NationStates Jolt Archive

Fairly straightforward question, obviously directed primarily at those persons who believe in God. Is God the source of all your moral judgments, or do you have a sense of morality that is independent of God? Is morality defined as consistent with God's will, or is there a standard of Good that exists apart from God? If God told you, unequivocally, that the only way for you to be a moral person was to torture kittens to death, would you feel okay about doing it? Replace "kittens" with "infants"...now how would you feel?

Just so the non-theists don't feel left out, here's a question for you: how do you feel about people who base their entire sense of morality on God? Do you feel they are more or less trustworthy because of their use of God as a moral compass? Does it matter where people get their sense of morality, so long as their actions are consistent with the morals of their society?

I don't care where someone's morals come from, so long as they actually behave in an ethical manner.

It's people who use God (or the lack thereof) as an excuse for immoral behaviour, such as beating up homosexuals, that I find unsavoury.

I don't care where people get their morality, as long as it's consistant, which I have found is not very often.

Personally, I get my morality from respect. God teachs respect a lot, but for me, it goes deeper than what the bible has to offer.

No, God isn't the only source, there is Jesus as well. :D

While they are the foundation of my source, but I have my own beliefs and morals as well.

Well, I personally believe that *everything* came from God, so yes, morality came from God.

However, I believe that finding that morality is between an individual and God, and since we are all different people who will sense God in different ways, we may come to different conclusions on some of the less obvious issues. Of course, the God I believe in is an all-good God, so if anyone stated that God wanted me to torture babies, I would not believe the order actually came from God.

That said, I don't think you have to believe in God to have morality. My boyfriend is one of the most moral people I know, and he is an atheist. His morality stems from basically the same idea as mine - don't hurt anyone. There are all sorts of scientific arguments for the development of morality. Pretty much any social animal demonstrates some sort of morality, at least within the pack/pride/etc.

No, God isn't the only source, there is Jesus as well. :D

While they are the foundation of my source, but I have my own beliefs and morals as well.
so if God or Jesus asked you to do something that conflicted with your moral beliefs, what would you do?

i think that people who use God as a reason for their immoral behavior are not really Christians they just want to make sure that they get into heaven.....and not all of us are hypocrites....

Of course, the God I believe in is an all-good God, so if anyone stated that God wanted me to torture babies, I would not believe the order actually came from God.

that wasn't the question; if God himself/herself/itself specifically spoke to you, and specifically told you that he/she/it wanted you to torture kittens, would you do it? would you feel that it was a moral act?

Since I believe in a creator...I believe that the inherent sense of right and wrong that humans posess comes from God, it was built into us. Therefore, if said God follows his own laws....his feelings about right and wrong would match, with simply more wisdom and foresight than humans display. Therefore, he would never order his people to "torture kittens".

I believe common sense and reason are needed to answer questions like yours.

Dave

I don't care where someone's morals come from, so long as they actually behave in an ethical manner.

It's people who use God (or the lack thereof) as an excuse for immoral behaviour, such as beating up homosexuals, that I find unsavoury.
but that's the point; their belief about God's will is telling them that beating up homosexuals is moral. do you think people should behave in ways that their moral code tells them are IMMORAL, in order to conform with societal rules? if a law is passed that forbids you to behave in a way you think is moral, should you obey the law anyway?

Since I believe in a creator...I believe that the inherent sense of right and wrong that humans posess comes from God, it was built into us. Therefore, if said God follows his own laws....his feelings about right and wrong would match, with simply more wisdom and foresight than humans display. Therefore, he would never order his people to "torture kittens".
i didn't ask if you thought God WOULD ask you to do that, i asked what you would do if he did. would such an act be moral because it was God's will? or would it still be a wrong act, even if God asked you to do it?

For me, The idea that all people need to be moral in order to advance humanity is a necessary one. However, I believe that in today's world we have 2 systems by which to govern the people to keep them moral, a government and a religion, and that a society needs only one. If there is more than one system of control, often times they will react violently against each other.

So in response, I believe that those who believe in a God(s)/Goddess(es) are actually less moral because theoretically, if God told him/her, unequivocally, that the only way for him/her to be a moral person was to torture kittens/infants to death, he/she would do it because his/her immortal soul is on the line. This type of thing is referenced in the bible when Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son. And he was about to do it! A test in blind faith? Or in lack of morals when dealing with the prospect of losing one's immortal soul?

I don't care where people get their morality, as long as it's consistant, which I have found is not very often.

Personally, I get my morality from respect. God teachs respect a lot, but for me, it goes deeper than what the bible has to offer.
Christian Flame #1 :D : How do you go deeper than 'love your neighbour as you love yourself'. I suppose you could love people more than yourself.

The reason morality is not often consistent is because we are all human. More's the pity.

Ahh to be a bird flying high in the... :sniper:

To answer Bottle's third post, Abraham was ready to kill his son!! How can you say something is wrong if God says it and your morality is governed by God?

Hi!

Yes I believe in God. And yes I get my morality from God.
To me it just doesnt seem logical to get Morality from anywhere else because there isnt anyone else to is good enough to set standards for morality.
Is Murder OK? Rape?Adultery? Stealing? Lying?
Of course most people would say NO of course not but then where do you get that rule from?
At the end of the day we humans are simply not good enough to set our own standards as we all do things wrong. We need a solid moral structure to follow from our God.

that wasn't the question; if God himself/herself/itself specifically spoke to you, and specifically told you that he/she/it wanted you to torture kittens, would you do it? would you feel that it was a moral act?

At that point, I would have to change my entire view of God. Chances are, I would come to the conclusion that God is not all-good and is not worthy of worship or obedience. And the worse the act (ie. your example about infants), the easier that conclusion would be.

It is really hard to say though, as my belief in God is in an all-good God, thus I do not believe anything like your situation would ever happen. But no, I am not one of those "Anything so and so believes that God says is automatically right and that's why the Bible is perfect" type people.

There's the television.

Just so the non-theists don't feel left out, here's a question for you: how do you feel about people who base their entire sense of morality on God? Do you feel they are more or less trustworthy because of their use of God as a moral compass? Does it matter where people get their sense of morality, so long as their actions are consistent with the morals of their society?

Doesn't matter where morality comes from as long as it is consistent with society's moral view. If their God has morals that involve something that doesn't agree, say ritual killing for an example, then no, I don't agree.

At that point, I would have to change my entire view of God. Chances are, I would come to the conclusion that God is not all-good and is not worthy of worship or obedience. And the worse the act (ie. your example about infants), the easier that conclusion would be.

It is really hard to say though, as my belief in God is in an all-good God, thus I do not believe anything like your situation would ever happen. But no, I am not one of those "Anything so and so believes that God says is automatically right and that's why the Bible is perfect" type people.
so you believe that God is not all-powerful, in that case, because you believe in a standard of morality that is above and beyond God's power to change. right?

i didn't ask if you thought God WOULD ask you to do that, i asked what you would do if he did. would such an act be moral because it was God's will? or would it still be a wrong act, even if God asked you to do it?

That is the point. In my belief, God is incapable of breaking his own laws. The bible, which i believe in, makes that clear. Therefore, cruelty and the like would not be things that God is capable of displaying. So he would not expect or ever ask his servants to break his moral standards. It's a matter of faith that God follows his own laws that he asks us to follow.

I feel that answers you question. I have never been asked by God to break his moral code, and no other human recorded ever has been either. That track record shows God behaves in harmony with the right and wrong he established.

Christian Flame #1 :D : How do go deeper than 'love your neighbour as you love youself'. I suppose you could love people more than yourself.

The reason morality is not often consistent is because we are all human. More's the pity.

Ahh to be a bird flying high in the... :sniper:

When he also says to kill your first born... surely you aren't going to use that narrowmindedness to say that the good things the bible teaches covers up the not-quite-respectful-to-fellow-man ones? I agree the bible teachs a lot of respect, but not complete respect, just in certain areas, the folley of man.

The reason morality is not often consistent is because we are all human.
And the reason religion is not consistant is because it is translated through man via the bible. Hence my statement.

God isnt any source of my morality. Assuming I did believe in a god, then it would not be my ONLY source, but perhaps one of my sources of morality. :rolleyes:

Doesn't matter where morality comes from as long as it is consistent with society's moral view. If their God has morals that involve something that doesn't agree, say ritual killing for an example, then no, I don't agree.
not too long ago, society held the moral view that women and persons of non-white ethnicity were worth less than white men. your logic leads me to think that you would say feminists and civil rights protesters were acting immorally at the time they revolted against society's values; is that the case?

I'd tax Raquel Welch and I have a feeling she'd tax me.

That is the point. In my belief, God is incapable of breaking his own laws. The bible, which i believe in, makes that clear. Therefore, cruelty and the like would not be things that God is capable of displaying. So he would not expect or ever ask his servants to break his moral standards. It's a matter of faith that God follows his own laws that he asks us to follow.

I feel that answers you question. I have never been asked by God to break his moral code, and no other human recorded ever has been either. That track record shows God behaves in harmony with the right and wrong he established.

*cough* Abraham *cough*

And God is notorious for an enormous change right within the pages of the Bible.

In the Old Testament, "I AM THAT I AM", or Jehovah as he was known, was all about plagues, and pestilence and burning the wicked. Turning the wicked citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah into salt. But, in the New Testament, Jesus Christ a.k.a. Jehovah a.k.a. The God of The Old Testament states "Turn the other cheek" and "Love thy neighbour as thyself."

So God could be capable of breaking his own laws. He made them, didn't he? If he can be evil, and then repent of his sins and become a pacifist and still remain God, then I can torture kittens to death if he asks me to and I'm still a moral person.

That is the point. In my belief, God is incapable of breaking his own laws. The bible, which i believe in, makes that clear. Therefore, cruelty and the like would not be things that God is capable of displaying. So he would not expect or ever ask his servants to break his moral standards. It's a matter of faith that God follows his own laws that he asks us to follow.

so God is not all-powerful, and there is a moral code that exists above God's will. that's all i was asking.


I have never been asked by God to break his moral code, and no other human recorded ever has been either. That track record shows God behaves in harmony with the right and wrong he established.
God asked a man to murder his own son. the Bible tells us that the man was not happy about this turn of events, leading me to believe that the man's personal morals conflicted with God's orders; if he believed the moral thing to do was to kill his son then he wouldn't have waited for God to tell him to do it (we know that he was a moral chap, because God singled him out as an example of virtue, and therefore he would have acted in a moral manner).

When he also says to kill your first born... surely you aren't going to use that narrowmindedness to say that the good things the bible teaches covers up the not-quite-respectful-to-fellow-man ones? I agree the bible teachs a lot of respect, but not complete respect, just in certain areas, the folley of man.

The reason morality is not often consistent is because we are all human.
And the reason religion is not consistant is because it is translated through man via the bible. Hence my statement.
What are you saying are not-quite-respectful-man ones? The slave and second class women aspect? They're good points, but it was possible to have a slave (more likely servant) and treat them well. Look at Geoffrey in the Fresh Prince of Bel-air. Ok, bad example.

Translated yes but I've always felt that God has had the final proofreading job on the Bible, if you like. I sincerely hope he hasn't let the beings it was supposed to guide twist it out of shape.

Bottle, you're forgetting that when Abe Raham was around there weren't morals. He did what God told him. The rest of the world did what they wanted. I'd say morals, when they first came around, were a way of breaking away from God while saying "yeah but we're not doing this or that so it's ok". Wot reckon?

so you believe that God is not all-powerful, in that case, because you believe in a standard of morality that is above and beyond God's power to change. right?

Not exactly. It is more that I believe that God is good, and has made a standard of morality. Thus, the standard is not above and beyond God's power to change, it just wouldn't be changed because God is all-good.

It is much like my belief that dogs cannot talk. If a dog did stand up and start having a conversation with me, my entire view of what dogs are capable of would have to change. Thus, my current beliefs about dogs would no longer apply.

Does that make sense?

If your situation occurred, I would be forced to realize that my belief about God is wrong and would have to reevaluate the situation. If God was not all-good, God may still be all-powerful and might strike me down for not doing something right, but would not be worthy of worship as far as I am concerned. If that occurred, then you would be right, I would believe in a morality beyond God. However, I do not currently.

Just so the non-theists don't feel left out, here's a question for you: how do you feel about people who base their entire sense of morality on God? Do you feel they are more or less trustworthy because of their use of God as a moral compass? Does it matter where people get their sense of morality, so long as their actions are consistent with the morals of their society?
honestly I don't think that moral can based on god because the bible, for exemple, can to be understood in many way. and in the end of the day, even religious men need to think about those laws, and decide what laws they adopt.
for that reasons I think that if someone is based all is life on god, he is just mindless wacko. always remember that the terrorist are mindless exactly like they.
and even if they are the most trustworthy on earth, I get away from them, because those guys are mostly riligious loonies who never thought about anything else then her riligion.
and about your last question, if they don't do something against the laws of society they can to believe in flying pigs, if that make them happy.

Of course god isnt the only source of my morals! He FREAKING WIPED OUT AN ENTIRe CIvILIZATION WITH A FLOOD JUST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WORSHIP HIM! How could i only follow his morals? While yes, i agree with some of them (Be nice to your neighbor, don't steal, dont commit adultery, yadda yadda yadda), i DONT agree with all of them. If god is so "Compasionate", why the hell would he send people to, well, hell! And why would he obliterate cities, send plagues upon entire empires, and, most of all, why is he so narrow minded? I don't believe in god in the way that he HATES people who don't worship him, and they are sent to hell to burn and be tortured! What does he have against buddhists?

