The "loving" God

[Metman07]

If the Christian God loves all of humanity, why did he not give everyone the same opportunity to hear his message? He sent his son to what is now Israel/Palestine and this faith did indeed spread very far. But it never spread to billions of people. In fact, the majority of people on this planet are not Christians. I am quite sure that the overwhelming majority of current Christians were born into Christian families. What is the probability that they would have been Christians were they born into Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic or Jewish families? Quite slim by even the most optimistic estimate. Even though this all-powerful, all-knowing, completely benevolent God did not give everyone the same opportunity to hear his message, he judges everyone by the exact same standards.

A boy born into a Christian family somewhere in the South has it pretty easy wouldn't you agree? He is indoctrinated with Christian beliefs, values etc. So when he dies he goes to heaven. Yet another boy is born into a devout Sikh family in India. He practices his faith fervently, he does what he believes to be good. And yet, this great, loving, powerful, merciful God sentences him to suffer in unimaginable pain for all eternity? This not a befitting punishment for any crime (it's impossible to commit an infinite amount of sin), let alone for not accepting some small detail.

[thomas]

1. God has revealed Himself to all people (Romans 1).
2. People are saved through faith regardless of their knowledge (Hebrews 11).
3. Individuals from every people group are saved (Revelation 7:9).

[Eva]

.......yes, but faith in what? in any god and not in the christian one?
i've always wanted this cleared up.......................
(people sometimes tell me "but you got to believe in something!!! ANYTHING!!".....)

[Red Mage]

1. God has revealed Himself to all people (Romans 1).
Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? (Job 11:7)
But you can't find him through searching.

2. People are saved through faith regardless of their knowledge (Hebrews 11).
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (James 2:24)
So people are saved just through faith?
3. Individuals from every people group are saved (Revelation 7:9).
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. (Revelation 7:4)
5 verses up from the same book. Every group? Looks to me like 144,000 Jews are going to heaven... everyone else is going to hell.

[Little Earth Stamper]

So, he revealed himself to the Aztecs? He sure had a funny way of doing that, I must say.

[Tenspace]

1. God has revealed Himself to all people (Romans 1).
Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? (Job 11:7)
But you can't find him through searching.

2. People are saved through faith regardless of their knowledge (Hebrews 11).
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (James 2:24)
So people are saved just through faith?
3. Individuals from every people group are saved (Revelation 7:9).
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. (Revelation 7:4)
5 verses up from the same book. Every group? Looks to me like 144,000 Jews are going to heaven... everyone else is going to hell.
Make that 139,999.... Being an original MOT, I'll give up my seat on the bus to heaven, if anyone wants it. :D

Tenspace

[Metman07]

The post was aimed more at the fundamentalist protestant Christians, most of whom believe that everyone who does not specifically accept Jesus Christ as his/her savior and that he died on the cross for humanity's sins will go to hell. Most Catholics I have spoken to believe that anyone who seeks God will go to heaven after accepting the true god pergatory.

Usually these fundamentalists cite John 14:6, in which Jesus is quoted as saying “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through Me”

[Metman07]

Here's an article talking about it, you can find it at http://www.myfortress.org/ChildrenGoToHeaven.html :

ROMANS 1:19–20—Are the heathen lost?
PROBLEM:
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through Me” (John 14:6). Also, Acts 4:12 says of Christ, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (nasb). But what if someone has never heard the Gospel of Christ, will he be eternally lost? Paul seems to answer this in the affirmative. But is it fair to condemn people who have never even heard about Christ?
SOLUTION:
Paul’s answer is clear. He said that the heathen are “without excuse” (1:20) because “what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (1:19–20). So, the heathen are justly condemned for several reasons. First, Romans 2:12 states, “For as many as have sinned without Law will also perish without Law, and as many as have sinned in the Law will be judged by the Law.” This passage teaches that the Jew is judged by the Law, the Hebrew Scriptures, but the Gentile is condemned by “the Law written in their hearts.” “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them” (Rom. 2:14–15, nasb).
Second, the question assumes innocence on the part of the saved man who hasn’t heard the Gospel. But the Bible tells us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). In addition, Romans 1:18–20 says that God clearly reveals Himself through natural revelation “so that they are without excuse.” Human beings are not innocent regarding God’s natural revelation.
Third, if a person who has not heard the Gospel lives his life to the best of his ability he simply is doing works for salvation. But salvation is by grace, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). Not in any way, shape, or form can anybody do anything to gain access into heaven. If there was such a way, then the work of Christ on the Cross was a futile act.
Finally, the Bible says in essence, “seek and you will find.” That is, those who seek the light they have through nature, which is not sufficient for salvation, will get the light they need for salvation. Hebrews 11:6 says, “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” Acts 10:35 adds, “But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.” God has many ways to get the truth about salvation through Christ to those who seek Him. He can send a missionary (Acts 10), or a Bible (Ps. 119:130), give them a vision (Dan. 2; 7), or send an angel (Rev. 14). But those who turn their back on the light they have (through nature) and find themselves lost in darkness, have no one to blame but themselves. For “men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).

[thomas]

1. God has revealed Himself to all people (Romans 1).
Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? (Job 11:7)
But you can't find him through searching.
Bad quote Mr Mage. You've quoted Zophar the Naamathite one of Job's friends who made an argument that was shown by Job to be incorrect in the next chapter.

2. People are saved through faith regardless of their knowledge (Hebrews 11).
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (James 2:24)
So people are saved just through faith?
James 2, the whole chapter not just the one verse that promotes your cause, really backs up what is said in Hebrews 11. Which is that people are saved by their faith and not by their knowledge. James makes the same point about Abraham as is made in Hebrews. I read James 2 to say that a person is justified by faith but an outward sign of that faith is works. That is, if you see someone professing faith but don't see the works you should be suspicious. Jesus made pretty much the same point over and over again.

3. Individuals from every people group are saved (Revelation 7:9).
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. (Revelation 7:4)
5 verses up from the same book. Every group? Looks to me like 144,000 Jews are going to heaven... everyone else is going to hell.
That's a strange reading of the text. It actually does not say that everyone else goes to hell. In fact it seems to suggest exactly the opposite. It says about them "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them."

[thomas]

.......yes, but faith in what? in any god and not in the christian one?
i've always wanted this cleared up.......................
(people sometimes tell me "but you got to believe in something!!! ANYTHING!!".....)
Well, Romans 1 says that all of us know about God because of the nature He gave to us. But after that it's pretty fuzzy about what the criteria would be for those who haven't heard about God and Jesus directly. As a Christian I put the issue to one side and say that I trust God to act justly.

I don't think there would be anyone on this forum who could fall into the category of not knowing.

[Eva]

fuzzy indeed........thanks, anyways...

[Raiden936]

Actually, if there is an all loving, all just, and all merciful god, everybody would be in heaven even hitler. here is why. we chose to do what we want to do (believing in other gods, murdering, stealing, any other sins) because of our upbringing. If person X was born in Nazi Germany and grew up in an environment that hated Jews, person X would grow up to stone Jews. Since god (according to xian) is all knowing, he would understand why person X chose to do what he did. God would understand that person X stoned Jews because he grew up that way truly believing that Jews were bad. As a result, god could not blame entirely on person X for stoning Jews because god himself was at fault too. Logically speaking, he could have made person X born in other non- Jew hating countries. Furthermore, since he is ALL MERCIFUL and ALL LOVING, than the most merciful and loving action to do is to let person X go to heaven.


Also, all those quotes are written by men, not god. So me writing that everybody would reincarnate into a better life, is no less valid than those quotes.

[lee]

Here's an article talking about it, you can find it at http://www.myfortress.org/ChildrenGoToHeaven.html :

ROMANS 1:19–20—Are the heathen lost?
PROBLEM:
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through Me” (John 14:6). Also, Acts 4:12 says of Christ, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (nasb). But what if someone has never heard the Gospel of Christ, will he be eternally lost? Paul seems to answer this in the affirmative. But is it fair to condemn people who have never even heard about Christ?
What if Allah turns out to be the true God, and he condemns all non Moslems for eating pork, how would you feel about that?

[thomas]

Actually, if there is an all loving, all just, and all merciful god, everybody would be in heaven even hitler. here is why. we chose to do what we want to do (believing in other gods, murdering, stealing, any other sins) because of our upbringing. If person X was born in Nazi Germany and grew up in an environment that hated Jews, person X would grow up to stone Jews. Since god (according to xian) is all knowing, he would understand why person X chose to do what he did. God would understand that person X stoned Jews because he grew up that way truly believing that Jews were bad. As a result, god could not blame entirely on person X for stoning Jews because god himself was at fault too. Logically speaking, he could have made person X born in other non- Jew hating countries. Furthermore, since he is ALL MERCIFUL and ALL LOVING, than the most merciful and loving action to do is to let person X go to heaven.
This is all fine if you think that people don't have any personal responsibility for their actions and choices "I was only following orders". Christianity teaches that people do have a responsibility for their moral choices.

God is merciful and loving but he is also just.

Also, all those quotes are written by men, not god. So me writing that everybody would reincarnate into a better life, is no less valid than those quotes.
Again you are right. Unfortunately I don't see a large population of the world deciding that your opinion is the right one. I wonder why that is ?

[Raiden936]

Actually, if there is an all loving, all just, and all merciful god, everybody would be in heaven even hitler. here is why. we chose to do what we want to do (believing in other gods, murdering, stealing, any other sins) because of our upbringing. If person X was born in Nazi Germany and grew up in an environment that hated Jews, person X would grow up to stone Jews. Since god (according to xian) is all knowing, he would understand why person X chose to do what he did. God would understand that person X stoned Jews because he grew up that way truly believing that Jews were bad. As a result, god could not blame entirely on person X for stoning Jews because god himself was at fault too. Logically speaking, he could have made person X born in other non- Jew hating countries. Furthermore, since he is ALL MERCIFUL and ALL LOVING, than the most merciful and loving action to do is to let person X go to heaven.
This is all fine if you think that people don't have any personal responsibility for their actions and choices "I was only following orders". Christianity teaches that people do have a responsibility for their moral choices.

