Is it Just Me?

[Subrosa]

Mirdath - I gotta say it, you have been doing quite alot of thinking on this subject. There is just one thing - you are coming to your own conclusions based on your own opinion, some of which are pretty good, I must admit.

There are thousands of years of theologial documents available, most of which are available on the internet.

Do some reading. God exists and has revealed Himself. Find the truth. Don’t just make assumptions. It is out there.

Subrosa

 

[Mirdath]

1c) If there is an afterlife, it is one thing within God. Hell, being the absence of God, cannot exist, for to exist it would be in God.
Then those who disbelieve and reject God simply return to the soil. Another Judeo-Christian Ideal. Hell is the absence of God.

Hell is a central part of Christianity; it isn’t a universalist creed. There’s no ‘returning to the soil’ in Christian faiths.

2a) As we are within God, our actions are always in accordance with its will – if it even has one. God is beyond good and evil; those are human ideas, and in general they serve us pretty well. But they are not the be-all and end-all.
This is very close to the Judeo-Christian ideal. With some differences.

The Christian God subscribes to the good-versus-evil dichotomy; he isn’t beyond the two, and is described as the ultimate Good. That’s a pretty major difference.

2b) A vengeful god is a false one, for it would condemn itself. And a god who acts out of anger, pettiness, or jealousy is subservient to that emotion.
Christ commands us to not be vengeful, angry, petty, jealous or subserviant to that emoton. His words are that we “Love one another.” Imagine that!

But he himself said ‘I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God’. And he acted out of wrath many times in the Old Testament especially – I pointed out some examples in a previous post.

The closest religion I know of is Zoroastrianism.
Which predates Judaism and Christianity and shares the belief in the One True God. The Primate of the religion was invited to the funeral of the late Pope John Paul II. Zoroastrianism and Christianity enjoy a good and fruitful relationship because of thier similarities, including the coming of a Messiah.

Messianism is a rather modern development for Zoroastrianism, and it isn’t universally held.

 

[Mirdath]

Really? What about the Hindu pantheon? What about Ahura Mazda? Osiris? Odin?
All equals. Which is correct? All are attached to certain cultures. Which of these fullfils your requirement of being not vengeful?

Again, Ahura Mazda is the closest.

God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are universal. Only THIS God, the only God, has enough love for humanity that He sent His only Son in order to be able to empathize with all of humanity and it’s sufferings. Empathy to the point of torture and death upon a cross. This addresses your point 1b. God sentHis son in order to understand humans.

But if an omniscient God created humans, why would he need to come down here and live as one to understand us? I do not know that the death of the Christ was accomplished out of love either. Of course, it’s said that that was why he died – but if God is truly loving, why would he demand such a sacrifice to once again love us fully? Why could he not simply have reopened the gates to heaven he closed off himself earlier?

Not to mention the fact that several faiths which promote such a heaven don’t condemn those who don’t make it to a hell.
The present theology on Hell is this - you get what you ask for. If you reject God, then that rejection is granted. You are given what you ask for. God does not condemn. Rather it is a consequence of your own willful actions.

All I ask for is a dirt nap But according to Christianity, I’m not going to get it. Still, I can’t really reconcile the two ideas of unbounded, unconditional divine love and God allowing an eternity of torment for those who disobey his commands not even necessarily out of a desire to reject God, but out of mere human shortcomings.

The Catholic argument. In Catholicism the measure of a true church is it’s Apostolic origin.

Yet it may have fallen from the truth, ‘on this rock’ notwithstanding. The Protestants may be right that they’re a return to the apostolic teachings and the true heirs of Peter. An outsider can’t really know, but only guess.

However, this does not exclude any religion in which a true and sincere desire to know God is an element. Even those who through no fault of thier own do not know the message of christianity, are not excluded from access to God.

This does not even exclude you. If you seek God, you will have access, even if you do not know the real truth of God. It seems to me that you are seeking.

