I'm sorry, but I think these last two quotes contradicts the first one. People accepting cruelty with a mere "I can't understand better so it must be I that is at fault" would be any dictators wet dream.
Why would God send someone to hell over suicide?
- Thread starter Jayson
- Start date
I'm sorry, but I think these last two quotes contradicts the first one. People accepting cruelty with a mere "I can't understand better so it must be I that is at fault" would be any dictators wet dream.
I actually did study Zoroastrianism in school...even did a paper on it as my final exam in my high school comparative religions class. Believe it or not, I am a Christian and I am VERY aware of what Zoroastrian eschatology spoke about, and of the fact that contemporary Jewish believers would've heard about it. Just like the discussion we had about the Gilgamesh epic, I do think there are times that non-believers have caught a glimpse of something that is truth. And just because they saw it does not invalidate the inherent truth in it. The difference, though, is again the theological bent--Zoroastrianism is a dualistic system in which, although the force of good (Ahura Mazda) is ultimately supposed to triumph, Ahriman, the avatar of evil (also known as Shaitin) is considered a force in its own right of equal power--equal, opposite, and an uncreated first cause just like Ahura Mazda.
(This sums up dualism better than I can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism )
In comparison, check out the book of Job, in which Satan (yes, same name there) speaks to God. You see a very, very different theology in operation there: Satan is not treated with that equal-but-opposite-god theology, but as a created power thus inherently subordinate in status in a way Ahriman is not. Ahriman basically loses because he gets his butt kicked. While the eschatological prophecies describe which way it turned out, it did not HAVE to go that way--Ahura Mazda theoretically could've lost the fight (and possibly would've if not for the creation of the Zoroastrian messianic figure, Saoshyant, in order to go one bigger and better than Ahriman--and I should add that Saoshyant is considered to be born of the seed of Zoroaster, not Ahura Mazda). Satan, in Christian theology, loses right from the get-go because he took on a force so far beyond him that his loss was assured on grounds of the mismatch between finite and infinite. The role the Messiah plays is quite different, too--Jesus is more than just a one-upping trick against Satan. Unlike Saoshyant, he is a) unique (there are three saviors in Zoroastrian eschatology, not one), b) born of a maiden and the Holy Spirit (not the sperm of a deceased man), and c) considered to be fully God and fully man--this is called the hypostatic union, BTW. This is a theology that does not allow the possibility of failure given that Jesus is acting with and through the divinity of God--which as I already mentioned, is considered to be on a whole other level than Satan (infinite v. finite).
I could go on for quite a bit longer, but I don't have the time. Basic point being, even though we're looking at very similar stories, the theological bent and their implications for belief and practice are quite different. That others may have seen things, and written them down, that have a basis in what I consider to be theological fact does not invalidate my own beliefs. If someone who is not a believer writes something that happens to contain truth in it, those elements of truth do not simply disappear.
As a Christian I believe the Bible is the prime source and the truest. That does not make me ignorant of or threatened by others who caught wind of some of the pieces.
Here is my take/questions: Assuming the Christian-centric god exists, why not make himself known to a world of 6+ billion people? Why only manifest for a brief period of time, in the Middle East, over 5,000 years ago, and nary another peep?
In the first place, it was around 2,000 years ago. I know, I know - picky, picky, picky.
More to the point, how often do you want him to manifest himself? What would be the ideal interval, do you think? And if he did manifest himself, say, five years from now, would he have to do so regularly every generation or two? Every 20 years or so? Would he have to appear in the U.S. one year and then in Asia the next? Would he have to go on tour? Would he need a cable channel?
I'm not making fun of you, John, honestly. I'm just trying to point out the absurdity of expecting God to prove to doubters over and over again that he exists. Sooner or later - in fact, sooner rather than later - to be a believer, you have to have faith. Which means believing even when it's difficult.
I mean, you know what people are like. You know how short their attention spans are. Can you imagine any way short of God (or "a god," if you prefer) coming down, abolishing earthly governments, establishing a permanent kingdom here on Earth, abolishing hunger and disease, rewarding the just and punishing the unjust...can you imagine anything short of that that would convince people for any length of time that God exists and that He cares for them?
