The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by sycamorex Does that mean that if you're god you can inflict suffering to all around you at will?

Well, deity is supposed to have the power to inflict suffering on a whim. So, yes, a god can do that in a sense that it has power and ability to do so. That won't be a "good" god, though

Originally Posted by sycamorex so why expose his son to such suffering? He could have done it without anyone suffering, couldn't he?

God's own requirement for justice when sin is involved is atonement by the shedding of blood.

Originally Posted by sycamorex Wouldn't it be wiser of him to prevent it in the first place?

Again, you're presuming you're a better judge than God.

Originally Posted by sycamorex I really fail to understand why all this suffering was necessary while god could just flick his fingers and prevent all of this (his son's suffering, our sins, etc) It doesn't sound as a noble or wise behaviour? It smells to me as if the story is just to make all of us feel guilty of something we never done for all our lives.

Rather the good news sets us free from guilt. The law points out our sin, Christ resolves it.

Originally Posted by sycamorex How is this different? Does that mean that if you're god you can inflict suffering to all around you at will? If god and his son had a thing about pain and suffering, they could have indulge in their activities in the privacy of their kingdom. Why force it on others who may not enjoy it as much? Sorry, I can't help but conclude that looking at the scale of their experiments on people, the most cruel dictators of the world look like saints.

It was our first ancestors who are responsible for our knowledge of evil, part of which is suffering. And we make a conscious descision daily, either to dwell on evil or good. If you reject the good and choose the evil, that's your prerogative. As for me, I know that God is good and my sin-nature is corrupt, even as the creation decays.

Before humanity knew evil, it existed in God's domain when "Lucifer" rebelled. Adam was warned, and each of us has a conscience against sin. If you prefer enmity with God that's your decision.

Originally Posted by bluegospel God's own requirement for justice when sin is involved is atonement by the shedding of blood.

Isn't it just a little bit harsh? IMHO too much blood has been shed in the name of god.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Again, you're presuming you're a better judge than God.

I'm just following your holy book in which your god clearly stated that doing harm to others is bad (well, except for if he does it?). Double standards?

Originally Posted by bluegospel Rather the good news sets us free from guilt. The law points out our sin, Christ resolves it.

What sin? what good news?

Originally Posted by bluegospel It was our first ancestors who are responsible for our knowledge of evil, part of which is suffering.

No, it's your god letting our ancestors commit some unspecified sin for which he then punished them and us introducing suffering.

Originally Posted by bluegospel And we make a conscious descision daily, either to dwell on evil or good. If you reject the good and choose the evil, that's your prerogative. As for me, I know that God is good and my sin-nature is corrupt, even as the creation decays.

It a rather buggy creation then. I don't think of myself as a particularly bad person. I try to choose good in life. What I reject is blindly justifying cruel dictators.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Before humanity knew evil, it existed in God's domain when "Lucifer" rebelled. Adam was warned, and each of us has a conscience against sin. If you prefer enmity with God that's your decision.

And god in all his power wasn't able to eliminate Lucifer, remove all the evil before we knew it and protect us, his beloved children, from our "sin"? Seriously?!

Originally Posted by sycamorex Isn't it just a little bit harsh? IMHO too much blood has been shed in the name of god.

Exactly. Christ's death fully satisfied the requirement for everyone's sin.

Originally Posted by sycamorex I'm just following your holy book in which your god clearly stated that doing harm to others is bad (well, except for if he does it?). Double standards?

None of us have suffered any troubles that is not common to man. For every instance of human suffering someone else has experienced something similar, and yet, are thankful to God for life and for God's kindness. People who feel sorry for themselves or others to the extent of enmity with God, are free to take their liberty, but in my opinion, it's not only foolish, but their selling themselves very short.

Originally Posted by sycamorex What sin? what good news?

I'll borrow this answer from someone else: Have you ever lied? Yes? Then you're a liar. Have you ever stolen? Yes? Then you're a thief. We've all sinned, which means we're unholy and cannot come near to God, who is holy. Christ imparts his holiness to those who are his.

