Originally posted by Regret
I altered your's, I did not change mine. Your analogy did not fit the Mormon view of God, Us and hell. God doesn't banish people, they place themselves in the state they go to. God doesn't place man in hell.
No one sends themselves to Hell......when I die, I have no control over where my soul goes, or what happens to it.
I could THINK that I'm going to Heaven, but end up in Hell for whatever reason. YOU could thnk your going to Heaven, but end up in Hell for whatever reason.
Maybe there IS NO Heaven and Hell....point being we don't know what happens after we die, therefore we have NO CONTROL over where we are sent.
We don't volutarily WALK into Hell saying "oh let me try this out, eternal torment looks fun:" 🙄
If Hell DOES EXIST, it's because GOD created it....and only HE can send us there, we don't have the ability to send ourselves ANYWHERE outside the physical plane (discounting dreams).
Why Would...
If there is a god,WHY WOULD he let us die,get murdered,get cancer,std's,DISEASES...why would he tolerate hate?Let all these children die from hiv in poor countries,let all these children die of hunger...little girls get rapped....make us feel all these bad emotions...why would he do that to us?for his amusement?i dont get it
Re: Why Would...
Originally posted by Xam
If there is a god,WHY WOULD he let us die,get murdered,get cancer,std's,DISEASES...why would he tolerate hate?Let all these children die from hiv in poor countries,let all these children die of hunger...little girls get rapped....make us feel all these bad emotions...why would he do that to us?for his amusement?i dont get it
This is the central question posed in "The Brothers Karamazov" and the Book of Job. The role of and purpose behind human suffering is a fundamental question in all religious belief systems. Probably the simplest answer is that God allows suffering as a necessary consequence of creating creatures with free will. Christians believe that the world is fallen and morally flawed. Consequently, free will often leads to self-love and the cruelty men practice against their fellow man. There is no ultimate human answer to why there is this particular suffering. Why this particular hurt. Suffering is part of the world's fabric and it falls upon the shoulders of human beings to alleviate it where they can.
But it is also important to remember that some suffering serves a moral purpose as well. Suffering can be a door into greater insight and self-understanding. Suffering can lead to self-transcendence and great acts of heroism that would otherwise remain hidden. In some mysterious way, suffering might be tied into man's maturity into a fully realised moral being.
Re: Why Would...
Originally posted by Xam
If there is a god,WHY WOULD he let us die,get murdered,get cancer,std's,DISEASES...why would he tolerate hate?Let all these children die from hiv in poor countries,let all these children die of hunger...little girls get rapped....make us feel all these bad emotions...why would he do that to us?for his amusement?i dont get it
Because, if he were to take the actions that would prevent these things from happening people would complain that he was too controlling. The grass is always greener on the other side isn't it? 🙄
Prevent the bad things, but don't do anything that effects me.
And don't make the assumption that lower life forms do not deserve the same feedom you want to enjoy 😉
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If Hell DOES EXIST, it's because GOD created it....and only HE can send us there, we don't have the ability to send ourselves ANYWHERE outside the physical plane (discounting dreams).
If hell exists it's because it is the place where God is not and where the soul chooses to retire. You, for instance, have professed an avowed dislike of the Biblical God. Would you wish to spend eternity with him? If not, what would be your complaint if you were to remain eternally separate? You would get the very thing you wished for, would you not?
Most modern Christian reflections on hell interpret torment as the torment of separation from God and the ironic Dante-esque agonies of eternal self-gratification.
Hell, despite your protestations, is a manifestation of love and divine respect for free will. Though omnipresent and able to be in all places, God fashions a separate place to hide his face from those who consider his being an affront.
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
If hell exists it's because it is the place where God is not and where the soul chooses to retire. You, for instance, have professed an avowed dislike of the Biblical God. Would you wish to spend eternity with him? If not, what would be your complaint if you were to remain eternally separate? You would get the very thing you wished for, would you not?Most modern Christian reflections on hell interpret torment as the torment of separation from God and the ironic Dante-esque agonies of eternal self-gratification.
