originally posted by jaywillWhy is this so unlikely? There have been thousands of Gods over the years. The fact that your one makes outlandish claims is nothing new. There's a pretty good chance, if there is a God, that you've got it wrong.
You're not the only guy who can take an imaginative flight of fancy.
06 Jun 08
Originally posted by jaywillI don't know where the personal attack is coming from. Did I say something to upset you?
You on the other hand, are so on an ego trip, that you would find the least possible precaution to take for your self and for your loved ones.
It seems that some perverse pride drives you be able to congradulate yourself in the end that in no aspect did you prepare for the [b]possibility that there is God.
This is mentally unhealthy, I think. It borders on obsession.[/b]
I think you are simply misunderstanding the argument being made. Simplified just for you, it goes like this:
1. If God is good, he will save your Children without your help.
2. If God is a monster, he might not.
3. If you try to help 'just in case', then you are assuming 2 is possible.
You are of course trying to invoke Pascals Wager which we both know is flawed to its core.
06 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadHmmm, God may just be negligent, rather than a monster, if 2 is true.
I don't know where the personal attack is coming from. Did I say something to upset you?
I think you are simply misunderstanding the argument being made. Simplified just for you, it goes like this:
1. If God is good, he will save your Children without your help.
2. If God is a monster, he might not.
3. If you try to help 'just in case', then you are ...[text shortened]...
You are of course trying to invoke Pascals Wager which we both know is flawed to its core.
For me, God's monstrocity was best demonstrated when he wiped out entire civilizations on an apparent whim, or ordered the slaying of children....
06 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzNegligence is monstrous - especially when the consequences are eternal torture, and the effort required is negligible.
Hmmm, God may just be negligent, rather than a monster, if 2 is true.
For me, God's monstrocity was best demonstrated when he wiped out entire civilizations on an apparent whim, or ordered the slaying of children....
God wiping out civilizations etc is not monstrous at all if he sent the people slayed to heaven. Assuming of course that heaven is really better than earth and that what goes to heaven is in fact the person and not some soul concept.
However since the people being wiped out were sometimes wiped out specifically because of their 'evil nature', one supposes that their entry to heaven is doubtful.