All in all, i agree that you should be nice, but if ALL YOU DID WAS FOLLOW WHAT GOD SAYS, your moral judgements are in need of a serious tweaking. Seriously.

Bottle, you're forgetting that when Abe Raham was around there weren't morals. He did what God told him. The rest of the world did what they wanted. I'd say morals, when they first came around, were a way of breaking away from God while saying "yeah but we're not doing this or that so it's ok". Wot reckon?
i'm a little confused, i'm afraid; how could there NOT have been morals? Abraham obviously had a sense of right and wrong, one which he agonized over setting aside because it conflicted with what God ordered him to do.

also, the idea that morality came about in order to CONFLICT with God's will is a very unusual perspective; could you elaborate?

Fortunately, since there is no god, many of us derive our morals elsewhere.

Translated yes but I've always felt that God has had the final proofreading job on the Bible, if you like. I sincerely hope he hasn't let the beings it was supposed to guide twist it out of shape

This is where we disagree, I do not believe this, as a matter of fact, I believe organize religion has for much of it's history twisted the true meaning of religion out of shape, and said it was for god. History is very clear on this. Hey, even those around Jesus showed that they didn't really understand the message he was portraying, and it was they who founded the churches. But when you read the good book, you understand that even with these discrepincies(sp) the message is clear from the source.

Let me ask you this, if god is the proofreader, why did he even have to send Jesus to us? And why is the old message so different than the new (old test vs new test)?

i'm a little confused, i'm afraid; how could there NOT have been morals? Abraham obviously had a sense of right and wrong, one which he agonized over setting aside because it conflicted with what God ordered him to do.

also, the idea that morality came about in order to CONFLICT with God's will is a very unusual perspective; could you elaborate?
Well I'm guessing that at some point God would have told Abraham that what the rest of the people were doing was wrong, including murder. That and Isaac was his only son and being 100+ or however old he wasn't the studmachine he'd once been. God had told him "your descendants will outnumber the grains of sand" etc. and then said "oh yeah, I want you to kill your kid". Confusion at least, with a bit of frustration and fear, would have set in nicely.

Morals conflicting with God's ultimate will was just an idea. Let's say mankind just had God's Law. What if at some point some of mankind decided they didn't want to follow all of God's law anymore and picked out what they wanted and called them something different, man's law. That's what I'm equating to morals.

Genetrix, are you thinking of the various random "do not sleep with your hamster" rules in Leviticus and other bits? Fair enough. Half of those rules are about sacrificing and performing various rituals to appease God. In the 600 odd years between OT and NT I think that the execution of these rituals became the main focus, the 'god' if you will, of the Jews. Thus (bash that Bible) God sent Jesus to die as the ultimate sacrifice so we wouldn't have to burn three oxes and pour wine over bags of grain for insulting the Government or not tipping enough.

Fortunately, since there is no god, many of us derive our morals elsewhere.
Comics?

Let me ask you this, if god is the proofreader, why did he even have to send Jesus to us? And why is the old message so different than the new (old test vs new test)?

You should read up on the Abelardian theory of atonement. I think you might enjoy it (deemed heretical by the Catholic Church or not).

Basically, Abelard believed that God did *not* want human beings following out of fear, but out of love. Thus, God sent Jesus to demonstrate absolute love, so that human beings would turn to God in love, rather than fear. Unfortunately, Augustine and Anselm won out and so people *still* follow out of fear.

You should read up on the Abelardian theory of atonement. I think you might enjoy it (deemed heretical by the Catholic Church or not).

Basically, Abelard believed that God did *not* want human beings following out of fear, but out of love. Thus, God sent Jesus to demonstrate absolute love, so that human beings would turn to God in love, rather than fear. Unfortunately, Augustine and Anselm won out and so people *still* follow out of fear.
Right, but if god was the proofreader, the old messages wouldn't be based out of fear.

But thanks, I'll try to catch up on Abelardian theory. :)

You should read up on the Abelardian theory of atonement. I think you might enjoy it (deemed heretical by the Catholic Church or not).

Basically, Abelard believed that God did *not* want human beings following out of fear, but out of love. Thus, God sent Jesus to demonstrate absolute love, so that human beings would turn to God in love, rather than fear.
That too. When you say Catholic you mean Roman Catholic (hence Augustine and the other one) right. Catholic just means worldwide.

Genetrix, Maybe God wanted us to see the difference between a world with Jesus and one without

Awwww, no one has responded to my post. I feel sad...

Right, but if god was the proofreader, the old messages wouldn't be based out of fear.

But thanks, I'll try to catch up on Abelardian theory. :)

I was agreeing that God didn't hand-write (or maybe even closely proofread) the Bible, which is why I believe it must be interpreted with a grain of salt and lots of prayer.

That too. When you say Catholic you mean Roman Catholic (hence Augustine and the other one) right. Catholic just means worldwide.

Well, I think Abelard was before the East-West split (although I could be wrong), so pretty much all Churches were just Catholic back then.

Awwww, no one has responded to my post. I feel sad...
you didn't ask any questions that i noticed; what sort of response were you hoping for?

Of course god isnt the only source of my morals! He FREAKING WIPED OUT AN ENTIRe CIvILIZATION WITH A FLOOD JUST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WORSHIP HIM! How could i only follow his morals? While yes, i agree with some of them (Be nice to your neighbor, don't steal, dont commit adultery, yadda yadda yadda), i DONT agree with all of them. If god is so "Compasionate", why the hell would he send people to, well, hell! And why would he obliterate cities, send plagues upon entire empires, and, most of all, why is he so narrow minded? I don't believe in god in the way that he HATES people who don't worship him, and they are sent to hell to burn and be tortured! What does he have against buddhists?

All in all, i agree that you should be nice, but if ALL YOU DID WAS FOLLOW WHAT GOD SAYS, your moral judgements are in need of a serious tweaking. Seriously.

Ok, I will deal with your points one by one
1 Why does God send people to Hell?
He doesnt. Saten does that. God's judgement is just, if there was no hell then hevan would be stupid. In order for there to be light, there must be dark. You cannot have perfect bliss without eternal torment.

2 Why did God send the Flood/the sulpher on Soddom and Gourmorgh/the plagues etc? And then why does he seemingly contridict himself in the new testement
This is all pre-crucifixtion. God's covenent with us was not the same as it is now. He was the same. He has always hated sin and loved sinners, but because Jesus had not died in our place, we were still in God's eyes sinners and death (not just physical but spirtual) was our fate. Becoming a Christian means that now God sees Jesus's perfectness when he looks at our lives, and all our sins are fogotton. Before that though, we were dying in our sin. God punnished those who he saw as evil, which was everyone. Jesus saved us all by dieng in our place.

3 Does God hate those who dont worship him?
NO!!! Of course not. He loves them. In pre cruifixtion times he may have destroyed them but he also spared those who were willing to convert. There is an example somewhere (It would be nice if someone could tell me exactly what im thinking of) in the bible where God is telling someone that he plans to destroy a city, and that person is pleading on its behalf, despite the fact its a horrible, worldly place. He negotiates with God that if there is 50 believers that God should save it. He then pleeds for God to save it if there are 40 believers, then 30 etc down to 10. God never changes, he always loves us. Pre Crucifixion times though were harder. Jesus had not saved us. God loves us all and wants us to love him back. Its like a father with children who hate him trying to get them to be with him.

Ok, I will deal with your points one by one
1 Why does God send people to Hell?
He doesnt. Saten does that. God's judgement is just, if there was no hell then hevan would be stupid. In order for there to be light, there must be dark. You cannot have perfect bliss without eternal torment.

2 Why did God send the Flood/the sulpher on Soddom and Gourmorgh/the plagues etc? And then why does he seemingly contridict himself in the new testement
This is all pre-crucifixtion. God's covenent with us was not the same as it is now. He was the same. He has always hated sin and loved sinners, but because Jesus had not died in our place, we were still in God's eyes sinners and death (not just physical but spirtual) was our fate. Becoming a Christian means that now God sees Jesus's perfectness when he looks at our lives, and all our sins are fogotton. Before that though, we were dying in our sin. God punnished those who he saw as evil, which was everyone. Jesus saved us all by dieng in our place.

3 Does God hate those who dont worship him?
NO!!! Of course not. He loves them. In pre cruifixtion times he may have destroyed them but he also spared those who were willing to convert. There is an example somewhere (It would be nice if someone could tell me exactly what im thinking of) in the bible where God is telling someone that he plans to destroy a city, and that person is pleading on its behalf, despite the fact its a horrible, worldly place. He negotiates with God that if there is 50 believers that God should save it. He then pleeds for God to save it if there are 40 believers, then 30 etc down to 10. God never changes, he always loves us. Pre Crucifixion times though were harder. Jesus had not saved us. God loves us all and wants us to love him back. Its like a father with children who hate him trying to get them to be with him.


1. But why must you have eternal torment? Why? And if God REALLY loved everyone, he would just destroy Satan! Or at LEAST save our souls! The only way they could decide who goes where is if they made a deal, and if he made a deal with satan i dont like him much anymore...

2. Who is god to judge us? WHO? I am more important to me than god? What does he do for the world? ABSOLUTLY NOTHING! He makes us war amongst ourselves! How can someone so "pure" even CREATE sins? If he created us, then why throw in sins?

3. But the hindus and the buddhists and the taoists and the communists DONT hate god, they just dont BELIEVE in him! He has no power over them! What proof do you have that Christians are right and Hindus or Taoists or Buddhists are wrong?

Of course god isnt the only source of my morals! HE FREAKING WIPED OUT AN ENTIRE CIVILIZATION WITH A FLOOD JUST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WORSHIP HIM!
Yeah but he'll never do it again!! Anyway the word 'civilization would be pushing it a bit. No much was civilised. That was the problem. They just did what they wanted. Bastards, I bet they even squeezed toothpaste tubes from the middle :mp5: !!

How could i only follow his morals? While yes, i agree with some of them, i DONT agree with all of them. If god is so "Compasionate", why the hell would he send people to, well, hell! What does he have against buddhists?
He does kind of give people a choice you know, like Carmen Electra in Scary Movie: Heaven, Hell, Heaven, Hell... OH I DON'T KNOW!! He doesn't have anything against Buddhists other than the fact that they do things which don't go along with his rules.

I quoted you. Where's my cookie?!

3. But the hindus and the buddhists and the taoists and the communists DONT hate god, they just dont BELIEVE in him! He has no power over them! What proof do you have that Christians are right and Hindus or Taoists or Buddhists are wrong?
He created them; he has power over them. The flooded civilisation didn't believe. And he gave them lots of swimming lessons. Christians have absolutely no tangible proof that their beliefs are true. There are however prophecies in the Bible which are coming true with frightening regularity

Ok, I will deal with your points one by one
1 Why does God send people to Hell?
He doesnt. Saten does that. God's judgement is just, if there was no hell then hevan would be stupid. In order for there to be light, there must be dark. You cannot have perfect bliss without eternal torment.

why not? i guess God isn't all-powerful, then, if he is unable to create bliss without Satan's help in sending people to hell. if God is powerless to stop Satan from influencing us, shouldn't we worship Satan instead of God because Satan is more powerful? how useful is it to worship a loving God, if that God cannot save you from eternal torment?


2 Why did God send the Flood/the sulpher on Soddom and Gourmorgh/the plagues etc? And then why does he seemingly contridict himself in the new testement
This is all pre-crucifixtion. God's covenent with us was not the same as it is now. He was the same. He has always hated sin and loved sinners, but because Jesus had not died in our place, we were still in God's eyes sinners and death (not just physical but spirtual) was our fate. Becoming a Christian means that now God sees Jesus's perfectness when he looks at our lives, and all our sins are fogotton. Before that though, we were dying in our sin. God punnished those who he saw as evil, which was everyone. Jesus saved us all by dieng in our place.

did God NEED Jesus to die in order to forgive us? was he unable, in his all-powerful perfect love, to forgive without first watching his son tortured to death? or was he able to forgive and simply chose not to?


3 Does God hate those who dont worship him?
NO!!! Of course not. He loves them. In pre cruifixtion times he may have destroyed them but he also spared those who were willing to convert. There is an example somewhere (It would be nice if someone could tell me exactly what im thinking of) in the bible where God is telling someone that he plans to destroy a city, and that person is pleading on its behalf, despite the fact its a horrible, worldly place. He negotiates with God that if there is 50 believers that God should save it. He then pleeds for God to save it if there are 40 believers, then 30 etc down to 10. God never changes, he always loves us. Pre Crucifixion times though were harder. Jesus had not saved us. God loves us all and wants us to love him back. Its like a father with children who hate him trying to get them to be with him.
first off, those who don't worship God generally don't believe in God, and therefore they don't hate God at all (since you can't hate something that you don't think exists), and therefore your metaphor is a bit flawed. but setting that aside...

a father whose children hate him will not be justified if he decides to torture them to death when they refuse to come home. a father who would torture his children because they don't want to come home is not considered loving. how is God's application of Hell consistent with his love for the condemned? i cannot even understand how hell is a just punishment, let alone a loving one; if his love allows him to send people to eternal torment for non-eternal sins, then is that love worth having?

Yeah but he'll never do it again!! Anyway the word 'civilization would be pushing it a bit. No much was civilised. That was the problem. They just did what they wanted. Bastards, I bet they even squeezed toothpaste tubes from the middle :mp5: !!