Hell, despite your protestations, is a manifestation of love and divine respect for free will. Though omnipresent and able to be in all places, God fashions a separate place to hide his face from those who consider his being an affront.
I have no interest in the "Christian God"...sorry.
I used to...don't get me wrong...I was devout Christian long ago. What happened? I grew up....The Church, and all representations of the Faith are filled with too many contradictions, too much conflict ,and too much bullshit.
According to your religion, God doesn't want me in Heaven, ANYWAY because I am bisexual. "Oh but if you choose to be straight you'll enter"
Nice Try 👇
I can reject all the men that come by, but I will most likely always be attracted to both men and women. My attraction to men is even stronger, so there's no way I make myself change desire, much less WANT to change ne way....
So it all comes down to this: What would I rather have ?
1) A Happy Life, where I live honestly and happily, mind my own business and just do what I must to be happy as long as I am considerate not to harm another person ?
Or
2) Deny myself, deny my desires, deny my pleasures, and force myself to live a life I don't wanna live, for a God that I don't beleive in, and for an ABSURD social standard filled with hypocrisy and bullshit ? Just to avoid "Hell"....
I pick Choice 1. If your God really has a problem with me, even though I am not a "bad person", and would choose stupid rule over his own son, then I don't want that kind of God ne way .
My definition of Love is true love...not bullshit, conditional, judgemental, discriminatory, hypocritical, jealous love....
I think I'm better off without that kind of God ne way. 😉
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I have no interest in the "Christian God"...sorry.I used to...don't get me wrong...I was devout Christian long ago. What happened? I grew up....The Church, and all representations of the Faith are filled with too many contradictions, too much conflict ,and too much bullshit.
According to your religion, God doesn't want me in Heaven, ANYWAY because I am bisexual. "Oh but if you choose to be straight you'll enter"
Nice Try 👇
I can reject all the men that come by, but I will most likely always be attracted to both men and women. My attraction to men is even stronger, so there's no way I make myself change desire, much less WANT to change ne way....
So it all comes down to this: What would I rather have ?
1) A Happy Life, where I live honestly and happily, mind my own business and just do what I must to be happy as long as I am considerate not to harm another person ?
Or
2) Deny myself, deny my desires, deny my pleasures, and force myself to live a life I don't wanna live, for a God that I don't beleive in, and for an ABSURD social standard filled with hypocrisy and bullshit ? Just to avoid "Hell"....
I pick Choice 1. If your God really has a problem with me, even though I am not a "bad person", and would choose stupid rule over his own son, then I don't want that kind of God ne way .
My definition of Love is true love...not bullshit, conditional, judgemental, discriminatory, hypocritical, jealous love....
I think I'm better off without that kind of God ne way. 😉
Wow. You only have one set of bi-colored glasses from which to view the world, don't you? I've never seen someone so fixated on one issue. No one is casting aspersions on your bi-sexuality. You're the one who keeps bringing it up...ad nauseum.
Re: Re: Why Would...
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
This is the central question posed in "The Brothers Karamazov" and the Book of Job. The role of and purpose behind human suffering is a fundamental question in all religious belief systems. Probably the simplest answer is that God allows suffering as a necessary consequence of creating creatures with free will. Christians believe that the world is fallen and morally flawed. Consequently, free will often leads to self-love and the cruelty men practice against their fellow man. There is no ultimate human answer to why there is this particular suffering. Why this particular hurt. Suffering is part of the world's fabric and it falls upon the shoulders of human beings to alleviate it where they can.But it is also important to remember that some suffering serves a moral purpose as well. Suffering can be a door into greater insight and self-understanding. Suffering can lead to self-transcendence and great acts of heroism that would otherwise remain hidden. In some mysterious way, suffering might be tied into man's maturity into a fully realised moral being.
I could accept pain and suffering cause by the actions of man. Oh yes, I could accept us receiving what we reap - but it is hard to comprahend suffering that is totally beyond out control - that is things like disease, natural disasters etc. Things singularly not the responsibility of us. I can accept us having to overcome our own painful creations - but suffering things that aren't our fault? Hmmm. Seems a bit like going through an excruciating game show, and growing from it, and being on the way to collect you car, when suddenly a totally random meteorite crashes through the roof and crushes it. Not fair and not a damn thing you can do.
