So, basically, your suggestion is to induce hallucinations to meet a god? Nice! These narcs are the people who Know. They saw god, so now they kill and steal for more… god. I like your approach! Rhymes well with the history of the church.
Having read some of your other comments here, let me try to rephrase what you say and please tell me which one better reflect what you mean:
This particular representation of a religion is bad. However, if one meditate and have other forms of spiritual experience, they would probably come up with a better one that would confirm existence of a god, that would be directly relevant to this person.
All religions are not worth it (given that you are not referring to any other recognised confession), go smoke some weed and be kind to people around you.
God is either omnipotent and a dick for making you suffer anyhow, or not omnipotent in which case why would you believe?
I was born with a severe congenital issue that causes me constant pain.
Why would a benevolent god do this to me? It’s sadistic.
So I had a head start in thinking the Christian god is a sadistic bastard. The priests I encountered tried to tell me I was being tested for reasons. How do you explain testing a four year old for your faith? What the fuck did your god want me to learn?
My constant, unrelenting pain was part of what stopped me believing that bullshit. They could never explain my suffering to me, except to say I was chosen by god to endure it, like the saints. I was not a saint, and that was just cruel.
The more I learnt about it all, the more I understood it was all just bullshit. It was just stories made up by those in charge to stop regular people from questioning their rules. When your own story is used by the church to justify the stories of saints, it becomes painfully obvious.
I know someone who was in the hospital a lot as a kid, and said her faith was shattered by three words “Pediatric Oncology Ward”. That and having been placed in the room across from where they took patients for burn debridement, in a children’s hospital.
Pretty much my goto for problem of evil. It is really hard to argue that an loving god, even with free will bullshit excuse, would create a situation where humans had to develop pediatric oncology. The one group of humans we can point to and say they are innocent the one group we can point to and say this injustice. Given a choice between a universe that is indifferent and one that is a machine for misery I know which I would prefer and which one makes the most sense given the data we have.
I’m fond of a work of fiction called UNSONG when it comes to the problem of evil though, it posits as a solution that god operates at a level of abstraction where if two things are identical, they are the same thing and God’s purpose is to maximize the amount of good that exists. So God goes about creating worlds, first a perfect one, then ones with a single imperceptible imperfection, etc, etc, every conceivable world that results in more good than evil on net. We’re out on the fringes of that.
This same work of fiction also manages to be an absolute masterclass on foreshadowing, and manages to be about theodicy, kabbalah, open source software, the works of William Blake and the song Miss American Pie all at once. Coherently. If something doesn’t make sense to you in the moment, it’s probably not a plot hole but a lack of understanding that has already been foreshadowed.
Let’s begin again, and I’ll give you every benefit of the doubt, assuming I’m a complete idiot and that you’re making your point in earnest: what point am I missing?
Honestly, I feel like we’re talking past each other, and I’d rather have an earnest conversation.
I said “Maybe secondhand stories are a bad way to understand it.”
The “it” refers to this thing called “god”. Referred to by a story that you read. A second-etc-hand story
Assume that somebody saw something really strange. They tell their friends about it but, because it is strange, they have to make up a name and describe it via metaphor.
Any understanding conveyed must be crippled. Because language is limited that way. Do that a few more times and we’re worse than lost. We have arrived at fanfiction.
This is obvious.
A better way to understand it is to see for yourself.
Okay, thanks, that gives me a bit more to work with, but I’m still quite confused.
Your original reply to my personal story was:
Maybe secondhand stories are a bad way to understand it.
And I’m confused because mine was a first-hand story.
I get the ‘it’ is ‘god’. I never saw anything strange. My point was my pain was used when I was a toddler by priests to justify the stories of saints, especially their pain and sacrifice. How exactly is that a second-hand story? How is that something that can be dismissed as metaphor? How does that relate to language? It’s a direct, literal and personal experience in the Christian church. Full stop. You don’t have to like it, but it’s a real thing that happened. And no matter how it hurts your feelings, I am not alone.
This is not fan fiction. It’s real. I don’t care if you believe it. I honestly couldn’t care less about your beliefs in general. I’m just sharing my experiences because it helps me to talk about it. Your opinions about me don’t matter to me at all. I’m only engaging with you because I feel bad when people believe the lies told by the church, and I care about other people. If you’re going to be a dick about it and dig in your heels, I’ll stop being interested in talking to you.
I’m sorry you seem to feel that way, and you should probably stop trying to engage atheists until you can open your mind a bit.
Christ, there’s no game. You misunderstand one thing I said and immediately jump to me playing games – which I must be honest, only shows you have a tendency to read a fictional and paranoid layer into everything you hear.
I have no such layer. I say exactly what I mean, sometimes to a fault.
I say this with a true concern for your well-being and absolutely nothing beyond that: have you sought professional help? I strongly think you should. Most people don’t immediately think strangers have ulterior motives as strongly as you do. That’s just not normal, and there are a few mental issues that is a strong indicator of. Given our very limited conversation, you jumping repeatedly to that assumption is not usual.