How can an un-civilized people even MAKE toothpaste tubes?!?!?!

He does kind of give people a choice you know, like Carmen Electra in Scary Movie: Heaven, Hell, Heaven, Hell... OH I DON'T KNOW!! He doesn't have anything against Buddhists other than the fact that they do things which don't go along with his rules.

I quoted you. Where's my cookie?!

Then what happens to them? WHat happens? Do they go to hell? Do they go to heaven? Or do they get re-incarnated like their religion says?

And i never said you could have a cookie! You can have "Tonin' Uptown" though! Its a movie by Richard Simmons!

Please, what kind of God would let us all live in a *puts on high pitched patronising voice* happy, lovely world. Where no body sinned and no body did any thing wrong ever because God made them so they couldnt. Where pain was non existance and life was completely meaningless because there was no pain and no hardship of any kind la la la la la la *stops and looks questioningly at those who like this idea*

Please, what kind of God would let us all live in a *puts on high pitched patronising voice* happy, lovely world. Where no body sinned and no body did any thing wrong ever because God made them so they couldnt. Where pain was non existance and life was completely meaningless because there was no pain and no hardship of any kind la la la la la la *stops and looks questioningly at those who like this idea*

If god really WERE all powerful and he TRUELY loved us he would have let us live ina perfect world like the garden of Eden! AND this time he'd actually pay attention, not tell Eve not to eat the apple then turn away and twiddle his thumbs.

a father whose children hate him will not be justified if he decides to torture them to death when they refuse to come home. a father who would torture his children because they don't want to come home is not considered loving. how is God's application of Hell consistent with his love for the condemned? i cannot even understand how hell is a just punishment, let alone a loving one; if his love allows him to send people to eternal torment for non-eternal sins, then is that love worth having?

Let's all remember what hell actually is here. Hell is not a physical place, but is separation from God.

The eternal torment idea comes from the fact that for those who love God, separation from God *would* be tormenting.

However, in your example here, God's use of Hell is simply the father allowing the children to refuse to come home. If they do not come home, they will not be in God's presence. If they do come home, they will.

How can an un-civilized people even MAKE toothpaste tubes?!?!?!
The French manage it ( :headbang: bashes head on wall 'must not be insulting to the french', bash, bash, bash :headbang: )

Then what happens to them? WHat happens? Do they go to hell? Do they go to heaven? Or do they get re-incarnated like their religion says?
Christians would say that Buddhists will go to Hell at the end of the age if they've been witness to Christian teaching. Which they largely can't get away from due to a huge Chinese church (not the Government approved diluted version)

And i never said you could have a cookie! You can have "Tonin' Uptown" though! Its a movie by Richard Simmons!
Bu... no.. cookie.... WAAAAAAH!! Tonin' Uptown? Sounds like a posh aerobics video

First off, those who don't worship God generally don't believe in God, and therefore they don't hate God at all (since you can't hate something that you don't think exists), and therefore your metaphor is a bit flawed. but setting that aside...
Satan would be the major example of believing and hating. And generally by not believing they're saying they don't respect their creator to believe what he's telling them. It ain't love...

If god really WERE all powerful and he TRUELY loved us he would have let us live ina perfect world like the garden of Eden! AND this time he'd actually pay attention, not tell Eve not to eat the apple then turn away and twiddle his thumbs.
Kind of woulda killed the choice element of the whole thing wouldn't it? And anyway, we don't live in a perfect world because Adam and Eve screwed up the choice thing. Blame Adam and Eve... ok don't.

Let's all remember what hell actually is here. Hell is not a physical place, but is separation from God.

The eternal torment idea comes from the fact that for those who love God, separation from God *would* be tormenting.

However, in your example here, God's use of Hell is simply the father allowing the children to refuse to come home. If they do not come home, they will not be in God's presence. If they do come home, they will.
so you are saying Hell isn't a punishment for those who don't believe in God, then. because i have been "seperated from God" for my whole life, and consider it a very happy state of being. i don't see why there is incentive to believe in God, in that case, or why there is incentive to avoid wrong doing; if your only punishment will be to be sent away from the person who disaproves of your actions, then that doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. and if Hell isn't a punishment, then God isn't doing a very good job of dispensing punishment for earthly evils, is he? i mean, if all a murderer will face is not being able to spend time with the God that is upset at him, then i don't see why the murderer would have anything to worry about...and if God isn't going to punish people for doing wicked things, then i don't see how the "immortal soul" school of morality would work.

Satan would be the major example of believing and hating. And generally by not believing they're saying they don't respect their creator to believe what he's telling them. It ain't love...

huh? i don't believe in God, so obviously i cannot respect or disrespect him. are you disrespecting Santa by failing to believe in him?

God isn't the source of my morality, but common sense. The thing is though, is that the concept of God and religion has been intergrated throughout our society in many aspects, and therefore it generally is safe to say that our morality is derived from cultural religion.

I have moral standards outside of my faith, which I apply to questions of government and other wordly realms. I could and would live in a Catholic nation but I do believe that the optimal form of government for most people is a tolerant, secular libertarianism that could be identified as 'I don't care, pay your taxes and leave other people alone.'

If God were to tell me to torture kittens/infants for his glory I would first of all question if this was one of Satans temptations but I pretty much figure that I'd know if it was God. And I'd do it. After all, you can only serve one master and servitude requires obedience.

While this may sound crass you should consider that many of my obligations are of a philanthropic nature. Aiding the poor, defending the weak and being true. Not to forget preaching the gospel so that others too may recieve His glory and be saved.

It's not half as bad as a lot of types make it out to be. Come on, go ahead and read the bible out of pure curiosity. You may come to like it.

I have moral standards outside of my faith, which I apply to questions of government and other wordly realms. I could and would live in a Catholic nation but I do believe that the optimal form of government for most people is a tolerant, secular libertarianism that could be identified as 'I don't care, pay your taxes and leave other people alone.'

If God were to tell me to torture kittens/infants for his glory I would first of all question if this was one of Satans temptations but I pretty much figure that I'd know if it was God. And I'd do it. After all, you can only serve one master and servitude requires obedience.

While this may sound crass you should consider that many of my obligations are of a philanthropic nature. Aiding the poor, defending the weak and being true. Not to forget preaching the gospel so that others too may recieve His glory and be saved.

It's not half as bad as a lot of types make it out to be. Come on, go ahead and read the bible out of pure curiosity. You may come to like it.


Ive read the bible(well, some of it...) and i do not doubt its good craftsmanship(except it gets confusing to read at times), but i question its ideas.

huh? I don't believe in God, so obviously i cannot respect or disrespect him. Are you disrespecting Santa by failing to believe in him?
I'd risk inflaming public opinion on the Santa thing.. but no. You're disrespecting God by not believing in him. Wait.. you're not saying.. you don't believe in Santa Claus?!

so you are saying Hell isn't a punishment for those who don't believe in God, then. because i have been "seperated from God" for my whole life, and consider it a very happy state of being. i don't see why there is incentive to believe in God, in that case, or why there is incentive to avoid wrong doing; if your only punishment will be to be sent away from the person who disaproves of your actions, then that doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
If you hadn't noticed, God is all around you. And I don't just mean the people in the streets with flipcharts and microphones. So Hell will be like him withdrawing from your surroundings and you're suddenly just left with all the bad shit. Like the Dementors in Harry Potter.

(ooh yeah, worked scary movie and harry potter into a God related thread!!)

so you are saying Hell isn't a punishment for those who don't believe in God, then. because i have been "seperated from God" for my whole life, and consider it a very happy state of being. i don't see why there is incentive to believe in God, in that case, or why there is incentive to avoid wrong doing; if your only punishment will be to be sent away from the person who disaproves of your actions, then that doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. and if Hell isn't a punishment, then God isn't doing a very good job of dispensing punishment for earthly evils, is he? i mean, if all a murderer will face is not being able to spend time with the God that is upset at him, then i don't see why the murderer would have anything to worry about...and if God isn't going to punish people for doing wicked things, then i don't see how the "immortal soul" school of morality would work.

I don't believe that God is all about the carrot-stick mentality so many people like to attribute. Basically, God gave human beings free will and they can choose to be with God or without God. Obviously, God wishes human beings to be with God.

As for not feeling punished, I am sure that you don't. However, I believe that, regardless of how happy your life is now, it would be even happier if you felt God in it. The comfort and love that God brings is the incentive, although some people do not feel/see that incentive. I find this to be sad, but also part of the world.

As for not feeling punished, I am sure that you don't. However, I believe that, regardless of how happy your life is now, it would be even happier if you felt God in it. The comfort and love that God brings is the incentive, although some people do not feel/see that incentive. I find this to be sad, but also part of the world.

I've "felt" god. I used to go to church every sunday, pray every night, still have the bible up in my room. Then, one day, a friend asked a few questions about faith and proof-of-god and all that.

4 years of athiesm later, i can safely say that i'm happier not having to give a care about that stuff.

Reading the bible, god uses the carrot-and-stick mentality CONSTANTLY. Pre-Jesus, it's mostly the strick, fire and brimstone stuff. Jesus uses the carrot, kindness and all that. Post-Jesus uses both.

If you hadn't noticed, God is all around you. And I don't just mean the people in the streets with flipcharts and microphones. So Hell will be like him withdrawing from your surroundings and you're suddenly just left with all the bad shit. Like the Dementors in Harry Potter.

So hell is like sensory deprevation then? That's a form of torture, not some simple lacking.

Is Murder OK? Rape?Adultery? Stealing? Lying?
Of course most people would say NO of course not but then where do you get that rule from?


Well, most people (they may not know it) follow the Golden Rule:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
You wouldn't want those actions taken against you. So, hence the morality. You wouldn't want to be tortured (kitten idea), so you wouldn't do that yourself.

I've "felt" god. I used to go to church every sunday, pray every night, still have the bible up in my room. Then, one day, a friend asked a few questions about faith and proof-of-god and all that.

4 years of athiesm later, i can safely say that i'm happier not having to give a care about that stuff.

"All that stuff" implies that you are talking about the trappings of religion, not a belief in God.

Reading the bible, god uses the carrot-and-stick mentality CONSTANTLY. Pre-Jesus, it's mostly the strick, fire and brimstone stuff. Jesus uses the carrot, kindness and all that. Post-Jesus uses both.

The Bible was written by human beings who thought they knew what God wanted. I believe that Jesus is the image of God that God wants us to have. Do not confuse God with the organized religions that human beings have built.

I've "felt" god. I used to go to church every sunday, pray every night, still have the bible up in my room. Then, one day, a friend asked a few questions about faith and proof-of-god and all that.

4 years of athiesm later, i can safely say that i'm happier not having to give a care about that stuff.
Is that friend still your friend now? What kind of questions did he/she ask?

So hell is like sensory deprevation then? That's a form of torture, not some simple lacking.
Mate, total sensory depriv. would feel like your team winning the superbowl in the last play compared to Hell! That's not a satisfactory description but the qualitative point is there.

"All that stuff" implies that you are talking about the trappings of religion, not a belief in God.

Belief in god included with those other things.

The Bible was written by human beings who thought they knew what God wanted. I believe that Jesus is the image of God that God wants us to have. Do not confuse God with the organized religions that human beings have built.

So, for example, i shoudln't mind the fact that the bible was written/heavly-edited by the Roman senate as a bit of propoganda to make the masses support the state?

Is that friend still your friend now? What kind of questions did he/she ask?

Yes she is. And things like "So you can't prove that god exists?", "So you actually feel god with you?", "Ah, so this god that killed all these people here in the same one right?".

Mate, total sensory depriv. would feel like your team winning the superbowl in the last play compared to Hell! That's not a satisfactory description but the qualitative point is there.

You said absolutly nothing in that sentance.

Just so the non-theists don't feel left out, here's a question for you: how do you feel about people who base their entire sense of morality on God?I don't think much of people who base their morality entirely on obedience to authority. But I suspect that doesn't apply for many people who say their morality is based entirely on God.

Do you feel they are more or less trustworthy because of their use of God as a moral compass? Does it matter where people get their sense of morality, so long as their actions are consistent with the morals of their society?I'm going to answer these two question together, because my answers are related. I think it matters where people get their sense of morality, but that approaches to morality have very little to do with whether God is involved or not. In particular, I think it is important to empathise and care about others. If people are compassionate because God tells them to be, hey, no skin off my back. Also, morality should be consistent with what is right, not with the morals of any society.

You said absolutly nothing in that sentance.

I have to agree with you. "mate" and "superbowl" in the same scentence makes as much sense as rubber-flavored Low-fat Yogurt from Bolivia...

I have to agree with you. "mate" and "superbowl" in the same scentence makes as much sense as rubber-flavored Low-fat Yogurt from Bolivia...

Or a double-cheese kangaroo burger from Russia.

Or a double-cheese kangaroo burger from Russia.

Agreed.