God is merciful and loving but he is also just.

Also, all those quotes are written by men, not god. So me writing that everybody would reincarnate into a better life, is no less valid than those quotes.
Again you are right. Unfortunately I don't see a large population of the world deciding that your opinion is the right one. I wonder why that is ?
So are you saying that if you were born in a country that hates Americans, you would not grow up to hate Americans?

[thomas]

I'm saying that the outcome is not inevitable. After all you grew up in a country that is overwhelmingly Christian but you didn't grow up to be a Christian.

[Raiden936]

because the US doesn't surpress other beliefs. look at Afghanistan, if you were born under Taliban rule, i have no doubt in my mind that you would crash those planes into those buildings

[thomas]

But, weren't those terrorists all Saudis ? I don't think even one of them was Afghan, never mind Taliban. And of course there are plenty of decent Saudis and Afghan people who would never consider such a terrible act. It's very closed minded of you to think that all Afghans are terrorists.

[Raiden936]

you know exactly what i am talking about. dont chnage the subject. would you hate americans if you were raised knowing that americans are evil?

[Raiden936]

that brings up another question. where was god at 9/11? i guess allah was probably the right god

[thomas]

you know exactly what i am talking about. dont chnage the subject. would you hate americans if you were raised knowing that americans are evil?
I'm not changing the subject. I'm pointing out the people have a real moral responsibility that is effected by their environment but not determined by it. Not everybody in Afghanistan hates Americans, nor everybody in Saudi Arabia.

[Raiden936]

you are not answering my question. would you hate americans if you were raised in an environment to hate americans?

[thomas]

If your question is would I personally hate americans if I was raised in an environment to hate americans, my answer is that it is impossible to know how I would react in a hypothetical situation. But I do believe that I would have the choice to either hate or not hate. And I would be morally responsible for that choice. I'm sorry if this answer is too subtle for you.

Did you ever see the movie Schindlers' List. It shows how a German helped out Jews in the face of possible death and punishment for himself if he was found out. He made the moral choice even in the face of an environment where it was easier to make the other choice.

[Raiden936]

look up your history, he saved the jews because he wanted cheap labor

[Tenspace]

look up your history, he saved the jews because he wanted cheap labor
And nice clothes. Don't forget nice clothes. Oh, and knishes. Lots and lots of knishes.

Ten

[Pexio]

I would be curious to know thomas' thoughts on whether, if he was born with the exact same 'personality' as he has now (as a result of genes/upbringing) but born and raised in Afghanistan, he would have embraced Islam as his religion instead of Christianity.

[Raiden936]

Thomas, what you are saying is that people go to hell because we chose not to follow god. It is our fault that we end up going to hell. Well let me ask you this. If the Muslims are correct and Allah is the one true god and you ended up going to Allah's hell because you didn't choose him, would you blame it on yourself for believing in the wrong religion?

[thomas]

I would be curious to know thomas' thoughts on whether, if he was born with the exact same 'personality' as he has now (as a result of genes/upbringing) but born and raised in Afghanistan, he would have embraced Islam as his religion instead of Christianity.
I think the honest answer is that I probably would be Muslim. Now can you answer the same question for me. In that circumstance would you be an atheist ?

[Raiden936]

no, because i wouldnt have the logic and science to form my atheistic view. answer my previous question

[thomas]

Thomas, what you are saying is that people go to hell because we chose not to follow god. It is our fault that we end up going to hell. Well let me ask you this. If the Muslims are correct and Allah is the one true god and you ended up going to Allah's hell because you didn't choose him, would you blame it on yourself for believing in the wrong religion?
The God of the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim are the same God. I believe God will act justly.

[Metman07]

Thomas, what you are saying is that people go to hell because we chose not to follow god. It is our fault that we end up going to hell. Well let me ask you this. If the Muslims are correct and Allah is the one true god and you ended up going to Allah's hell because you didn't choose him, would you blame it on yourself for believing in the wrong religion?
The God of the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim are the same God. I believe God will act justly.
And what do you think will happen to Hindus and the millions of practitioners of non-Abrahamic faiths?

[thomas]

Repeat

1. God has revealed Himself to all people (Romans 1).
2. People are saved through faith regardless of their knowledge (Hebrews 11).
3. Individuals from every people group are saved (Revelation 7:9).
Well, Romans 1 says that all of us know about God because of the nature He gave to us. But after that it's pretty fuzzy about what the criteria would be for those who haven't heard about God and Jesus directly. As a Christian I put the issue to one side and say that I trust God to act justly.

[Pexio]

I would be curious to know thomas' thoughts on whether, if he was born with the exact same 'personality' as he has now (as a result of genes/upbringing) but born and raised in Afghanistan, he would have embraced Islam as his religion instead of Christianity.
I think the honest answer is that I probably would be Muslim. Now can you answer the same question for me. In that circumstance would you be an atheist ?
It's likely that I too would have been, at least, raised a Muslim. But, I would like to think that, at some point, the same nagging doubts that caused me to abandon my Christian faith would rise up ultimately against Islam as well. On the other hand, the aforementioned doubts surfaced as the result of long exposure to diverse views concerning (a)theism here in the Western world. Diverse religious views (and access to them) are rare in the Muslim world since apostasy is still a capital offense in several Middle Eastern nations. More likely I would have become, at best, a 'closet' atheist. Thanks for your honest answer. So could I presume that you feel that there are multiple paths to God based on one being faithful to one's regionally dominant religion?

[thomas]

Not so much multiple paths. I believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus has opened up the path, without which there would be no path. I believe that Christianity describes the optimal way of traversing that path ( by faith not by works ). But the Bible definitely provides some hints that it is possible to have faith without knowledge.

[Metman07]

But the Bible definitely provides some hints that it is possible to have faith without knowledge.
There are also hints to the contrary

[thomas]

Such as ?

[Raiden936]

Such as ?
so i'm going to heaven right?

[lee]

The God of the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim are the same God. I believe God will act justly.
So why did god give them a different set of beliefs to believe in?

[thomas]

I don't think that God did give them a different set of beliefs. I think that Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism, and that Islam is a wrong claim of further revelation to Christianity in a similar way to the Mormon faith. But I think they are dealing with the same God in a way that say Hinduism is not.

[Raiden936]

I don't think that God did give them a different set of beliefs. I think that Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism, and that Islam is a wrong claim of further revelation to Christianity in a similar way to the Mormon faith. But I think they are dealing with the same God in a way that say Hinduism is not.
all religions are worshipping the same god right?

[Little Earth Stamper]

I don't think that God did give them a different set of beliefs. I think that Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism, and that Islam is a wrong claim of further revelation to Christianity in a similar way to the Mormon faith. But I think they are dealing with the same God in a way that say Hinduism is not.
Yeah, he didn't give them a different set of beliefs; He just didn't bother to tell them the good beliefs, so they just made some shit up.

Doesn't that make a lot more sense?

[Sir Sin-O-Lot]

Basically Allah, Yaweh, and God are one and the same, except worshipped by three different religions. All of which derived from Abraham and his sons.

[Raiden936]

Thomas, what you are saying is that people go to hell because we chose not to follow god. It is our fault that we end up going to hell. Well let me ask you this. If the Muslims are correct and Allah is the one true god and you ended up going to Allah's hell because you didn't choose him, would you blame it on yourself for believing in the wrong religion?
you havent reply to my question thomas

[Metman07]

Such as ?
Please see my earlier posts at the beginning of the thread.

[thomas]

Thomas, what you are saying is that people go to hell because we chose not to follow god. It is our fault that we end up going to hell. Well let me ask you this. If the Muslims are correct and Allah is the one true god and you ended up going to Allah's hell because you didn't choose him, would you blame it on yourself for believing in the wrong religion?
you havent reply to my question thomas
Yes, I did.

[Raiden936]

Thomas, what you are saying is that people go to hell because we chose not to follow god. It is our fault that we end up going to hell. Well let me ask you this. If the Muslims are correct and Allah is the one true god and you ended up going to Allah's hell because you didn't choose him, would you blame it on yourself for believing in the wrong religion?
you havent reply to my question thomas
Yes, I did.
so all religions are worshipping the same god?

[lee]

Basically Allah, Yaweh, and God are one and the same, except worshipped by three different religions. All of which derived from Abraham and his sons.
So if all moslems are going to be judged by the same god, by which standards are they going to be judged?

An example that comes to mind is this, the moslem religion permits polygamy, as long your financial status can support multiple wives, it's ok. But according to christianity, having two wives is a no-no. So by which standard will the polygamous muslim be judged with?

[Sir Sin-O-Lot]

I don't know by which standard I was merely pointing out they're the same deity, but are worshipped differently.

[thomas]

you havent reply to my question thomas
Yes, I did.
so all religions are worshipping the same god?
Look, I'm tired of your inability to read what I wrote and follow the argument. From now on I'm ignoring your posts.

[Metman07]

I'm just reposting this from another thread:


Little Earth Stamper wrote:

thomas wrote:

...

As to your last point, I don't think the Bible is unclear. Where do you think it suggests that good works for non-christians is sufficient for salvation ?

Well, John 3:18 says, in my New International Bible,

"Whoever believes in [Christ] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only son."

Slightly later, John 3:36 has John the Babtist tell us that

"Whoever believes in the son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him"

And then there's John 6:53,

"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

More then that, large portions of John, in fact, the central thrust of that Gosepl, is that the way to enternal life is belief in Jesus as the Christ. The inferrence people have drawn from this, not unreasonably given certain passages in John and the entire tenor of the old testament, is that he who doesn't believe shall not have eternal life.