More importantly, what is the good of faith that needs constant reinforcement? It's kind of like regular old human love. If you accept that someone loves you, you have to believe that even when that person - spouse, parent, friend - isn't acting very loving. And that person has to believe that you still love him or her even when you aren't acting very loving.
Love that dies the moment things get difficult isn't worth very much, is it? Well, guess what: Neither is faith.
In the early days of Christianity, that one manifestation in an obscure corner of the world turned the world upside down. In just a few hundred years, Jesus' followers went from a few people in Palestine to millions of people all over the Roman Empire and beyond. I'm pointing this out not as proof of Christianity's truth, because of course it doesn't prove that at all, but as proof of the power of that one manifestation. You may disagree with God's PR plan, but it's hard to argue with its success, isn't it?
I've never understood this argument. The whole "God moves in mysterious ways" thing. Why doesn't he just explain himself to us? If God is perfect than he should be able to break his methods down into terms we can understand. He can use some flow charts, make a power point presentation, etc. There's lots of things he could do.
That's exactly the point. I wouldn't, but lots of people do. It may be not rational, but people do not-rational things all the time. As I said, rationalism (not to be confused with rationality) is not the end of everything and all. I do some pretty irrational things myself. I don't know for a fact that my fiancee loves me (she may be faking it), but I believe it. And I'm not going to let her have a CAT scan of her neural activity to be sure. That's why people call it faith. (Again, I say that as an atheist.)
Please tell me that is not the reason you believe.
Here is my take/questions: Assuming the Christian-centric god exists, why not make himself known to a world of 6+ billion people? Why only manifest for a brief period of time, in the Middle East, over 5,000 years ago, and nary another peep?
In the first place, it was around 2,000 years ago. I know, I know - picky, picky, picky.
More to the point, how often do you want him to manifest himself? What would be the ideal interval, do you think? And if he did manifest himself, say, five years from now, would he have to do so regularly every generation or two? Every 20 years or so? Would he have to appear in the U.S. one year and then in Asia the next? Would he have to go on tour? Would he need a cable channel?
I'm not making fun of you, John, honestly. I'm just trying to point out the absurdity of expecting God to prove over and over again to doubters that he exists. Sooner or later - in fact, sooner rather than later - to be a believer, you have to have faith. Which means believing even when it's difficult.
I mean, you know what people are like. You know how short their attention spans are. Can you imagine any way short of God (or "a god," if you prefer) coming down, abolishing earthly governments, establishing a permanent kingdom here on Earth, rewarding the just and punishing the unjust...can you imagine anything short of that that would convince people for any length of time that God exists and that He cares for them?
More importantly, what is the good of faith that needs constant reinforcement? It's kind of like regular old human love. If you accept that someone loves you, you have to believe that even when that person - spouse, parent, friend - isn't acting very loving. And that person has to believe that you still love him or her even when you aren't acting very loving.
Love that dies the moment things get difficult isn't worth very much, is it? Well, guess what: Neither is faith.
In the early days of Christianity, that one manifestation in an obscure corner of the world turned the world upside down. In just a few hundred years, Jesus' followers went from a few people in Palestine to millions of people all over the Roman Empire and beyond. I'm pointing this out not as proof of Christianity's truth, because of course it doesn't prove that at all, but as proof of the power of that one manifestation. You may disagree with God's PR plan, but it's hard to argue with its success, isn't it?
I knwo it was not directed at me, but I have nothing better to do at the moment so ... :P
I actually believe that the christian god would owe us a revelation. I mean, what would be the problem in doing that? He could manifest himself for every human on the whole planet at the same time and explain to each and everyone of us why we should trust and believe in him.
Saying that he would not do that out of it being an inconvenience that would not attract followers is just not believable to me.
I'd guarantee you that if he appeared in a personal way hovering beside every person on earth and told them personal things that noone else could know and then explained that the Bible and Jesus and all that stuff is true would instantly spike the number of christians with a couple of billions.
If eternal torture is the price of not believing, does he not owe us such a thing that would be infinitesimally simple for him to do?
Or isn't it rather more logical to say that he does not appear because he does not exist?
Have you read the Bible? How do you account for a supposedly moral superior being that:
-endorses slavery
-endorses stoning as a means of punishment
- slays poeple simple for being "wicked" in his eyes
- honors credulity instead of honest examination of the evidence
This guy says it all:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvRPbsXBVBo[/yt]
That's pretty epic.