I’m familiar with the idea of baptism of desire, yes I don’t know that I’m actively ‘seeking’, but I’m at least trying to leave the world a slightly better place than I found it. If you guys are right, hopefully that’ll count for something

Yes, ideas spread, especially if they have such dedicated followers – that doesn’t make them right.
You are correct. Speed of acceptence does not make one right. It is the core message of hope and love that spread Christianity so quickly.

True enough – a loving, caring God who encouraged people to love each other just as unconditionally was a rather novel idea at the time, from what I’ve read on the subject. And I really do agree on the subject of ‘love one another’; I just don’t see where God necessarily has to enter it.

Mirdath, It seems as though you are about 94% in conformity with Christianity.

I’m pretty close on the core teachings, minus that little God bit. I believe ‘love one another’ is the greatest commandment; I don’t care so much about the little details as long as that’s upheld. And I really don’t get into making checklists of what is or isn’t sinful; that just seems counterproductive.

Mirdath - I gotta say it, you have been doing quite alot of thinking on this subject. There is just one thing - you are coming to your own conclusions based on your own opinion, some of which are pretty good, I must admit.

Thanks It’s been a pleasure talking to you too.

There are thousands of years of theologial documents available, most of which are available on the internet.

And I’ve read a lot of them Not all or even a majority, of course, and I barely have time to read anymore, but I have a good classical education at least. There are a bunch I still want to go over, sometime…

 

[Subrosa]

Hi Mirdath -

I’ll address a few items that need to be clarified. Here goes -

Hell is a central part of Christianity; it isn’t a universalist creed. There’s no ‘returning to the soil’ in Christian faiths.
Hell has been rethought.

It is true that Hell is a place that exists in Judeo-Christian theology. It has it’s parallel in Greek mythology as Hades. Many more religious structures espouse a belief in an underworld of some type.

In Christian history the Hell of the Middle Ages was fire and brimstone. Present theological thought sees this as metaphor, that the true pain of hell is the seperation from God.

Think of it this way. Let’s say you live with someone for many years. Because of certain issues you find yourself in conflict with that person. The conflict, over time, becomes so central an issue that it results in a breakdown in your relationship with that person. Your emotions and mental attitude change toward that person to the point of rejection, even violent behavior. However, you must remain housed with that person. Think of the turmoil in that house and you have arrived at Hell.
This scenario is common place. How many husbands murder thier wives? Or wives murder thier husbands? Hell is a place of constant torment and a place of your own making.

In my scenario, a simple change of attitude, one of reconciliation instead of conflict would bring you back from hell. The Christian God allows you to make your own choice, and is forgiving of your human mistakes - but only if you take responsibility for them. It is a fatherly relationship.

Your point 2a states -

2a) As we are within God, our actions are always in accordance with its will – if it even has one. God is beyond good and evil; those are human ideas, and in general they serve us pretty well. But they are not the be-all and end-all.
The Christian God subscribes to the good-versus-evil dichotomy; he isn’t beyond the two, and is described as the ultimate Good. That’s a pretty major difference.

The only real disagreement lies in your first sentence - “As we are within God, our actions are always in accordance with its will.” In Christian theology our relationship with God is an aspect of our own free will, which are not always in accordance with His will. Thus sin exists. True, God is beyond good and evil. Humans are not. Evil is demonstrably more than a mere concept. Look at Hitler for instance.

Your point 2b states -

2b) A vengeful god is a false one, for it would condemn itself. And a god who acts out of anger, pettiness, or jealousy is subservient to that emotion.
But he himself said ‘I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God’. And he acted out of wrath many times in the Old Testament especially – I pointed out some examples in a previous post.

In Christian theology, God’s revelation is gradual. The scripture you point out must be historicised. The Hebrews were taken out of Egypt, a place of many gods. The Hebrew God was instructing His people to pay attention to Him ALONE, for He promised them much for thier commitment. They failed many times over.

God did not find satisfaction in these, His chosen people, so He decided to change things. Enter Jesus. Jesus, sent by God His Father, sets things right. He provides a means of forgiveness, not only for the Jews, but for all mankind. He is not limited to certain cultures. He is not limited by area. He has no limits to humanity. Thus, the jealous God of the Old Testament is now a loving God in the New Testament. Jesus removes the need by His Sacrifice.

