I think TLS would have sided with the Brits anyway.
Why would God send someone to hell over suicide?
- Thread starter Jayson
- Start date
Sorry, a little late getting back to the party.
No, not at all. If you don't want to be with God, then you're not with God. That's not immoral and it's not punishment. It's a logical outcome.
And as far as eternal torture goes: when I invalidated half of it as an argument, you just switched to the other half. But I'm questioning both halves. Who's to say that hell, whatever it is, goes on eternally? If the argument is that a loving God would not do that to his creations, then it is not a big step to believe in a God who wouldn't. I believe in second chances, and it sounds reasonable that at some point in the future, people in "hell" will be given other opportunities. Maybe that's what reincarnation is for, I don't know.
I don't believe that every passage in the Bible comes directly from God as if he was the CEO of the Universe dictating to his secretary. "Moses, take a memo!" If it were, it wouldn't contain such gems as classifying bats as birds and saying that pi equals three.
I believe the Bible was inspired by God and that taken as a whole, it shows the truth of how we need to live our lives: Love, compassion, forgiveness, faith, and salvation by a higher being who has plans for us.
But the Bible was still written by men, and like anything else man created, it has flaws. Those flaws should be acknowledged, but people shouldn't let individual trees stop them from seeing the forest.
Basically: Genesis is a collection of creation myths. Exodus and the books that followed it laid down the law for a people who needed some sort of moral compass. They weren't ready for a doctrine of absolute love, so God had to give them something they could understand and follow. (It doesn't mean we're required to follow it today! Anything that violates the truths I mentioned above can be ignored.) The rest of the Old Testament shows how these people continued beating their heads against the wall for the next few centuries, trying to understand what God wanted of them without really paying attention to the answer.
In cases where it says God ordered people to slaughter each other, etc., I don't believe that was God talking. That's just the human element leaking through. They were a barbaric people, so they wanted a barbaric God. Rejecting or disbelieving God on that basis is, as other posters have mentioned, picking and choosing your doctrines. Why take that part of the Bible literally, but dismiss the parts where God shows mercy?
Anyway, all of the above is just historical context (and prophecy) that tells us what is supposed to come next. That, of course, is the New Testament, in which the light bulb comes on, people start catching on to what God wanted for them all along, and the word goes out.
The exception to all this is the Revelation, which I'm not too sure of yet. I don't think I believe that God sits on a throne peering through a sea of glass (crystal?) at the world, or that he's going to send a giant cubical city down from heaven. So I don't buy into the literal truth of the Revelation. I may be prepared to believe it's just an allegorical account of the fall of Jerusalem, but I haven't decided.
Sorry, I knew what you meant, but I must have phrased it badly. Maybe I should have said "rejected the concept of God."
I don't perceive you as having fallen off the turnip truck, as I believe you said a while back. Some of my wording is just meant to explain my position fully, even if it's stuff you already know.
Thank you! I'll endeavor to be worthy.
Now, back to roasting the infidels....
Oh, and I also believe God has a sense of humor.
No, not at all. If you don't want to be with God, then you're not with God. That's not immoral and it's not punishment. It's a logical outcome.
And as far as eternal torture goes: when I invalidated half of it as an argument, you just switched to the other half. But I'm questioning both halves. Who's to say that hell, whatever it is, goes on eternally? If the argument is that a loving God would not do that to his creations, then it is not a big step to believe in a God who wouldn't. I believe in second chances, and it sounds reasonable that at some point in the future, people in "hell" will be given other opportunities. Maybe that's what reincarnation is for, I don't know.
I don't believe that every passage in the Bible comes directly from God as if he was the CEO of the Universe dictating to his secretary. "Moses, take a memo!" If it were, it wouldn't contain such gems as classifying bats as birds and saying that pi equals three.
I believe the Bible was inspired by God and that taken as a whole, it shows the truth of how we need to live our lives: Love, compassion, forgiveness, faith, and salvation by a higher being who has plans for us.
But the Bible was still written by men, and like anything else man created, it has flaws. Those flaws should be acknowledged, but people shouldn't let individual trees stop them from seeing the forest.
Basically: Genesis is a collection of creation myths. Exodus and the books that followed it laid down the law for a people who needed some sort of moral compass. They weren't ready for a doctrine of absolute love, so God had to give them something they could understand and follow. (It doesn't mean we're required to follow it today! Anything that violates the truths I mentioned above can be ignored.) The rest of the Old Testament shows how these people continued beating their heads against the wall for the next few centuries, trying to understand what God wanted of them without really paying attention to the answer.
In cases where it says God ordered people to slaughter each other, etc., I don't believe that was God talking. That's just the human element leaking through. They were a barbaric people, so they wanted a barbaric God. Rejecting or disbelieving God on that basis is, as other posters have mentioned, picking and choosing your doctrines. Why take that part of the Bible literally, but dismiss the parts where God shows mercy?