I’m happy to continue our conversation, but maybe we should talk about something else that has nothing to do with religion, since that topic seems to be too emotionally fraught for you. Maybe we can chat about your favourite tv show instead? I’m really into Star Trek: Lower Decks right now. I also like Resident Alien, and the live-action One Piece on Netflix. What do you think?
I’m not pretending. If you think I misunderstood you, perhaps I did.
I’ll keep saying this until you understand me: There. Is. No. Game.
Good lord, I have much better things to think about. Everyone does. Stop thinking the world revolves around you, and please, for the love of Pete, stop thinking anyone has the mental bandwidth to think about playing games when we’re all just trying to figure out how to live our lives.
Are you constantly playing games, or are you just trying to get through every day?
The red pill idiots are lying to you. I don’t know how to get this across to you, but you’re not important enough for people to be playing games with you. We’re all trying to figure ourselves out. Think about it for five fucking minutes.
What’s your favourite serial show right now? I’m on the fence between Lower Decks and One Piece.
It’s awesome. It’s like if Star Trek (all the best serials) and Rick & Morty had a baby that wasn’t full of itself. It’s got regular cameos from TNG, VOY, and others, and the main characters did a crossover live action episode in Strange New Worlds last season. It’s on Paramount+.
I am also very confused at what your point is. Like, they mentioned that bible stories were indeed second hand, if not more.
If you mean their childhood story, that was first hand.
If you are referring to priests delivering an incorrect interpretation of the Bible, it’s implied they grew up in a religious environment and read the Bible, couldn’t find the answers they wanted, and thus sought the help of religious experts.
So what are you actually talking about? What isn’t answered here?
God is either omnipotent and a dick for making you suffer anyhow or […]
Probably this one. God is canonically a dick in the bible, between “testing” that one guy’s faith by telling him to kill his son, between killing humans to full on genocide on many occasions to killing everything everywhere that one time. Even Jesus has his cringe moments, like when he killed a tree because it wasn’t producing fruit which he took as an act of rebellion against God, despite trees not being conscious (he should know, he made the damn things) and therefore not being able to rebel against anything.
Also, if you’re omnipotent, why even have a tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden in the first place? Especially if you know that Satan will tempt the humans to eat from it (he’s omniscient is he not?) and the humans you created absolutely will eat from it. God is like one of those Sims players that deliberately create dangerous situations for the sims only he gets really mad when they predictably fall into the trap he set.
I recommend reading The Origin of Satan. I read it recently after seeing a character (Janice) reading it on the Sopranos. Good scholarly work. I plan to reread it after I’ve let it simmer for a bit.
This was one of my early questions and one of the first reasons that started pushing me away from religion.
At one point I asked my religion teacher in high school something among the lines of “So if a hypothetical person is the most good person on Earth from all the ways of looking at things, except he doesn’t believe in God, does the latter invalidate everything else and he’d still go to hell?”. She pretty much said yes.
Luckily she was chill about some of us in the class not believing. We just agreed to disagree, and while there were multiple debates on various religious subjects started by someone in the class questioning something she was saying, it never got heated.
Being raised in a Christian household, this was one of the things that I first picked up on as a kid, and the adults did not like my line of questioning about it. In my teens, I learned that hell isn’t even a concept in any Jewish or “Christian” scriptures… it’s purely a holdover from Hellenist Rome perpetuated by Ur-Catholic Roman cults monopolizing and institutionalizing the religion. You can imagine how pointing these things out went over in a religious household and circles.
Something pinged at the back of my mind and wondered before what is so bad with eating the apple of knowledge. Everyone loves to have knowledge, right? The fall of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden also sounds so strikingly similar from the story of Prometheus, who gave fire to humans to help themselves, but he was punished.
Now as an adult, the stories just tell people to stop thinking for themselves and surrender their agency to a higher authority and be unquestionably obedient.
this was one of the things that I first picked up on as a kid, and the adults did not like my line of questioning about it.
Children are natural philosophers. It’s because they have fresh eyes and untrained with the world that they see things that adults were taught to not see or ignore.
I didn’t save it and I wish I had. Someone did find a novel in Aramaic that mentions an idea of hell not far from the Christian idea. So to be pedantic it is found in Jewish writings but only once. It’s possible it got picked up or it is possible that it was just coincidence and got imported from Greek thought, like most of the NT concepts. Also worth mentioning that most Jews at the time didn’t believe in an afterlife and the ones that did had a very vague idea of it. This is why Paul seems to think that Jesus is the first person who has an actual afterlife.
Spot on. In Jewish thought (including Paul’s writings) there are three “heavens”. First, the sky. Second, the cosmos. Third, the dwelling place of YHWH. None of those are meant to be the a destination for any kind of human afterlife.
I love you unconditionally, but only if you worship me and abide by my rules (some of which I may or may not have revoked when my son who is also me came down to Earth)
I am all powerful, buuuut anything bad I guess the devil got the better of me. Oh and I don’t step in when, y’know, genocides happen, or disease—basically, I’m a very hands-off benevolent god…insomuch that my benevolence knows only the bounds of basically chance. If something good happened? You’re welcome. Something bad? Keeeep prayin’ biiitch!