As for not feeling punished, I am sure that you don't. However, I believe that, regardless of how happy your life is now, it would be even happier if you felt God in it. The comfort and love that God brings is the incentive, although some people do not feel/see that incentive. I find this to be sad, but also part of the world.
again, that doesn't seem to answer my question; if somebody lives their whole life without feeling God in it, and they sin their ass off, and their only punishment is to be sent to a place where they don't feel God, then they aren't going to feel any worse than they did when they were alive. they could be perfectly happy without God (as i am), so how is that justice? they get no punishment, they just don't get a reward. that's like saying to a kid, well, you stole that kid's bike, so i won't buy you an extra ice cream cone tonight...that's not punishment, that's just withholding a reward that they didn't expect anyway.

it seems to me that Hell MUST have some element of punishment if God is going to deal justly with those who commit serious wrongs. however, if he also sends people to that Hell for simply not believing in him (and thereby exercising the free will and rationality principles that He built into us), then that is also an unjust act, since it is hardly fair to punish a moral and compassionate secularist in the same way you punish a rapist or a murderer.

again, that doesn't seem to answer my question; if somebody lives their whole life without feeling God in it, and they sin their ass off, and their only punishment is to be sent to a place where they don't feel God, then they aren't going to feel any worse than they did when they were alive. they could be perfectly happy without God (as i am), so how is that justice? they get no punishment, they just don't get a reward. that's like saying to a kid, well, you stole that kid's bike, so i won't buy you an extra ice cream cone tonight...that's not punishment, that's just withholding a reward that they didn't expect anyway.

Assuming Christianity is correct: Don't you think that going to hell and finding out that there is a God of all-encompasing love, and then knowing that you'll be separated from Him would qualify as a punishment? To rephrase it: to know that there's a love out there like you've never felt in your life, but now know you'll never be allowed to feel ... that would piss me off to no end.

it seems to me that Hell MUST have some element of punishment if God is going to deal justly with those who commit serious wrongs. however, if he also sends people to that Hell for simply not believing in him (and thereby exercising the free will and rationality principles that He built into us), then that is also an unjust act, since it is hardly fair to punish a moral and compassionate secularist in the same way you punish a rapist or a murderer.

I actually like the theory that the christian hell is simply separation from god ... then the punishment fits the real crime. Since the belief is that the soul is immortal, and christians are going to a place of pure love and joy, then the suffering on earth is just a temporary blip. According to Revelations, you even somehow get door prizes (oversimplifying) for the more suffering your endured in God's name. Since the real crime then wouldn't have anything to do with the "sins" most of us think about, it would also fit the definition of sin in the Bible, namely, anything that goes against God's will, or in another rephrase, separating yourself from God enough to go against His will.

I've read dozens upon dozens of belief systems and theories of the afterlife, but I like this one the best (though I think I'm poor at explaining it) because it's simplistic in the extreme and fits so many definitions at once.

God is the source of my morality. I believe in the 10 Commandments and try to live by them with the Spirit's help.

No, God isn't the only source, there is Jesus as well. :D

While they are the foundation of my source, but I have my own beliefs and morals as well.

Dude.

I totally just now noticed you quoted me in your sig :D

God is the source of my morality. I believe in the 10 Commandments and try to live by them with the Spirit's help.
You know that since Jesus's death revoked all of the Mosaic Laws, the 10 Commandments is no longer in effect according to christian teachings, right?

You know that since Jesus's death revoked all of the Mosaic Laws, the 10 Commandments is no longer in effect according to christian teachings, right?

Jesus didn't revoke all Mosaic laws. His death only revoked the sacrificial ones. The dietary laws were also revoked later.

again, that doesn't seem to answer my question; if somebody lives their whole life without feeling God in it, and they sin their ass off, and their only punishment is to be sent to a place where they don't feel God, then they aren't going to feel any worse than they did when they were alive. they could be perfectly happy without God (as i am), so how is that justice? they get no punishment, they just don't get a reward. that's like saying to a kid, well, you stole that kid's bike, so i won't buy you an extra ice cream cone tonight...that's not punishment, that's just withholding a reward that they didn't expect anyway.

I think of it as more like a parent who says to their grown up child - "It's your life, but if you don't follow my rules, you don't get to live in my house anymore" or "If you don't follow my rules, I won't pay for your school anymore," etc.

It really isn't punishment so much as "Ok, fine, you don't want me, you don't get me."

it seems to me that Hell MUST have some element of punishment if God is going to deal justly with those who commit serious wrongs. however, if he also sends people to that Hell for simply not believing in him (and thereby exercising the free will and rationality principles that He built into us), then that is also an unjust act, since it is hardly fair to punish a moral and compassionate secularist in the same way you punish a rapist or a murderer.

Would you rather God force you into God's presence against your own free will? I don't claim to know what happens to good people who simply never acknowledge God in life. I tend towards the belief that good people are admitted into God's presence. This is especially true of good people who have never been told any different. However, I would never claim to objectively know exactly what happens after we die. And none of us will know until it happens.

The Bible was written by human beings who thought they knew what God wanted. I believe that Jesus is the image of God that God wants us to have. Do not confuse God with the organized religions that human beings have built.

The problem with this is the bible is the only 'reliable' primary source of information about God. Now either everything in it is the true word of God, or not. Remember if God is all powerful (as the bible states) the bible says exactly what God allows it to say, if men have transcribed it 'incorrectly' it is only because God chooses that it be so. If the bible is wrong to the extent that God is not all powerful, and the bible is not (as it claims) the 'word of God' (but rather what people thought the word of God was/should be), then the bible is wrong on 2 founding premises, and all the other premises which can only be true if those 2 are true are also not true, and the same goes for any premises which can only be true is those are true, and so on. So we either have a completely true bible that exactly represents the true word of God, or God chooses to allow the bible to be false because he doesnt care enough about us knowing his true word to make the bible accurate, or the bible is false to the extent that God is not even powerful enough make the bible accurate even if God wanted.

Actually God and religion are one of the few things I don't draw any of my personal morality from. Hypocracy is something I try to avoid and definately don't emulate.

GOD Is a capricious, unfettered complete bastard, and he begot his one and only child through rape.

jim

Or a double-cheese kangaroo burger from Russia.
Yeah ok point taken. So my 'English idiot trying to empathise with America' idea didn't work out too well? I would have said 'your team winning the FA cup in the last minute' but Americans may have gone "wha.." so I thought I'd use NFL football instead (dolphins suck)

But that's beside the point. Hell will be pretty bad. Ever been clothes shopping with your girlfriend? (worse than that!!!!!!!)

So the questions that made Muru lose his faith were those quoted above. Oh. They're tought on the face of it but nothing to lose sleep over (or faith)

Actually God and religion are one of the few things I don't draw any of my personal morality from. Hypocracy is something I try to avoid and definately don't emulate
You should try emulating a dictionary, spelling-wise. Hypocrisy? If you think
a) God and religion
b) God and hypocrisy
are synonymous then you've missed something.

Fairly straightforward question, obviously directed primarily at those persons who believe in God. Is God the source of all your moral judgments, or do you have a sense of morality that is independent of God? Is morality defined as consistent with God's will, or is there a standard of Good that exists apart from God? If God told you, unequivocally, that the only way for you to be a moral person was to torture kittens to death, would you feel okay about doing it? Replace "kittens" with "infants"...now how would you feel?
Just so the non-theists don't feel left out, here's a question for you: how do you feel about people who base their entire sense of morality on God? Do you feel they are more or less trustworthy because of their use of God as a moral compass? Does it matter where people get their sense of morality, so long as their actions are consistent with the morals of their society?What the heck? How could a god who shows no moral behavior whatsoever be a reference for my own behavior?

GOD Is a capricious, unfettered complete bastard, and he begot his one and only child through rape.

jim

So you're a what? Messed up Christian? I assume you're talking about Jesus ... I guess that could make you some kind of twisted messianic jew as well.

I'm always confused when people say something like this. Are they admitting the existance of one particular god or another and at the same time denying any of the consequences of believing in the god they've chosen, or are they just striking out blindly in a silly way at whatever religion is getting their panties in a knot that day?

You should try emulating a dictionary, spelling-wise. Hypocrisy? If you think
a) God and religion
b) God and hypocrisy
are synonymous then you've missed something.Maybe you've missed something, like a few thousand years of war, killing, persecution, greed, lies, domination and thievery in the name of one god or another. I know hypocrisy when it passes the plate in front of me despite the spelling error.

Assuming Christianity is correct: Don't you think that going to hell and finding out that there is a God of all-encompasing love, and then knowing that you'll be separated from Him would qualify as a punishment?

for me? no. sure, i would be a bit curious about God, maybe even a little bummed that i wouldn't be able to chat him up, but in the long run it really wouldn't bother me much. i most certainly wouldn't think it is a fit punishment for a violent crime, especially for a criminal who happens to be a sociopath; they don't experience pleasure from love in the way normal humans do, so missing out on perfect love wouldn't be of any concern at all to them.


To rephrase it: to know that there's a love out there like you've never felt in your life, but now know you'll never be allowed to feel ... that would piss me off to no end.

wouldn't bother me, but that's mostly because the love i have in this life is almost more than i can handle :).

No,not really. I am not a saint,but some things just come to me without thinking. If someone is hurt or needs help then I'll help them. Though I do try to forgive people more due to God.

I think of it as more like a parent who says to their grown up child - "It's your life, but if you don't follow my rules, you don't get to live in my house anymore" or "If you don't follow my rules, I won't pay for your school anymore," etc.

a parent isn't supposed to be punishing their grown-up child, because the grown-up child is an adult. adults all have equal rights and responsibilities. humans and God do NOT, according to Christianity, have equal rights and responsibilities, and God most certainly does NOT treat humans as adults treat each other. i don't think that's a reasonable comparison in the slightest.

furthermore, it still doesn't explain how God is just for failing to punish those who are horrible in life. if he is going to reward the Good, but simply let the Bad go along their merry way, then that's some crappy justice. can you imagine if our earthly justice system worked that way? "You murdered 10 people, but we aren't going to PUNISH you for it, we just won't let you go into Disneyland ever again."


It really isn't punishment so much as "Ok, fine, you don't want me, you don't get me."

right. and shouldn't it be so much more?!


Would you rather God force you into God's presence against your own free will? I don't claim to know what happens to good people who simply never acknowledge God in life. I tend towards the belief that good people are admitted into God's presence. This is especially true of good people who have never been told any different. However, I would never claim to objectively know exactly what happens after we die. And none of us will know until it happens.
if God wants me he is welcome to come and talk with me. i have never been anything but open-minded about his existence (except for a brief bout of atheism at age 13), and i have always been quite prepared to have an open dialogue with him whenever he sees fit to contact me. so far, he hasn't given me the slightest reason to believe he even exists, let alone giving me any pointers on which of the dozens and hundreds of human Gods he might resemble.

all the typical bullshit about "seeing miracles in everyday life" and "feeling God's presence" in my life is a waste of everyone's time, because any God who built me would know beyond any doubt that such tactics simply wouldn't work on me. if he wanted me to come into his presence then he would make himself known to me in a way that is consistent with my ability to accept and comprehend him. the fact that he chooses not to means that he is either a) not all knowing, because he doesn't know how lame his current efforts are, b) not all powerful, because he can't do any better, c) not all-good, because he creates me in such a way that i will never accept his current approach but then plans to punish me for acting exactly as he built me, or d) he doesn't want me to believe in him during my lifetime. the conclusion of all these possibilities is that God isn't somebody i need to be worshipping, and if he sends me to hell for my failure to believe then i don't think he is somebody that anyone who believes in justice or love should be worshipping.

What the heck? How could a god who shows no moral behavior whatsoever be a reference for my own behavior?
you answered the question, in that case. most religious people say that all morality is derived from God, and without God there could be no morality. however, you just expressed the fact that there is a moral code that is above and beyond God, because you do not believe everything God does is (by definition) moral. therefore, God is not essential for morality, nor is God the source of morality.

if God wants me he is welcome to come and talk with me. all the typical bullshit about "seeing miracles in everyday life" and "feeling God's presence" in my life is a waste of everyone's time, because any God who built me would know beyond any doubt that such tactics simply wouldn't work on me. if he wanted me to come into his presence then he would make himself known to me in a way that is consistent with my ability to accept and comprehend him. the fact that he chooses not to means that he is either a) not all knowing, because he doesn't know how lame his current efforts are, b) not all powerful, because he can't do any better, c) not all-good, because he creates me in such a way that i will never accept his current approach but then plans to punish me for acting exactly as he built me, or d) he doesn't want me to believe in him during my lifetime. the conclusion of all three possibilities is that God isn't somebody i need to be worshipping, and if he sends me to hell for my failure to believe then i don't think he is somebody that anyone who believes in justice or love should be worshipping.

There was a man standing on a rock in the sea. Suddenly a storm blew up bringing in the tide. The sea began to rise. He looked around and saw that he was going to become cut off and drown. He suddenly felt a great wave of wellbeing. He thought "I won't die, God will save me".

As he was thinking this, a man nearby on the dry ground shouted "quick, if you run this way you can escape. The water's not too deep; you can walk across on the rock underneath."
The man, secure in his safety, replied "no thanks, I'm alright I'll wait for God to save me."
The other man on the shore looked puzzled but walked away.

The water rose higher. A lifeboat combing the shores pulled up near the fast-disappearing bit of rock. "Jump in, we'll catch you and take you to the shore" one of the lifeboatmen shouted.
"I'll wait for God to save me. Thanks anyway" shouted the man on the rock, now flushed with his faith in God. The lifeboatmen left reluctantly.

Soon the man on the rock was getting a little scared. The sea was now covering all but a square foot of the previously dry rock. A coastguard helicopter flew overhead and a man was winched down. "Grab on" he said, gesturing to his harness. "We'll take you in to shore".
Somewhat tremulously the man repeated his confidence and pushed the coastguard away. After a few efforts to change the man's mind, the coastguard was pulled back into the helicopter which flew back into shore.