Thanks. He is one of the smartest youtubers out there, and certainly the best debater.
I knwo it was not directed at me, but I have nothing better to do at the moment so ... :P
I actually believe that the christian god would owe us a revelation. I mean, what would be the problem in doing that? He could manifest himself for every human on the whole planet at the same time and explain to each and everyone of us why we should trust and believe in him.
Saying that he would not do that out of it being an inconvenience that would not attract followers is just not believable to me.
I'd guarantee you that if he appeared in a personal way hovering beside every person on earth and told them personal things that noone else could know and then explained that the Bible and Jesus and all that stuff is true would instantly spike the number of christians with a couple of billions.
If eternal torture is the price of not believing, does he not owe us such a thing that would be infinitesimally simple for him to do?
Or isn't it rather more logical to say that he does not appear because he does not exist?
Why would anybody - any being - want faith and loyalty like that? What good is it? What is the value of it?
Love means loving even when the person you love isn't being very lovable. Bravery means being brave even when you want to run. Honesty means being honest even when there's little chance you'll get caught. Faith means believing even when it isn't easy. The kind of "faith" you're describing here is worthless even to me, a plain old mortal. How it would seem to God, I don't know. But it sounds like trash, and who wants trash?
Here is my take/questions: Assuming the Christian-centric god exists, why not make himself known to a world of 6+ billion people? Why only manifest for a brief period of time, in the Middle East, over 5,000 years ago, and nary another peep?
In the first place, it was around 2,000 years ago. I know, I know - picky, picky, picky.
More to the point, how often do you want him to manifest himself? What would be the ideal interval, do you think? And if he did manifest himself, say, five years from now, would he have to do so regularly every generation or two? Every 20 years or so? Would he have to appear in the U.S. one year and then in Asia the next? Would he have to go on tour? Would he need a cable channel?
I'm not making fun of you, John, honestly. I'm just trying to point out the absurdity of expecting God to prove to doubters over and over again that he exists. Sooner or later - in fact, sooner rather than later - to be a believer, you have to have faith. Which means believing even when it's difficult.
I mean, you know what people are like. You know how short their attention spans are. Can you imagine any way short of God (or "a god," if you prefer) coming down, abolishing earthly governments, establishing a permanent kingdom here on Earth, abolishing hunger and disease, rewarding the just and punishing the unjust...can you imagine anything short of that that would convince people for any length of time that God exists and that He cares for them?
More importantly, what is the good of faith that needs constant reinforcement? It's kind of like regular old human love. If you accept that someone loves you, you have to believe that even when that person - spouse, parent, friend - isn't acting very loving. And that person has to believe that you still love him or her even when you aren't acting very loving.
Love that dies the moment things get difficult isn't worth very much, is it? Well, guess what: Neither is faith.
In the early days of Christianity, that one manifestation in an obscure corner of the world turned the world upside down. In just a few hundred years, Jesus' followers went from a few people in Palestine to millions of people all over the Roman Empire and beyond. I'm pointing this out not as proof of Christianity's truth, because of course it doesn't prove that at all, but as proof of the power of that one manifestation. You may disagree with God's PR plan, but it's hard to argue with its success, isn't it?
In this day and age of leaps and bounds science is making, plus the fact that God (or any deity) has not "spoken outright" to the masses is going to make me, as well as others, dubious of an existence. Why the heck reign all kinds of terror around the (known) world (or one specific corner) for a few thousand years and then *POOF*. We're supposed to compile some ancient scribblings together as a complete history and take it verbatim? I'm sorry, but there are too many holes in all of that in order to be taken seriously.
I knwo it was not directed at me, but I have nothing better to do at the moment so ... :P
I actually believe that the christian god would owe us a revelation. I mean, what would be the problem in doing that? He could manifest himself for every human on the whole planet at the same time and explain to each and everyone of us why we should trust and believe in him.
Saying that he would not do that out of it being an inconvenience that would not attract followers is just not believable to me.
I'd guarantee you that if he appeared in a personal way hovering beside every person on earth and told them personal things that noone else could know and then explained that the Bible and Jesus and all that stuff is true would instantly spike the number of christians with a couple of billions.