This is what annoys me the most about people who go on about God “sacrificing” his son. Since they think Jesus is now in Heaven, that means God got him back - when you don’t normally get something you’ve sacrificed back. God didn’t really “sacrifice” Jesus, he basically just sent him off to summer camp. Granted, the hazing at this summer camp was a bit extreme, but whatever.
It’s like Batman can go toe to toe with people with actual superpowers because he devotes every second of every day to training and preparing for his Batmaning, but whenever anyone suggests that Bruce Wayne would be able to do more good with his money than by punching people in the face we suddenly find out that he also devotes every second of every day to philanthropic efforts. The important thing is that your favourite imaginary friend is always right and is the best at everything, logical coherency be damned.
I mean, the guy is all knowing. That means he knew, back when he created Adam, that this moment would come. He could have changed 1000 things. Yet he chose this particular order of things leading to the ‘sacrifice’ of Jesus.
There’s just so many plot holes when you make a fella omniscient.
And all to basically deal with red tape that he put there himself. And somehow, sending his son and then the son getting lightly tortured and then murdered with a slow death by humans saved humanity? And people today still believe that bad writing?
And some even reject the actual decent parts because they’d rather hate their neighbours and church establishments enable this because they’ve really just been another angle to gain power and wealth over and from the people respectively and basically just say, “you’re good as long as you accept a world view that puts me into a position of spiritual authority”.
Hell isn’t a place, it’s an event --the idea of the immortal soul comes from greek philosophy and isn’t biblical at all
(I’m a christian, I found this by sorting by hot:all) edit: with the title, it really is unconditional. Jesus loves the people who crucified Him. Some of His last words were “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (luke 23:34). God finds no joy in hell.
There is no eternity of suffering, hell is a one-off event and it hasn’t happened yet (I’m a seventh day adventist, we do believe in “hell” but quite differently than most denominations)
As you say, you’re in the minority of Christians in your belief, and that many believe in the literal, eternal suffering, lake of fire kind of hell. Memes kind of have to cater to common denominators, so might then not pertain to you.
We don’t have many adventists where I’m from, would you entertain a theological question from your belief?
What role does Hell play in your denomination? In other Christianities it’s often a deterrent, source of God fear, and an answer to what happens to the out-group (heathens, gentiles, sinners, etc).
If Hell is a “short” event before eternal death-sleep (I googled adventist hell belief, sorry if I’m misunderstanding), it seems like it would be a very mild punishment for cardinal sins/heresy, but maybe you don’t have those?
Memes kind of have to cater to common denominators, so might then not pertain to you.
I know, but it still isn’t Biblical tho
What role does Hell play in your denomination? In other Christianities it’s often a deterrent, source of God fear, and an answer to what happens to the out-group (heathens, gentiles, sinners, etc).
tbh most of the times that I’ve heard it talked about are saying about how it’s a place rather than an event, pretty much what I’ve been saying here. It really is one of two choices: you can choose to be with God forever, or you can be apart from Him forever. He wants to be with you but it’s ultimately your choice.
If Hell is a “short” event before eternal death-sleep (I googled adventist hell belief, sorry if I’m misunderstanding)
That’s about it really
it seems like it would be a very mild punishment for cardinal sins/heresy, but maybe you don’t have those?
God wants to forgive us, but we need to let Him. The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is to intentionally and consistently harden your heart and ignore Him-- how can you be forgiven if you ignore the one who wants to forgive you? If you’re wondering if you’ve done that and wether you can be forgiven, it’s not too late. You can still come back to Him.
Feel free to ask questions I don’t mind (I actually kinda enjoy it)
He wants to forgive us?? Then he could do it. He’s all powerful, all knowing after all. What do I have to be forgiven for? Original sin? Give me a break.
How many hoops do you need to jump through to arrive at a christian conclusion? How many times did you have to be told to believe in something unprovable and invisible?
Your fervent beliefs are likely held less strongly than some Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. They are ALL sure that you are wrong, just as you they. Can’t you see the futility of pretending to know something unknowable? If you had been born somewhere else, you would perhaps hold completely different views just as strongly.
You blindly place your trust in other humans who are telling you to believe in something utterly impossible. You really think they have translated divine will over millennia? Let alone accurately? If the devil exists, then he lives in the utter hubris of humanity. To think that we can know the unknowable.
Isn’t it convenient that the “devil” is responsible for sowing the seeds of doubt. Isn’t it convenient that no matter what logic and reason you apply, your religion can merely hand-wave and say it isn’t for us to know? Are you satisfied with non-answers and manipulation of your emotions?
You’re being duped. I genuinely hope you can find your way out.
He is omnipotent, he can simply forgive us without our involvement. Or allow forgiveness after death, because death is an arbitrary cutoff. Or provide more obvious evidence he exists instead of giving children cancer.
The meme is applicable to your beliefs as well. Guess correctly in ~100 years of life or be denied paradise for eternity.
He is omnipotent, he can simply forgive us without our involvement. Or allow forgiveness after death, because death is an arbitrary cutoff.