The man on the rock drowned.

There was a man standing on a rock in the sea. Suddenly a storm blew up bringing in the tide. The sea began to rise. He looked around and saw that he was going to become cut off and drown. He suddenly felt a great wave of wellbeing. He thought "I won't die, God will save me".

As he was thinking this, a man nearby on the dry ground shouted "quick, if you run this way you can escape. The water's not too deep; you can walk across on the rock underneath."
The man, secure in his safety, replied "no thanks, I'm alright I'll wait for God to save me."
The other man on the shore looked puzzled but walked away.

The water rose higher. A lifeboat combing the shores pulled up near the fast-disappearing bit of rock. "Jump in, we'll catch you and take you to the shore" one of the lifeboatmen shouted.
"I'll wait for God to save me. Thanks anyway" shouted the man on the rock, now flushed with his faith in God. The lifeboatmen left reluctantly.

Soon the man on the rock was getting a little scared. The sea was now covering all but a square foot of the previously dry rock. A coastguard helicopter flew overhead and a man was winched down. "Grab on" he said, gesturing to his harness. "We'll take you in to shore".
Somewhat tremulously the man repeated his confidence and pushed the coastguard away. After a few efforts to change the man's mind, the coastguard was pulled back into the helicopter which flew back into shore.

The man on the rock drowned.
...which is precisely why i live my life without ever depending on God. what was your point?

are you trying to say that it is my job to try to make contact with an infinite and all-powerful being? i have been trying to for my entire conscious life. i have been open to any signals he might send my way. i don't leap to assume that things are God's work when i have no reason to, any more than a sane person would leap to the conclusion that leprechauns are behind all events in their life, but i also have no vested interest in DISbelieving God.

like i said, if he is all-powerful and all-knowing then he knows how he built me. he gave me my rationality, my skepticism, and my scientific mentality. he knows exactly how i will react to ambiguous and inconclusive "evidence." since he continues to use ONLY that sort of evidence in his alleged efforts to contact me, then my reasoning from the previous post ensues.

@Bottle
You know, most people think that the existence of god would already constitute submission to his authority. But that is just not so. Even if god existed he would have no power over me, except by force.

@Bottle
You know, most people think that the existence of god would already constitute submission to his authority. But that is just not so. Even if god existed he would have no power over me, except by force.
that's one of the points i have been making; even if there is a Creator, i am not being given much reason to believe he is worthy of my worship. in fact, thusfar i have concluded that i shouldn't be worshipping the Christian God even if he is proven to be real beyond any doubt, because either he is unjust/unloving or he specifically does not want me worshipping him.

No, God isn't the only source, there is Jesus as well. :D

While they are the foundation of my source, but I have my own beliefs and morals as well.

Jesus is God. God takes three forms - that is, the three forms of the Holy Trinity

Jesus is God. God takes three forms - that is, the three forms of the Holy Trinity
Since when is Jesus god? Since 325?

...which is precisely why i live my life without ever depending on God. what was your point?

Which confirms my suspicion that you're actively trying to stave off belief! There are many ways to view that story. You've chosen the one which goes "God didn't even try and save him... Why did he believe?" In the story the man doesn't recognise God trying to save him, because he thinks he understands. At three points in the story he would have been saved but he didn't use his head.

are you trying to say that it is my job to try to make contact with an infinite and all-powerful being? i have been trying to for my entire conscious life. i have been open to any signals he might send my way.
So how would you class the Christian views on these forums if not as a way of God reaching out to you? Fairy mist? I'm guessing you've have contact with him already through Sunday School, regular school, friends but you're waiting for a magical billboard to appear in the skies.

like i said, if he is all-powerful and all-knowing then he knows how he built me. he gave me my rationality, my skepticism, and my scientific mentality. he knows exactly how i will react to ambiguous and inconclusive "evidence." since he continues to use ONLY that sort of evidence in his alleged efforts to contact me, then my reasoning from the previous post ensues.
So you want God to decisively prove his existence? Kind of removes the faith element a little. Open your eyes, open your mind and try again.

You know, most people think that the existence of god would already constitute submission to his authority. But that is just not so. Even if god existed he would have no power over me, except by force.
Relate that third sentence to the first two? If you were an amazonian tribesman with no knowledge of electricity and you walked into a 10,000V electric fence, what would have caused your body to stop working?

Satan believes in God, he has absolute belief in his existence. I doubt he has a penthouse suite reserved in Heaven!

Maybe you've missed something, like a few thousand years of war, killing, persecution, greed, lies, domination and thievery in the name of one god or another. I know hypocrisy when it passes the plate in front of me despite the spelling error.
I did kind of miss that. Comes from being born in the latter half of this century don't you know. Ok, so I just about caught the Falklands. Bloody Argentinians. The only hypocrisy going on in your thousands of years of war etc. was on the part of humans. I don't think the commandment goes:
"Do not murder. Unless it's those bastard turks again. In that case I command you, you frenchman ruling england, to go kill the lot of them. Up and at 'em. Raa!"

Or maybe that's a KJV thing.

eh. eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we shall die! Thats what I say. If I am smarter or stronger, then I deserve your stuff if I can take it. I don't think anything should be against the law. Survival of the fittest.

Ummm,... i missed alot and im too lazy to read it right now so im just gonna nod my head.

...

*Nods his head*.

Which confirms my suspicion that you're actively trying to stave off belief! There are many ways to view that story. You've chosen the one which goes "God didn't even try and save him... Why did he believe?" In the story the man doesn't recognise God trying to save him, because he thinks he understands. At three points in the story he would have been saved but he didn't use his head.

incorrect. i assume that God isn't going to zap a magic beam of light down to solve all my problems. instead, i help myself and do not rely on "miracles" to save me. i do not make any particular effort to believe or disbelieve God, i simply interpret the actual situation without trying to attribute God-causes or God-motives. if you think that proves your assumption then you are simply failing to understand me. please let me know what i need to clarify, but kindly refrain from trying to tell me what i believe or don't believe; it is very rude to do so.


So how would you class the Christian views on these forums if not as a way of God reaching out to you? Fairy mist? I'm guessing you've have contact with him already through Sunday School, regular school, friends but you're waiting for a magical billboard to appear in the skies.

i also have contact with Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, pagans, and any number of agnostics and atheists. by what criterion am i supposed to judge Christians as the authorities on God? how do i know that Christians have it right, and why should i embrace their vision of God? i'm not looking for a magic billboard, i'm looking for any particular reason to choose one vision of God/gods over all the alternatives.


So you want God to decisively prove his existence? Kind of removes the faith element a little. Open your eyes, open your mind and try again.

my eyes and mind are as open to God as they are to any other possibilities. it seems to me that your "faith" has blinded you to alternative options. you ask me to select your faith without giving me any reason to do so, and ask me to discount millions of other perspectives on "faith"...how exactly is that "open minded"?

incorrect. i assume that God isn't going to zap a magic beam of light down to solve all my problems. instead, i help myself and do not rely on "miracles" to save me. i do not make any particular effort to believe or disbelieve God, i simply interpret the actual situation without trying to attribute God-causes or God-motives. if you think that proves your assumption then you are simply failing to understand me. please let me know what i need to clarify, but kindly refrain from trying to tell me what i believe or don't believe; it is very rude to do so.
I didn't tell you what you believe. I said I suspected you were opposed to believing. Now that is true whatever you say. If it weren't you'd accept my points for the well-meant pointers that they are (too many point* words!).

i also have contact with Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, pagans, and any number of agnostics and atheists. by what criterion am i supposed to judge Christians as the authorities on God? how do i know that Christians have it right, and why should i embrace their vision of God? i'm not looking for a magic billboard, i'm looking for any particular reason to choose one vision of God/gods over all the alternatives.
I have contact with some of these others too, JW's too when they're too quick with the feet in the door. My best mate's a moslem and I dabbled in buddhism when I was well into martial arts. There were enough people around me who cared about me to show me where I was going wrong. I hope you find that Christians are the most willing to help you understand what their faith is. If that's not the base there's something wrong.

Only Christians worship God. Moslems worship Allah who they would say is the same being, but there are several personality differences. The Christian God is a God of love, Allah is not. Hindu's create more gods every year (well over 2 million now). Jews believe in a God who didn't send his son to die for the entire world almost 2000 years ago, etc. etc. And Buddhism has no god. When the guy says he's not a god he's probably not a god. True the alternatives have become as varied and numerous as wine. Christians however believe in a simplistic world. There's God.. and there's the rest, ruses put in the world to deceive and confuse. Try graphing the number of different religions against General shittiness of the state of the world. If we could we'd find a general upward trend.

my eyes and mind are as open to God as they are to any other possibilities. it seems to me that your "faith" has blinded you to alternative options. you ask me to select your faith without giving me any reason to do so, and ask me to discount millions of other perspectives on "faith"...how exactly is that "open minded"?
If you can't see it, you're looking in the wrong places. You can walk around a pitch black room with your eyes wide open and you'll still bang your nose on the wall. And no, I'm not asking you to choose Christianity, just pointing out why.

can I have an apricot?

I have contact with some of these others too, JW's too when they're too quick with the feet in the door. My best mate's a moslem and I dabbled in buddhism when I was well into martial arts. There were enough people around me who cared about me to show me where I was going wrong. I hope you find that Christians are the most willing to help you understand what their faith is. If that's not the base there's something wrong.

Only Christians worship God. Moslems worship Allah who they would say is the same being, but there are several personality differences. The Christian God is a God of love, Allah is not. Hindu's create more gods every year (well over 2 million now). Jews believe in a God who didn't send his son to die for the entire world almost 2000 years ago, etc. etc. And Buddhism has no god. When the guy says he's not a god he's probably not a god. True the alternatives have become as varied and numerous as wine. Christians however believe in a simplistic world. There's God.. and there's the rest, ruses put in the world to deceive and confuse. Try graphing the number of different religions against General shittiness of the state of the world. If we could we'd find a general upward trend.



Actually, Allah is also a god of peace(well, not peace, but not of war either). At least he didn't wipe out Civilizations similar to the french using a giant flood.

Now, other views are also simple. Take Taosim, for example. Everything has a spirit, there is no god, your ancestors will guide you, be nice to people. Thats it.

Christianity is: Only humans have spirits, be nice or you will go to hell, try to covnert others even if they are perfectly happy and trying to convert them will be painful, smite those who are mean to god, only worship god, devote yourself to god, you get one life on this earth, if you screw up that life you go to hell and you can never redeem yourself, if you go to heaven then all you can do is look at the mortals on earth and never go back, and ALOT more.

It's all the same god in the end.
How you see the god depends on how you see things in general.

Now, other views are also simple. Take Taosim, for example. Everything has a spirit, there is no god, your ancestors will guide you, be nice to people. Thats it.

you are an idiot

read the tao te ching before spreading ignorance please

you are an idiot

read the tao te ching before spreading ignorance please

I was being BASSSSSIIIIIICCCCC!!!

basic=realy realy small adn ignorign allt eh fleshy facts.

Tao is still less complicated than christianity tho.

I was being BASSSSSIIIIIICCCCC!!!

basic=realy realy small adn ignorign allt eh fleshy facts.

Tao is still less complicated than christianity tho.

the way is not the true way
the true way cant be espressed

thats way more complex than

Good vs bad

I was being BASSSSSIIIIIICCCCC!!!

basic=realy realy small adn ignorign allt eh fleshy facts.

Tao is still less complicated than christianity tho.

taoism isn't less complicated than christianity. most eastern philosophies and religions are much more complex. christianity is what you'd teach grade schoolers because it's simple to understand. taoism is much more difficult subject.

i didn't ask if you thought God WOULD ask you to do that, i asked what you would do if he did. would such an act be moral because it was God's will? or would it still be a wrong act, even if God asked you to do it?


I remember a story in the Bible where God asked a man to take his only son up to the mountain and offer him as a sacrifice. The man did and just as he had drawn his knife to kill his son in Gods name, God said "STOP!" Do not harm your son....this was a test of faith .
If God told me to kill my daughter or son, I would have to disobey that request. I'd hope that wouldnt damn me to hell.

taoism isn't less complicated than christianity. most eastern philosophies and religions are much more complex. christianity is what you'd teach grade schoolers because it's simple to understand. taoism is much more difficult subject.

Ok ok fine! Please!!1 Just leave me alone!!!

At least im not as narrow-minded as other people who hate ALL religions. I hate none, although Islam makes the most sense to me...

therefore, I did not read any of this. All I know is that there is a source of morality called the natural law. A part of it is conscience. Now, natural law is what we can know of something's function by its design (which can mean what God meant us to do with creation) ,i.e., what we know of the eternal law (what is true about everything) by human reason alone. This cannot contradict the Moral law (what has been shown to us by revelation).They cannot contradict because they are part of the same law. Often, the natural and moral law may seem to contradict, but if that is true, either one or both have been interpretted incorrectly, e.g. A person can have understand the nature of something incorrectly and also interpret scripture incorrectly and they may seem to contradict, and the incorrect interpretations do contradict, but what is true cannot contradict what is true.