If eternal torture is the price of not believing, does he not owe us such a thing that would be infinitesimally simple for him to do?
Or isn't it rather more logical to say that he does not appear because he does not exist?
Why would anybody - any being - want faith and loyalty like that? What good is it? What is the value of it?
Love means loving even when the person you love isn't being very lovable. Bravery means being brave even when you want to run. Honesty means being honest even when there's little chance you'll get caught. Faith means believing even when it isn't easy. The kind of "faith" you're describing here is worthless even to me, a plain old mortal. How it would seem to God, I don't know. But it sounds like trash, and who wants trash?
I'm afraid I don't really understand you. Why did he then first appear at all?
Isn't his plan for me to also be able to live by his side? Wouldn't it then be in his interest to appear to me, have a chat with me, talk to me about what his plan is and why it's such a neat thing? I know I'd love to have a chat in order to understand the rules that said ruler will use to judge me by.
He could appear right now out of thin air, sit down here with me and just talk to me. That would make me accept his existence. Then whether I agreed to his terms after our chat is another question.
I just don't think it's fair of him to judge me based on rules that he doesn't care to show me. (Note that I can't accept the bible as true because the Torah, the Koran, The Egyptian Book of the Dead etc all have the same claim.) If he could just talk to me I would know what the rules are and could then decide and make that decision that ultimately will reward me with eternal bliss or eternal torture.
I think that would be in any all loving gods interest.
Don't you think that would be fair? And don't you agree that it would be a very simple task for the christian god to do?
Not necessarily. The limitation may be in us, not him. You're still treating him like he's a regular guy who's extraordinarily intelligent. But what if God existed before the Big Bang? That means he must live outside of normal time, and may not perceive time the same way we do. Heck, we already understand God as being able to see all things in all places, which means he isn't limited to the speed of light. That already puts him outside of normal time.
So, what if he doesn't view time or causality the way we do? What if he works in multiple quantum universes? What if he works in aspects of the universe that we don't know about yet or don't have the ability to understand? I don't think a flow chart would be able to explain it all.
Or, what if he works in aspects of the universe that we don't have the theory or equipment to validate? I guarantee such things still exist. If he put it in terms we could understand, but couldn't prove, would we believe him? Would you?
You look at the back of a sewn pattern or cross-stitch, it's going to look like garbage. It requires adding another dimension -- turning it over -- to make sense out of it. Well, we can't turn the universe over. The only dimensions are the ones we can see. And yeah, it looks like garbage.
However, we can trust that God can see the other side of the pattern and is doing something with that pattern that makes sense.
Not necessarily. The idea of having God appear beside you and explaining the secrets of the universe means he's no longer treated as a deity. Instead, this treats him as a peer. People still wouldn't worship him, or have faith in him. Instead, they'd start asking him for money.
Faith is simply the belief that a higher being knows what he's doing, even if you don't understand it. God's asking us to have faith in him, and eventually he'll reward us for that faith. My personal belief is that in the afterlife, he'll provide greater understanding and perspective on why the world is the way it is.
I don't think there's a lake of fire for not believing, either. You can either be with God in the afterlife, or not be with God.
I don't think those passages are a reflection of what God wanted. They're a reflection of a barbaric people who were trying to understand what God wanted. A lot of stuff in the Old Testament is filtered through their perspective. That's why Noah is stated to have taken seven of every "clean" animal aboard the ark, even though "clean" or "unclean" wasn't established until Moses went up on the mountain.
Anyway, the Old Testament wasn't included in the Bible as a guide to behavior, and shouldn't be treated as equal to the gospels in the New Testament. The OT was included as a historical perspective to the NT. It tells the prophecies that Jesus was supposed to fulfill, and stuff like that.
If the OT was sufficient by itself, there would have been no need for the NT.
I think some of that was in fact the institutions of man--slavery, stoning, and so on...it's very telling that Jesus sows the seeds for these things to stop, during His ministry. There are some who are guilty of selective reading to perpetuate these things (think some of the Confederates, for instance), yet there is no way to read how Jesus calls us to conduct ourselves towards others and think that slavery in any way squares up with those teachings. The cultural revolution against slavery became inevitable.