He could, but that wouldn’t be consistent with His character. It’d involve Him overriding the free will that He gave us. If you don’t let Him forgive you He won’t.
Or provide more obvious evidence he exists instead of giving children cancer.
There’s plenty of evidence. He’s not really hidden, but if you don’t want to find Him there’s a fair chance you won’t. And God doesn’t give kids cancer, this world is broken and fallen. This isn’t how it’s supposed to be.
The meme is applicable to your beliefs as well. Guess correctly in ~100 years of life or be denied paradise for eternity.
It’ll be paradise, but only for those who want to be with Him. If you don’t want to be with Him, why would you want to be with Him for eternity? Everyone has a choice, you can be with God forever or be apart from Him forever. He’d rather you choose to be with Him, but He won’t force you to be with Him. There’s no eternal suffering in hell, it’s just nothingness, eternal separation from God.
He “overrides” free will all the time, like when he commits global genocide by flood because everyone was bad. BTW none of them yet had Jesus to worship for salvation, so I guess they’re just out of luck, huh? Or when god directly murders a person does that give them a free ticket?
He does give children cancer. He created the world, he created all the evil in the world, he created cancer. “No, boo hoo, we are fallen, we ate the fruit,” he created the fruit, he placed us next to the fruit.
Heaven is completely unconscionable. If a child refused to come to an activity one weekend, you’d spitefully refuse to allow that child to attend that activity forever? That’s how a child behaves, not an adult. That’s how god behaves also.
The whole concept is idiotic. It’s clearly fairy tales built on the morals of the era they came from. But because generations of gullible believers have been brainwashing their children we have to deal with it to this day.
Jesus accounts for everybody, including those who lived and died before He came here. That’s what the animal sacrifices were for, they were a symbol of what Jesus was going to do. God didn’t create evil, evil is a natural byproduct of free will. Yes He created us and He created that tree, but we had a choice. When you speed and get a fine, is it your fault (because you did it) or is it the car company’s fault (because they made a car that can go that fast and then sold it to you)? Heaven isn’t just about living forever, it’s mostly about being with God forever, and if you want to be with Him for all eternity, why wouldn’t you want to be with Him now? Hell isn’t a place of eternal suffering, it’s being apart from God forever. Everybody has plenty of time and chances to make that choice, and everybody is judged only by what they can do.
God placed us next to the tree prior to humanity having any knowledge of good or evil. God knew what was going to happen. Would you punish a child and all that child’s descendants for eating candy if you left them next to a bag? Only a psychopath would give out punishments like that.
God created free will therefore god created evil. God is therefore evil. God genocided an entire planet despite murder being evil. God is therefore evil. It’s not complicated and you talking in circular logic and platitudes doesn’t make you correct.
God wants to forgive us, but we need to let Him. The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is to intentionally and consistently harden your heart and ignore Him-- how can you be forgiven if you ignore the one who wants to forgive you? If you’re wondering if you’ve done that and wether you can be forgiven, it’s not too late. You can still come back to Him.
I might not be understanding the nuances here, but from what you say even an Unforgivable Sin is “punished” by oblivion in the death-sleep, no?
So I gather then that you don’t really fear hell, although not-hell would be preferable?
I might not be understanding the nuances here, but from what you say even an Unforgivable Sin is “punished” by oblivion in the death-sleep, no?
That’s about it really, just the death-sleep is forever
So I gather then that you don’t really fear hell, although not-hell would be preferable?
I don’t have any need to be afraid of hell, I’m with God. But even then I don’t fear death-- there’s nothing in it for me to be afraid of because if I were to drop dead right now, I’d be dead (death-sleep, but this one’s temporary) and the next thing I’d know would be Him coming back
And if hell is the event at which you aren’t choosing God, why have it in the discourse at all? Or maybe I’m imagining it wrong, as to me it sounds like a waiting room kind of deal, you die, you wait until you make the decision and then you pass on to whatever you chose - rebirth or long sleep (in which case also the next thing to happen would be Him coming back, as either God changes their mind over eternity or you don’t wake up at all).
This is another belief born from tradition and influenced by Greek culture. It came from a prominent idea among Greek thought-leaders that the human soul is immortal.6
It wasn’t a belief held by the followers of Jesus or the early Christian church.
Let’s follow this idea to its logical end: If all souls are immortal, then there must be an afterlife destination opposite of heaven to house the souls of those who didn’t repent and accept Jesus. And if they rejected the Savior who would give them eternal peace and joy, then wherever they go must be filled with eternal suffering and sadness.
But looking at Scripture, immortality is only attributed to God (1 Timothy 6:15–16), and the only people that inherit eternal life are those who accept Jesus (John 3:16; 17:3; 1 John 5:11, 20).
While the effects of hell’s flames are eternal and cannot be reversed, the lives of those encountering the flames are not eternal. They will experience the “second death.” Their punishment isn’t continual, but it is “everlasting”—because it’s final (Matthew 25:46). They will forever cease to exist.
Also this (from the same webpage)
How long will hell burn?
