Why would God send someone to hell over suicide?

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

If what J is saying is correct, TLS, that, accrding to your theology, those who follow Jesus will go to heaven, and those who don't will face eternal torment (or, at minimum, be excluded from hevaen) is not a choice, it's an ultimatum. You're either with us, or you will burn. It's language not unlike what a fascist would use. It is entirely unjust and immoral, and you can't spin it to say it is moral. It is quite relief to know that not a word of it is remotely true.

Well then just feel free not to believe and you'll have nothing to worry about. We can agree to disagree.

We can disagree on faith itsef, perhaps, but that's not my point:

Look up ultimatum in the dictionary and tell me that this is not how you would classify God's "supernatural" offer....

 

[Amaris]

When you change your mind again in a couple of months I wonder how you'll spin it then? How did you deal with it the last time you lost your faith and then regained it? Because you seemed pretty sure of yourself.

Please stop with the personal attacks and address the point.

Why is it that God gives free will, gives you complete choice, then refuses to show himself so that someone can get an informed choice? The standard answer is, again, free will. Then, however, God speaks to you in your heart which is supposed to show that he does exist, and you have to accept him by proxy, that the voice you hear in your head and heart is the real deal, because Muslims are going to disagree with you. Hindus are going to disagree with you, and yet you will continue to insist you are right, just as they will. This is referred to as faith.

So you have to have faith that you picked the right choice out of a whole bunch of choices, and that God (whom you believe exists) is being completely fair to you and has talked to you. This is what you believe.

This, of course, negates the fact that millions of people have called out to God to speak to them, and never heard that voice. You might say they did weren't listening, or they did hear the voice but didn't know who it was, which is negated by Jesus who says says that the sheep will know the voice of their Shepherd.

There are lots of promises God gives, according to the Bible, which aren't kept. For example, the promise of a long life if you honor your parents. Or, the promise that no person shall live beyond 120 years of age, and we've seen people live beyond a 120 years of age since that edict was made.

Those are but a few examples. The point is, you have nothing but supposition posited as fact, when it is nothing more than personal experience combined with a predisposition toward believing it must be from God.

So why does God choose this very, very unsure method of showing His existence?
If you were a father and your child was in danger, would you give a child multiple choice or would you tell them how to extricate themselves?

If God is a father, he is an abusive and poor one who has no business having children.

J.

 

[FlyingLemons]

Doesn't it seem like God is somehow subject to Jewish Law?

That's because it's the Jewish God. The idea of generalizing it and changing it to something it's not came from Christianity. It's primarily addressing and intended for a Jewish audience so naturally the version of God depicted in there will reflect that. The New Testament, to be blunt, is not Jewish in theology or any other facet.

Why are the ten commandments so important today?

To me they are one of the bedrocks of the Jewish faith. If you don't believe in them, well, maybe to others they're not so important.

I think the important "commandments" (regarding sttealing, murdering, adultery, etc could be easily derived in a secular manner by those seeking to live in a cooperative society.)

However, Alfred the Great used the Mosaic Laws as a basis for one of the first codified legal systems in the world, marking the beginning of the end for the somewhat arbitrary justice which came before. It effectively paved the way for secular law systems.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

^^^Not attacking you at all. I'm asking you a legitimate question which you obviously don't want to answer.

Again, no matter how subjective, I have all the proof I need that God exists. If a muslim wants to believe in Muhammed that's his choice. They know all about Christ, but if they want to make a different choice that's completely up to them.

Same as it's up to you. Or not.

 

[Amaris]

^^^Not attacking you at all. I'm asking you a legitimate question whicjh you obviously don't want to answer.

You're making an attempt at character assassination, and I won't take the bait.

Again, no matter how subjective, I have all the proof I need that God exists. If a muslim wants to believe in Muhammed that's his choice. They know all about Christ, but if they want to make a different choice that's completely up to them.

Same as it's up to you. Or not.

That makes no sense, it brings about no level of equity, and it forces people to either accept or burn without being certain of what they are agreeing to. That is very bad theology.

J.

 

[Kegg]

Alfred?

The Justinian Codex came before, surely; and Roman law is part of the foundation of the modern legal system. (Justinian though, yes, was Byzantine and therefore a Christian.)

As far as Josephus goes, just for the sake of argument, could it be that the people who do not believe in Jesus are the ones who come out and say it could be possible that someone interjected the writings about Jesus into his writings?