It is quite interesting that at a couple points, the Bible does directly address the fact that the institutions of man are not right, not what they should be. God's reaction, for instance, to being asked by the Israelites for a king is very telling--He very directly calls the Israelites out on the fact that this is an institution of man and one that has been tremendous trouble for neighboring nations, and that if they keep insisting on doing this with or without His blessing, it will just lead to corruption and heartache. (Which it did...aside from certain bright spots, Kings and Chronicles outline a very turbulent and troubled period for Israel and Judah with a lot of political conniving and bloodshed that ends in subjugation and exile.)
When the people of Israel turn out to be unrelenting, set on their course regardless of this counsel, God respects their free will and anoints a king. He does end up using this to do something good in the far future (Jesus is stated to be of David's lineage), but it's made very clear that other than this, the institution of a kingdom was NOT a good or desired thing. There are some other instances along these lines, but this is where God most directly takes on the subject, that we have recorded, of exactly how people get this habit of folding THEIR created institutions into religion. He calls it exactly what it is and expresses staunch disapproval. To my mind, this is quite the striking moment of honesty and one that makes me stand up and take notice. (I do not imply dishonesty at other times, but given that sometimes God presents Himself in a very understated and cryptic way, something this blunt is VERY attention-getting.)
As to the free-will issue...that goes back to something I said earlier, that for God to abrogate the free will of an individual or set of individuals is, according to the evidence, the greatest atrocity possible, beyond physical death by several orders of magnitude. Destruction of the spirit and mind ranks WAY beyond the destruction of the body, and this goes a long way towards explaining the attempts to counsel humanity that the course they're taking is wrong, but subsequently backing off when people are dead set on choosing otherwise even though the results are not going to be good.
Your first and second examples very much fall into this category: something that was NOT right that people went and decided to fold into their religious practice. They should NOT have done it, and went and did it anyway and were not going to be turned away from it until much later in human history when people finally sat up and PAID ATTENTION to what God had been telling them all along. As to the laws that deal with slavery, stoning, and so on--some, I believe, were attempts to soften the blow (Jubilee, for instance, should've freed slaves every seven years. Note, however, that the custom was NEVER practiced and we ended up with perpetual servitude instead.), make people question themselves and listen to their conscience before it got to that point (putting obstacles in the way before a punishment came to pass)...and others, quite frankly, were indeed people mixing their politics in with their theology. And this was flat wrong.
The fourth contention, that we are not invited to look at or examine evidence...this one I do not believe stands. Ultimately, a decision must be made based on a best estimate, and this is the decision of faith. This is what is meant when it is said that we should "lean not on our own understanding": we can investigate as much as we can...and we should, but ultimately our minds do not contain everything, and that final decision is in effect a leap. That does NOT, however, mean that we should not strive to understand as best as we can. God Himself says as much when He states that Solomon, in requesting wisdom as his reward, has made the most worthy decision possible.
As to how I practice this in my own life and belief, I spend much time investigating and considering the logic of my belief, and I also spend a great deal of time considering other aspects of knowledge, too, to include the natural sciences. I have no fear of things like evolution, the Big Bang, string theory, or any other thing science could accomplish or reveal...I won't shy away, because I believe that we SHOULD strive to understand as much as we can about the world we live in just as we should strive to understand who we are and what our purpose is.
Your third point is the most difficult one, because there seem to be multiple explanations in each case. Some cases appear to be of an almost accidental nature and these are quite simple to explain: for instance, dying as a result of touching the Ark of the Covenant or looking directly upon the presence of God. While you may not accept this, it is my belief that such deaths occurred because the human body and nervous system simply could not handle the massive input this sort of contact brought on, and the result was instant death. Warning people not to do these things is no different than warning your child not to stick his fingers into an electrical socket--your child doesn't do it out of malice, and electricity isn't evil, but there is a natural cause and effect with electricity: if you're not grounded, you're very likely to be seriously injured or killed.
There are other deaths that might have been mercy killings--some deaths may have occurred when they did to prevent someone from being too far gone in the eternal sense. We're not always told what happens to the souls of those who in the Bible are struck down--what happens in the moment between life and death is not something that we know. Personally--and this is just gut instinct, mind you--I think it is possible the moment of death is a moment of final choice.
However, this idea necessitates extreme caution. It's very, very easy to go from this to the idea that we can just kill people willy-nilly and claim it's for their own good. And some HAVE gone there, and they were dead wrong. Which leads perfectly into my last point...
