What kind of god would punish people simply for not believing?

[Eliot Wild]

You don't have freedom from religion, you have freedom of religion. That means if I want a nativity scene in the town square, you can just deal with it. If say, a jewish member of the community wanted a menorah erected, no problem with that either. Freedom from religion would limit my freedom of religion.

Many people say, I don't want my tax dollars going for anything religious. I agree with that totally just as I don't want my tax dollars paying for an abortion. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, no offense to you personally, but I respectfully disagree with just about everything you said herein above, Rev. Rick.

First of all, the Constitution restricts our federal government from passing any laws respecting religion. Article Six of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that regardless of what individual state a U.S. citizen resides, that state must conform to the Federal Jurisdiction of the United States government. That means no state among the fifty can pass a law respecting the establishment of religion. Furthermore, no state or local government can engage in acts which violate federal constitutional restrictions, such as institutionalizing a religion or making institutional considerations for a particular religion.

Since constructing and/or erecting items on government property, such as a city park or the lawn of the county courthouse, requires an institutional act of the government, this prohibits city, state or local agencies from endorsing, constructing and/or erecting religious monuments and/or depictions. Of course, I suppose they could do so as long as no one objects. But given an objection by a citizen, then the agency would need to adhere to the Constituional restriction.

Abortions are a completely different matter. Abortion is not a religious act. The government isn't restricted from funding medical procedures for citizens under Constitional guidelines, at least not that I'm aware of. And if anyone can point out where I'm wrong, I would ask they please do so.

The government isn't restricted, again as far as I know, from passing a law respecting a citizen's right to healthcare. Now, please don't get me wrong, I am not saying a citizen actually has a right to healthcare. That is not my position, at least not for the purposes of this debate. I'm just saying the government can legally pay for individual medical expenses of citizens, if it so budgets and allocates the funds to do so and the law allows it.

We can't pick and choose where the government spends our tax dollars, at least not for the most part. I don't want my tax dollars paying for DUI commercials and mandatory seatbelt advertisements, but very few other citizens are going to sympathize with me on these matters. You may not want your tax dollars paying for others' medical procedures, specifically abortions, but that would require the government passing a law restricting the use of government funds in such a manner. In other words, you need to vote in candidates that indicate they will support such ideas becoming law.

The Constitution absolutely restricts a law from being passed that respects religious practices. The only way to circumvent this restriction would be for Congress to actually Amend the Constitution and revoke the First Amendment.

 

[bain-druie]

I don't particularly care for others' inaccurate comparisons.

Then perhaps you might care to provide your own more accurate comparison?

Ontologically.

yes, that's very fitting. Thank you once again for supporting my point; ontology is based on a priori argument, and is thus an admission of a complete lack of objective evidence.

:no

:yes

I do. I tend to believe that the fires of hell and the consuming fire of God are one in the same. That is the holy love of God that is bliss to the believer is torment to the wicked.

This kind of prejudice is part of what alarms me in exclusivist faiths like yours; you have two categories here, 'believers' and ... non-believers? No: 'the wicked'. This in addition to the fact that you seem to be saying that 'The Wicked' will burn in the fires of your god's 'love' for eternity. This kind of "love", we call it homicidal stalking. A love that desired the highest good for the beloved ('agape' in Greek) would let the beloved leave if that was their desire. WITHOUT visiting torment on them for it while claiming to still love them. :areyoucra

Or humanity was created with the ability to change itself, and it did so for the negative, removing itself from a perfect state to a fallen one.

Another way of saying 'freewill'. This does not address the point at hand; it swerves around and tries to distract. The fact that a perfect being created humans, giving them this ability to change themselves (freewill), and then blames them when they exercise it in ANY WAY other than to follow HIS will, illustrates the instability of the being. Who is, therefore, not at all perfect.

I think you misunderstood... read my response to the question about hell for further clarification.

And I think *you* misunderstood... read my response to your response for clarification. But honestly, I do not believe this is going anywhere productive. :no: I wish you every blessing; including illumination.

 

[logician]

That is not the question. The question is do your fellow believers believe in freedom FROM religion. Judging from their public pronouncements the answer is no.

Now THAT's a problem. Believe whatever mythology you like. Few care and certainly NOT me.

But don't try to make ME act as if I believed it also.:no:

Yes, we do NOT have freedom FROM relgion in the U.S., where Christianity is forced down our throats in many and various ways. The latest ground zero "mosque" hyped up issue is just one example.

 

[Mister Emu]

Do you have an actual point or is simply spouting this superstition all you can do?

Ach, you caught me

Then perhaps you might care to provide your own more accurate comparison?

Nah, comparisons are not necessary, only helpful... and less so when they carry major flaws.

Thank you once again for supporting my point; ontology is based on a priori argument, and is thus an admission of a complete lack of objective evidence.

I don't believe I said there was objective evidence.