Likewise - people who don't deserve to suffer. People who have done nothing wrong, yet God, Allah, whoever be praised if they don't suffer with a frequency equal to or greater then the less good. Look at them, reaping what they haven't sowed! LOOK AT THEM, growing stronger as they suffer under the consequences of others actions. It is great, yes? Free will having nothing to do with this or the first - because it is not a person choice that leads to this - really just luck.
Re: Re: Re: Why Would...
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Likewise - people who don't deserve to suffer. People who have done nothing wrong, yet God, Allah, whoever be praised if they don't suffer with a frequency equal to or greater then the less good. Look at them, reaping what they haven't sowed! LOOK AT THEM, growing stronger as they suffer under the consequences of others actions. It is great, yes? Free will having nothing to do with this or the first - because it is not a person choice that leads to this - really just luck.
Believe it or not, some of the best people I've ever met, went through hell and came out the better person for it. Suffering can be, but is not necessarily, redemptive.
The kind of suffering you describe in this paragraph is caused by an abuse of free will by another person. We are all affected by one another's actions. Does this surprise you? This is a world that man has wrought for himself.
Re: Why Would...
Originally posted by Xam
If there is a god,WHY WOULD he let us die,get murdered,get cancer,std's,DISEASES...why would he tolerate hate?Let all these children die from hiv in poor countries,let all these children die of hunger...little girls get rapped....make us feel all these bad emotions...why would he do that to us?for his amusement?i dont get it
There is not a day that a new calamity does not hit a group of people, destroying their lives and bringing much pain and misery. Earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, plagues and incurable diseases every day claim their own share of devastations and deaths. "Where is God?" is the unheard cry of the victims of these “acts of God”
God as described in the Semitic religions, is a compassionate, omnipotent, all hearing all seeing god. If that were true, then a god, who witnesses the suffering of his creatures and does not respond to their cry for help, is an unjust, callous, and cruel god. Thousands of children are dying every day around the world by draughts, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes and other natural disasters or as we call them the "acts of God". The victims of these natural “holocausts” cry in desperation, pray with anguish, weep in silence, yet God does not care or is unaware that they need help. What god is this God? Where is his justice? What happened to his claim of being the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful?
This very fact proves:
a) God is not hearing the cry of his creatures,
b) he is incapable of helping them or
c) he is a sadistic merciless, ruthless, tyrant that enjoys watching the suffering of his creatures just as Roman Emperors enjoyed watching people being devoured by lions or killed in coliseums.
If this is the god of this universe, I want no part of it. I abhor a god who is less compassionate than me and therefore inferior to me; who does not feel the pain of his children the way I feel; who cares less of their suffering than I do. If this is the God, then perhaps it is time that we, the mortal humans, send a messenger to him teaching him some of our humanistic values. We could teach him a lesson of Justice, a word of compassion, tell him about helping those that are in need, rescuing those who are in danger, soothing the pain of those who are suffering, saving the world from disease, pain and unnecessary calamities. We probably could even help him to redesign the world. If I was chosen to be a messenger to God, I will tell him that it is unfair to make some of the creatures, meals for others. I will tell him that his justice sucks and his apathy is nauseating.
Yet it seems that none of that bothers the supporters of this god. They say that God can do “whatever he wishes” and no one is to question him and his authority.
Why not? If God made us with the capacity to distinguish between good and evil , to the extent that we, the humans, universally agree that killing and inflicting pain is evil and helping someone in need is good, why should he not live and act by the same standards? If what he wants us to believe as good, is diametrically different to what he does, how are we supposed to know he is good? Isn't it absurd that he makes us feel sympathy; compassion and love for our fellow human beings, telling us that these are good then he would do exactly the opposite? As Galileo said, "why did he gave us reason, if he wanted us to forgo its use?"