There are absolutely cases where people use their beliefs to justify whatever atrocities they have in mind, and some of those incidents are on the historical record. Some of them are likely on record in the Bible, which serves a dual purpose as theological guide (what OUGHT to happen) AND historical record (recording what really happened, some of which very much was NOT right). This is true in the modern era and it was true in the past as well. Those who commit such acts "in the name of God" commit a blasphemy of actions as well as words and they are absolutely responsible for what they've done. These are not acts of God, but the acts of those who smeared His name as though He endorsed their hate. These incidents seem pretty frequent, at least to my own gut reaction--though lacking the knowledge of the eternal fates of those involved, I can't actually name percentages.
Edited to add: I see that Silvercrest has addressed this third category in much more detail and I commend his explanation, which is much better worded than my own. He also addresses the ramifications of the Bible being dual theological treatises and historical record quite nicely, too. (Incidentally, the NT does show this as well, particuarly in the letters of Paul, where some of Paul's comments to specific people and individuals have been bent WAY out of context.)
Again, this is just my personal take, and some of it is very much gut instinct. Your third question is one to which I continue to direct much study because I recognize its enormity. What you have now is an early answer and not yet as complete as I would like it to be.
Anyway...I've got to go to work shortly and given the speed at which this thread is moving, I am not likely to be able to address very many, if any, of the posts that occur in the next 8 or 9 hours or so, perhaps not even until tomorrow. I have, however, enjoyed the thought-provoking discussion and hope to pick up at a later point.
It is quite interesting that at a couple points, the Bible does directly address the fact that the institutions of man are not right, not what they should be. God's reaction, for instance, to being asked by the Israelites for a king is very telling--He very directly calls the Israelites out on the fact that this is an institution of man and one that has been tremendous trouble for neighboring nations, and that if they keep insisting on doing this with or without His blessing, it will just lead to corruption and heartache. (Which it did...aside from certain bright spots, Kings and Chronicles outline a very turbulent and troubled period for Israel and Judah with a lot of political conniving and bloodshed that ends in subjugation and exile.)
When the people of Israel turn out to be unrelenting, set on their course regardless of this counsel, God respects their free will and anoints a king. He does end up using this to do something good in the far future (Jesus is stated to be of David's lineage), but it's made very clear that other than this, the institution of a kingdom was NOT a good or desired thing. There are some other instances along these lines, but this is where God most directly takes on the subject, that we have recorded, of exactly how people get this habit of folding THEIR created institutions into religion. He calls it exactly what it is and expresses staunch disapproval. To my mind, this is quite the striking moment of honesty and one that makes me stand up and take notice. (I do not imply dishonesty at other times, but given that sometimes God presents Himself in a very understated and cryptic way, something this blunt is VERY attention-getting.)
As to the free-will issue...that goes back to something I said earlier, that for God to abrogate the free will of an individual or set of individuals is, according to the evidence, the greatest atrocity possible, beyond physical death by several orders of magnitude. Destruction of the spirit and mind ranks WAY beyond the destruction of the body, and this goes a long way towards explaining the attempts to counsel humanity that the course they're taking is wrong, but subsequently backing off when people are dead set on choosing otherwise even though the results are not going to be good.
Your first and second examples very much fall into this category: something that was NOT right that people went and decided to fold into their religious practice. They should NOT have done it, and went and did it anyway and were not going to be turned away from it until much later in human history when people finally sat up and PAID ATTENTION to what God had been telling them all along. As to the laws that deal with slavery, stoning, and so on--some, I believe, were attempts to soften the blow (Jubilee, for instance, should've freed slaves every seven years. Note, however, that the custom was NEVER practiced and we ended up with perpetual servitude instead.), make people question themselves and listen to their conscience before it got to that point (putting obstacles in the way before a punishment came to pass)...and others, quite frankly, were indeed people mixing their politics in with their theology. And this was flat wrong.
The fourth contention, that we are not invited to look at or examine evidence...this one I do not believe stands. Ultimately, a decision must be made based on a best estimate, and this is the decision of faith. This is what is meant when it is said that we should "lean not on our own understanding": we can investigate as much as we can...and we should, but ultimately our minds do not contain everything, and that final decision is in effect a leap. That does NOT, however, mean that we should not strive to understand as best as we can. God Himself says as much when He states that Solomon, in requesting wisdom as his reward, has made the most worthy decision possible.