:yes

No, I know more about my beliefs than you

This kind of prejudice is part of what alarms me in exclusivist faiths like yours; you have two categories here, 'believers' and ... non-believers? No: 'the wicked'.

I chose "the wicked" as the second category to leave open the possibility for non-believers who would not face torment. Thanks for asking for elucidation instead of just jumping... oh wait, nevermind.

A love that desired the highest good for the beloved ('agape' in Greek) would let the beloved leave

There will be nowhere to go...

Another way of saying 'freewill'.

Hey, I delayed it one exchange

The fact that a perfect being created humans, giving them this ability to change themselves (freewill), and then blames them when they exercise it in ANY WAY other than to follow HIS will, illustrates the instability of the being.

It is not instability to attempt to ensure that a creation, an invention if you will, is functioning properly. Nor is it unstable to blame a creature with, you said it , freewill for their actions.

I wish you every blessing; including illumination.

I for you as well, including salvation

 

[bain-druie]

Mister Emu - :curtsy: Thank you for being gracious and humorous in your response. I will continue to argue with you later :slap:, but for now - Sir, you are a gentleman.

 

[javajo]

What kind of god would punish people simply for not believing?

I don't think he punishes ppl for simply not believing. Jesus said we are "condemned already", in step with Paul who said that by one man (Adam) sin came into the world and was passed down to all man. So, we already have inherited the sinful nature (compared to a holy and pure God) and are thus already in a state of condemnation. God is just, fair, judges with equity and the simple equation is that all sin, the penalty is death, so Jesus paid the penalty for us because he loves us. Nobody else paid it, or could pay it but Jesus. So, if we placed our trust in him, that he paid for our sins for us, then we are no longer under condemnation. But if we don't we are still under that condemnation.

I believe God is fair and judges rightly, and that it will be better for some than for others at the judgement. Just as some believers will be saved but suffer loss and some will have some reward and some great reward. So, its not just about believing, but about having our sins paid for, washed away, removed as far as the east is from the west, thrown into the depths of the sea, forgotten forever, all our sins past, present and future completely paid for as far as the common salvation goes. And Jesus gives us his righteousness in place of our own, which is as filthy rags to a holy God. And, we don't have to do anything to earn it or keep it, its free and permanent from the moment we first believed. That's kinda how I understand it anyway.

 

[kingdombuilder]

The entire premise of christianity is so self-contradictory that it baffles me. This thread is a perfect example. All-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present god who allows his creation to become so entirely FUBAR that he has to send his only son (...um...really himself, if you want to believe the Trinitarian doctrine) to die an ignominious horrible death at the hands of pagan dictators, because it's the only possible way to provide a way of salvation from the eternal torture of hellfire for sinners he created and loves completely, but whom he will send to burn in hell forever because they were created - by him, mind you - to act in a way that would so severely p*** him off (doctrine of Original Sin) that his .... loving nature .... demands said eternal torture....

but Christians really don't see any contradiction.

My head hurts. :faint:

You forgot (curiously) all-holy and all-just. The addition of these resolves much of the "contradiction."

 

[Wotan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wotan
Do you have an actual point or is simply spouting this superstition all you can do?

Ach, you caught me


I appreciate your candor.

Now the question arises: WHY do you believe this superstition?

 

[bain-druie]

You forgot (curiously) all-holy and all-just. The addition of these resolves much of the "contradiction."

Hello, Kingdombuilder. :curtsy:

No, I didn't forget. This is *always* the fallback for explaining the complete lack of love toward unbelievers in your strange, MPD-inflicted god. I simply do not consider it valid, since justice and holiness mean quite different things to me than they appear to mean to the fundamentalist christian.

I said this earlier on another thread: Ezekiel 18 conveys your god's promise of justice. Each soul shall die for its own sin. This automatically disqualifies any form of substitutionary atonement, certainly including your Christ. Your doctrine is inherently contradictory, and therefore I do not see why it deserves any more of my time than it already takes up in dealing with the society made so ill by it.

 

[javajo]

The last verse of Ezekiel 18 may answer the main question of the thread:

For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

God has NO PLEASURE in the death of the wicked. The NT says the same thing:

The Lord...is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

 

[bain-druie]

The last verse of Ezekiel 18 may answer the main question of the thread:

For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

God has NO PLEASURE in the death of the wicked. The NT says the same thing:

The Lord...is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

Thank you for posting this, Javajo - nonetheless, this does not at all answer the basic objection to the capricious nature of the Christian god. It only makes his total schizophrenia more apparent.

 

[javajo]

Thank you for posting this, Javajo - nonetheless, this does not at all answer the basic objection to the capricious nature of the Christian god. It only makes his total schizophrenia more apparent.

Hi, I respect and understand where you are coming from, I've wrestled with the matter myself. I've read books that helped me get a better understanding of it and still believe God is good but I do understand how people could read alot of that OT stuff and get a very bad impression about God, I really do. Oh, nice to meet you!