What does this mean? In the Old Testament, God forgave the Israelites by means of burnt sacrifice. This did not achieve a total reconciliation as these burnt offerings needed to be repeated each time a sin was commited. Christ brought a new message to humanity, one of forgiveness, hope and love. The message changed from “I Am jealouse” to “The greatest act of love is to put one’s own life on the line for one’s friends.”

Jesus’ sacrifice accomplished total reconciliation with His father. However, as Jesus “opened the door,” it is still up to us to walk through it. We must be willing participants.
This is the basis of my statement that you are not excluded. Jesus’ sacrifice extends to you, also.

The Catholic argument. In Catholicism the measure of a true church is it’s Apostolic origin.
Yet it may have fallen from the truth, ‘on this rock’ notwithstanding. The Protestants may be right that they’re a return to the apostolic teachings and the true heirs of Peter. An outsider can’t really know, but only guess.

This cannot be proven historically. Your own question concerning “which church is correct” points to that paradoxical error.

Please read these links -
chnetwork.org/scotthconv.htm
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007fea5.asp

One other thing - Ahura Mazda seems to be another name of the very same God of the Judeo-Christian Tradition. I’m no expert on that one, but it looks that way.

Subrosa

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

1c) If there is an afterlife, it is one thing within God. Hell, being the absence of God, cannot exist, for to exist it would be in God.
Then those who disbelieve and reject God simply return to the soil. Another Judeo-Christian Ideal. Hell is the absence of God.
Hell is a central part of Christianity; it isn’t a universalist creed. There’s no ‘returning to the soil’ in Christian faiths.

Yes, the concept of hell isn’t universal thought many religions have similar views. Now, to claim that afterlife is with God seems to suggest that God is being froced to unite with us even if we reject him. No, if we reject God then he will reject us. How could we say that our God is just if he would award those who choose him as his enemy, who insult him etc. and never repent. God is just but also loving and willing to forgive us.

2a) As we are within God, our actions are always in accordance with its will – if it even has one. God is beyond good and evil; those are human ideas, and in general they serve us pretty well. But they are not the be-all and end-all.
This is very close to the Judeo-Christian ideal. With some differences.
The Christian God subscribes to the good-versus-evil dichotomy; he isn’t beyond the two, and is described as the ultimate Good. That’s a pretty major difference.

Yes, in a sense, God is beyond good and evil. Things aren’t good and thus God tells us to do them - God tells us to do do certain things and thus they are good.

2b) A vengeful god is a false one, for it would condemn itself. And a god who acts out of anger, pettiness, or jealousy is subservient to that emotion.
Christ commands us to not be vengeful, angry, petty, jealous or subserviant to that emoton. His words are that we “Love one another.” Imagine that!
But he himself said ‘I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God’. And he acted out of wrath many times in the Old Testament especially – I pointed out some examples in a previous post.

Yes, he says that he is jealous but he doesn’t just say that randomly. He says it in context.

“You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a graven image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth;
you shall not bow down to them or serve them;
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God”

Jealousy isn’t always about wanting money or success that some other person has. It is also jealousy that’s not bad at all - it is wanting something that rightfully belongs to you and only you. Like jealousy when your wife commits an adultery isn’t a bad thing, God’s jealousy in the context we read above is totally justified.

As for God killing people - I yet have to understand why God terminating someone’s life would be wrong. Why would is it something evil to die? We are his creation and he has the right to do whatever he wants with us. He can kill us and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. We humans are however different. We can’t kill because we have no such right. God is the giver of life and have no right to take the very life that he gives us.

 

[Mirdath]

In Christian history the Hell of the Middle Ages was fire and brimstone. Present theological thought sees this as metaphor, that the true pain of hell is the seperation from God.

Yet if I hold to panentheism, which I do believe is a necessary attribute of divinity, there can be no such separation. Of course, you’ll note that my description of what I believe would truly be a God doesn’t include any moral stipulations – as I said, God should be beyond good and evil. There can be no rejection of God in favor of evil, as it is part of God.