I remember a story in the Bible where God asked a man to take his only son up to the mountain and offer him as a sacrifice. The man did and just as he had drawn his knife to kill his son in Gods name, God said "STOP!" Do not harm your son....this was a test of faith .
If God told me to kill my daughter or son, I would have to disobey that request. I'd hope that wouldnt damn me to hell.
Been discussed. First or second page. And there was a lot more riding on it than Isaac just being Abraham's son. It might damn you to hell, lack of trust in God etc

Been discussed. First or second page. And there was a lot more riding on it than Isaac just being Abraham's son. It might damn you to hell, lack of trust in God etc

sorry- i didnt read every post on every page. i think hardly anyone does. i was just saying what i felt.

therefore, I did not read any of this. All I know is that there is a source of morality called the natural law. A part of it is conscience. Now, natural law is what we can know of something's function by its design (which can mean what God meant us to do with creation) ,i.e., what we know of the eternal law (what is true about everything) by human reason alone. This cannot contradict the Moral law (what has been shown to us by revelation).They cannot contradict because they are part of the same law. Often, the natural and moral law may seem to contradict, but if that is true, either one or both have been interpretted incorrectly, e.g. A person can have understand the nature of something incorrectly and also interpret scripture incorrectly and they may seem to contradict, and the incorrect interpretations do contradict, but what is true cannot contradict what is true.


Some claim that we do have a moral system, and an innate code of values. Those that do, call it natural law, some thing as we know what is right in our hearts, a set of rules given to us by our instincts, and that natural law should be the basis for all man made law, and morals. But really, if there was such thing as a natural law, printed in the body and mind of every man, then by logical evolution, all societies should have the same moral values and basic sets of laws. But they do not. The only way you can justify these asymmetries, is by assuming that not all men are equal, that some have one set of natural laws, and others, other sets of natural laws. By postulating this, you will start to rate morals, and then, you will start to rate people and societies, some better than others. And if your moral is better than thy neighbour moral, why not shove it up is throat? It is better for him, is it not? Well, even if you disregard aspects of tolerance and acceptance, if your neighbour possesses an inferior natural law, than your superior law will be un-natural for him. Therefore he will fight your natural law. And he will die, or kill you. This all if, of course, assume that the ghost of a natural law exist in men. But of course, no one can say that we have that. We have the wishful thinking of saying we do, but that natural law cannot be demonstrated as real, neither it is common for all men. It most likely is an illusion created by the history of the society we live in. Many of our scholars, of the west, look back and see that in our so called modern societies, always it as been considered wrong to kill, rob, or lie, for example. So they say that there must be a natural law against this. But in their arrogance, neither do they look to other societies in search of other rules, but they also call these rules to be universal. If they are to check the history and culture of many other cultures (I give the examples of the south American pre Colombian cultures, the African traditional tribes, see their morals.. And how different they are from ours!) , butchered and dominated by our vulture, western, advanced society of modern values, they would witness the enormous number of so called natural laws that exist, so varied and relative, that it can not truly be used as a law. It is relative, the natural law, therefore, it cannot be used as a justification for anything, just movements of will to power, of search of points of authority. But in our blindness, we go spreading our morals by force, and we don't even see we became our greatest enemy

I remember a story in the Bible where God asked a man to take his only son up to the mountain and offer him as a sacrifice. The man did and just as he had drawn his knife to kill his son in Gods name, God said "STOP!" Do not harm your son....this was a test of faith .
If God told me to kill my daughter or son, I would have to disobey that request. I'd hope that wouldnt damn me to hell.
Well, Abraham did almost kill his son, then God replaced his son with a sheep and his son was safe. It wasn't a test of whether or not he would kill his son, but rather would he be faithful in all regards. Because of this, he was allowed to lead a group of people or something. I haven't actually read the Bible yet, but I think that was what happened. A normal Christian shouldn't have to be as faithful, at least I'd rather them not.

then God replaced his son with a sheep and his son was safe
:eek: :eek: Nicely put!!!

sorry- i didnt read every post on every page. i think hardly anyone does. i was just saying what i felt.
Well... we shall excuse you this once, BUT NOT AGAIN!! :sniper:

If you wanted a whole bunch of pages to read through try any of Alansysists' threads. Controversial or what

Some claim that we do have a moral system, and an innate code of values. Those that do, call it natural law, some thing as we know what is right in our hearts, a set of rules given to us by our instincts, and that natural law should be the basis for all man made law, and morals. But really, if there was such thing as a natural law, printed in the body and mind of every man, then by logical evolution, all societies should have the same moral values and basic sets of laws. But they do not. The only way you can justify these asymmetries, is by assuming that not all men are equal, that some have one set of natural laws, and others, other sets of natural laws. By postulating this, you will start to rate morals, and then, you will start to rate people and societies, some better than others. And if your moral is better than thy neighbour moral, why not shove it up is throat? It is better for him, is it not? Well, even if you disregard aspects of tolerance and acceptance, if your neighbour possesses an inferior natural law, than your superior law will be un-natural for him. Therefore he will fight your natural law. And he will die, or kill you. This all if, of course, assume that the ghost of a natural law exist in men. But of course, no one can say that we have that. We have the wishful thinking of saying we do, but that natural law cannot be demonstrated as real, neither it is common for all men. It most likely is an illusion created by the history of the society we live in. Many of our scholars, of the west, look back and see that in our so called modern societies, always it as been considered wrong to kill, rob, or lie, for example. So they say that there must be a natural law against this. But in their arrogance, neither do they look to other societies in search of other rules, but they also call these rules to be universal. If they are to check the history and culture of many other cultures (I give the examples of the south American pre Colombian cultures, the African traditional tribes, see their morals.. And how different they are from ours!) , butchered and dominated by our vulture, western, advanced society of modern values, they would witness the enormous number of so called natural laws that exist, so varied and relative, that it can not truly be used as a law. It is relative, the natural law, therefore, it cannot be used as a justification for anything, just movements of will to power, of search of points of authority. But in our blindness, we go spreading our morals by force, and we don't even see we became our greatest enemy
Actually, there are no inferior or superior natural laws. There is one natural law and it can be interpretted differently. It is likely that no one can interpret it all correctly, not even myself, that is where the moral law can come in. The moral law helps fill in any holes. It is also my duty as a Christian to proclaim the Truth, but no one knows the Truth in its totality; therefore, some discrepencies in morals in cultures must be accepted to a point, but I would have to make an honest effort to reveal what I am completely sure is true, that is to say, that part of the natural law which has been confirmed by God.

If you listen to you're Instincts from you're conscience then you will find the answer from the source.

Is Murder OK? Rape?Adultery? Stealing? Lying?
Of course most people would say NO of course not but then where do you get that rule from?

Where do you get that rule from?!?!? Are you kidding me??????????? You need someone to tell you that it's not okay to rape, murder, and steal? I certainly don't need a God to tell me that. And it never has. And I've never raped, murdered, or stolen. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This is not to say that I'm not a "spiritual" person, I just have MAJOR issues with the vast majority of organized religions, particualrly since historically, much of the raping and murdering that has taken place has been done in the name of "God." I believe in something, but not a "God" as it is described in most religions.

:eek: :eek: Nicely put!!!
Okay, I evidentally screwed something up. What did I do wrong this time?

Is Murder OK? Rape?Adultery? Stealing? Lying?
Of course most people would say NO of course not but then where do you get that rule from?
Where do you get that rule from?!?!? Are you kidding me??????????? You need someone to tell you that it's not okay to rape, murder, and steal? I certainly don't need a God to tell me that. And it never has. And I've never raped, murdered, or stolen. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
This is not to say that I'm not a "spiritual" person, I just have MAJOR issues with the vast majority of organized religions, particualrly since historically, much of the raping and murdering that has taken place has been done in the name of "God." I believe in something, but not a "God" as it is described in most religions.
Oh, really? Well, if no one ever had a need to do any of those because they realised it was morally wrong without consulting any stupid book. That's why no one ever rapes, murders or steals. They know it's wrong, so it never, ever happens. 'Course, that may just be a god-damned lie and tons of people are still raping, murdering and stealing, even religious people. It's just some people can't respect a non-religious text and cannot get any moral out of it nor themselves. Thus, their only option is religion. This happens even to smart people.

God isn't the only source of morality, even if it is one. There is the self, and there are others.

Well, Abraham did almost kill his son, then God replaced his son with a sheep and his son was safe. It wasn't a test of whether or not he would kill his son, but rather would he be faithful in all regards. Because of this, he was allowed to lead a group of people or something. I haven't actually read the Bible yet, but I think that was what happened. A normal Christian shouldn't have to be as faithful, at least I'd rather them not.

You see, this is all predicated on the faithfulness of whether or not God would ask any of his worshippers to commit a sin. Commanded by God, it is not a sin, as Abraham was about to do this thing and was later praised by God. Supposing that God hadn't stopped it and Abraham had gone through with the murder of his own child, God would have praised his faithfulness and allowed him to lead a group of Hebrew people. The point of the story would have changed too. If God tells you to do something that is a sin, then it's okay. As well, the sacrifice of Abraham would have been much more played up and deemed a virtue.

I didn't tell you what you believe. I said I suspected you were opposed to believing. Now that is true whatever you say. If it weren't you'd accept my points for the well-meant pointers that they are (too many point* words!).

so you are telling me that, regardless of what i say, i am opposed to believing in God. i think that qualifies as telling me what i believe, don't you?

i would accept your pointers, if they applied to me. they do not, so i cannot use them as advice...it's nothing personal, you just have been solving problems that i don't have, and therefore not really helping with my particular situation. thank you for the effort, anyhow.


I have contact with some of these others too, JW's too when they're too quick with the feet in the door. My best mate's a moslem and I dabbled in buddhism when I was well into martial arts. There were enough people around me who cared about me to show me where I was going wrong. I hope you find that Christians are the most willing to help you understand what their faith is. If that's not the base there's something wrong.

no, i have not found that Christians are any more or less willing (on average) to help me understand their faith than persons of other religious orientations. Christians generally seem less able to help me understand their faith, as well, and more frequently just tell me that if i was open-minded i would see things their way; i find that ironic and amusing, but not at all helpful.


Only Christians worship God. Moslems worship Allah who they would say is the same being, but there are several personality differences. The Christian God is a God of love, Allah is not. Hindu's create more gods every year (well over 2 million now). Jews believe in a God who didn't send his son to die for the entire world almost 2000 years ago, etc. etc. And Buddhism has no god. When the guy says he's not a god he's probably not a god. True the alternatives have become as varied and numerous as wine. Christians however believe in a simplistic world. There's God.. and there's the rest, ruses put in the world to deceive and confuse. Try graphing the number of different religions against General shittiness of the state of the world. If we could we'd find a general upward trend.

i am beginning to lose respect for you. you clearly lack any significant comprehension of several of the other major faiths in the world, and that leads me to believe that you haven't spent significant time looking into alternatives to Christianity. if you haven't bothered to even learn about the alternatives, how can you possibly know that Christianity is the right path? and, more importantly, how can you possibly accuse me of being close-minded, when you have written off faiths that existed for millenia before Christianity without even bothering to learn their basic premises?

throughout my childhood, my parents took me to religious and philosophical services of all kinds. i have attended churchs of many denominations, from Baptist to Catholic to those wacky Episcopalians. i have been to temples, mosques, prayer circles, rituals, laboratories and planetariums, and meditations. i have spoken with priests, rabbis, yogis, philosophers, theologians, scientists, and everyday joes. for me, it's not a matter of having a Muslim friend or a Hindu poker buddy (though i have both), it's a matter of active and continuing education and exploration. this is why i find it so amusing when i am told that i am "close-minded" by people who only worship one vision of the Originating Force.

If you can't see it, you're looking in the wrong places. You can walk around a pitch black room with your eyes wide open and you'll still bang your nose on the wall. And no, I'm not asking you to choose Christianity, just pointing out why.
if God wanted me to see him, he wouldn't keep the lights off. he knows that i can't see in the dark, no matter how open my eyes are, and if he chooses not to send me the illumination i require then he can't possibly blame me for not seeing him.

Just wanted to give my support to bottle on something he said several pages back.

I don't ask god for anything either, I have found that I can do it on my own, there is no reason to waste god's time with my petty needs. God can concentrate on those who may actually need help.

The problem with this is the bible is the only 'reliable' primary source of information about God. Now either everything in it is the true word of God, or not. Remember if God is all powerful (as the bible states) the bible says exactly what God allows it to say, if men have transcribed it 'incorrectly' it is only because God chooses that it be so. If the bible is wrong to the extent that God is not all powerful, and the bible is not (as it claims) the 'word of God' (but rather what people thought the word of God was/should be), then the bible is wrong on 2 founding premises, and all the other premises which can only be true if those 2 are true are also not true, and the same goes for any premises which can only be true is those are true, and so on. So we either have a completely true bible that exactly represents the true word of God, or God chooses to allow the bible to be false because he doesnt care enough about us knowing his true word to make the bible accurate, or the bible is false to the extent that God is not even powerful enough make the bible accurate even if God wanted.

Wow, I think you're being a bit overdramatic. That is like saying if there is one thing wrong in my biology book, the editors are incompetent bastards who wanted us to get it wrong.

God *could* make the Bible perfect, but has not. This is not because God doesn't care, but because God has granted human beings free will and the ability to seek God out.

If you think that the Bible is perfect, you haven't really studied it much.

a parent isn't supposed to be punishing their grown-up child, because the grown-up child is an adult. adults all have equal rights and responsibilities. humans and God do NOT, according to Christianity, have equal rights and responsibilities, and God most certainly does NOT treat humans as adults treat each other. i don't think that's a reasonable comparison in the slightest.

So you think a parent should not be involved in a child's life once they have grown up?