 

[Mister Emu]

Mister Emu -

Thank you for being gracious and humorous in your response.

I will continue to argue with you later

, but for now - Sir, you are a gentleman.

I look forward to it

Now the question arises: WHY do you believe this superstition?

I got a free toaster when I signed up.

 

[Wotan]

"
Quote:
Now the question arises: WHY do you believe this superstition?

I got a free toaster when I signed up."

A better reason than those most often given.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Actually, no offense to you personally, but I respectfully disagree with just about everything you said herein above, Rev. Rick.

No offense taken. I'm used to people disagreeing with me.

 

[Agnostic75]

I support the following premises:

1. A man can honestly search for the truth and reject Christianity, or any other religion.

2. If a loving God exists, he will not punish, or deny rewards to, people who honestly search for the truth and do not believe that he exists.

3. If a God exists, he would easily be able to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to believe that he exists without interfering with anyone's free will. Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23

“Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.”

John 3:2

“The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.”

John 10:37-38

“If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.”

John 11:43-45

"And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him."

John 20:30-31

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

Today, surely those same kinds of evidence would convince more people to believe that the God of the Bible exists.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Hi, I respect and understand where you are coming from, I've wrestled with the matter myself. I've read books that helped me get a better understanding of it and still believe God is good but I do understand how people could read alot of that OT stuff and get a very bad impression about God, I really do. Oh, nice to meet you!

Actually the book of Ezekiel depicts your god as more just in the OT, then your NT depicts him as punishing all non-believers. The OT may be unpleasant in places, but the NT is absurd.

 

[javajo]

Actually the book of Ezekiel depicts your god as more just in the OT, then your NT depicts him as punishing all non-believers. The OT may be unpleasant in places, but the NT is absurd.

Hi, I guess you are welcome to your opinion, and I'm sure many would agree with you, but I do not. The NT says God is patient and not willing that any should perish. He did everything, even died to save all who would come to him, and will turn nobody away who comes to him. Jesus said he would never cast anyone out and nothing can take us out of God's hand. But, Jesus also said, he must, to fulfill scripture that he must die for the sins of the people. Nobodly else could do that, he did it, and he said if we trust him we are freely saved. Free. I can dig that, if others can't, that's cool with me. But I know I am a sinner and Jesus paid for my sins, and that's a good deal to me.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Hi, I guess you are welcome to your opinion, and I'm sure many would agree with you, but I do not. The NT says God is patient and not willing that any should perish. He did everything, even died to save all who would come to him, and will turn nobody away who comes to him. Jesus said he would never cast anyone out and nothing can take us out of God's hand. But, Jesus also said, he must, to fulfill scripture that he must die for the sins of the people. Nobodly else could do that, he did it, and he said if we trust him we are freely saved. Free. I can dig that, if others can't, that's cool with me. But I know I am a sinner and Jesus paid for my sins, and that's a good deal to me.

Um where did Jesus state in his own words that he was dying for anyone's sins? You can't use Paul, I said Jesus. Good luck...

 

[bain-druie]

All right, now that Klaufi has killed off one of his dragon eggs, and I've had to relinquish my children to my ex for a week, I'm in an argumentative enough mood!

Nah, comparisons are not necessary, only helpful... and less so when they carry major flaws.

Then the point is moot, I suppose! :namaste

I don't believe I said there was objective evidence.

All right, I'll bite: pray tell, what then is supposed to be the basis of putting one's entire trust for salvation etc. (which presupposes that one *needs* salvation in the Christian sense, which I also would need very persuasive evidence to believe) into the hands of this god of yours?

No, I know more about my beliefs than you

I have no problem conceding that point, however, what you said originally was "Third error: they were not created to act in such ways"; which is categorically defining my viewpoint as factually incorrect, and yours as the correction thereof. So it is not a question of 'your beliefs' with this phraseology! :no:

I chose "the wicked" as the second category to leave open the possibility for non-believers who would not face torment. Thanks for asking for elucidation instead of just jumping... oh wait, nevermind.

Here I will apologize for not recognizing any room in your previous statement for elucidation, or any intent in you to provide further clarification; my crystal ball's been on the fritz, and we don't have that telepathy thing down yet, I'm afraid

There will be nowhere to go...

As you see it, perhaps not; as I see it, there are realms full of possible destinations!

Hey, I delayed it one exchange

LOL! :jester3:

It is not instability to attempt to ensure that a creation, an invention if you will, is functioning properly. Nor is it unstable to blame a creature with, you said it, freewill for their actions.

It is, however, extremely unstable to demand that a creation serve and love you in a particular way, make that way obscure and difficult, and then shove said creation into an everlasting furnace of torment because it did not, in fact, find itself able to love you.

I for you as well, including salvation

Bah! :fork: *retires to dark corner, cursing*