Originally Posted by sycamorex No, it's your god letting (a) our ancestors commit some unspecified (b) sin for which he then punished them and us introducing suffering.

a) This part is right--he permitted it.
b) The story is very clear how they trespassed.

Originally Posted by sycamorex It a rather buggy creation then. I don't think of myself as a particularly bad person. I try to choose good in life. What I reject is blindly justifying cruel dictators. And god in all his power wasn't able to eliminate Lucifer, remove all the evil before we knew it and protect us, his beloved children, from our "sin"? Seriously?!

Able? Yes. Why he didn't? I'm not omniscient. Neither are you. But God is.

As for me, I'll take God's Word and my experince that he is good.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Have you ever lied? Yes? Then you're a liar. Have you ever stolen? Yes? Then you're a thief. We've all sinned, which means we're unholy and cannot come near to God, who is holy. Christ imparts his holiness to those who are his.

Sounds like a weak argument to me. God (assuming exists for the sake of discussion) created you to be able to lie and steal, and put you into situation where you would take such choice. It is a rigged game. Plus distinction between "holy" and "not holy" is artificial. The explanation for the whole thing is that either god is not omnipotent, or not omniscient, or not just, or not good, or does not exist, or is not caring, or is not sane.

Originally Posted by bluegospel As for me, I'll take God's Word and my experince that he is good.

And how exactly do you know that words you trust are actually god's words?
People are prone to getting themselves deceived. They believe in investment schemes, in prophets, in doomsday, etc. You aren't that different from them. How do you know that words of god isn't just another lie?

Originally Posted by SigTerm And how exactly do you know that words you trust are actually god's words?

I've answered that several times, and I'm sorry, I'm not going to amuse you by answering it again.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I've answered that several times, and I'm sorry, I'm not going to amuse you by answering it again.

...says the person that requested "evidence" or "proof" for science/evolution many times and ignored it every single time.

From your replies I can only conclude that christainity is inherently harmful and its only purpose is to brainwash people into blind obedience.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Originally Posted by cascade9 So you are saying that either 'omnipotence' is limited or you are saying that 'the end justifies the means'. I'm saying that suffering with others is noble. It's better to have suffered with others, than to have avoided it altogether.

You can say that all you want. That reply was from you trying to get around the 'problem of evil'...and it doesnt work.

All you have done is moved the discussion in a circle, as usual. Back to 'the bible is the word of god, it says so'.

BTW, theodicy was from Leibniz. The basis is his logic? "Scripture clearly asserts both the perfection of God and the presence of evil, we must take up an attitude of acceptance in the face of their coexistence." (common wording, pulled from wikipedia, mainly becuase I cant be bothered to find the exact passage in the book).

Circular logic.....again.

The other interesting thing in Leibniztheodicy is this idea- "The purpose of the essay was to show that the evil in the world does not conflict with the goodness of God, that, indeed, notwithstanding its many evils, the world is the best of all possible worlds". Which would agree with 'omnipotence is limited' (because if this is the 'best of all possible worlds' then there must be a limit to omnipotence.....which is laughable, and an oxymoron)

Originally Posted by sycamorex If an almighty god let his son suffer, it was his decision. He didn't have to do it. There's no one above him. There's nothing he couldn't accomplish... so why expose his son to such suffering? He could have done it without anyone suffering, couldn't he? Why did it let the sin happen in the first place? Wouldn't it be wiser of him to prevent it in the first place? I really fail to understand why all this suffering was necessary while god could just flick his fingers and prevent all of this (his son's suffering, our sins, etc) It doesn't sound as a noble or wise behaviour? It smells to me as if the story is just to make all of us feel guilty of something we never done for all our lives.

If you take a logical view on christianity, of course the founders of the church had a 'you are all a bunch of sinners' point of view. If they didnt sprout that idea, then people might not need a bunch of old greybeards telling them how women are lesser creatures, what sexuality is acceptable, etc etc..