It's a generally accepted historical consensus. Non-Christians wouldn't have anything particular to prove here - the existence of Jesus of Nazareth does not then follow that he is the Son of God, after all. IIRC, the problem is the way the text is written, it digresses suddenly into a suspiciously positive account of the guy.

Just like the history of the U.S. being rewritten to omit the references to God in our country's documents?

This doesn't happen. Really.

Nothing is ever said or taught anymore to our students about the Mayflower Compact.

This might, but it's not the same thing. I don't know whether or not American schools downplay religion in America when looking at it from a historical perspective, but I'm fairly sure they're not outright lying, as you imply.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

^^^Not attacking you at all. I'm asking you a legitimate question whicjh you obviously don't want to answer.

You're making an attempt at character assassination, and I won't take the bait.

Again, no matter how subjective, I have all the proof I need that God exists. If a muslim wants to believe in Muhammed that's his choice. They know all about Christ, but if they want to make a different choice that's completely up to them.

Same as it's up to you. Or not.

That makes no sense, it brings about no level of equity, and it forces people to either accept or burn without being certain of what they are agreeing to. That is very bad theology.

J.

I'm certainly not trying to assasinate your character, J. I'm genuinely interested but if you're not willing to share the information then I won't ask again.

As for the latter part of your post I disagree. We have free will to do as we wish. This is one example.

 

[Amaris]

I'm certainly not trying to assasinate your character, J. I'm genuinely interested but if you're not willing to share the information then I won't ask again.

You are saying that I will change my mind in a couple of months, and then are asking me to account for a future event that you do not know will happen. There is no way to answer that without my consenting that you are correct, and since you are not, I cannot answer that question.

As for the latter part of your post I disagree. We have free will to do as we wish. This is one example.

It makes zero theological sense.

J.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I'm certainly not trying to assasinate your character, J. I'm genuinely interested but if you're not willing to share the information then I won't ask again.

You are saying that I will change my mind in a couple of months, and then are asking me to account for a future event that you do not know will happen. There is no way to answer that without my consenting that you are correct, and since you are not, I cannot answer that question.

As for the latter part of your post I disagree. We have free will to do as we wish. This is one example.

It makes zero theological sense.

J.

Fair enough, buy that doesn't explain why you changed your mind back the last time.

 

[Amaris]

I'm certainly not trying to assasinate your character, J. I'm genuinely interested but if you're not willing to share the information then I won't ask again.

You are saying that I will change my mind in a couple of months, and then are asking me to account for a future event that you do not know will happen. There is no way to answer that without my consenting that you are correct, and since you are not, I cannot answer that question.

As for the latter part of your post I disagree. We have free will to do as we wish. This is one example.

It makes zero theological sense.

J.

Fair enough, buy that doesn't explain why you changed your mind back the last time.

I have already explained that.

J.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

You are saying that I will change my mind in a couple of months, and then are asking me to account for a future event that you do not know will happen. There is no way to answer that without my consenting that you are correct, and since you are not, I cannot answer that question.

It makes zero theological sense.

J.

Fair enough, buy that doesn't explain why you changed your mind back the last time.

I have already explained that.

J.

Sorry, I missed it. I'll read through and try and catch up.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

That's because it's the Jewish God. The idea of generalizing it and changing it to something it's not came from Christianity. It's primarily addressing and intended for a Jewish audience so naturally the version of God depicted in there will reflect that. The New Testament, to be blunt, is not Jewish in theology or any other facet.

So now we are dealing with different gods, or one god interpreted by different cultures. Either way, if God was onmi-everything you would think he'd be able to amke himself clear with condescending to one culture. If the OT is for the Jewish people, than why is it considered in Chrstianity. This is God we are talking about, not some mere historical document, and certainly not mere politics.

 

[Peacemaker]

Why is it that God gives free will, gives you complete choice, then refuses to show himself so that someone can get an informed choice? The standard answer is, again, free will.

This betrays some extraordinary theological and philosophical naivete. At best, this statement is only true from an Arminian perspective, but for those from the Reformed tradition, this answer is not "standard" nor is it even true.

God's target audience is the elect, not the reprobate. And of the reprobate, those who receive that information do so only to inculpate them.

So, that's no problem for Reformed theology.

 

[Amaris]

Fair enough, buy that doesn't explain why you changed your mind back the last time.