Anyway, all of the above is just historical context (and prophecy) that tells us what is supposed to come next. That, of course, is the New Testament, in which the light bulb comes on, people start catching on to what God wanted for them all along, and the word goes out.
The exception to all this is the Revelation, which I'm not too sure of yet. I don't think I believe that God sits on a throne peering through a sea of glass (crystal?) at the world, or that he's going to send a giant cubical city down from heaven. So I don't buy into the literal truth of the Revelation. I may be prepared to believe it's just an allegorical account of the fall of Jerusalem, but I haven't decided.
Sorry, I knew what you meant, but I must have phrased it badly. Maybe I should have said "rejected the concept of God."
I don't perceive you as having fallen off the turnip truck, as I believe you said a while back. Some of my wording is just meant to explain my position fully, even if it's stuff you already know.
Thank you! I'll endeavor to be worthy.
Now, back to roasting the infidels....
Oh, and I also believe God has a sense of humor.
I posted a link to a page with several Thomas Paine quotes. But don't feel bad, I also explained that Deists believe in a Creator and that didn't stop people from quoting certain Founding Fathers saying "The Almighty" or variations on that as if that was contradictory to what I said or proof that they were Christians.
Anyone who takes Revelation literally is someone to whom I commend some respect, because that is one awesomely tripped out book (one of my all-time favourites in the Bible), and if the world is going to end like a deranged surrealistic painting, I just hope I get to see some of it.
I do wonder how anyone who hypothetically takes it literally squares the relevance of a series of addresses to churches in Turkey that no longer exist, though.
I do wonder how anyone who hypothetically takes it literally squares the relevance of a series of addresses to churches in Turkey that no longer exist, though.
Ah, sorry. I sort of skimmed a few pages of text, it got a trifle heavy there. But, yeah, anyone insisting that America was founded on exclusively Christian ideals is implicitly rejecting Paine's role, which I do find unfair.
Paine is somewhat of the forgotten founder, ostracized by many because of his blistering attacks on Christianity and the Bible. He was NOT an atheist however. He makes frequent references to his creator. His quotes are full of them.
A
Amaris
Guest
Yep. Paine was a Deist, but was scathing in his commentary on religion and it's effect on reasonable people.
(He's something of a hero to me).
J.
Most of Christianity for about 2000 years. It is one of their main selling points.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Ah. Well, he was still more open about his faith than others.
No offence, but your use of the word logic is puzzling, as logic alone tells us that what will happen after you die is nothing at all That siad, I disagtree nonethelss. People ARE being rewarded while others are being excluded. It's the ol' carrot and stick argumetn.
As for the rest of your post, I read it carefully. I read many similar posts. Sure, historical context is imprtant in terms of examining historical text. But this text is unreliable, morally rerehensible, and contains passages of unsupported supernatural occurences. People say it is the inspired owor \d of god, and then they pick and choose what they like: "this part is the word of God but this part is isn't" and "this prt here clealrly is God, but this here, that's man, and its flawed." The fact that the Bible isn't clear at all (except when people take literally, and I believe that no one can actually take the whole bible literally) and is simply outdated.,
Perhaps I should have said "internal logic"?
No, the Bible isn't clear at all if you're not taking it literally. Yes, I'm picking and choosing my my ethical statements (because I don't think the people who wrote the Bible all shared the same ethics). But part of my point was that you've done the same thing in a few cases.
Heck, I guess we ALL have to pick and choose our beliefs. Even atheists have to choose what to believe, as long as unexplainable things still go on in the universe.
No, the Bible isn't clear at all if you're not taking it literally. Yes, I'm picking and choosing my my ethical statements (because I don't think the people who wrote the Bible all shared the same ethics). But part of my point was that you've done the same thing in a few cases.
Heck, I guess we ALL have to pick and choose our beliefs. Even atheists have to choose what to believe, as long as unexplainable things still go on in the universe.
A
Amaris
Guest
He's got a point.
As far as I know, Davros doesn't murder innocent men, women and children. That alone makes him morally superior to the God of the Bible. He also doesn't torment people eternally because someone might not believe in him. He wouldn't send his son to be murdered so that people could be saved from his own arbitrary rules.
Davros, as well as myself and others who don't do such things, have morals and ethics far superior to that of the God of the Bible.
J.
Wow
I don't even know how to respond to that.
I guess all that I can say is that I believe God is perfect and he has the highest and holiest standards of all. I have faith in him and his morals.
A
Amaris
Guest
That's perfectly fine. I'm not going to assault your personal faith, I just find his morals and ethics to be severely lacking, and that if he were a fictional character in a story book, the protagonist would be the person going against him. Emperor Palpatine ain't got nothing on this guy.
J.
Sorry, but your surprise is so funny. These arguments are going around since forever....and now I want a t-shirt that reads, "More Moral than God!"
Just for the reactions it would be worth...aw crap, here come the torches and pitchforks...
A
Amaris
Guest
Similar threads