Besides, it was an analogy. God is much like a parent. God wants people to "grow up right" and wants people to love. However, God will not force these things upon you.

furthermore, it still doesn't explain how God is just for failing to punish those who are horrible in life. if he is going to reward the Good, but simply let the Bad go along their merry way, then that's some crappy justice. can you imagine if our earthly justice system worked that way? "You murdered 10 people, but we aren't going to PUNISH you for it, we just won't let you go into Disneyland ever again."

You do realize that in this thread you have argued that hell is a horrible punishment and that nothing could ever warrant it, and then argued that not having eternal torture in hell is a bad thing, right?

right. and shouldn't it be so much more?!

Why? Would you prefer force? I doubt it.

if God wants me he is welcome to come and talk with me. i have never been anything but open-minded about his existence (except for a brief bout of atheism at age 13), and i have always been quite prepared to have an open dialogue with him whenever he sees fit to contact me. so far, he hasn't given me the slightest reason to believe he even exists, let alone giving me any pointers on which of the dozens and hundreds of human Gods he might resemble.

I am quite certain that God has given you many signs. The fact that you do not see them is not God's fault.

all the typical bullshit about "seeing miracles in everyday life" and "feeling God's presence" in my life is a waste of everyone's time, because any God who built me would know beyond any doubt that such tactics simply wouldn't work on me. if he wanted me to come into his presence then he would make himself known to me in a way that is consistent with my ability to accept and comprehend him. the fact that he chooses not to means that he is either a) not all knowing, because he doesn't know how lame his current efforts are, b) not all powerful, because he can't do any better, c) not all-good, because he creates me in such a way that i will never accept his current approach but then plans to punish me for acting exactly as he built me, or d) he doesn't want me to believe in him during my lifetime. the conclusion of all these possibilities is that God isn't somebody i need to be worshipping, and if he sends me to hell for my failure to believe then i don't think he is somebody that anyone who believes in justice or love should be worshipping.

It doesn't mean any of those things. If God walked into your presence and said "Hi, I'm God. Believe in me," you would be *forced* to believe. That's not what I believe God wants. If God wanted to coerce you into believing, or hell, even force you to obey and love, God could. However, God's decision to allow free will precludes that.

i also have contact with Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, pagans, and any number of agnostics and atheists. by what criterion am i supposed to judge Christians as the authorities on God? how do i know that Christians have it right, and why should i embrace their vision of God? i'm not looking for a magic billboard, i'm looking for any particular reason to choose one vision of God/gods over all the alternatives.

Why should you embrace any other person's particular vision of God? This is something you must decide for yourself, and most likely, all religions have it partially right. I simply have come to the conclusion that Christianity has it more right than others.

Fairly straightforward question, obviously directed primarily at those persons who believe in God. Is God the source of all your moral judgments, or do you have a sense of morality that is independent of God? Is morality defined as consistent with God's will, or is there a standard of Good that exists apart from God? If God told you, unequivocally, that the only way for you to be a moral person was to torture kittens to death, would you feel okay about doing it? Replace "kittens" with "infants"...now how would you feel?

Just so the non-theists don't feel left out, here's a question for you: how do you feel about people who base their entire sense of morality on God? Do you feel they are more or less trustworthy because of their use of God as a moral compass? Does it matter where people get their sense of morality, so long as their actions are consistent with the morals of their society?

One can easily gain morals and ethics from reading Fairy Tales as a child. :)

Anyway, while I had most of my morals and ethics from God, living with a lifetime of guilt as a result, I learned morals and ethics from other places too. Logic, philosophy, laws, and various moral and ethical codes. The Pirate Code is one I do go by, and yes even Pirates have morals and ethics.

I have been learning to live without the guilt given to me by my religion, and try to live an ethical and moral life the best way I can. Human beings are not perfect, and if we make a mistake, we hope to learn from it. Those who make mistakes can be rehabilitated, yet few often do get rehabilitated. Much better than leaving them to rot in a jail cell, unless they committed murder or something more serious. In order to change, they must be first willing to change. Without that step, we cannot help them and rehabilitate them.

As for my nation, I try not to let my religious views, emotions, and personal viewpoints cloud my judgement. I try to treat each group fairly, and all of them the same. Thus the freedom meter for my Nation has gone up to Superb.

So you think a parent should not be involved in a child's life once they have grown up?

no, i simply think it is no longer a parent's responsibility to be punishing an adult child. if i do something wrong, my mom and dad don't have the right to ground me any more, nor can they forbid me to use my Playstation or tell me that i'm not hanging out with those friends of mine again. if we are God's "adult" children then he should never be punishing us for anything. also, if he wants to have a healthy relationship with his "adult" children then he needs to treat us like adults and interact with us as equals.


Besides, it was an analogy. God is much like a parent. God wants people to "grow up right" and wants people to love. However, God will not force these things upon you.

God also won't give you any way of knowing what things are right or wrong; think of the countless versions of God that human beings currently use, and think of the fact that God has never given us any way of knowing which of these many rule books is correct. that is like a parent who refuses to teach His children right and wrong, but once a misdeed is committed he punishes them for the rest of their lives...i'd call that poor parenting.


You do realize that in this thread you have argued that hell is a horrible punishment and that nothing could ever warrant it, and then argued that not having eternal torture in hell is a bad thing, right?

let's be clear: i haven't really argued that Hell IS anything, because i don't believe in Hell. i think it is a ludicrous notion, personally, but i am trying to understand the belief structure that incorporates Hell because this belief is central to the morality of millions of the people who surround me.

what i have said is that IF Hell is an eternal torture dimension (as most Christians have told me) then it is an unjust punishment for non-eternal crimes, and it is also totally unjust to visit such horrors equally upon peaceful secularists along with the murderers and rapists.

i have also said that if God does not have some way of punishing evil doers then he is also not just. if Hell is just the absence of God then a secular criminal has nothing to fear beyond the laws of man, and even a religious criminal won't be suffering any more than he did during his earthly life.


Why? Would you prefer force? I doubt it.

if the penalty for making a wrong choice will be to spend eternity being tortured, i would rather God force me to make the right choice...especially if he is not going to give me enough information to make the right choice on my own, which he most certainly hasn't.


I am quite certain that God has given you many signs. The fact that you do not see them is not God's fault.

how do you know God hasn't chosen to withhold these signs from me (and others like me)? do you believe that you comprehend the mind and motives of God?

at any rate whether or not God has sent "signs" isn't the issue; whether or not those signs give any semblence of direction is the issue. i could assume that the rainstorm yesterday was a sign from God, but of what? my pen bursting a week ago could have been a sign, but of what? i have been given no means of interpretting those signs, and have been told literally dozens of different ways to interpret them, and God makes no effort to indicate which of the many possible interpretations should be used.


It doesn't mean any of those things. If God walked into your presence and said "Hi, I'm God. Believe in me," you would be *forced* to believe.

no i wouldn't. in fact, being a human, i could NEVER have God's reality established for certain for me; how would i know that the God-being was actually God, and not just some other powerful being? perhaps that being is the devil? perhaps it is a being able to manipulate my perceptions to convince me it is God?

remember: i'm agnostic. i don't believe there is any possible way for God's existence to be proven or disproven.


That's not what I believe God wants. If God wanted to coerce you into believing, or hell, even force you to obey and love, God could. However, God's decision to allow free will precludes that.
again, God presenting himself to me would not force me to believe in him, it would just give me evidence that i could CHOOSE to act upon in a variety of ways.

also, you seem to be suggesting that because i am aware of my chem professor's existence i am forced to love and obey him...i don't see how that follows. God could let me know he's up there, and i would still have absolutely free will on the subject of how (or whether) to worship/respect/love/acknowledge him. presenting himself to me would not in any way force me to change my moral code or my outlook on life, it would simply give me more information to work with and allow me to make better informed choices. if God doesn't want me making informed choices then i don't really think he and i have much in common, so it is probably best that i spend the afterlife apart from him...we'd only squabble, you see.

"Man is the measure of all things. Of what is, that it is. Of what is not, that it is not." Protagorus

God is not the source of anyone's morality. People chose to adopt one set of morals or not. Whether you are an atheist, agnostic, or a believer in a higher being, no one has that moral code imposed upon them. We all make choices and are defined by those choices. Choosing to not choose by simply adopting a ready made moral code spelled out in religious writings is still a choice.

In the words of Sartre, we are all condemned to be free.

beati pauperes spiritu, quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum, and devout folks want into heaven so desparately...

"Man is the measure of all things. Of what is, that it is. Of what is not, that it is not." Protagorus

God is not the source of anyone's morality. People chose to adopt one set of morals or not. Whether you are an atheist, agnostic, or a believer in a higher being, no one has that moral code imposed upon them. We all make choices and are defined by those choices. Choosing to not choose by simply adopting a ready made moral code spelled out in religious writings is still a choice.

In the words of Sartre, we are all condemned to be free.

Silly, silly little person.

Of course we have our moral codes imposed upon us! From the moment we are born, our families try to impose their values. A culture of a country tries to impose its values. Hell, even the STATE tries to impose their values!

"Man is the measure of all things. Of what is, that it is. Of what is not, that it is not." Protagorus

God is not the source of anyone's morality. People chose to adopt one set of morals or not. Whether you are an atheist, agnostic, or a believer in a higher being, no one has that moral code imposed upon them. We all make choices and are defined by those choices. Choosing to not choose by simply adopting a ready made moral code spelled out in religious writings is still a choice.

In the words of Sartre, we are all condemned to be free.

No matter what we believe, we made the choice to believe it. In Psychology we learn by the choices we make and the consequences they bring. If we made bad choices that harm us, or other people, then we must learn that it is a mistake and that it must be not moral or ethical and we must choose some other choice. Harm can be more than physical harm, it could be emotional, psychological, verbal, sexual, etc. If it harms ourselves or anyone else, we should reconsider the choice. I believe that this psychologically, is the way to learning morals and ethics for someone who does not have any to believe in yet. The goal is to learn from our mistakes. Sort of like touching a hot stove, you get burned, so you learn not to touch the hot stove any more, or else learn to wear an oven mit so you don't get burned. ;)

Silly, silly little person.

Of course we have our moral codes imposed upon us! From the moment we are born, our families try to impose their values. A culture of a country tries to impose its values. Hell, even the STATE tries to impose their values!

Yes, all this is true. But then WE GROW UP and we make our own choices. To allow your family, your culture, or the state to continue to make those choices for you is still YOUR CHOICE.

beati pauperes spiritu, quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum, and devout folks want into heaven so desparately...

Of all the Beatitudes this best illuminates Christian attitudes toward free thought and morality - "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven" (let's stick to living languages). Bless those who are spiritually bankrupt? Those without morals?

Perhaps as much as any other this passage reveals the core of Christianity. The God of Christians loves most those who are utterly at the end of their rope. Those who have sunk to the very pit of spiritual dispair. Christianity is the Marine Corp of religions - spiritually breaking down its adherents in order to build them back up as unquestioning followers.

This is why evangelicals love George W. Bush so much. His is a story of a fallen man, an alcoholic, who has found redemption in Jesus. Now that he is "saved" he need never again question anything he does, which is why Bush never apologizes, nor even admits mistakes. Those who have been "poor in spirit" and are now in line to "inherit the kingdom of heaven" believe they no longer makes moral choices, but simply follows the dictates of Jesus.

When you are working the will of Jesus how can you be wrong? And what does that say about those who oppose you?

and most likely, all religions have it partially right. I simply have come to the conclusion that Christianity has it more right than others.

Doesn't this imply that much of christianity is wrong or misinterpretted? If all religions have it partially right, then the christian view that christianity is the only way is incorrect, even if it is 'more right than others'. And even at this, then the true form of religion that is correct is still undiscovered.

Silly, silly little person.

Of course we have our moral codes imposed upon us! From the moment we are born, our families try to impose their values. A culture of a country tries to impose its values. Hell, even the STATE tries to impose their values!
sure, they may TRY to impose their values. but an intelligent adult is able to make their own conclusions and establish their own moral system; my moral code has significant conflicts with that of my family members, and even more significant conflicts with the morality of my country and the states i have lived in. if you are unable to form your own moral judgments then you have my pity.