Since hell is more of an event than an underworld, many people wonder—how long will hell burn? The Bible says that hell will only last as long as it takes to destroy the wicked completely (Malachi 4:1).
Everything must burn completely, because after the earth is destroyed by fire, He will re-create the earth just as it was originally supposed to be (Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:1).
Annihilationism—forever gone, not forever burning
The belief in eternal hell typically cites verses about the wicked being eternally destroyed, such as in 2 Thessalonians and Matthew 25.
<span style="color:#323232;">“They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the Lord’s presence and from His glorious strength” (2 Thessalonians 1:9, CSB).
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">“Then He will also say to those on the left, ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels!’” (Matthew 25:41, CSB).
</span>
But this is where it’s especially important to use more parts of the Bible to interpret a single passage. Let’s take a look at other verses that mention the word “eternal.”
Several Bible verses explain the destruction of the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24). God sent “punishment of eternal fire” to destroy these cities eternally (Jude 1:7, CSB).
So, if we’re taking “eternal” to mean that they are burning forever, then Sodom and Gomorrah should be continuing to burn today, right?
If you were to look up the present-day locations of these cities on Google maps, you’d see that they’re not.
Rather, these cities were destroyed “eternally” in the sense that they were completely destroyed, never to rise again. The same is true for the destruction of the wicked—they’re not burning forever, but they are forever burnt up.
This explains why Malachi 4:3 mentions that the ashes of the wicked will be on the earth after the lost are destroyed.
In fact, numerous Bible verses describe this destruction as something permanent (Psalm 37:20; 68:2). Even the word “destruction” suggests that at some point the wicked will cease to exist (Psalm 10:25; 12:7).
This concept is often called annihilationism. And while not every Christian faith group subscribes to this belief, it can certainly be backed up with Scripture—and it aligns with God’s character, as described throughout the whole Bible.
The results of hell’s destruction are eternal—not the process of destruction.
It’s not uncommon to find people who have rejected Christianity because they’ve been taught that “bad people” will burn in hell forever. They wonder how a loving God could be so cruel as to make people burn for all eternity for the sins they’ve committed in their brief lifetime.
Some even wonder if God takes pleasure in the suffering of the wicked.
What an awful picture of humanity’s Creator.
But we’re told in Scripture that God finds no joy in the destruction of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23, 32; Isaiah 28:21).
However, since the possibility is available for people to choose against what God offers us, He had to allow for an alternative fate. And the “second death” of eternal destruction is ultimately the most natural balance between justice and mercy.
All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire," says the LORD Almighty. - Malachi 4
This is the first verse you cited. It has nothing to do with what you are asserting.
That’s the problem with finding sources who interpret the Bible to what they want it to mean. It usually has nothing to do with what is actually written.
Moreover, and I’ve seen this over and over as soon as a theist tells an atheist to provide passages in the Bible the conversation is pretty much done.
This is the first verse you cited. It has nothing to do with what you are asserting.
That’s not the whole verse. Here’s the whole thing:
“Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the Lord Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them.
It says about how the destruction will be complete-- “not a root or a branch will be left to them”
That’s the problem with finding sources who interpret the Bible to what they want it to mean. It usually has nothing to do with what is actually written.
Honestly I completely agree here, there’s so many things that are very clearly stated (“remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy”, “it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich person to enter the kingdom of God”, there are other examples that’s just what I could think of off the top of my head) but people are like “well actually it might mean <something where you’re like huh? Where’d that come from?>” or “nah I think imma just not read that bit”
Moreover, and I’ve seen this over and over as soon as a theist tells an atheist to provide passages in the Bible the conversation is pretty much done.
I’ve seen this too sometimes, it’s kinda sad that people don’t know how to argue for their beliefs
When you die you don’t immediately go to heaven or hell, you rot and are dead and that’s all you’ll do until the second coming (like it says in genesis, “from dust you came and to dust you shall return”). The dead know nothing, they feel nothing, they’re dead and won’t be going anywhere or doing anything unless God makes something else happen.
Heaven isn’t just about living forever, it’s mostly about being with God forever-- there’s really nothing to be afraid of about death, it’s just nothing. If you want to be with God forever, why wouldn’t you want to be with Him now? That’s why God gave us free will, so we can choose what we want to do, even if He wants us to do something else. Hell isn’t a place of eternal suffering, it’s just one if two choices: to be with God forever and to be apart from God forever.
(I really wish there were a word I could use to say hell that isn’t hell, it has way too many other connotations about eternal suffering and stuff) (also I’m not meaning “you” as in you specifically, I would say “one” but then it sounds like I’m trying to be posh)
I was gonna say “thanks!” but then I figured you were already saying thanks so I was gonna say “no worries” but then that doesn’t really work either so yeah
If you mean what I think you’re meaning, then yeah pretty much. Everyone has a choice, you can choose to be with God forever or be apart from God forever. Personally, I’m with Him.
That’s about it but there’s no metaphorical dice rolling, you can make a choice and be certain that that’s the choice you’ve made.
