God exists and is a terrible and hateful being, or God does not exist.

Started by Da Pittman19 pages
Da Pittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by Bat Dude
As stated in the Bible, you go to Heaven based on faith, not on works. Trust in God, not doing good deeds. Sure, good deeds will come naturally if you trust in God, but those deeds aren't what get you to Heaven.
Hence why he is a terrible and hateful being. So someone that has taken a life and repented is worth more than someone that hasn't and has lived a peaceful and good life?

Also by your statement all that believe in God they will do good deeds naturally and the other 2/3 of the population has to work at it? You seem to think that if someone doesn't believe in your god then they are not moral, not good by nature and generally not worthy?

How about replying to the rest of the post then spitting out standard Bible replies?

ushomefree Senior Member

Originally posted by KidRock

I see those as being the only 2 options. Which one is true, I don't know. But I definitley know that with the world we live in it's impossible for God to be a good, merciful and caring entity.

What does God's nature have to do with man's nature?

Da Pittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by ushomefree
What does God's nature have to do with man's nature?
Simple, God created man.

KidRock Senior Member
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Simple, God created man.

Yeah, and in his own image for that matter.

ushomefree Senior Member

And...?

Red Nemesis The Blind Critic

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Simple, God created man.

Or else man created God.

Da Pittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by ushomefree
And...?
and...? large font man, why do you still insist on using large font for normal text???

Bat Dude In God I Trust

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Hence why he is a terrible and hateful being. So someone that has taken a life and repented is worth more than someone that hasn't and has lived a peaceful and good life?

Also by your statement all that believe in God they will do good deeds naturally and the other 2/3 of the population has to work at it? You seem to think that if someone doesn't believe in your god then they are not moral, not good by nature and generally not worthy?

How about replying to the rest of the post then spitting out standard Bible replies?

I never said anyone was unworthy. I really don't appreciate it when people put words in my mouth. That's twice already.

I believe even a murderer can attain salvation through Christ, if he truly repents and is truly sorry.

I never said non-believers can't have morals. If you read my post, I said there are atheists that are more moral than supposed Christians...

How can God send a non-believer to Hell, even if they did good in their life? Because He's given them a chance to see the truth. It's just that a lot of atheists buy into scientific theories like the Big Bang, which cannot be proven, and requires faith to believe in, faith that could be given to the true God. (in a sense, the Big Bang is a false god) Yet some atheists ridicule Christians for having faith in "what can't be proven". Odd, no?

Look up the earliest recorded history (which is actually only around 4000 b.c.) And look up the flaws in evolution, and also look up the scientific evidence within the Bible. It revealed the world was round, described the water cycle, and more, more than 1000 years before they were discovered by scientists.

I don't expect to change your mind on anything, I'm posting because you ask me to.

Da Pittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I never said anyone was unworthy. I really don't appreciate it when people put words in my mouth. That's twice already.

I believe even a murderer can attain salvation through Christ, if he truly repents and is truly sorry.

I never said non-believers can't have morals. If you read my post, I said there are atheists that are more moral than supposed Christians...

How can God send a non-believer to Hell, even if they did good in their life? Because He's given them a chance to see the truth. It's just that a lot of atheists buy into scientific theories like the Big Bang, which cannot be proven, and requires faith to believe in, faith that could be given to the true God. (in a sense, the Big Bang is a false god) Yet some atheists ridicule Christians for having faith in "what can't be proven". Odd, no?

Look up the earliest recorded history (which is actually only around 4000 b.c.) And look up the flaws in evolution, and also look up the scientific evidence within the Bible. It revealed the world was round, described the water cycle, and more, more than 1000 years before they were discovered by scientists.

I don't expect to change your mind on anything, I'm posting because you ask me to.

I have to put words in your mouth because you keep talking in circles.

God can not be proven and there are so MANY holes it doesn't even have any mass. You ask people to believe in something that doesn't make any logical scene but keep saying that you have to have faith. If someone told you that if you jumped off a building you would fly would you?

You keep skipping over the point that God is sending good people to hell that have done no wrong except not to worship him, not to bow down before some unseen thing.

The Big Bang is only a theory as well as their are many other theories as to how the universe was created, none say it IS how it was created so lets make that clear before you try and go down that path. Again the theory of evolution is just that a theory, was was proposed by Darwin wasn't any new train of thought and that was just the stepping stone of the theory which has changed greatly with the introduction of new science and new information.

The idea that the world was round was there LONG before the Bible, the idea the world was flat was the excepted idea of the masses but it was not some revaluation by god. Many of the Greek thinker like Aristotle, Strabo and others wrote that the Earth was round. This was not a unique thought at that time Isaiah wrote about it.

Again why would God create Earth that has pain and suffering when he can create Heaven that doesn't have any and you still have your free will?

leonheartmm Senior Member

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I never said anyone was unworthy. I really don't appreciate it when people put words in my mouth. That's twice already.

I believe even a murderer can attain salvation through Christ, if he truly repents and is truly sorry.

I never said non-believers can't have morals. If you read my post, I said there are atheists that are more moral than supposed Christians...