Okay, I evidentally screwed something up. What did I do wrong this time?
I was just being rude :D . Sorry. I took some of your text and put it in a setting that was out of context. Terrible thing to do. wish people on here wouldn't.

as for the joke maybe you have to be British to laugh at it. Or just... not Welsh

so you are telling me that, regardless of what i say, i am opposed to believing in God. i think that qualifies as telling me what i believe, don't you?
Suspected. Now proved. Like an experiment. You are my experiment (evil laugh):D

i would accept your pointers, if they applied to me. they do not, so i cannot use them as advice...it's nothing personal, you just have been solving problems that i don't have, and therefore not really helping with my particular situation. thank you for the effort, anyhow.
Err my pointers refer to humans. In what way do you not qualify? I think you're human. It's just a guess.

no, i have not found that Christians are any more or less willing (on average) to help me understand their faith than persons of other religious orientations. Christians generally seem less able to help me understand their faith, as well, and more frequently just tell me that if i was open-minded i would see things their way; i find that ironic and amusing, but not at all helpful.
That's very unfortunate for you and probably why you view Christianity with hostility (add to that posts from Christians debating what species you are... Ok, uncompromising apology from me). Regardless there are Christian people on here who give you their views and give examples in simple fashion.

i am beginning to lose respect for you. you clearly lack any significant comprehension of several of the other major faiths in the world, and that leads me to believe that you haven't spent significant time looking into alternatives to Christianity. if you haven't bothered to even learn about the alternatives, how can you possibly know that Christianity is the right path? and, more importantly, how can you possibly accuse me of being close-minded, when you have written off faiths that existed for millenia before Christianity without even bothering to learn their basic premises?
I have only fair comprehension of other faiths, but am interested to know why you think that as nothing I've said here can constitute that view. Right path? Ever seen something and just known it makes sense? It's called intuition. Gender-wise you should have more than me!! Once you realise the truths it all makes sense. For me it seemed that things which were jumbled and confused just drop into place.

throughout my childhood, my parents took me to religious and philosophical services of all kinds. i have attended churchs of many denominations, from Baptist to Catholic to those wacky Episcopalians. i have been to temples, mosques, prayer circles, rituals, laboratories and planetariums, and meditations. i have spoken with priests, rabbis, yogis, philosophers, theologians, scientists, and everyday joes. for me, it's not a matter of having a Muslim friend or a Hindu poker buddy (though i have both), it's a matter of active and continuing education and exploration. this is why i find it so amusing when i am told that i am "close-minded" by people who only worship one vision of the Originating Force.
I happen to know that your mind is being closed. It's out of your control unless you ask for help. Don't question that. You don't need to talk to people (as much as you seem to think you do). They can help you or hinder you. People will inherently be wrong. I am wrong a lot of the time. I'm only right if I ask for help. e.g. If I don't understand something on my course, I ask someone who knows more about it. So if I don't understand something in life, I ask someone who knows more, everything in fact.

if God wanted me to see him, he wouldn't keep the lights off. he knows that i can't see in the dark, no matter how open my eyes are, and if he chooses not to send me the illumination i require then he can't possibly blame me for not seeing him.
The lights aren't off. Every Christian on here is shining one right into your face. That's when you're shutting your eyes or looking away. Look at the lights because what you think will hurt, won't.

Suspected. Now proved. Like an experiment. You are my experiment (evil laugh):D

very well, if you wish to be treated as a scientist:

describe your experiemental design, the findings it yielded, and how your conclusion that i disbelieve in God must follow from those findings.

Err my pointers refer to humans. In what way do you not qualify? I think you're human. It's just a guess.

your advice is for people who are in a certain situation. i am not in that situation. your advice does not apply to me.


That's very unfortunate for you and probably why you view Christianity with hostility (add to that posts from Christians debating what species you are... Ok, uncompromising apology from me). Regardless there are Christian people on here who give you their views and give examples in simple fashion.

i don't view Christianity with hostility, merely with a critical eye. if you interpret cognizant, thoughtful examination as hostile...well, let's just say i wouldn't be surprised to encounter a religious person with that view.


I have only fair comprehension of other faiths, but am interested to know why you think that as nothing I've said here can constitute that view.

your description of other faiths was disgustingly ignorant. either you a) don't know what you are talking about, or b) are a total jackass. i like to assume that people are nice until i am given reason not to, so i assumed you were well-meaning but ignorant.


Right path? Ever seen something and just known it makes sense? It's called intuition.
since you have not tried any other religion, how do you know they wouldn't make more sense? at what age were you introduced to Christianity, and at what age did you decide it "just makes sense"? has it ever occured to you that following pure instinct on matters as serious as the nature of God could be dangerously misleading?


Gender-wise you should have more than me!!

gender-stereotyping will avail you naught, with me. :P


Once you realise the truths it all makes sense. For me it seemed that things which were jumbled and confused just drop into place.

that is what science has already acheived for me. i am not seeking God to find answers for my questions on life, as i already have all the answers i require.


I happen to know that your mind is being closed. It's out of your control unless you ask for help. Don't question that.

hahaha, so the person who has chosen to believe in only one vision of God, without even having tried to follow other religions, is telling the AGNOSTIC that she is close-minded, and then tells her not to question...you are absolutely adorable.


You don't need to talk to people (as much as you seem to think you do). They can help you or hinder you. People will inherently be wrong.

the imperfection of humans is a reality that does not in any way interfere with what i am trying to do here. since i am asking HUMANS about their HUMAN morality, i don't see how my talking to HUMANS is inappropriate.


I am wrong a lot of the time. I'm only right if I ask for help. e.g. If I don't understand something on my course, I ask someone who knows more about it.

wow, you can only be right if somebody else tells you the answer? and yet you are telling me NOT to talk to other people, because they will be wrong? why would you talk to other people, who "will inherently be wrong" if you have a question?

So if I don't understand something in life, I ask someone who knows more, everything in fact.

well that's great for you, but i don't have Stephen Hawking's phone number.


The lights aren't off. Every Christian on here is shining one right into your face. That's when you're shutting your eyes or looking away. Look at the lights because what you think will hurt, won't.
every Christian may be shining, but so is every Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Pagan, atheist, and agnostic. my eyes are open to the light from all of them...why are you squinting to avoid seeing most of them?

Fairly straightforward question, obviously directed primarily at those persons who believe in God. Is God the source of all your moral judgments, or do you have a sense of morality that is independent of God? Is morality defined as consistent with God's will, or is there a standard of Good that exists apart from God? If God told you, unequivocally, that the only way for you to be a moral person was to torture kittens to death, would you feel okay about doing it? Replace "kittens" with "infants"...now how would you feel?

Just so the non-theists don't feel left out, here's a question for you: how do you feel about people who base their entire sense of morality on God? Do you feel they are more or less trustworthy because of their use of God as a moral compass? Does it matter where people get their sense of morality, so long as their actions are consistent with the morals of their society?

I think either paradigm can work. I tend to trust people who are going to take the burden of their own actions on themselves. I think the idea of a savior is one of the most heineously misused principles in human history. Either way it's very hard work to make any spiritual progress, moral judgement is what can follow after a human has cleared obstructions. Personally, I believe in a God, I believe there are many Gods and Godesses. I ask none of them for anything, it's all up to me. That might be taking a risk but that's what I find to be authentic for me.

very well, if you wish to be treated as a scientist:

describe your experiemental design, the findings it yielded, and how your conclusion that i disbelieve in God must follow from those findings.

your advice is for people who are in a certain situation. i am not in that situation. your advice does not apply to me.

i don't view Christianity with hostility, merely with a critical eye. if you interpret cognizant, thoughtful examination as hostile...well, let's just say i wouldn't be surprised to encounter a religious person with that view.
Hey I'm a computer scientist, I don't get findings, I get programs that don't work!! I can't even remember the situation now so I'll stop being mean to you! Hey, I get hostile on here. Very sorry if I have annoyed you. I would say this though: every human is in some kind of situation or has some kind of problem they're dealing with. They just may not recognise it.

your description of other faiths was disgustingly ignorant. either you a) don't know what you are talking about, or b) are a total jackass. i like to assume that people are nice until i am given reason not to, so i assumed you were well-meaning but ignorant.
Jackass. It's been used about me in the past. It'll most likely be used many times in the future. Pretty accurate for the most part. I should look them up more but, in a programming analogy, you don't look around for the wrong ways to do things then copy them, you avoid them. Actually in programming I do do things the wrong way. Jackass?

since you have not tried any other religion, how do you know they wouldn't make more sense? at what age were you introduced to Christianity, and at what age did you decide it "just makes sense"? has it ever occured to you that following pure instinct on matters as serious as the nature of God could be dangerously misleading?
Yes I was very young. But it has to be said that when a book, bits of which were written some 2500+ years ago starts having prophecies come true at a ridiculous rate you take notice. I backslid (is that even a word?) for the entirety of my teenage years and into my twenties. Everything went wrong because I thought I could hack it on my own. Then because of some Christian friends I came back and life has been a lot better. That's what I call instinct. I've never felt surer of anything.

gender-stereotyping will avail you naught, with me. :P

that is what science has already acheived for me. i am not seeking God to find answers for my questions on life, as i already have all the answers i require.
If you have all the answers then I'm glad for you. BUT.. I shall ask of thee these questions three.. (ahem)

hahaha, so the person who has chosen to believe in only one vision of God, without even having tried to follow other religions, is telling the AGNOSTIC that she is close-minded, and then tells her not to question...you are absolutely adorable.
Yes, yes I am :cool: . Ahem, off topic. To me what you're saying is like being told "yeah, oxygen's ok in it's 1 in 5 mix in air, but why don't you try breathing some argon, see what that's like". I'm not being intolerant there. It's just me damn instincts again.

the imperfection of humans is a reality that does not in any way interfere with what i am trying to do here. since i am asking HUMANS about their HUMAN morality, i don't see how my talking to HUMANS is inappropriate.

It's very true. I shutski upski now. (About that bit)

wow, you can only be right if somebody else tells you the answer? and yet you are telling me NOT to talk to other people, because they will be wrong? why would you talk to other people, who "will inherently be wrong" if you have a question?
Another good point dammit. But there's a difference between the right way to solve differential equations and the way to live your life. I meant ask God by the way.

every Christian may be shining, but so is every Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Pagan, atheist, and agnostic. my eyes are open to the light from all of them...why are you squinting to avoid seeing most of them?
Christians shine brighter. This is indisputable fact. 60% of Christians are in fact, bald! :D

Know what you're saying but like I said before something in my gut just alerts me to bad bits around the other lights. Ok back to the topic.. and smaller posts.

I was just being rude :D . Sorry. I took some of your text and put it in a setting that was out of context. Terrible thing to do. wish people on here wouldn't.

as for the joke maybe you have to be British to laugh at it. Or just... not Welsh
I dunno, but I do get a lot of British humour, and I'm not Welsh. I'm guessing, though, that it has to do with my failure to distinguish "God replaced his son" and "God replaced Abraham's son."

Just so the non-theists don't feel left out, here's a question for you: how do you feel about people who base their entire sense of morality on God?
I feel that they are not necessarily moral at all.


Do you feel they are more or less trustworthy because of their use of God as a moral compass?
You have to know someone before you can decide whether to trust them.


Does it matter where people get their sense of morality, so long as their actions are consistent with the morals of their society?
You assume that a nontheist is necessarily a moral-relativist. I believe that acts that benefit others are moral, and acts that harm others are immoral.

Just so the non-theists don't feel left out, here's a question for you: how do you feel about people who base their entire sense of morality on God?I feel they've abdicated their responsibility to think for themselves. This imagined god supposedly gave us brains - but then bypasses their use by telling us what to do and how to think. Defies all sense.

Fairly straightforward question, obviously directed primarily at those persons who believe in God. Is God the source of all your moral judgments, or do you have a sense of morality that is independent of God? Is morality defined as consistent with God's will, or is there a standard of Good that exists apart from God?

Well it's a straightforward question, but there is a subtle curve in it that makes the answer not straightforward. If God was the source of my moral judgement that would imply that I received my moral judgement directly from God, otherwise how could I be sure it really was from him. Since I have not received anything personally from God himself, I have to trust the indirect methods which I have received my moral judgements.

As a Roman Catholic, I firmly believe from the letters of the Apostle John that "God is Love." Love is by its nature good, therefore God's will, which must be love because God is love, and which must be good because love is good, must always be "good."

Is this abducting the responsibility to think for myself? No, because in the first case God isn't constantly talking to me giving all the details of what His will is. He gives us the free will, and therefore we have to do the thinking as a kind of "homework." Fortunately he gave us a good example.

Christians shine brighter. This is a indisputable. 60% of Christians are in fact, bald! :D

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. i love it! i'm always glad to be reminded that there are Christians who have a sense of humor...sometimes, in America, you lose sight of that. :)

Well it's a straightforward question, but there is a subtle curve in it that makes the answer not straightforward. If God was the source of my moral judgement that would imply that I received my moral judgement directly from God, otherwise how could I be sure it really was from him. Since I have not received anything personally from God himself, I have to trust the indirect methods which I have received my moral judgements.

As a Roman Catholic, I firmly believe from the letters of the Apostle John that "God is Love." Love is by its nature good, therefore God's will, which must be love because God is love, and which must be good because love is good, must always be "good."

Is this abducting the responsibility to think for myself? No, because in the first case God isn't constantly talking to me giving all the details of what His will is. He gives us the free will, and therefore we have to do the thinking as a kind of "homework." Fortunately he gave us a good example.

hmm, that's a way of looking at my question that i hadn't thought of, but it's a neat perspective. i wasn't asking so much about whether God was directly the source of morality, since people have different feelings about how God manefests himself in their lives, i was more looking at the question of whether God's will alone defines what is moral.

put it another way: do you believe that love is Good because it is God, or that God is Good because he is love? is there an outside standard of Good which God participates in, or is God himself the essence of what it is to be Good? is anything that God wills Good by definition, or is there a standard of Goodness, outside of God, that God will always choose to match up with?

Fairly straightforward question, obviously directed primarily at those persons who believe in God. Is God the source of all your moral judgments, or do you have a sense of morality that is independent of God? Is morality defined as consistent with God's will, or is there a standard of Good that exists apart from God?
Yes and no.

"God" certainly isn't, and I kind of doubt that "god" is either, but there's room for possibility. My concept of divinity, "god," entirely subjectively percieved, is best associated with creation, life and love. While my morality is also subjectively built and built-upon, "god" as I know it does not impress any intelligence upon me. The decision of what is good and bad behaviour is mine. There is, however, some sort of internal measure that I use to make some judgements that have no basis in learning or education, mostly snap decisions and judgements made at a very early age that have shaped who I am as an adult. There is room in my belief for this measure to be "god".