The thing for me is, even if the bible's message is clear to you, history demonstrates that it has been anything but clear to the religious establishment. Now, you may say that the Holy Inquisition (for example) knew what they were doing was wrong, and merely mislead the people by quoting the bible out of context, but to me that still shows the limitations of the "Send Christ to Earth" method of spreading his method. God could, for example, send an angel down to earth to contradict anyone who misrepresented his message.

Given that most peasents in the middle ages were illiterate, they had to rely on priests and interpreters to understand the bible. They couldn't just read it and see for themselves. god could have addressed this problem in numerous ways, from magically making everybody literate to having an oversight commitee determine who was and was not authorised to read and interpret the bible, but he didn't, for reasons I've never quite been able to understand.

Another thing he could have done was send a second Christ to America, or just airdrop a bunch of bibles on the place way back in the first century AD. But he didn't, which to me seems inefficient.

Little Earth Stamper wrote:

The "turn the other cheek" issue is pretty hard to resolve, also. If god wants us to turn the other cheek, why did he spend so much time telling us the opposite, especially when he knew that his years of telling us the opposite would be an excuse people used to avoid turning the other cheek?

I don't follow you here. When did God tell us the opposite ?

Numerous times in the Old Testament; Hell, Christ himself says in the passage I'm quoting "The Old Testament says 'An eye for an eye' but I say that if a man strikes you you should not strike back, but turn the other cheek". That's Christ admitting the contradiction right there.

Frankly, I thought everybody knew about the parts of the Old Testament that said to kill.

Little Earth Stamper wrote:

In fact, why not just have a disembodied voice announce the most important commanmends at sunset every day? That would reduce confusion quite a bit, I think.

Even better than a disembodied voice; how about God appears in human form and tells us how to live and what to do to be saved ?

Hmmm... No this was a crappy solution, because it only covered part of the Roman empire, leaving America, for example, to wallow in confusion. Additionally, as the divine events became further removed in time, it became easier to question their divinity, and the difference between Christ's story and what are presumably heathen fictions about other miracle workers became more and more difficult to tell apart. In other words Quetzalcoatl, Krishna and Christ all claimed to be incarnations of god, The vast majority who have lived and who now live are so divorced from all three in time and space that it becomes nearly impossible to differentiate the real incarnations from the fakers. And yes, both Krishna and Quetzalcoatl demonstrated abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

I think my solution, of God just telling all of us what he wants at the end of the day works better.


As can be seen, the Bible clearly states that those who do not believe in the "correct" faith are condemned. The other quotes used as evidence to the contrary were vague at best as to their meaning with regard to non-Christians. If they do mean that non-Christians can go to heaven, then we have a contradiction.

[Little Earth Stamper]

...
As can be seen, the Bible clearly states that those who do not believe in the "correct" faith are condemned. The other quotes used as evidence to the contrary were vague at best as to their meaning with regard to non-Christians. If they do mean that non-Christians can go to heaven, then we have a contradiction.
Well, in Matthew Christ says that any who help the least of his followers help him, and shall not loose their reward. In John and Mark, the emphasis is on faith as a route to heaven, whereas in Matthew and Luke the emphasis is on good deeds. The problem is, these two differing emphases never form a coherent whole; The passage in Matthew I'm talking about does not appear in John, which is what has driven this controversy.

One piece of evidence in support of the faith only school is that in all four gospels, Christ talks of belief in him as being necessary to entering heaven, but he does not talk about good works alone being adequate in all gospels. In addition, the idea that the heathen could get into heaven runs contrary to pretty much the entirety of the old testament; To say that god doesn't care which deity you worship would be a massive departure from the OT.

On the other hand, reading the Gospels shows that Christ was, for whatever reason, not shy about modifying or even over-riding old testament laws, as in my earlier example of his admonition to turn the other cheek. Additionally, at some point in John, he explicitly says that divorce should not be legal, in direct contradiction to Moses, who laid down legal procedures for obtaining divorces.

Moreover, assuming that good works are the greatest form of worship of Christ reslves the Matthew-John conundrum rather more nicely then assuming that even good pagans will not reach heaven.

So, I can see the case for both sides(In fact, I tend to find the second interpretation somewhat more credible). But for me, when I say the bible is unclear, I don't mean in some abstract sense of literary criticism; I mean it as an empirical observation. Whatever it was Christ wanted us to do, it's hard to deny that huge populations have managed to get it wrong. For a long while, the great powers of Europe and the conquerors of America did their best to purge heresy by force; But in modern times, the church has lost a great deal of power, and no civilised countries have any laws at all banning any kind of heresy. Either we got it wrong, or our ancestors did, and both sides use the bible to support their point of view.

God, having utter mastery over time and space, could do any number of things to clearly show support for one side or the other of this argument; The easiest way would've been to visit the writers of the four gospels and give them a clear, consitant message on the subject to pass along, but there's really an infinity of options for him, what with him being god and all.

Why he doesn't do any of these things is completely baffling to me.

[andicati]

to reply to Little Earth Stamper (I quote: "God, having utter mastery over time and space, could do any number of things to clearly show support for one side or the other of this argument; The easiest way would've been to visit the writers of the four gospels and give them a clear, consitant message on the subject to pass along, but there's really an infinity of options for him, what with him being god and all.

Why he doesn't do any of these things is completely baffling to me." end quote

Because He is indulging in some other experiment of social devlopment on a planet in a galaxy far removed from earth. If He exists at all, man's deeds over the millenia are all the evidence I need to know that God is imperfect, makes mistakes (in the case of mankind one huge mistake), and clearly has a better things to do with His time than worry about resolving contradictions conjured up by a bunch of zealots in sandles on the shores of Galilee.

I think one of the mistakes aethiests make the world over is challenging the existence of god(s) when this is an argument that can never be won with a "believer". It becomes an exercise of intellectual masturbation. Better to argue whether the "believer's" god is worthy of support as there is plenty of hard factual evidence for and against this.

I for one, am an aethiest who shares many of the ethical and moral beliefs of religous people. I live my life upholding those beliefs in everything I do. I can quite comfortably say that this places me at a moral advantage over quite some self proclaimed religious leaders that seem to not practice what they preach....

[Charlotte]

Thomas, what you are saying is that people go to hell because we chose not to follow god.
Yes, and the Jews who refused to leave behind their religion in WWII chose to be interred into Nazi concentration camps. Makes sense why so many Christians supported Nazism, hey? Their religion helped lead them to this askewed thinking, and they still practice this crap today. Look at the Christian response to the war in Iraq... I need a puking smilie.

[Tulkas]

Actually, if there is an all loving, all just, and all merciful god, everybody would be in heaven even hitler. here is why. we chose to do what we want to do (believing in other gods, murdering, stealing, any other sins) because of our upbringing. If person X was born in Nazi Germany and grew up in an environment that hated Jews, person X would grow up to stone Jews. Since god (according to xian) is all knowing, he would understand why person X chose to do what he did. God would understand that person X stoned Jews because he grew up that way truly believing that Jews were bad. As a result, god could not blame entirely on person X for stoning Jews because god himself was at fault too. Logically speaking, he could have made person X born in other non- Jew hating countries. Furthermore, since he is ALL MERCIFUL and ALL LOVING, than the most merciful and loving action to do is to let person X go to heaven.
This is all fine if you think that people don't have any personal responsibility for their actions and choices "I was only following orders". Christianity teaches that people do have a responsibility for their moral choices.

God is merciful and loving but he is also just.

Also, all those quotes are written by men, not god. So me writing that everybody would reincarnate into a better life, is no less valid than those quotes.
Again you are right. Unfortunately I don't see a large population of the world deciding that your opinion is the right one. I wonder why that is ?
So are you saying that if you were born in a country that hates Americans, you would not grow up to hate Americans?
Exactly, thomas, your statement seems completely ignorant to me...To say that if you grew up, in Nazi Germany, told from the day you were born that Jews were evil, that all of a sudden you would grow a sense of moralty because god gave it to you? Nonsense!

[JesusLives]

.......yes, but faith in what? in any god and not in the christian one?
i've always wanted this cleared up.......................
(people sometimes tell me "but you got to believe in something!!! ANYTHING!!".....)
It's not faith that gets you to heaven because one can have faith in anything.. it's faith in God that gives you hope.

[thomas]

Exactly, thomas, your statement seems completely ignorant to me...To say that if you grew up, in Nazi Germany, told from the day you were born that Jews were evil, that all of a sudden you would grow a sense of moralty because god gave it to you? Nonsense!
Well, I would think it is more ignorant to post an attack on me without bothering to read the thread first. Why don't you take a look at what I really think, instead of making it up.....

I would be curious to know thomas' thoughts on whether, if he was born with the exact same 'personality' as he has now (as a result of genes/upbringing) but born and raised in Afghanistan, he would have embraced Islam as his religion instead of Christianity.
I think the honest answer is that I probably would be Muslim. Now can you answer the same question for me. In that circumstance would you be an atheist ?
Now, Tulkas, can you also answer my question. In the same circumstance would you be an atheist ?

[Tulkas]

Logic points all signs to, i would be whatever religion i was brought up as. Yet, there is always a small percentage of a convert to christianity or Atheism, ect. Yet this chance would be displayed as generous if i tell you its less than 1%.

Of course i would be a Muslim, can u logically infer any other fate for me?

[thomas]

No, I agree with you.

[Tulkas]

So if you agree with me, under your religion, what chance do they have to find god? Are they basically doomed to hell because they were not even informed of Mr. Jesus Christ?