As to how I practice this in my own life and belief, I spend much time investigating and considering the logic of my belief, and I also spend a great deal of time considering other aspects of knowledge, too, to include the natural sciences. I have no fear of things like evolution, the Big Bang, string theory, or any other thing science could accomplish or reveal...I won't shy away, because I believe that we SHOULD strive to understand as much as we can about the world we live in just as we should strive to understand who we are and what our purpose is.
Your third point is the most difficult one, because there seem to be multiple explanations in each case. Some cases appear to be of an almost accidental nature and these are quite simple to explain: for instance, dying as a result of touching the Ark of the Covenant or looking directly upon the presence of God. While you may not accept this, it is my belief that such deaths occurred because the human body and nervous system simply could not handle the massive input this sort of contact brought on, and the result was instant death. Warning people not to do these things is no different than warning your child not to stick his fingers into an electrical socket--your child doesn't do it out of malice, and electricity isn't evil, but there is a natural cause and effect with electricity: if you're not grounded, you're very likely to be seriously injured or killed.
There are other deaths that might have been mercy killings--some deaths may have occurred when they did to prevent someone from being too far gone in the eternal sense. We're not always told what happens to the souls of those who in the Bible are struck down--what happens in the moment between life and death is not something that we know. Personally--and this is just gut instinct, mind you--I think it is possible the moment of death is a moment of final choice.
However, this idea necessitates extreme caution. It's very, very easy to go from this to the idea that we can just kill people willy-nilly and claim it's for their own good. And some HAVE gone there, and they were dead wrong. Which leads perfectly into my last point...
There are absolutely cases where people use their beliefs to justify whatever atrocities they have in mind, and some of those incidents are on the historical record. Some of them are likely on record in the Bible, which serves a dual purpose as theological guide (what OUGHT to happen) AND historical record (recording what really happened, some of which very much was NOT right). This is true in the modern era and it was true in the past as well. Those who commit such acts "in the name of God" commit a blasphemy of actions as well as words and they are absolutely responsible for what they've done. These are not acts of God, but the acts of those who smeared His name as though He endorsed their hate. These incidents seem pretty frequent, at least to my own gut reaction--though lacking the knowledge of the eternal fates of those involved, I can't actually name percentages.
Edited to add: I see that Silvercrest has addressed this third category in much more detail and I commend his explanation, which is much better worded than my own. He also addresses the ramifications of the Bible being dual theological treatises and historical record quite nicely, too. (Incidentally, the NT does show this as well, particuarly in the letters of Paul, where some of Paul's comments to specific people and individuals have been bent WAY out of context.)
Again, this is just my personal take, and some of it is very much gut instinct. Your third question is one to which I continue to direct much study because I recognize its enormity. What you have now is an early answer and not yet as complete as I would like it to be.
Anyway...I've got to go to work shortly and given the speed at which this thread is moving, I am not likely to be able to address very many, if any, of the posts that occur in the next 8 or 9 hours or so, perhaps not even until tomorrow. I have, however, enjoyed the thought-provoking discussion and hope to pick up at a later point.
A
Amaris
Guest
No. Presenting only two options does not mean there are only two options.
At one point I did believe. I took things for signs and answers that could easily be seen as common place and completely non supernatural in any way. Keep in mind also, that the human brain is very powerful and quite capable of shoring up wherever it needs to. This is, in essence, Christian faith, that one believes God has talked to us, that Jesus speaks to us in our hearts. So no, not lying, and not mentally ill, simply one who believed and doesn't any longer.
God had innocent men, women and children murdered.
If God does not consider that cruel, then God has no place in the human sphere of influence.
Oh, you can avoid that whole speech, to be quite honest.
When you pray, who are you talking to?
J.
Just chiming in to ask: from a purely narrative point of view, don't you think that Zoroastrian eschatology has much more emotional punch that Christian mythology? I must put forward that, as an atheist, I'm judging the merit of the texts just as works of fiction. I'm sure you can do that even if you are a believer.