In my scenario, a simple change of attitude, one of reconciliation instead of conflict would bring you back from hell. The Christian God allows you to make your own choice, and is forgiving of your human mistakes - but only if you take responsibility for them. It is a fatherly relationship.

Then you run into Descartes’ problem: whence organized religion? I can generally take responsibility for my mistakes without talking to a priest and saying five Hail Marys. And should I die in the state of mortal sin, I’m likely screwed if I’m not in a state of ‘perfect’ contrition – ie, repentance for offending God instead of repentance from fear of hell. Sometimes that can take a little while to work up for us less-than-perfect humans

The only real disagreement lies in your first sentence - “As we are within God, our actions are always in accordance with its will.” In Christian theology our relationship with God is an aspect of our own free will, which are not always in accordance with His will. Thus sin exists. True, God is beyond good and evil. Humans are not. Evil is demonstrably more than a mere concept. Look at Hitler for instance.

I’d say rather that it is a concept which describes actions and actors. We say ‘Hitler was an evil man’, not ‘Hitler was Evil’ (in the supreme sense). While Christianity has its own supreme Evil in the form of Satan, I don’t believe in such an entity.

In Christian theology, God’s revelation is gradual. The scripture you point out must be historicised. The Hebrews were taken out of Egypt, a place of many gods. The Hebrew God was instructing His people to pay attention to Him ALONE, for He promised them much for thier commitment. They failed many times over.

God did not find satisfaction in these, His chosen people, so He decided to change things. Enter Jesus. Jesus, sent by God His Father, sets things right. He provides a means of forgiveness, not only for the Jews, but for all mankind. He is not limited to certain cultures. He is not limited by area. He has no limits to humanity. Thus, the jealous God of the Old Testament is now a loving God in the New Testament. Jesus removes the need by His Sacrifice.

Which begs the question: why did God not reveal himself to the Gentiles originally, if he was truly loving of all people? The only explanation I can conceive of for this is that he was indeed a tribal deity like Baal, and grew to primacy.

Please read these links -
chnetwork.org/scotthconv.htm
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007fea5.asp

I’ll check those out later, I’m about to leave

One other thing - Ahura Mazda seems to be another name of the very same God of the Judeo-Christian Tradition. I’m no expert on that one, but it looks that way.

The worship of Ahura Mazda definitely inspired other monotheistic faiths. And as ecumenism would have it, all religions are different attempts to reach the truth, and different views of the same divinity. However, I find the actions and natures ascribed to the Christian God rather offputting and in opposition to those I ascribed to my concept of the divine.

 

[Mirdath]

Yes, the concept of hell isn’t universal thought many religions have similar views. Now, to claim that afterlife is with God seems to suggest that God is being froced to unite with us even if we reject him. No, if we reject God then he will reject us. How could we say that our God is just if he would award those who choose him as his enemy, who insult him etc. and never repent. God is just but also loving and willing to forgive us.

Is it necessarily a reward? I didn’t say so; and if I accept my theistic argument, such a union is already accomplished and indivisible. Further, I find that mercy is a greater thing than justice.

Yes, in a sense, God is beyond good and evil. Things aren’t good and thus God tells us to do them - God tells us to do do certain things and thus they are good.

But the Christian God is described as good – scratch that, the supreme Good. He is self-creating and self-sustaining and responsible for everything in the universe; good and evil are his own inventions.

Yes, he says that he is jealous but he doesn’t just say that randomly. He says it in context.

“You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a graven image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth;
you shall not bow down to them or serve them;
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God”

Jealousy isn’t always about wanting money or success that some other person has. It is also jealousy that’s not bad at all - it is wanting something that rightfully belongs to you and only you. Like jealousy when your wife commits an adultery isn’t a bad thing, God’s jealousy in the context we read above is totally justified.

That answers jealousy, but what about wrath? Why would a universal deity be so obsessed with being worshipped as to require it and its attendant sacrifices, rituals, and other trappings of an entire people?