[thomas]

First, it isn't that those societies don't know about Christianity, just that they have rejected it and embraced other religions. There is a deliberate choice as a society involved in that. Second, although I don't know how God will act I believe it will be in a way that is just and merciful. Third, as a Christian I have a personal responsibility to tell those people about their fate as I see it. Fourth, Christ was not Jesus' family name.

[Tulkas]

Your reasoning makes no sense to me. Who cares if the society as whole rejects their religion! If young Muhammad never learns of christianity hismelf, you are damming him because his society did not chose religion properly? Please explain logic, i dont seem to understand.

2) A mercifull god, yet throughout the ages of catholicism we have seen so much of God's "wrath" , john tetzels speeches for example, and yet others claim he is mercifull...

3) Good luck with that one, id stop wasting time posting on these forums and get moving to the middle east then :)

4) Really?????????? :)

[thomas]

1) Well as you said earlier, if you're brought up with a particular set of beliefs you are more likely to believe them than not. So, if your parents brought you up to believe the world was flat and everybody around you believed that too, you would most likely believe it, right ? So, whose fault is it that you believe that ? It's the fault of your parents or their parents or whoever started the false belief.

And I'm not damning anybody, as I've said multiple times I believe God is merciful and just.

2) Again, merciful and just. I don't know who John Tetzel is.

3) I'm not wasting time on these forums.

[Qwertz]

I believe God is merciful and just.
mer·cy n.
1. Compassionate treatment, especially of those under one's power; clemency.
com·pas·sion n.
Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it. See Synonyms at pity.
jus·tice n.
The quality of being just; fairness.
just adj.
3. Properly due or merited: just deserts.
fair·ness n.
1. Conformity with rules or standards.
2. Ability to make judgments free from discrimination or dishonesty.
Seems like being 'just' means to give someone what they deserve, and being 'merciful' means refraining from giving someone what they deserve.

Hmmmmmmm. :/

-Q

[thomas]

Are you really saying that you don't understand how a judge in a courtroom can be merciful and just ?

[Raiden936]

sending someone to eternal damnation just because he/she doesnt believe in him is your definition of an all merciful god? right now, we are not talking about going to prison. you keep skipping and forgetting this eternal punishment here.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Allow me to get myself into trouble:

Discusions like these come when a Christian has beliefs that he or she is not willing to see through to the logical conclusion.

As a Christian, Thomas can't accept the possibility that other religions might be just as valid as Christianity. Now, logically, since the only way to heaven is through Christ, all us non-Christians should wind up in hell.

The problem is, as a Christian, Thomas can't accept the possibility that god would do something as monstrous as sending people to hell just because they happened to be born in, say, Mexico of the 1300's. There are a couple of logical extensions of this view; You could decide that works are more important then faith, and that's why the heathens get into heaven, or maybe you could decide that other faiths also provide a path to understanding god . The problem with either of these views is that they knock Christianity from the top of the heap, and make Christ's sacrifice essentially unnecessary.

Thus, neither sending us heathens to heaven, nor damning us to hell is theologically satisfying to Thomas, so the only answer left is the vague assertion that god will act "justly".

[thomas]

Well, I do think that what Jesus did was unique, and is not repeatable or matched by other religions. And, I'm sorry if I sound vague on this point, but the simple answer to the question of what happens to the Mexican in the 1300's is just "I don't know". I really don't know. So when I say God is just and merciful I really do think that is my best answer to the question. Not very satisfying for you and me, but my best answer nonetheless.

But I think there are other logical conclusions than the one you presented. Some of them are alluded to in the Bible where it talks in the NT about how Abraham and others, were saved prior to the death of Christ. One interpretation would be that they would not be saved without the sacrifice of Jesus, but that they were saved by that sacrifice without specific knowledge of it. I think this opens the door slightly to the ideas I presented. But really, I'm just guessing here, exercising my mind on an issue where I don't think I'll ever know the real answer until I die.

[Little Earth Stamper]

...
But I think there are other logical conclusions than the one you presented. Some of them are alluded to in the Bible where it talks in the NT about how Abraham and others, were saved prior to the death of Christ. One interpretation would be that they would not be saved without the sacrifice of Jesus, but that they were saved by that sacrifice without specific knowledge of it. I think this opens the door slightly to the ideas I presented.
...
Ooooh. I never thought about that one. That's a very interesting idea.

[Qwertz]

Are you really saying that you don't understand how a judge in a courtroom can be merciful and just ?
Yes. Every inch of mercy is a mile stolen from justice.

-Q

[thomas]

Imagine Fred who is owed money by John. If Fred cancels the debt I think he is just and merciful.

Imagine Judge Fred who deems that Robber John is guilty of theft. He sentences him to the minimum sentence because he knows that Robber John only stole to keep his family fed. I think that Judge Fred is just and merciful.

[Pexio]

Imagine Fred who is owed money by John. If Fred cancels the debt I think he is just and merciful.
Sorry, this doesn't fly. Fred would be unjust if he didn't forgive John his debt? Banks and credit card companies are unjust expecting repayment of loans?

Imagine Judge Fred who deems that Robber John is guilty of theft. He sentences him to the minimum sentence because he knows that Robber John only stole to keep his family fed. I think that Judge Fred is just and merciful.
Merciful perhaps. Do you suppose that Robber John's victims would find Judge Fred's minimum sentence 'just'. How about the rest of us citizens who may be Robber John's future victims?

Your analogies are flawed in my view. Qwertz correctly expresses the inverse relationship of justice and mercy.

[thomas]

Imagine Fred who is owed money by John. If Fred cancels the debt I think he is just and merciful.
Sorry, this doesn't fly. Fred would be unjust if he didn't forgive John his debt? Banks and credit card companies are unjust expecting repayment of loans?
Hmm, well analogies are always difficult to sell but in this case I think I'm doing OK. Are you saying that Fred is acting unjustly in cancelling the debt ? Are you saying he's not acting mercifully when he cancels the debt ?

Imagine Judge Fred who deems that Robber John is guilty of theft. He sentences him to the minimum sentence because he knows that Robber John only stole to keep his family fed. I think that Judge Fred is just and merciful.
Merciful perhaps. Do you suppose that Robber John's victims would find Judge Fred's minimum sentence 'just'. How about the rest of us citizens who may be Robber John's future victims?

Your analogies are flawed in my view. Qwertz correctly expresses the inverse relationship of justice and mercy.
No, I think Judge Fred is acting justly within the law and mercifully within the law.

[Qwertz]

When Fred cancelles the debt, he is being merciful, but not just, because justice demands that Fred get what is "properly due" to him - repayment of the debt.

When Judge Fred reduces Robber John's sentence, he is saying that John's family is more deserving of rights than his victim's family. Justice demands fairness and 'non-discrimination.' Surely this is merciful, but it is absolutely unjust.

How would the second analogy change if he stole a box which he thought contained bread to feed his family, but instead it contained deeds of title (or some other object with value only to the rightful owner)? He's still stealing it with the 'intent' of feeding his family, but he doesn't accomplish that goal, but does untold financial damage to his victims. Would lessening the punishment based on this 'intent' still be just under your twisted sense of justice?

Or what about the other way around? If John intends to kill a man, but fails, should he be punished based on his intent? Should he be executed or imprisoned for life, just as another murderer who succeded? Would that be just?

If intent is not the factor on which justice depends, then Judge Fred's lessening of John's bread-theft is unjust.

-Q

[thomas]

Justice depends on the law or a contract or an agreement. If you act within it you are just and if you act outside it you are unjust. You can't be very just or nearly just on a single act. You are just or unjust it is binary. However there may be several ways that I can act within the law or contract, all of which are just but some of which may be more or less merciful.

Justice is not the opposite of mercy

[Lurker]

Justice depends on the law or a contract or an agreement. If you act within it you are just and if you act outside it you are unjust. You can't be very just or nearly just on a single act. You are just or unjust it is binary. However there may be several ways that I can act within the law or contract, all of which are just but some of which may be more or less merciful.

Justice is not the opposite of mercy
I agree thomas. If it's done within the context of the law/agreement then you can have justice while also extending mercy. It is the author of the law or in this case the interpreter of the law (judge) that decides the boundaries of justice and then acts accordingly.
- lurker

[lee]

Let's say a non-christian dies and meets the christian god in heaven, the way I see it, god has only two choices to make:

1. He acts mercifully and lets the man into heaven or ...
2. He acts justly and condemns him to hell.

If he lets him into heaven, that means anybody can get into heaven regardless of his religious beliefs or non-belief. If he condemns him to hell, no matter how merciful you claim god is, god will be acting UNJUSTLY.

[Lurker]

Let's say a non-christian dies and meets the christian god in heaven, the way I see it, god has only two choices to make:

1. He acts mercifully and lets the man into heaven or ...
2. He acts justly and condemns him to hell.

If he lets him into heaven, that means anybody can get into heaven regardless of his religious beliefs or non-belief. If he condemns him to hell, no matter how merciful you claim god is, god will be acting UNJUSTLY.
You left one out....

3. He allows the man to spend eternity separated from god because that is what the man wanted all along. Therefore god is both just and merciful.

[Qwertz]

lurker & thomas:

So are you saying that, if Congress were to pass a law saying that no man may speak ill of his government, on pain of prison, and if a man were to be brought before a judge on charges of having violated this law, and the judge were to sentance him to 20 years in prison, as the law dictated, that this would be justice????

You assumption that justice exists solely within the context of a law or contract is bizzare and unfounded. Justice is simply the "recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature, that you must judge all men as conscientiously as you judge inanimate objects, with the same respect for truth, with the same incorruptible vision, by as pure and as rational a process of identification - that every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly, that just as you do not pay a higher price for a rusty chunk of scrap than for a piece of shining metal, so you do not value a rotter above a hero."

Justice is the act of moral appraisal based solely on the facts of the character of him being judged, without any regard for his desire not to suffer, or your desire not to see him suffer - without regard for any feeling of compassion. Mercy demands that this feeling of compassion be recognized as a valid source of moral guidance, which it is not - only the facts matter.