Jesus is always calling, He wants to be with you but He won’t force you to be Him. “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.” (revelation 3:20)
One can’t chose to believe something, you either believe it or you don’t. I don’t believe in God because there is no evidence for it, and nothing that cannot be explained without God, and no explanation involving God which isn’t made more complicated by His involvement. If God exists, and he did in fact create me, then he made me this way, incapable of belief without proof. So his choice is that I no be ‘with him’. I have no fee will.
I disagree, I think there’s plenty of evidence for God (if there weren’t, I might not be a Christian). As for balancing God’s omniscience/omnipotence with our free will, I think that’s just something you have to accept. Many people who are much smarter and wiser than me have tried to come up with a solution, but here’s what I think. I think that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, but he “offloads” some of that power and decision-making to us. I’m really not sure of a metaphor that would work for this, I could say that it’s like He’s reading a book and can flick back and forth to see what happens, back that wouldn’t work because the book’s already been written. I could say He’s writing a book but that wouldn’t work because the writer has complete control over everything the characters do. I could compare Him to a human king, but kings don’t know everything that happens and they don’t care about everybody.
Nothing you’ve said there constitutes an argument against any of my points. You don’t provide any evidence, just state a belief that it exists. You don’t address exactly how I can chose to believe in something. Nor how if I was created by God, said God must have invested me with scepticism, which in turn prevents my belief in said God.
But if you die without God then we don’t know what happens (presumably God knows but on Earth, we’re working with limited information => rolling a dice)
We do have limited info, but God told us what happens-- you return to dust and are apart from Him, forever
I counter with deductive reasoning and the Epicurean Paradox. It’s not a question about is there a god. Can’t really solve that. The better question is does he deserve worship?
I disagree, I think the question of “is there a god?” can be answered near-conclusively, and yes, He is deserving of our worship. I watched the video you linked and to be honest, I’ve thought all of those things myself at times. But this world is fallen and broken. It’s not supposed to be like this. This isn’t how God made it. We were supposed to live forever with Him, but we fell and ran off with the devil. But someday soon, He’ll return and bring us back and everybody who wants to be with Him will be. “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”” (Revelation 21:3-4).
Yeeeeeah none of this is a response to the Epicurean Paradox.
Thing is, goodly godly in’t so good. An omnipotent being by definition should be capable of anything. Including rewriting the rules of logic and reasoning, math, and even how free will inherently WORKS.
For an “all powerful” being to neglect humanity in the way they have in order to “preserve free will” they have objectively proved themselves instead as torturers.
Thus, a god figure in our accepted reality can either be all loving OR all powerful. Not both.
All loving would certainly put them on better terms, but then it would make them an untrustworthy liar as they claim to be all powerful.
All powerful directly implies neglect.
And then of course you can argue an all powerful being works “beyond our understanding” but I would then propose that it should be within that beings power to allow us to understand… Which they have chosen not to.
Either way, the Abraham god is a lil bitch baby who is an outright liar about being either all loving or all powerful. I chose not to respect them, and frankly they deserve both barrels and the meat hook of a super shotgun to the face.
But He hasn’t neglected us. That’s the beauty of what Jesus did-- He came down to us. He become a human, experienced all of the normal suffering, and then died by crucifixion, the cruelest and most barbaric method of execution ever invented. God shared in our suffering. He knows pain. He also offers an escape to a place where there’ll be no suffering, pain, hurt, death, or any of that stuff. God didn’t create evil. Evil isn’t a “thing”, it’s a natural byproduct of free will. If someone is really, truly, free to choose what they do then they can choose to disobey God and do other things. Yes satan is evil, but he isn’t the embodiment of evil, it’s something he does. And someday, God will destroy satan and the demons-- that’s what hell is originally for. Satan didn’t want to be with God, but he didn’t just do that. He wanted to be God. And when he fell he convinced a third of the angels to come with him, and he later convinced humans as well. And your right, God is largely beyond our understanding, but maybe we shouldn’t completely understand Him. It’s like we’re a bunch of three-year-olds. The three-year-olds shouldn’t know everything.
Being that no effort was put into the reply, I will instead enjoy an analysis of a more astute consultation. Although it may be incapable of forming thought, somehow I still find it’s output more engaging than the dehydrated frontal lobe viscera you expunged above.
ChatGPT: This is a philosophical and theological debate centered on the nature of God, the problem of evil, and the concept of free will, engaging with the Epicurean Paradox. Here’s a breakdown of the arguments presented:
**First Post (jan teli@lemmy.world):**This person disagrees with the Epicurean Paradox by implying that the existence of evil and suffering in the world is a result of human actions (the Fall) and not indicative of God’s nature. They suggest that God’s ultimate plan is to restore harmony and eliminate suffering, referencing Revelation 21:3-4 as support for the idea that a future state will be free of pain and death.
Critique: This argument assumes a specific theological perspective that requires acceptance of certain biblical narratives and eschatological beliefs. It does not directly address the logical structure of the Epicurean Paradox, which challenges the coexistence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God with the presence of evil.