Surely, if jesus was god (I totally disagree with that idea) jesus...or one of the other bits...would have though 'wait a sec, we need to get this out in our own words'. As it stands, there is no 'my gospel, by jesus' in the bible.

We do have lots of books in the bible which were written by people who never followed jesus when he was alive, in particular saul/paul. 14 epistles attributed to paul (though its probably more like 7 that were actually written by him), vs none from jesus. That would be a stupid oversight from humans, from an omni* god, its unacceptable.

Or, if you do believe in god/satan a then a posible version of events is that paul is actually a instrument of satan. After the death of jesus, saul decides that he can have huge influence and power in this new movement (which he had failed to destroy). Then he claims he has had a vision of jesus, he has been 'called to be an apostle' (aka 'I'm a big shot, listen to me'), and goes on to claim his sexist (etc.) views are those of god! (he has a shot at almost everyone, even vegetarians- see romans 14)

Before blue, or any other christian tries the 'but the disciplies accpeted paul' argument, that is not valid. Checking the 'banned' books of the bible shows that many of discplies had serious issues with Mary. When someone who used to be an enemy comes forward, says he is now a christain, has personal and unarguable information fron god, and then states various positions that make them feel better (eg, women are lesser creatures) human politics makes his position stonger, NOT any (possible) relationship with god.

Guess some of us will just have to wait and see what comes of all this!

Originally Posted by bluegospel Guess some of us will just have to wait and see what comes of all this!

Yeah, maybe wait another 2000 years. Or 4000. Or a million.

Suppose a perfectly loving, perfectly just God creates angelic beings, humans, animals and other matter.

Suppose such a God is so modest, being a humble God, that he is particularly private, only revealing himself at his home. John 14:23

Does such a God have the right to stay at home and admit whom he wants into his home?

Knowing you and I are sinful, is such a God obligated, being by nature holy and private, to go outside his home to "prove" his existence to either you or to me?

If such a God, under no other compulsion than love, sends his own begotten Son as his best testimony to us, is God further obligated to you or to me?

Being not obligated, should he yet do more than continue to send his own adopted children to testify by word and by deed?

Does God have the right to admit whom he wants into his home and exclude whom he wants, for their obedience or disobedience?

Then nobody has any excuse before God for rejecting Christ on the basis of "lack of evidence."

Originally Posted by easuter Yeah, maybe wait another 2000 years. Or 4000. Or a million.

That day is but a moment away!

You don't have evidence for God because you're not looking for it. You're looking for evidence against God. There is plenty of "evidence" for both cases. Those who love God favor the evidence he gives, and obey accordingly. Those hating God have their plethora of philosophies, and will not admit God's Son or descendants as evidence, and if they do, they discriminate inwardly against them.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Suppose a perfectly loving, perfectly just God creates angelic beings, humans, animals and other matter. Suppose such a God is so modest, being a humble God, that he is particularly private, only revealing himself at his home. John 14:23 Does such a God have the right to stay at home and admit whom he wants into his home? Knowing you and I are sinful, is such a God obligated, being by nature holy and private, to go outside his home to "prove" his existence to either you or to me? If such a God, under no other compulsion than love, sends his own begotten Son as his best testimony to us, is God further obligated to you or to me? Being not obligated, should he yet do more than continue to send his own adopted children to testify by word and by deed? Does God have the right to admit whom he wants into his home and exclude whom he wants, for their obedience or disobedience? Then nobody has any excuse before God for rejecting Christ on the basis of "lack of evidence."

Since your god is omniscient he decided whom to "let in" already before creation of the universe, he knows already what will happen.

Originally Posted by bluegospel There is plenty of "evidence" for both cases.

Haven't seen any evidence for god still.

Those who love God favor the evidence he gives, and obey accordingly.

Nope, they favor blind faith, and obey accordingly.

Those hating God have their plethora of philosophies, and will not admit God's Son or descendants as evidence, and if they do, they discriminate inwardly against them.

The usual mistake of believers. Atheist/agnostics don't hate your god. Why should anybody hate something that is non-existent?