This whole notion of Hell as "separation from God" is also erronious - read your own theology! Aquinas clearly states in numerous passages, including Q. de Anima Question 21 that "The fire by which the bodies of the damned and by which demons are punished is the same, as is creal from what it said in Matthew XXV: 'Depart ye into the fire,' and so on. Now it is nevessary that the bodies of the damned be punished by corporeal fire. THerefore, for the same reason, separated souls are punished by corporeal fire."
So Hell contains punishment by fire. Even if you were to reject this part of Christian dogma, and still persist that Hell is merely separation from God, you must take into account that:And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. (Luk. 16:22-26, KJV)
(putting aside the reference again to flame) Heaven and Hell are visible from one another, and that the sinner is punished by means of knowing paradise, but being separated from it. This is IDENTICAL in EVERY WAY to lee's #2.

Justice and Mercy are separate and opposites. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

-Q

[Lucretius]

You left one out....

3. He allows the man to spend eternity separated from god because that is what the man wanted all along. Therefore god is both just and merciful.
But you see this is where you are wrong. Atheists don't want to be seperated from God anymore than they want to separated from the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause. If God really did exist, then why wouldn't I want to chill with him in his crib? Just because I don't believe doesn't mean that when I die and he happened against all odds to exist that I still wouldn't want to believe in him, because belief would no longer be necessary and I would have the evidence I would need.

Therefore, if God didn't let me go hang with him after I died simply because I never had the evidence of him on Earth and got it "too late", then he isn't just at all. He's just a jerk.

[lee]

This was one of the major turning points on my road to atheism, you see my parents are buddhists, but I was enrolled in a protestant school. Since my parents never bothered talking about buddhism, whereas we were bombarded day in and day out in school about the teachings of christianity, it was only natural that I ended up being a "protestant". At first we were only taught about the bible stories, genesis, noah's ark, moses etc. so it was really just stories to me at that time, but as I grew older, the teachings shifted to sin and punishment, heaven and hell. And one of the major tenets (btw, it's also the first of the ten commandments) taught to us at that time was that only those who believed in god would go to heaven, everybody else goes to hell, NO MATTER WHAT!

This was simply unacceptable to me, no matter how I think about it, I simply could not fathom why my mom and dad should go to hell, they were loving and responsible parents, I couldn't possibly ask for anything more from them, and they're going to hell just because they had a different set of beliefs???

I asked my sunday teacher about this, and this was her reply: "Yes, they are going to hell, so it is now your job to be god's emmissary to convert them to christianity." I taught this over and over and came up with another question, " Where's my grandfather now, he died a buddhist, is he in heaven or hell?" she gave me a look that grown ups give children when they are annoyed, and gave me a non-commitant answer about god loving me and grandpa and mom and dad even though they were sinners... but she never did answer my question directly. A few weeks later, I stopped going to sunday school, and thankfully, I went to a secular high school a year later.

[lee]

Let's say a non-christian dies and meets the christian god in heaven, the way I see it, god has only two choices to make:

1. He acts mercifully and lets the man into heaven or ...
2. He acts justly and condemns him to hell.

If he lets him into heaven, that means anybody can get into heaven regardless of his religious beliefs or non-belief. If he condemns him to hell, no matter how merciful you claim god is, god will be acting UNJUSTLY.
You left one out....

3. He allows the man to spend eternity separated from god because that is what the man wanted all along. Therefore god is both just and merciful.
and where would this be? this "spending eternity seperated from god" place? You seem to be implying that aside from heaven and hell, there is a third place reserved for non-christian believers?

[antitheist]

Chapter 9, The Immunity, of the Koran was one of the latest recorded. Precedence of chapters goes to date recorded rather than position in the Koran. Therefore, The Immunity has precedence over other sura. The Koran has this to say about Christians and unbelievers:

9: 29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
9: 30 And the Jews say: Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Unless Christians accept the superiority of Islam they may be killed in this life. If Christians accept that Islam is the superior religion but do not convert to Islam they will burn in hell.

Would a Christian like to tell me why his/her loving God has decided he's going to destroy them if they don't convert to Islam?

[Little Earth Stamper]

Let's say a non-christian dies and meets the christian god in heaven, the way I see it, god has only two choices to make:

1. He acts mercifully and lets the man into heaven or ...
2. He acts justly and condemns him to hell.

If he lets him into heaven, that means anybody can get into heaven regardless of his religious beliefs or non-belief. If he condemns him to hell, no matter how merciful you claim god is, god will be acting UNJUSTLY.
You left one out....

3. He allows the man to spend eternity separated from god because that is what the man wanted all along. Therefore god is both just and merciful.
Yep, that's exactly what practitioners of Buddhism, Hinduism, Voodoo, Paganism and Native American religions want: To be seperated from god for all eternity. I'm thinking the people who devoted themselves to religious piety in societies that had never heard of Christ are going to be especially pissed. Not to mention the Jews and the Muslims. They're going to be pretty amazed that it turned out they really hate Allah/YHWH.

[Lurker]

Yep, that's exactly what practitioners of Buddhism, Hinduism, Voodoo, Paganism and Native American religions want: To be seperated from god for all eternity. I'm thinking the people who devoted themselves to religious piety in societies that had never heard of Christ are going to be especially pissed. Not to mention the Jews and the Muslims. They're going to be pretty amazed that it turned out they really hate Allah/YHWH.
Thomas already discussed this part with you. See post #67 (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=495&p=5) and your reply. The people with specific knowledge of christ, the people who decide he's a nobody (as in lee's example) will receive what they want - life without god. Look at satan, he's 100% certain god is real and he still rejects god (daily!) so clearly there are people who will reject god even when they are standing in judgement before him.

The people with no specific knowledge of christ (like Abraham) will be judged in a different way because they have no knowledge of christ. I can only guess how this will play out because the bible doesn't clearly spell it out. You already know about christ so this doesn't apply anyway.
- lurker

[Pexio]

...I can only guess how this will play out because the bible doesn't clearly spell it out...
- lurker
Well don't keep us in suspense, lurker. What do you guess is going to happen to those with no specific knowledge of christ? You're supposed to be one of the experts in this matter. The souls of millions are counting on you - let's have it.

[Lurker]

...I can only guess how this will play out because the bible doesn't clearly spell it out...
- lurker
Well don't keep us in suspense, lurker. What do you guess is going to happen to those with no specific knowledge of christ? You're supposed to be one of the experts in this matter. The souls of millions are counting on you - let's have it.
I don't have the answer other than to say god is just. The souls of millions will have to decide for themselves what to do with the knowledge they have. It's not up to me.
- lurker

[Pexio]

I don't have the answer other than to say god is just. The souls of millions will have to decide for themselves what to do with the knowledge they have. It's not up to me.
- lurker
OK, thanks. I just thought that after sharing your thoughts on space, infinity, the beginning of time, univ34k8&$... damn, wait, my eyes have glazed over again. OK better now. I just thought this would be an easy question for a theist to answer.

[thomas]

Chapter 9, The Immunity, of the Koran was one of the latest recorded. Precedence of chapters goes to date recorded rather than position in the Koran. Therefore, The Immunity has precedence over other sura. The Koran has this to say about Christians and unbelievers:

9: 29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
9: 30 And the Jews say: Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Unless Christians accept the superiority of Islam they may be killed in this life. If Christians accept that Islam is the superior religion but do not convert to Islam they will burn in hell.

Would a Christian like to tell me why his/her loving God has decided he's going to destroy them if they don't convert to Islam?
Yes, I'd be shocked if you didn't feel the compulsion to tell me this truth if you believed it. Personally I reject Islam because it does not recognise that Jesus was the incarnate Son of God, the sole and unique saviour of the world. But I'm open to other arguments.

[thomas]

lurker & thomas:

So are you saying that, if Congress were to pass a law saying that no man may speak ill of his government, on pain of prison, and if a man were to be brought before a judge on charges of having violated this law, and the judge were to sentance him to 20 years in prison, as the law dictated, that this would be justice????
I'm saying that the judge would be just if he enacted the law and unjust if he did not. When you ask if this would be justice, you are just appealing to some other undefined "law" which you imply we should all know and agree on. You are just implying that that "law" is more valid than the government law and that just and unjust should be judged based on it.

You assumption that justice exists solely within the context of a law or contract is bizzare and unfounded. Justice is simply the "recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature, that you must judge all men as conscientiously as you judge inanimate objects, with the same respect for truth, with the same incorruptible vision, by as pure and as rational a process of identification - that every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly, that just as you do not pay a higher price for a rusty chunk of scrap than for a piece of shining metal, so you do not value a rotter above a hero."

Justice is the act of moral appraisal based solely on the facts of the character of him being judged, without any regard for his desire not to suffer, or your desire not to see him suffer - without regard for any feeling of compassion. Mercy demands that this feeling of compassion be recognized as a valid source of moral guidance, which it is not - only the facts matter.
I really don't see how this is a definition of justice ? It seems to be a definition of how you would evaluate and treat somebody based on that evaluation. Are you arguing that there is no place for or value in mercy ? Or are you just saying that Ayn Rand said it and so it must be true ?

This whole notion of Hell as "separation from God" is also erronious - read your own theology!
I'd prefer to read the Bible. Mat. 25:41; 2 Thes. 1:9 are pretty clear in describing a separation from God.

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. (Luk. 16:22-26, KJV)
(putting aside the reference again to flame) Heaven and Hell are visible from one another, and that the sinner is punished by means of knowing paradise, but being separated from it. This is IDENTICAL in EVERY WAY to lee's #2.
You can't just take one thing the Bible says about Hell and base your theology on it. You need to look at everything it says and work out what the message is, including all the pieces. Including the verses I mentioned earlier which show a separation from God. Isn't the fundamental point of this parable in context (thro' the end of the parable whcih you've selectively omitted), to say that it's too late once you are dead to change your mind, and to point out how certain people will not repent even though they've already been given adequate evidence for the existence of God.