**Second Post (RIPandTERROR):**The commenter argues that an omnipotent being could, by definition, eliminate evil while preserving free will, and thus a god that allows suffering cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful. They also argue that saying God works in ways beyond human understanding is insufficient because an omnipotent being could make their ways understandable.
Critique: The argument presents a strong logical challenge to the traditional theological view but could be critiqued for not considering certain apologetic arguments, such as the notion that suffering can have a higher, unknowable purpose, or that free will necessitates the possibility of choosing evil. It also introduces an emotive response that could be seen as detracting from the logical discussion.
**Third Post (jan teli@lemmy.world):**The rebuttal focuses on the Christian narrative of Jesus’ incarnation, suffering, and death as an act of sharing in human suffering, not neglecting humanity. They argue that the existence of evil is a byproduct of free will and that God’s nature and plans are beyond human understanding.
Critique: This post relies on Christian doctrine and the narrative of redemption. It assumes that divine and human logic may not align and suggests that God’s reasoning is inherently beyond human comprehension, which does not satisfy a critique looking for logical coherence. It also introduces a potentially problematic analogy comparing humans to children, which may not address the argument about God’s nature effectively.
Overall, the discussion is deeply rooted in individual belief systems, and each argument hinges on foundational assumptions about the nature of God, the universe, and the interpretation of religious texts. The debate oscillates between appeals to specific doctrinal stances and attempts at logical reasoning, which is typical in such philosophical discussions.
My only critique I will contribute was the LLM suggested that I had not considered “…certain apologetic arguments, such as the notion that suffering can have a higher, unknowable purpose, or that free will necessitates the possibility of choosing evil.”
I will reiterate that I had in fact considered that and it plays to my claim that if this is required to value worshiping this thing, and it is incapable of making the unknowable knowable, then he is either not all powerful and cannot break conventional logic, or he’s just a dick.
That said, this post just goes to show how wildly a simple book can be interpreted.
Personally, I think it’s pretty clear on most things
(of course there’s room for different interpretations, but the main parts are pretty tricky to mistake if you read them openly)
When you really look into scripture, you come to realize it’s a book filled with words with no real truth outside of some dudes wrote it.
Not really, God told those dudes what to write
When you were a Christian, what did you believe about hell?
I see. So you have an explanation of why God changes his mind about the details, why there are so many variants in the texts, and why some random Letters, Epistles, and Gospels are missing? If God choosr to write a book why is he so bad at the task?
(I know you’re partly joking, but imma take you seriously for a sec since this is a good point)
Just because someone says that God told them something doesn’t mean that God actually told them. These things should always be checked against what we already know He said, we shouldn’t just believe them.
Not everyone, I have no loyalty to any particular church, my loyalty is with God. I’m a seventh day adventist but only because I’ve had a look around and decided that they’re closest to what’s in the Bible
The Bible is a lot of different collections of many different books written, re-written, and orally transmited tales, of which at various points of history different Christian traditions have chosen which ones were canon and which ones were not (and therefore were taken out of the Bible), often with political actors influencing their decisions. If God inspired them all to write the Bible, how does it come that different Christian traditions chose different books? How come that plenty of its meaning got lost across plenty of languages if there was divine help? How come that an English Bible and a Russian Orthodox one may say substantially different things, merely due to translation divergences that piled on during centuries? If you accept all of this, how can all of them be saying the truth, if they dissent from each other? If only one of them says the truth, how do you know which one is it? If only one particular version of the Bible is the correct one, why doesn’t God correct the record to make sure the hundreds of millions of Christians through the world who are following wrong ones aren’t led astray?
While it’s true that some denominations have slightly different canons, they all still have the same set of core books. As for the other books, you need to see if it’s consistant with the others. There’s some that are fine, there’s some (ie the gospel of thomas) that are partly fine but also have some serious crap , and there’s some (ie the gospel of judas) that are full of crap.
How come that plenty of its meaning got lost across plenty of languages if there was divine help? How come that an English Bible and a Russian Orthodox one may say substantially different things, merely due to translation divergences that piled on during centuries?
This why new translations should always be translated from the original languages. Yes, sometimes there was no access to the original-language versions, in those cases good on 'em for doing the best they could with what they had.
why doesn’t God correct the record to make sure the hundreds of millions of Christians through the world who are following wrong ones aren’t led astray?
Not everybody is held to the same standard. If you do something wrong and you don’t know any better, it doesn’t count as a sin until you know. And being a Christian isn’t about what you do, it’s about who you know.
While it’s true that some denominations have slightly different canons, they all still have the same set of core books. As for the other books, you need to see if it’s consistant with the others. There’s some that are fine, there’s some (ie the gospel of thomas) that are partly fine but also have some serious crap , and there’s some (ie the gospel of judas) that are full of crap.
Alright, so you have a belief that the “most complete” set of books that most Christian traditions chose (already flimsy ground, but let’s carry on), were chosen by divine influence, that whatever potential distortions or misinterpretations of the original texts do not fundamentally skew its original intended meanings, and I’m also going to add to the list that you believe that plenty of its contents must be understood as allegory or excused because they’re the result of a very different cultural context, because I don’t think you are going to excuse that passages such as this:
Allowing corporal punishment of slaves as long as they don’t drop dead.