I have already explained that.

J.

Sorry, I missed it. I'll read through and try and catch up.

I'll make it easier for you:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3640532&postcount=133

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3640748&postcount=136

Why is it that God gives free will, gives you complete choice, then refuses to show himself so that someone can get an informed choice? The standard answer is, again, free will.

This betrays some extraordinary theological and philosophical naivete. At best, this statement is only true from an Arminian perspective, but for those from the Reformed tradition, this answer is not "standard" nor is it even true.

God's target audience is the elect, not the reprobate. And of the reprobate, those who receive that information do so only to inculpate them.

So, that's no problem for Reformed theology.

Why would you have reform something given by God?
If it is absolutely crucial to retain the truth of the message so that all shall be saved, why does it deviate so much it has to be reformed?
Thousands of deviations, changing the message. This is a bad thing if your sole survival depends upon the accuracy of the message.

To say further, it is apparent from your statement that you believe God has already chosen who will be saved, and the rest are just told the "Truth" so that they can be implicated even if they didn't fully understand. So God planted evidence on them so they would be found guilty.

Again, God apparently does not know what he's doing, because if he does, he's pure evil.
As for my theological naivety, I am sorry, but I will not perform mental gymnastics just to make my made up rules of the God game work more in my favor.

J.

 

[StarryEyed]

There are plenty of people who are solid in their religious convictions and some who struggle with it. J's path is not at all unusual. I've read quite a few personal accounts of people who were once very faithful and gradually lost it through critical examination. There is usually a pretty tough transitional period when one first realizes that they can longer support their belief intellectually but are not ready to let it go emotionally. Of course there will be flip-flopping during this stage. Plenty of it.

It sounds to me like J. has passed through the transitional stage and has emotionally accepted (even embraced) what his rational mind is telling him. I don't think he'll be going back.

 

[FlyingLemons]

If the OT is for the Jewish people, than why is it considered in Chrstianity.

An accident of history, really. Presuming Jesus really believed himself to be the Messiah, and probably did as most preachers were eschatological in those days, the movement he started flat-out failed to take root among Jews when he died thus ruling him out from being the Messiah. The "return again to do work" thing doesn't work in Judaism, and so every time the followers of Jesus tried to say "here's your messiah!" they were rightfully rebuffed.

They turned to gentiles, and the idea of Jesus caught on among those who had no idea of what Jewish beliefs were and why they ruled out Jesus. This lead to the creation of a Greek translation of the Torah, the "Old Testament", which was then incorporated in an altered form to make a narrative that pointed to Jesus being the culmination of Jewish belief when in fact he wasn't. The God of Christianity, while baring some resemblance to the Jewish God, is actually fundamentally different in theological terms. Different faiths, different deities, different issues.

 

[Amaris]

There are plenty of people who are solid in their religious convictions and some who struggle with it. J's path is not at all unusual. I've read quite a few personal accounts of people who were once very faithful and gradually lost it through critical examination. There is usually a pretty tough transitional period when one first realizes that they can longer support their belief intellectually but are not ready to let it go emotionally. Of course there will be flip-flopping during this stage. Plenty of it.

It sounds to me like J. has passed through the transitional stage and has emotionally accepted (even embraced) what his rational mind is telling him. I don't think he'll be going back.

You are correct. I have intellectually and emotionally accepted that God does not exist, and have also come to terms with what I used to believe for what it really was, as I mentioned, a nice dream that was just as real.

J.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

But what I'm saying is that if there was an actual God, he could make himself equally clear to all of them

 

[John Picard]

But what I'm saying is that if there was an actual God, he could make himself equally clear to all of them

[Christian Fundamentalist] Oh no, that's impossible. God is too great in order for us to even begin to comprehend [/Christian Fundamentalist]


Whenever I hear that, I think of this. Somehow, today's advanced minds aren't suitable for communication, but a bunch of desert stragglers were?

 

[FlyingLemons]

But what I'm saying is that if there was an actual God, he could make himself equally clear to all of them

I don't accept that there is one universal truth for all. People have their own different ways of coming to terms with faith, and that's perfectly fine. I'm not in the business of trying to change other people's religious views to my own, because I don't believe in that.

Suffice it to say if there is a God, there are as many conceptions of Him as there are human beings. Finding an absolute indisputable truth would be impossible.