Justice and Mercy are separate and opposites. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.
Look, you're the one making the claim that they are antonyms. Why don't you just post a link to an online dictionary of opposites showing that you are correct. Everywhere I look it says that the opposite of justice is injustice and that mercy has no opposite. I'm waiting to be corrected.

[Lurker]

Here's the rest of the parable from Luke 16 (NIV)...

He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’

[ocmpoma]

Thesaurus.com lists cruelty and ruthlessness as antonyms of mercy.

[thomas]

OK, thanks for searching. But not justice ?

[ocmpoma]

No, it didn't list justice as an antonym of mercy (because it isn't, obviously).

See, two atheists can disagree without one of us going to hell. Ain't it grand?

[lee]

Lurker and Tomas, but I'm not sure if I understood you properly, I haven't read all of the previous posts, so my apologies if I'm asking this again, are you implying that:

1. hell is not filled with fire and brimstone?
2. and is not a place of suffering and punishment?
3. and that hell is simply a place without god?

[Qwertz]

Justice depends on the law or a contract or an agreement. If you act within it you are just and if you act outside it you are unjust. You can't be very just or nearly just on a single act. You are just or unjust it is binary. However there may be several ways that I can act within the law or contract, all of which are just but some of which may be more or less merciful.
I'm not backtracking, I've found an answer which knocks out this particular assertation.

In Summa Theol., Secunda Secundæ Partis, Q.58, Article 1, Aquinas declares justice to be "the perpetual and constant will to render to each one his right."

What man is gives him rights. There is no law or contract involved, neither divine nor secular. To be just means to act in accordance with the natures of men, not in accordance with law or contract. If justice were to be 'action in adherence with the law,' we would not live in the United States, a nation which created itself in response to the unjust laws of Britain. How can a law be unjust, if justice is action in accordance with the law?

-Q

PS - Are you now going to claim that there is no 'Right' beyond what is dictated by God's 'Law?'

PPS re: Aquinas - I respect Aquinas a great deal for the sheer force of reason with which he tried to defend the church. His only failure as a logician was to sacrifice reason to faith, and his only failure as a theologian was to sacrifice faith to reason. There is no more eloquent record of this conflict.

[Lurker]

Lurker and Tomas, but I'm not sure if I understood you properly, I haven't read all of the previous posts, so my apologies if I'm asking this again, are you implying that:

1. hell is not filled with fire and brimstone?
2. and is not a place of suffering and punishment?
3. and that hell is simply a place without god?
1) The fire/brimstone/everlasting fire of hell is figurative speech. It gets your attention, but too often people take it literally.
2) The suffering and punishment comes from being separated from god. God is the source of all that is good and without god there would be no good done.
3) Yes. Take god out of the world and there is no goodness at all, just evil.

- lurker

[Tenspace]

2) The suffering and punishment comes from being separated from god. God is the source of all that is good and without god there would be no good done.
3) Yes. Take god out of the world and there is no goodness at all, just evil.

- lurker
Lurk, you really believe 2 & 3? That without God, people are capable of only evil? Hmm...

Ten

[thomas]

Lurker and Tomas, but I'm not sure if I understood you properly, I haven't read all of the previous posts, so my apologies if I'm asking this again, are you implying that:

1. hell is not filled with fire and brimstone?
2. and is not a place of suffering and punishment?
3. and that hell is simply a place without god?
(1) I don't know if the Bible is literal or figurative when it describes Hell. But it's clear that it is pretty much not the optimal choice to make. If you guys are mistaken in your beliefs then the price is portrayed as a high one.
(2) I don't deny that Hell is described as a place of suffering and punishment for eternity.
(3) The separation from God is pretty much clear but exactly what that means isn't obvious to me.

[thomas]

2) The suffering and punishment comes from being separated from god. God is the source of all that is good and without god there would be no good done.
3) Yes. Take god out of the world and there is no goodness at all, just evil.

- lurker
Lurk, you really believe 2 & 3? That without God, people are capable of only evil? Hmm...

Ten
I would be less definitive on this, and again we are in an areas where there are no clear answers. Apologies if this all ends up sounding like 25c answers to $1M questions. I'm at least as curious as you all are about these topics.

I don't believe our fundamental human nature, created by God, in His image, will change throughout eternity. So our free-will and ability to choose good and evil would seem to be something we would retain. But, the key for me here is to look back to the pre-fall Garden of Eden state where humans had a close personal relationship with God ( he walked with them ) and for a period of time made only right choices. I think that is the clearest picture we are given of what heaven will be like and that the relationship with God is what enables the right choices to be made. I think we can taste some of this right now on earth, but in an imperfect way.

By contrast, Hell will not offer the ongoing opportunity for a relationship with God, even though at that point you would have become aware of his existence and glory. I think this is part of the suffering, the knowledge that you screwed up big time.

[Lucretius]

1) The fire/brimstone/everlasting fire of hell is figurative speech. It gets your attention, but too often people take it literally.
2) The suffering and punishment comes from being separated from god. God is the source of all that is good and without god there would be no good done.
3) Yes. Take god out of the world and there is no goodness at all, just evil.

- lurker
This reminds me of last friday. I was in the school library talking with a Christian friend of mine (who is rather dull-witted, he thinks a whale evolved into a cow, and he denies evolution for reasons he never wants to discuss) and when we came up on the topic of Terry Schiavo I said "I'm glad that poor woman finally died." Then we saw the pope, and I said "I hope he passes on quickly, he's got that urinary tract infection and it probably hurts like hell."

So my friend scoffs and says, "See? Atheist have no morals." (this coming from a guy who says we should kill Muslims because they are terrorists.)

"What?" I said, "How are atheists immoral?"

"You just said you wanted the pope to die."

"Yeah, the guy is 80, he's drifting in and out of consciousness, and he has a UTI."

"You atheists don't care who dies because you have no morals."

"Oh, let me guess, 'Stalin killed people because he was an athiest.'"

"No, Stalin killed people because he was a psychopath."

"You think Christians never did any harm? What about the Crusades, the KKK, the Protestant witchburnings, the religious wars in England, Adolf Hitler? What about them?"

"Adolf Hitler wasn't a Christian…"

"Really, because I thought '…by doing the work of the Lord I am defending myself against the Jew.' sounded rather like he thought was doing the work of the Lord, like, hmm, Jesus."

"Well, you atheists have abortions all the time, you are murderers."

"Yes, only atheists have abortions, that's it. Besides, call it what you want, it's not murder."

"Yes it is! You take another innocent life."

"You think people do it for fun? You think a woman get's pregnant just so she can say 'hey I'm going to kill a baby woohoo!'?"

"Well uh…"

So then I leave him, because he is annoying the shit out of me, and I see two of my other friends:

"Hey Robert how's it going?"

"Just fine…"

"Why were you talking with Rick back there?"

"Oh, he's stupid. Thinks atheists are less moral than Christians."

"Well, they actually are."

"You're fucking kidding me right?"

"No, it's because Christians think people are watching them so they are more moral than someone who doesn't think that."

"That's bullshit man. Why don't I just stab you right here because I have no morals, hmm?"

"Because people are watching you."

"No, it's not because people are watching me. If I truly had no morals I wouldn't care about the law, and I would stab you."

"But people are watching."

"Let's go into the bushes then and I can knife you in privacy."

*Now we arrive at my class and I'm getting kinda steamed, so I walk into class and shout "I'm an evil atheist and I have no morals."

Then some other kid says "the thing about atheists is that they're just denying God."

"No?", I said, "Kind of like you deny Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and that little gremlin that hides in your closet."

*end of him talking*

Then my friends left.

•Boy are some people fucking stupid!•

6th period I came up behind my friend Jeremy, who I had ran into after Rick, and when he didn't see me, I came up to him from behind and pretended to stab him in the back and said "I HAVE NO MORALS!"

That's my story lol.

[thomas]

I'm not backtracking, I've found an answer which knocks out this particular assertation.

In Summa Theol., Secunda Secundæ Partis, Q.58, Article 1, Aquinas declares justice to be "the perpetual and constant will to render to each one his right."

What man is gives him rights. There is no law or contract involved, neither divine nor secular. To be just means to act in accordance with the natures of men, not in accordance with law or contract. If justice were to be 'action in adherence with the law,' we would not live in the United States, a nation which created itself in response to the unjust laws of Britain. How can a law be unjust, if justice is action in accordance with the law?

-Q
But your definition makes absolutely no difference to your argument. Even if I accept your definition, justice is still a binary quality. Either I render someone his rights and am just or I don't render someone his rights and I'm unjust. I still can't be nearly just or almost just or very just. And when I act justly, there may be a range of just actions that I can take, some of which may be more or less merciful.

Justice is not the opposite of mercy.

[Rhinoqulous]

2) The suffering and punishment comes from being separated from god. God is the source of all that is good and without god there would be no good done.
3) Yes. Take god out of the world and there is no goodness at all, just evil.

- lurker
Lurk, you really believe 2 & 3? That without God, people are capable of only evil? Hmm...

Ten
I don't believe our fundamental human nature, created by God, in His image, will change throughout eternity. So our free-will and ability to choose good and evil would seem to be something we would retain. But, the key for me here is to look back to the pre-fall Garden of Eden state where humans had a close personal relationship with God ( he walked with them ) and for a period of time made only right choices.
So in your view is any choice that goes against God immoral? Say one of the Israelites under Moses wasn't too keen on killing male babies, as was commanded in Numbers 31:17. So would this hypothetical Israelite be immoral by refusing to commit infanticide? If you believe we can only arrive at "The Good" through God, then you have to admit that it is sometimes "moral" to slaughter innocent children, something that I, as a non-theist, would never admit.