There is a severe degree of arbitrariness in deciding that a very specific set of books that were chosen and translated by fallible human beings, under the watchful gaze of rulers that were often arbitrary and politically motivated, were divinely inspired to declare the Universal truth of an All-Powerful god, but you should also pass it all through the prism of your personal interpretation, because that All-Powerful god couldn’t be bothered to make the job any easier for you, or even worse,
Not everybody is held to the same standard. If you do something wrong and you don’t know any better, it doesn’t count as a sin until you know. And being a Christian isn’t about what you do, it’s about who you know.
Perhaps that god has decided to personally curse you, because not only weren’t you born among the billions of human beings that aren’t Christian, but you were raised as a Christian with the capacity and will to get yourself involved in theological discussions, which in your view, brings you ever closer to the knowledge of your god, and therefore increases your responsibility to behave as you think is moral, even if it brings you pain, doubt, heartbreak or confrontation with your neighbours, your community or your congregation. Why should you be loaded with this responsibility, out of the millions of people who have lived more comfortable lives, with more capacity to raise their own status over the abuse and exploitation of others, many of whom didn’t even have the responsibility of being Christians, and didn’t have to deal with the challenges and difficulties of your own life? It all sounds to me like you’re grasping a burning nail for the flimsy chance that an omnipotent being that could and should treat you better does actually really exist.
The Jewish authorities appear to be right in referring this law, like those in Exodus 21:26-27, Exodus 21:32, to foreign slaves (see Leviticus 25:44-46). The protection here afforded to the life of a slave may seem to us but a slight one; but it is the very earliest trace of such protection in legislation, and it stands in strong and favorable contrast with the old laws of Greece, Rome, and other nations. If the slave survived the castigation a day or two, the master did not become amenable to the law, because the loss of the slave was accounted, under the circumstances, as a punishment.
And as for this
Perhaps that god has decided to personally curse you, because not only weren’t you born among the billions of human beings that aren’t Christian, but you were raised as a Christian with the capacity and will to get yourself involved in theological discussions, which in your view, brings you ever closer to the knowledge of your god, and therefore increases your responsibility to behave as you think is moral, even if it brings you pain, doubt, heartbreak or confrontation with your neighbours, your community or your congregation. Why should you be loaded with this responsibility, out of the millions of people who have lived more comfortable lives, with more capacity to raise their own status over the abuse and exploitation of others, many of whom didn’t even have the responsibility of being Christians, and didn’t have to deal with the challenges and difficulties of your own life? It all sounds to me like you’re grasping a burning nail for the flimsy chance that an omnipotent being that could and should treat you better does actually really exist.
I’m glad I know these things and am able to debate them. Yes, I’ll be held to a higher standard, but I know Jesus and I can introduce other people to Him. I live in australia, so it’s all legal but even if it weren’t, I’d still be with Him. I have missed out on things before (not very often, but mostly due to things being on Sabbath) but I’m prepared to give up more. Jesus never said it’d be easy (He said it’d be hard), but with His help, imma do what He says.
As I predicted earlier, you immediately jumped to justify the passage within its historical context, which isn’t a very coherent position for someone who claims that their only faith is in whatever the Bible says. The passage itself may or may not be a good argument to argue about the morality of the Israeli peoples from that time compared to their neighbours (which would be ok if you wanted to claim the moral righteousness of your cultural tradition), but it establishes a terrible precedent in a book you claimed has been inspired by an All-Powerful, omniscient, and benevolent being (which I find far more relevant to this discussion, since we’re discussing theology), as that means that this being would not care enough to make sure that the text that would supposedly contain their revelation for the rest of the history of humanity, would make it clear or not whether slavery is right or wrong. I don’t believe in superstitions, but if I did, I would hold one that claims to be the ultimate judge of right and wrong to a much higher standard. Which is quite ironic, since you allow this hypothetical being of which you can’t even verify its existence to squeeze you dry, but you won’t even demand the bare minimum from it.
If you ever decide you’ve had enough trying to defend the indefensible, please be kinder to yourself. I don’t think you deserve this punishment.
“Our planet has been observing your puny species since your planet was created 5,000 years ago by God. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”
Thank you for showing up here and providing us your insight. I really wish folks like you that show up and provide it wouldn’t be downvoted because you don’t fit their view of a Christian.
the idea of the immortal soul comes from greek philosophy and isn’t biblical at all
Sorta. You have the Nephelium which are strongly hinted at to be the ghosts of great warriors that died. You also have the Witch of Endor who can channel ghosts. Their idea of an immortal soul wasn’t consistent and it is reflected in the Hebrew Bible. You are right however the Christian concept of the soul most likely comes from Plato.
I don’t know why you say hell isn’t a place. The word comes from a physical location that you can even visit if you want in Israel. As for Luke he was clearly just copying what Paul said about “if they knew what they were doing…”. Because Paul had to explain the nonsense story related to him.
Add comment