Let us make it clear that we are not talking about God but the god as perceived by Judeo-Christian religions. This founder of religions perception of God was the same as taught to of idol worshipping society. The Mesopotamians and the people of Asia Minor believed in anthropomorphic gods. They made their gods in their own image and similitude. Gods were immortal "people". They were like men and women, with especial powers. They were supermen and wonder women with the same psyche of their creators, the primitive humans. Each nation adopted one of the gods as their patron and protector, whose job was to give them strength to fight against the enemy who followed other gods. They attributed their victory to the greatness of their god. Messengers of these gods where abounding. They talked to their followers, demanded sacrifices and donations to the priests. Eventually people matured and because religion is nothing but the figment of human mind, their concept of God also matured. They could no more believe in a multitude of gods, each competing with the other over the allegiance of the people. So, as different cultures intermingled and international commerce flourished, polytheism gave way to monotheism. For example, although Christ did not think much of the non-Jews comparing them to dogs, (Mat 15:26) Paul his apostle, the salesman of Christianity to the West, modified the religion of his master and changed its exclusivist character to make it palatable to the pagan nations of Europe. He even accepted their "unknown god" to be the same as Yahweh, the god of the Jews (Act 17:22,23).
So this god of the Semitic religions is actually an evolution and amalgamation of many gods. Although now most of us have come to believe that monotheism is an indisputable, self-evident fact, its god is nothing but one (or amalgamation of several) of the ancient gods. He is still an anthropoid. He gets angry, becomes happy, rewards, answers the prayers and does pretty much the same things, we humans do. This god as described by Muhammad, is a petty, paranoid, petulant god who is vengeful, unforgiving, irrational and ruthless. Forget about what he CLAIMS to be. Read between the lines and pay attention to what he DOES and commands. His actions speak louder than his words. And his actions are far from those behooving a wise and merciful god.
It is surprising that while so many people admit that there is something unjust in the structure of this world they accept all that injustice under the pretext that God must know what he is doing and we are not to even think of questioning him. Instead of assuming that a merciful God has an esoteric reason for committing horrific acts, the traditional definition of God needs to be replaced.
All the evidence shows that the God as described in the Quran and the Bible is not wise, compassionate and loving, although this is what these books claim. Even if that was true, I cannot believe in a god that is wise, loving and compassionate. And I cannot believe in a god that sends messengers, answers prayers, rewards or punishes. Because in the first case a god that possesses attributes, is being separated from his attributes. A being cannot be infinite unless you and I are part of it. And in the second case, a god that acts is limited in time and in space. What if we did not think of God as wise, but as wisdom? What if we did not view him as loving, but love? What if God was not compassionate but compassion? What if God was not a "being"? What if It was not a "thing", things have attributes. What if we thought of God as the Principle underlying the creation? What if God was the Reality? Reality is formless, eternal and unchanging. As the Reality, God would not have attributes. It would be the Principle behind the process of creation. It would be the Principle and the creation the process. The Principle does not act. It does not create, it does not send messengers nor is it aware of you, me, and the entire creation. Being aware is an attribute. God has no attributes. Instead God is awareness itself. It is not knowing, but knowledge itself. It is not loving, but love itself.
Note that I did not use the pronoun "he" or "she" to speak of God, but "It"; because God is not a person. "It", is a Reality. "It", is the Ultimate Reality.
As the principle God is neither cruel nor kind. It does not answer your prayers and does not need your worshipping. Everything depends on this Principle but the Principle is indifferent towards all things. Just like the Sun, all life on Earth depends on it, yet it has no concerns for those things that it illumines and benefits.
You may ask: how could love exist without a person who could love? If love is seen as a feeling, it cannot exist per se. It needs a feeler. Therefore one cannot speak of cosmic Love without acknowledging the existence of a cosmic being or a personal god. But a personal god as explained above is a logical impossibility. The love that I speak of is not the love as a feeling but as a principle. Feelings cannot exist without feelers, but principles exist independent of everything.
Re: Re: Why Would...