[thomas]

Nobody likes to read Numbers 31, including myself. I don't want to give you the impression that I take such a thing lightly. And I do feel uneasy about these points I'm going to make. I certainly don't think that these verses would make a good initial case for believing in a good God, but do think it's worth examining them in the light of everything else I know about God. Giving Him the benefit of the doubt so to speak.

You are making a number of assumptions in your question.

You are assuming that your personal moral intuition that it is never morally correct to kill a child is correct. In fact this type of decision is made in the labor room when a father is asked to choose between the life of the mother or the child. Is the father immoral to choose the death of the child or is it possible to examine a wider context to determine what is morally correct in such a situation ?

You are also assuming that death is the worst thing that can happen to somebody. In the context of an eternal soul it is not the end of life but the beginning of something else. Obviously there is great danger in humans attempting to interpret morality in this light, and so I'm not at all advocating that this kind of justice be perpetuated other than on an extremely exceptional basis. And in fact the standard rules of war used by the Isrealites disallowed the killing of the women and children.

Basically, my questions boil down to one simple one. Is it impossible that God was acting morally in this case, or is there any room for doubt ?

[Lurker]

Well stated thomas. These passages are difficult for most, and I'm no exception. Your last sentence is the key I think. As always context is everything, so you might want to consider this very, very detailed analysis (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html) of the passage. His conclusions are at the bottom of the page if you want to save time.
- lurker

[Rhinoqulous]

Nobody likes to read Numbers 31, including myself. I don't want to give you the impression that I take such a thing lightly. And I do feel uneasy about these points I'm going to make. I certainly don't think that these verses would make a good initial case for believing in a good God, but do think it's worth examining them in the light of everything else I know about God. Giving Him the benefit of the doubt so to speak.

You are making a number of assumptions in your question.

You are assuming that your personal moral intuition that it is never morally correct to kill a child is correct. In fact this type of decision is made in the labor room when a father is asked to choose between the life of the mother or the child. Is the father immoral to choose the death of the child or is it possible to examine a wider context to determine what is morally correct in such a situation ?

Yes, I agree that context is the key to morality. There is a difference between someone choosing to end the life of a sick child, or fetus, and a soldier ordered by God to murder a child. Say you lived in Germany, 1939, and you were hiding a family of Jews in your attic. It would be "moral" to lie to the SS about any Jews hiding in your house. This would be different from a context in where you lied for personal gain, say to get a better tax return. Morals aren't deontic (dependent on action in-itself), they are contextual, and thus there is a GREAT difference between a soldier ordered to comit genocide and a Father dealing with the choice between the life of mother/child.

You are also assuming that death is the worst thing that can happen to somebody. In the context of an eternal soul it is not the end of life but the beginning of something else. Obviously there is great danger in humans attempting to interpret morality in this light, and so I'm not at all advocating that this kind of justice be perpetuated other than on an extremely exceptional basis. And in fact the standard rules of war used by the Isrealites disallowed the killing of the women and children.

First, if it is better for the eternal soul to be with God, why don't Christians just kill themselves so be with God sooner (I'm not being an A-hole here, in early Christianity there was a sect that believed this. I'm not at home writing this, so I can't recall off hand the name of the sect, but I'll try to find it later tonight)? Also, if the rules of war of the Israelites disallowed the killing of women and children, why would God command it? There seems to be a big problem for Christians between the OT Eye-For-An-Eye God, and the NT God Is Love. Did God change SHe/it's mind? If so, couldn't your God decide that next week that it's moral to kill the first born if it's a girl? That's the problem with Divine Command Theory, if The Good can only come from God, then what is The Good can change at any moment. In anticipation of a counter-argument, if God will only do that which is The Good (or what we would consider to be The Good), it seems God's ability of Free Will is limited. If God's Free Will is limited, then we are not created in her image (I use female pronouns out of habit, it's become the norm in contemporary phil of religion), because it seems that our Free Will is not bounded (unless you want to go the route of Luther, and claim humanity doesn't really have free will).

Basically, my questions boil down to one simple one. Is it impossible that God was acting morally in this case, or is there any room for doubt ?
I agree, that is the pertanent question. Is it possible that God was acting morally, or is there any room for doubt?

ps
I apologize for spelling errors, I'm writing this in a hurry, as me mates want me to get off the bar stool so we can go to the park, as spring has finaly arrived in this frozen hell hole I call home. I also only skimmed the linked article on all this, I'll read it later when I get home.

Rhinoq

[Lurker]

Wow Lucretius, sounds like you had a bad day. A word of advise next time you get into this situation. Tell your christian friends "What part of 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god' don't you understand?". It's wrong for any christian to essentially say "I'm moral and you're not" because we're all immoral. From a biblical perspective we are all sinners and undeserving of god's grace and mercy - ALL OF US - and that includes them.
- lurker

[thomas]

Hey Rhinoq, can you please fix up your quoting in the post above. It's easy enough to screw up I know.

[Rhinoqulous]

I noticed that I F'd up my post, new to these InterWeb Forums. Most of my reply is located in Thomas' quote. LOLBBQ

Why do universities like philosophers better than mathematicians?
Cause mathematicians need paper and a wastebasket. Philosophers only need paper.

Rhinoq

[thomas]

Yes, I agree that context is the key to morality. There is a difference between someone choosing to end the life of a sick child, or fetus, and a soldier ordered by God to murder a child. Say you lived in Germany, 1939, and you were hiding a family of Jews in your attic. It would be "moral" to lie to the SS about any Jews hiding in your house. This would be different from a context in where you lied for personal gain, say to get a better tax return. Morals aren't deontic (dependent on action in-itself), they are contextual, and thus there is a GREAT difference between a soldier ordered to comit genocide and a Father dealing with the choice between the life of mother/child.
OK, and so the question remains as to in which camp the act of God in this Bible passage would fall. Say for example that the Midianites would wipe out the entire Israelite people if not destroyed, and say that the Israelites were the planned contingent to bring God's plan for the redemption of mankind to fruition. And say that God knew this. Then maybe in that context you could say that it was possible that the mortal lives of those children were expendable in that context and morally correct.

Let's create a poor analogy for you to poke holes in. Imagine that a nuclear bomb is about to explode in the middle of a major city killing millions of people and the only way you can get to the site to disarm the bomb is to run over and kill a bunch of young children crossing the road. Could it be morally correct to do that, or to order somebody else to do it ? Especially if you had infallible knowledge concerning the outcome of your actions.

First, if it is better for the eternal soul to be with God, why don't Christians just kill themselves so be with God sooner (I'm not being an A-hole here, in early Christianity there was a sect that believed this. I'm not at home writing this, so I can't recall off hand the name of the sect, but I'll try to find it later tonight)?
There is a difference between what is permissible for the creature and the creator. God has authority over the life and death of us humans, but we don't have the same authority over each other or ourselves.

Also, if the rules of war of the Israelites disallowed the killing of women and children, why would God command it? There seems to be a big problem for Christians between the OT Eye-For-An-Eye God, and the NT God Is Love. Did God change SHe/it's mind? If so, couldn't your God decide that next week that it's moral to kill the first born if it's a girl? That's the problem with Divine Command Theory, if The Good can only come from God, then what is The Good can change at any moment.
I don't think God changed, but I think He did progressively reveal Himself to us. The OT God is also a God of mercy and compassion, against the utmost provocation from a people who had direct revelation from Him and still rebelled continuously against Him. The NT God also still demands justice and transparency in dealing with Him; take the example of that couple in Acts who lied about how much money they'd given to the Church and were instantly struck down.

In anticipation of a counter-argument, if God will only do that which is The Good (or what we would consider to be The Good), it seems God's ability of Free Will is limited. If God's Free Will is limited, then we are not created in her image (I use female pronouns out of habit, it's become the norm in contemporary phil of religion), because it seems that our Free Will is not bounded (unless you want to go the route of Luther, and claim humanity doesn't really have free will).
Or possibly God only does that which is good because that is what He always chooses freely to do, not that that is what He is bound to do ? I'm not sure it's possible to distinguish the difference as an observer. I don't know, I always end up getting confused when discussing the whole God is Good issue.

[ocmpoma]

"There is a difference between what is permissible for the creature and the creator. God has authority over the life and death of us humans, but we don't have the same authority over each other or ourselves."

Ah, the frightening totalitarianism that underlies Christianity...

[thomas]

To accept that God existed and not to recognise His authority would be absurd. But I don't see any particular reason to be afraid.

[Cynical]

Well god does not exist so that is a moot point Thomas...

[thomas]

Gee, thanks for that fine addition to the debate Cynical. I think if you go back to the start of the thread you'll see the question assumed that God did exist.

[lee]

Lurker and Tomas, but I'm not sure if I understood you properly, I haven't read all of the previous posts, so my apologies if I'm asking this again, are you implying that:

1. hell is not filled with fire and brimstone?
2. and is not a place of suffering and punishment?
3. and that hell is simply a place without god?
(1) I don't know if the Bible is literal or figurative when it describes Hell. But it's clear that it is pretty much not the optimal choice to make. If you guys are mistaken in your beliefs then the price is portrayed as a high one.
(2) I don't deny that Hell is described as a place of suffering and punishment for eternity.
(3) The separation from God is pretty much clear but exactly what that means isn't obvious to me.
So people do suffer for eternity in hell, by what means is still a debatable point, but they do suffer nonetheless. So back to my original question:

1. Is my grandpa suffering in hell for eternity? (Please take note, my grandpa has encountered christianity in many forms and has rejected all of them, he died a buddhist.)

2. and is god acting justly when he condemned my grandpa to hell?