How can God send a non-believer to Hell, even if they did good in their life? Because He's given them a chance to see the truth. It's just that a lot of atheists buy into scientific theories like the Big Bang, which cannot be proven, and requires faith to believe in, faith that could be given to the true God. (in a sense, the Big Bang is a false god) Yet some atheists ridicule Christians for having faith in "what can't be proven". Odd, no?

Look up the earliest recorded history (which is actually only around 4000 b.c.) And look up the flaws in evolution, and also look up the scientific evidence within the Bible. It revealed the world was round, described the water cycle, and more, more than 1000 years before they were discovered by scientists.

I don't expect to change your mind on anything, I'm posting because you ask me to.

scientific theories are based on evidence, which is the anti thesis of faith.

and you are admitting that to god, GOODNESS has no significance and only BELEIF in him does. accepting that god DOES send good and moral people to hell only because he is such an egotistical prig that he doesnt even care for the goodness of a person over his own desire for recognition.

Da Pittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I never said anyone was unworthy.
Yes you did, you are unworthy of being let into heaven and doomed to suffer for all time pain and suffering? I have always wondered about this myself is that if your spouse doesn’t believe in God and they go to Hell and the other goes to heaven how can there not be pain for the one in Heaven? Does God just make you forget about this person? Does the glory of God make you not care that your spouses whom you married under the holy bond that God created just seem trivial?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I believe even a murderer can attain salvation through Christ, if he truly repents and is truly sorry.
He still has taken one of Gods creation where the other has not. God will forgive you for destroying one of his creation just by simply believing in him but will torture ones that don’t. How is this not vindictive and egotistical?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I never said non-believers can't have morals. If you read my post, I said there are atheists that are more moral than supposed Christians...
You said that if you believe in God good things just come naturally, so if you do not believe in God how do you get these good things to come out of you? Where do the morals of the heathens come from?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
How can God send a non-believer to Hell, even if they did good in their life? Because He's given them a chance to see the truth.
The truth in what? What has God shown? He had a bunch of different people write his book, has other humans say what should and should not be in this book, and have humans try and teach this to others. How is this showing us the truth? How is it a loving God to say “here is your one and ONLY chance of salvation, bow down to me and do my will”, does this really sound like a loving God? Do you give your child only once chance to save/help themselves or give them as many as possible? If one method doesn’t work wouldn’t you try another? Wouldn’t any one do this for their loved ones, so why is the personification of love and kindness giving his beloved children only ONE chance and sending them to Hell if they don’t.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
It's just that a lot of atheists buy into scientific theories like the Big Bang, which cannot be proven, and requires faith to believe in, faith that could be given to the true God. (in a sense, the Big Bang is a false god) Yet some atheists ridicule Christians for having faith in "what can't be proven". Odd, no?
No it is not odd and you are incorrect, what is odd is believing in something that has 0% proof or evidence to something that can at least be proven mathematically. Something that follows what is known, can be logically thought out or something that requires a complete and total belief in something that can not. Odd, no?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I don't expect to change your mind on anything, I'm posting because you ask me to.
The point of any debate is not to change the mind of your opponent but to express your views and debate theirs. If you or I change our mind because of it that is a bonus.

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Originally posted by ushomefree
What does God's nature have to do with man's nature?

God's nature is man's nature. After all, we man god in our own image. 😉

Mindship Snap out of it.

God exists and is a terrible and hateful being, or God does not exist.

Originally posted by KidRock
I see those as being the only 2 options.
But why? What about 'An infinite God is incomprehensible to finite man'? Not that I'm trying to push God's existence; I'm more curious as to the reasoning which rejects this option. Basically, there seems to be the premise that logic can figure everything out; whatever it can't is rejected by default (this implying that logic is flawless or without limit...which smacks of faith [in logic], IMO).

Is it an emotional reaction, an anger at the way the world is (or at one's personal religious upbringing), an anger which demands a concrete, logical answer, and therefore rejects any option which leaves this anger intact? Is it an egoic fear that there may be something that logic and finite man can't figure out, a fear that Man and Logic are not king of the hill?

Is it because this option has been overused by faithmongers, those who - by default - assume God's existence and use it as a shield against any reasoning whatsoever?

Again, I'm not arguing for God's existence; I want to understand why a third option is not being considered.

inimalist Junior Member

Originally posted by Mindship
But why? What about 'An infinite God is incomprehensible to finite man'? Not that I'm trying to push God's existence; I'm more curious as to the reasoning which rejects this option. Basically, there seems to be the premise that logic can figure everything out; whatever it can't is rejected by default (this implying that logic is flawless or without limit...which smacks of faith [in logic], IMO).

Is it an emotional reaction, an anger at the way the world is (or at one's personal religious upbringing), an anger which demands a concrete, logical answer, and therefore rejects any option which leaves this anger intact? Is it an egoic fear that there may be something that logic and finite man can't figure out, a fear that Man and Logic are not king of the hill?

Is it because this option has been overused by faithmongers, those who - by default - assume God's existence and use it as a shield against any reasoning whatsoever?