I always found that Christianity's treatment of the Devil and the Final Battle is narratively lacking: I mean, where is the emotional investment of there is inherently no way your side could lose? Where is the excitement, the sense of taking sides with the good? God in going to win in any case. Well, duh: as you said, the difference between the Hosts of Light and the Army of Darkness (
) is that between finite and infinite. It's, well, boring. As if WWII were to be fought between the combined forces of NATO and Warsaw's Pact against... Nazi Liechtenstein. Not much of a fight.In Zoroastrian mythology, every soldier, every action could tip the balance between Good and Evil. What you do really matter. There is an ultimate sense of responsibility. Yes, in the end Ahura Mazda is going to win, but that would be because of the collective actions of Mankind, our love and goodness and courage. God need us. And that is epitomized by the Saoshyan, just a man, no super-powers, just plain old Joe Sixpack, right there in the middle of Mount Megiddo kicking Satan's ass. And when victory is conquered, and darkness vanquished.. maybe it's just the beginning of another cycle.
I also quite like Jewish treatment of the Accuser: not a force of evil (either created -- like the Christians' Devil, or uncreated -- like Ahriman), but as God's force of Law vs. God's force of Mercy, playing the role of Prosecutor in the Heaven's trial on Man, in order to seek true Justice by balancing extremes. He's not "evil" (God won't condone that), he's just doing his job, as God appointed him.
I'm not very well versed in Islam's eschatology and "shaitanology", so I won't comment on that, but I'm very curious if someone knows better.
I'm curious what you think about this.
Last edited:
Let me get this straight. I swear I am not trying to be a smartass and I am not trying to belittle you. I swear. I would just like you to realize how what you're saying here sounds to me.
Assume for a second that those of us who are religious are right, OK? Just for a second. And assume that there is a loving God (Christian, Muslim, whatever) who is offering you personally eternal life and abundance everafter in exchange for faith and trying to do God's will during your mortal life. OK? Just for a second. Just a tiny little second.
So...God has to do all the work? You, the one being offered everything, owe this god nothing? You don't have to do any work at all? You will "graciously" believe in him so long as he sells himself to you personally, one on one?
Oh, Rusty. No, I don't think that would be "fair."
There is a way to talk to God, but I don't think it's the kind of conversation you have in mind. It's called prayer - I know that sounds flip, but I really and truly do not mean it that way. Prayer doesn't usually result in God speaking to me directly from On High (as far as I can tell), but it usually results in my being pretty sure what he wants from me. Whether I do it or not...that's another matter. Hey, I said I was religious - I didn't say I was always obedient.
Last edited:
Um, if I want to make myself known to people, I make an effort. I don't talk to one person and instruct that individual to contact the rest of the world.
Let me get this straight. I swear I am not trying to be a smartass and I am not trying to belittle you. I swear. I would just like you to realize how what you're talking about here sounds to me.
Assume for a second that those of us who are religious are right, OK? Just for a second. And assume that there is a loving God (Christian, Muslim, whatever) who is offering you personally eternal life and abundance everafter in exchange for faith during your mortal life. OK? Just for a second. Just a tiny little second.
So...God has to do all the work? You, the one being offered everything, owes this god nothing? You will "graciously" believe in him so long as he sells himself to you personally, one on one?
Oh, Rusty. No, I don't think that would be "fair."
There is a way to talk to God, but I don't think it's the kind of conversation you have in mind. It's called prayer - I know that sounds flip, but I really and truly do not mean it that way. Prayer doesn't usually result in God speaking to me directly from On High (as far as I can tell), but it usually results in my being pretty sure what he wants from me. Whether I do it or not...that's another matter. Hey, I said I was religious - I didn't say I was always obedient.
John Picard said:
But John, assuming for another second that we religious people are right...he didn't talk to just one person (and what "person" are you talking about, I wonder)? He is reported in the Old Testament to have talked to quite a few different people (Moses, the prophets). He sent Jesus, who talked to lots of people, performed miracles, etc.
Sure it was a long time ago, but let's be honest: Would you find it any easier to believe if it was 50 years ago or 100 years ago? Or would you only believe if he talked directly and inescapably to you?
I expect it's the latter. Because you find faith - believing without direct proof - difficult. Some people do. That's just way it is. I'm not faulting you for it, and I'm not trying to talk you out of it, but that is what it sounds like to me.
Similar threads