Originally posted by mahasattva
You may ask: how could love exist without a person who could love? If love is seen as a feeling, it cannot exist per se. It needs a feeler. Therefore one cannot speak of cosmic Love without acknowledging the existence of a cosmic being or a personal god. But a personal god as explained above is a logical impossibility. The love that I speak of is not the love as a feeling but as a principle. Feelings cannot exist without feelers, but principles exist independent of everything.
No. Principles need beings with principles. The physical universe has no value system in and of itself. Either the bedrock of existence is nothing, in which case, all morality and principle is farce, or the bedrock is a transcendent personal existence to which morality and principles adhere.
Re: Re: Re: Why Would...
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
No. Principles need beings with principles. The physical universe has no value system in and of itself. Either the bedrock of existence is nothing, in which case, all morality and principle is farce, or the bedrock is a transcendent personal existence to which morality and principles adhere.
Why do you have this black or white mentality about morality?
Originally posted by FeceMan
*Yawns.*Are we still under the assumption that God likes sending people to hell and that He's a huge bastard for sending His son to be humiliated, tortured, and crucified so that people wouldn't be sent to hell?
problem is his SUPPOSED sun's sacrifice didnt change anything did it. people who dont believe in god=go to hell, people who do believe in god and additionally believe in jesus =go to heaven if anything the added belief in jesus stops many people who believe in god form entering heaven. so what did his great sacrifice really do huh? now if u were to say that sumhow through jesus's sacrifice god would let people who DIDNT BELIEVE INTO HEAVEN than maybe ud have a point. its all bull anyway since the sacrifice of jesus for keepin people OUT of heaven would require god to have HIS HANDS TIED by a higher athourity in the case of choosing who goes in heaven or hell. meaning he CANT send sum1 to heaven who according to the rules{which are higher than him} if they belong in hell and hence had to SACRIFICE his SON{which is self contradictory anyway} to let some of those people get INTO heaven and stay out of hell. and to top it off the apparent claim PRACTICALLY actually lessens the amount of people whol go to heaven. am i the only one who smells bull in this?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
problem is his SUPPOSED sun's sacrifice didnt change anything did it. people who dont believe in god=go to hell, people who do believe in god and additionally believe in jesus =go to heaven if anything the added belief in jesus stops many people who believe in god form entering heaven. so what did his great sacrifice really do huh? now if u were to say that sumhow through jesus's sacrifice god would let people who DIDNT BELIEVE INTO HEAVEN than maybe ud have a point. its all bull anyway since the sacrifice of jesus for keepin people OUT of heaven would require god to have HIS HANDS TIED by a higher athourity in the case of choosing who goes in heaven or hell. meaning he CANT send sum1 to heaven who according to the rules{which are higher than him} if they belong in hell and hence had to SACRIFICE his SON{which is self contradictory anyway} to let some of those people get INTO heaven and stay out of hell. and to top it off the apparent claim PRACTICALLY actually lessens the amount of people whol go to heaven. am i the only one who smells bull in this?
Ah, you seem to misunderstand actual Christian belief. Without Christ EVERYONE would go to hell. The sacrifice was to make it possible for anyone to go to heaven. See How it works now? No Christ = hell for everyone, Christ = heaven for anyone who believes. Of course it would take a bigger explanation, and a smarter person than me to explain the whole thing.
And what's wrong with believing that God has rules that He has to follow?
Originally posted by docb77
Ah, you seem to misunderstand actual Christian belief. Without Christ EVERYONE would go to hell. The sacrifice was to make it possible for anyone to go to heaven. See How it works now? No Christ = hell for everyone, Christ = heaven for anyone who believes. Of course it would take a bigger explanation, and a smarter person than me to explain the whole thing.And what's wrong with believing that God has rules that He has to follow?
u just weakened ur own case. according to u every1 who lived before christ's time goes to hell by default. the good and the bad. also ur saying that from the day a baby is born he is EVIL and deserves HELL. so any baby whose had a miscarriage or dies before he can be old enough to accept ANY faith goes to hell. and the very idea of god adhering to RULES destroyes his omnipotence. i dont misunderstand anything. ur the one who does along with other believers of organised relegion.