Again, I'm not arguing for God's existence; I want to understand why a third option is not being considered.

The problem with that argument is that it could be anything that is incomprehensible to man

essentially, I see what you are saying as "well, yes, one can flip a coin and get heads or tails, but there are other possibilities you can't comprehend".

The reason for 2 options, as I see it, is that in accordance with all but the most esoteric views of God, it is supposed to be the benevolent provider who protects his chosen people (Jews are different iirc...).

We could redefine things, or talk about Spinoza's God, but at the end of the day, the God most people believe in either doesn't exist, or is a royal dick.

Da Pittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by inimalist
the God most people believe in either doesn't exist, or is a royal dick.
😆

inimalist Junior Member
Originally posted by Bat Dude
Look up the earliest recorded history (which is actually only around 4000 b.c.)

Damascus, Jericho, Byblos, Susa, Sidon, Crocodilopolis, and Plovdiv were all settled before or in roughly 4000 bce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byblos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodilopolis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plovdiv

Damascus and Jericho go back potentially 10 000 years, though I swear I've seen 30 000 for Jericho... or maybe Ur?

and the "recorded" part:

The early writing systems of the late 4th millennium BC are not considered a sudden invention. Rather, they were based on ancient traditions of symbol systems that cannot be classified as writing proper, but have many characteristics strikingly reminiscent of writing. These systems may be described as proto-writing. They used ideographic and/or early mnemonic symbols to convey information yet were probably devoid of direct linguistic content. These systems emerged in the early Neolithic period, as early as the 7th millennium BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing

so, recorded history, as in writing, goes back earlier than 4000, with its direct precursors emerging around 7000. Recorded history, as in recorded with brick and mortar (or mudhuts as the case may be) is at least 10 000 years old.

also:

There have recently been discoveries of tortoise-shell carvings dating back to c. 6000 BC, like Jiahu Script, Banpo Script, but whether or not the carvings are of sufficient complexity to qualify as writing is under debate. If it is deemed to be a written language, writing in China will predate Mesopotamian cuneiform, long acknowledged as the first appearance of writing, by some 2000 years, however it is more likely that the inscriptions are rather a form of proto-writing, similar to the contemporary European Vinca script.

not to mention that writing in India may be 5000 years old

Mindship Snap out of it.

Originally posted by inimalist
The problem with that argument is that it could be anything that is incomprehensible to man
Do you mean that incomprehensibility gives no room for discussion, therefore why bring it up at all? But if so, does that automatically negate the possibility of something being incomprehensible? IMO, no. It would be fairer to say there's no point in discussing it, no logical resolution, so don't bring it up.

essentially, I see what you are saying as "well, yes, one can flip a coin and get heads or tails, but there are other possibilities you can't comprehend".
Keeping with this metaphor (and I'm not sure it's the best one, but what the hey): isn't it possible that a coin could land on its side? 😉 Or how about the possibility (as quantum mechanics would suggest) that the coin could suddenly quantum-leap to the Andromeda galaxy? We grok the math of why that would happen, but it is impossible to predict when that would happen (ps, iirc, I believe you're not too found of QM either, but given the coin metaphor, ie, probability, I had to mention it).

The reason for 2 options, as I see it, is that in accordance with all but the most esoteric views of God, it is supposed to be the benevolent provider who protects his chosen people (Jews are different iirc...).
So, in this thread, it is basically the JudeoChristian God being discussed...

We could redefine things, or talk about Spinoza's God, but at the end of the day, the God most people believe in either doesn't exist, or is a royal dick.
...and if this is the case, I agree, voting for nonexistence.

Grand-Moff-Gav Senior Member
Originally posted by KidRock
I see those as being the only 2 options. Which one is true, I don't know. But I definitley know that with the world we live in it's impossible for God to be a good, merciful and caring entity.

Why?

ushomefree Senior Member

Surely, much has been posted over this thread. Please, excuse my ignorance, if the substance of my post, has already been provided and/or discussed. I have not read all postings, but I have read some. Thank you.

"God exists, and is a terrible, hateful being, or God does not exist," is the title of this thread. Well... I disagree.

To begin, let me say this: the title, in itself, is loaded.

Let me, explain, please.

The nature of God rests solely in "theology," not Science. So... I assume, you, see the difference and/or division. For example, God may be evil and/or a menace, but that has nothing to do with "existence."

And for the latter: What does it mean that man is made in the image of God?

Tell me what you think.

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo

Originally posted by ushomefree
Surely, much has been posted over this thread. Please, excuse my ignorance, if the substance of my post, has already been provided and/or discussed. I have not read all postings, but I have read some. Thank you.

"God exists, and is a terrible, hateful being, or God does not exist," is the title of this thread. Well... I disagree.

To begin, let me say this: the title, in itself, is loaded.

Let me, explain, please.

The nature of God rests solely in "theology," not Science. So... I assume, you, see the difference and/or division. For example, God may be evil and/or a menace, but that has nothing to do with "existence."

And for the latter: What does it mean that man is made in the image of God?

Tell me what you think.

So, god being evil does not stop him from existing?