[Sir Sin-O-Lot]

You evil satanists bastards, god is love!

[lee]

Lurker and Tomas, but I'm not sure if I understood you properly, I haven't read all of the previous posts, so my apologies if I'm asking this again, are you implying that:

1. hell is not filled with fire and brimstone?
2. and is not a place of suffering and punishment?
3. and that hell is simply a place without god?
1) The fire/brimstone/everlasting fire of hell is figurative speech. It gets your attention, but too often people take it literally.
2) The suffering and punishment comes from being separated from god. God is the source of all that is good and without god there would be no good done.
3) Yes. Take god out of the world and there is no goodness at all, just evil.

- lurker
This is quite a departure from what was taught to us in sunday school...

1. okay point taken, it's just a figure of speech.
2-3. so my grandpa is now in a place full of evil for eternity, even though he did a lot of good things when he was still alive? now how JUST is that?

[Lurker]

This is quite a departure from what was taught to us in sunday school...

1. okay point taken, it's just a figure of speech.
2-3. so my grandpa is now in a place full of evil for eternity, even though he did a lot of good things when he was still alive? now how JUST is that?
1) Just to be fair some say the fire is literal. It's a side issue anyway. The main theme of the bible is god's love for his creation, his creations desire to do things his own way and thus reject gods and then god plan to rectify the situation via the cross.

2-3) I can only GUESS because I have no idea what your grandpa truly believed. Some are closet believers deep down inside and it's really between god and the individual anyway. BUT assuming what you said is true, yep, he chose his future and is living it out. It's just because ALL of us are guilty from day one and I'm assuming your grandpa knew about this and chose the blue pill instead. Sorry if you don't like the rules, but I didn't make them- god did. Kind of like knowing the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rule at a restaurant and deciding to go in without a shirt or shoes.
- lurker

[Rhinoqulous]

1. Is my grandpa suffering in hell for eternity? (Please take note, my grandpa has encountered christianity in many forms and has rejected all of them, he died a buddhist.)

2. and is god acting justly when he condemned my grandpa to hell?
Just a quick note. Anything that we as mortals do in this life has finite duration and finite consequences. So how could God giving INFINITE punishment for finite transgressions ever be considered justice?

Thomas, I'll have a response for you on the morrow. Now, it's time for bed.

Rhinoq

[exbeliever]

I was a Christian for over 30 years until I actually for myself read the Old Testament WITHOUT the preacher softening clearly evil behavior by "god". I was sickened. Thomas, with all due respect you are no different in apologia in saying the the tribes the Israelites wiped out deserved it. The bible god had NO PROBLEM taking credit for hardening hearts, the bible god requires no apolgetics for his atrocities.

You say a loving god. Tell me what is so loving about 2 female she bears being sent to MAUL TO DEATH 42 little children for calling Elisha "bald head"? You brought up the Midianites, what about the rest of the story, hmmm? What about the fact that the bible says Moses was angry at Joshua for keeping alive the women and children and then ordering "put to death all the women who have known a man, and all the male LITTLE ONES but all the women children keep for yourselves." Just what are these "women children" being kept alive for? Some apologetics in defense of this issue is that the women and boys or males knew of the other gods but the little girls hadn't known the other gods yet, pu-leeze.

Chivalry obviously IS NOT a "christian" virtue. God forbid the "men" actually get shamed by being rape so here you go...Lot offers his two virgin daughters for rape instead of the "angels", in this case the sexual perverts were blinded so this didn't happen. The women described in Judges didn't have it so easy...

Judges 19:23-25 " The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."

But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go

No chivalry here, better to have the property ruined than the man. Makes me physically sick. Here is a Psalm that isn't taught in Sunday school...Psalm 137:8-9

O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,

happy is he who repays you

for what you have done to us-

he who seizes your infants

and dashes them against the rocks.

Because many christians believe in the trinity, it is "jesus" who ORDERED the bears to kill the little children, it is Jesus who "inspired" the words of the psalmist and just to make sure it isn't merely men speaking this from this passage we indeed see that god/jesus does too. The following spoken by God/jesus....

Isaiah 13:15-17

15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;

all who are caught will fall by the sword.

16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;

their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.

"Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so, little ones to him belong, they are WEAK yet he is STRONG!" So weak that the good jesus inspires people to HAPPY for dashing the little ones TO PIECES on the rocks!!!

Christians point out how purely EVIL the men of allah on 9/11 were, who wiped out thousands but yet the israelites were no different. Have NO PITY on even the smiling infants, no pity on the handicapped or retarted, no pity on pregnant women. The bible god is just as cruel as the one the muslims worship. BTW...the muslims do worship the same god. Also, ever stop and think about the men and women but especially the children and infants during the flood times? How terrible a death, what a slow awful way to die, gasping for air, going up and down in the water and wanting to die but having to panick first. God being ALL POWERFUL and full of LOVE AND MERCY could have "spoken" death instead of torturing people alive. The bible god thrives on pain and suffering.

I think it blaspheme to associate the creator of this world with such evil actions. The bible god is a hypocrite who requires holiness from his followers but yet exhibits the sinful traits of man in his actions, he has the same emotions as men. Everyone's god was only revealed to them and were used as excuses for some of the most evil actions upon the face of this earth.

[exbeliever]

This is all fine if you think that people don't have any personal responsibility for their actions and choices "I was only following orders". Christianity teaches that people do have a responsibility for their moral choices.

God is merciful and loving but he is also just.
We have a choice? Really? I don't think so, not according to the Bible. Again, the bible god has no problem taking credit for things. In Exodus 4, we learn that before Moses went to Egypt that god said that he would "harden Pharoahs heart so that he WOULD NOT let the Israelites go." Just to prove that he keeps his "holy" word he reminds Moses several times throughout the plagues that he will again "harden Pharoahs heart." To prove this consistent Paul says that God raised up Pharoah for His glory. I LOVE the apologetics, that God doesn't harden hearts. He does so, God says so!! Of course there are many contradictions throughout the Bible "god doesn't, god does, god doesnt', god does......"

What about those "evil tribes" that the holy israelites wiped out???

Joshua 11:19-20

There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle.
For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses.

The bible says that god sends LYING spirits, and delusions...sounds like a sickening game to me. What a small god that plays with "his" creation like that. Toying and tricking people and jesus is not better, he told parables purposefully so that people wouldn't understand. Seems to me that god/jesus have a major ego problem.

Thomas, you have said that god is "merciful and just" and I USED to say the same thing, but tell me is he really? Is it just that a woman be stoned to death for not being a virgin when married but not a man? Where is the justice? Are you aware that if a hebrew woman grabbed a man's genitals, whom her husband was fighting in order to stop the fight, that she was to have her hand cut off, with NO pity? Those are god given orders. Polygamy is completely legal in the bible, a man can have numerous wives and concubines (sex toys) but if a woman is not a virgin when taken in marriage she gets STONED to death.

Are you aware of the procedure of finding out whether or not a woman was a virgin? If a man takes a wife and sleeps with her but doesn't like her and accuses her of not being a virgin she was sent back to her parents. The FATHER prior to marriage had taken a cloth over his fingers and inserted it in his daughters vagina, if it has blood on it that proves that she was a virgin. That cloth was taken to the priests and the man who accused HAS to keep her as a wife. However, if they FORGOT or didn't do that and have no proof of virginity the female was to be taken to her fathers house to be STONED TO DEATH by the men of the town. How freaking humiliating for the poor girl. I cannot imagine my husband doing such an act on our daughter. No punishment for men as far as virginity goes though. And you are calling this just? I fail to see it.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Yep, that's exactly what practitioners of Buddhism, Hinduism, Voodoo, Paganism and Native American religions want: To be seperated from god for all eternity. I'm thinking the people who devoted themselves to religious piety in societies that had never heard of Christ are going to be especially pissed. Not to mention the Jews and the Muslims. They're going to be pretty amazed that it turned out they really hate Allah/YHWH.
Thomas already discussed this part with you. See post #67 (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=495&p=5) and your reply. The people with specific knowledge of christ, the people who decide he's a nobody (as in lee's example) will receive what they want - life without god. Look at satan, he's 100% certain god is real and he still rejects god (daily!) so clearly there are people who will reject god even when they are standing in judgement before him.

The people with no specific knowledge of christ (like Abraham) will be judged in a different way because they have no knowledge of christ. I can only guess how this will play out because the bible doesn't clearly spell it out. You already know about christ so this doesn't apply anyway.
- lurker
Yes, but I know about Christ in such a way that everything around me makes me doubt his divinity, and the same is true of many others.

Imagine I'm a 70 year old Aztec priest. I've spent my life living an ascetic lifestyle, waking up early and going to bed late to tend the temple, fasting at the right times, making pilgrimages to the religious sites, and generally following all the ancient traditions. More then that, I've heard numerous credible acounts of meetings with the gods, I see them mentioned in numerous historical books that are known to be accurate, and I've seen the Aztecs rise from being an outcast tribe to commanding the most powerful empire in the known world under the guidance of the god Huitzilopochtli.

Now, a bunch of foreigners come over and conquer my kingdom. even though they say we Aztecs are savages and our religion encourages pain and brutality, the conquerors act in the exact same fashion we would expect ourselves or any other group to act when they conquered a people (the Spanish of the time had a tendancy to burn heretics and kill criminals with hunting dogs. The Aztecs, meanwhile, tended to garrote criminals and throw people off of pyramids to worship their gods, so the differences are slight). The only evidence they have of their religion is a book that they got from who knows where, and the only rebuttal they can find to our well researched histories is to burn them.

And here's another obstacle; Christ and his contemporaries fasted in the wilderness to get closer to god. So have I. They taught the people about the traditions of their forefathers; so have I. I've done everything an ignorant savage could be expected to do to get close to god, yet he purposely ig