As for God killing people - I yet have to understand why God terminating someone’s life would be wrong. Why would is it something evil to die? We are his creation and he has the right to do whatever he wants with us. He can kill us and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. We humans are however different. We can’t kill because we have no such right. God is the giver of life and have no right to take the very life that he gives us.

If God expects us to ‘take up our cross and follow him’, killing people isn’t setting a very good example to follow, is it? He may have the right, but if he is good and loving why would he smite people who merely displayed a ‘lack of faith’ like the unfortunate cart driver?

 

[VociMike]

Human and greater yes, but the greatest? If God exists in everything and everything exists in God, nothing can be cut off or separated.

Unless God allows it - free will again. The sharpest two-edged sword in all creation.

I prefer the concept of free won’t – given a situation, we have so many ways to respond. We choose only from those, having already ruled out things we absolutely won’t do. For instance, faced with a crying baby I’m babysitting, free will says I can smother it with a pillow. Free won’t says I’m not going to.

But the question is, do you have any ultimate control over what you do or don’t do. Or is it all electro-chemical reactions, or all God puppeting you here and there?

By the Abrahamic God’s own admission he is jealous. Further, he’s quite wrathful in the Old Testament, obliterating cities, sending plagues on people who were minding their own business but were in the wrong place, ordering his chosen people to commit genocide, punishing both the wicked and the not-so-wicked (so much for free will, I guess, if you’re going to be punished immediately for deviating). He even killed a cart driver for trying to do good when the man reached out to steady the Ark of the Covenant on its way to David.

The Old Testament is only understood in the light of the New Testament. God was preparing a people in a world of pagan error and excess. But you can’t possibly argue in light of the New Testament that God is jealous or mean or any of those things. None of those things are compatible with God’s incarnation, suffering and death.

Why are you not a Mormon then? You get to be your very own God when you die and rule over your own planet!

Because my faith is not based on Pascal’s wager. But even if it were, on the one hand I see being the god over a planet, and OTOH I see e.g. Mary Queen of the Universe, and all those in heaven being actual royal family of God, being drawn up into the very Trinity. No comparison, none whatsoever. And what happens when the planets fade away eventually? Bummer! No, Mormonism is clearly just some guy inventing a “new and improved” Christianity, and it shows.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I was raised in a non- religious home. From what I have read on this forum Jesus died for me but why does that make me accountable to him? I didn’t ask him to die for me.

No, you don’t have to join His club. Then you have neither the benefits nor the obligations of membership.

I think you know what rules and regulations I am talking about. You can’t legislate morality. Besides morality is in the eyes of the beholder. I don’t think I am immoral because I have had sex out side of marriage with multiple partners. Sex doesn’t make me a bad person. The people who think so have dirty minds.

When modern people disagree with Catholic teaching the disagreement is usually about sex, or about authority but felt most deeply in relation to sex. However this hasn’t always been the case. For instance Romans felt it was very ridiculous that the Christian god should have been a humble carpenter. Though there were some extreme sexual experiments in the early Reformation, the dispute quickly lost sexual overtones and became one about lay versus clerical management of the Church. Similarly the schism with the Orthodox wasn’t over sexual ethics.

You’ve contradicted yourself. If the people who disapprove of your behaviour have “dirty minds”, doesn’t that mean that there is something inherent in sex which makes them “dirty”? You wouldn’t say that people who disapptove of your meat eating, assuming you not to be a veggie, have “dirty minds” would you? You wouldn’t say that someone who dispproves of President Bush’s Iraq policy has a “dirty mind”, even if you happen to agree with the President on this issue.

 

[VociMike]

That answers jealousy, but what about wrath? Why would a universal deity be so obsessed with being worshipped as to require it and its attendant sacrifices, rituals, and other trappings of an entire people?

But God even tells us He wants our love, not our sacrifices. “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings.” The purpose of the sacrifices was to prepare the people to fathom the real, saving sacrifice.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Is it necessarily a reward? I didn’t say so; and if I accept my theistic argument, such a union is already accomplished and indivisible. Further, I find that mercy is a greater thing than justice.

God has really nothing to reward us for. It is his mercy, not his reward.

And let me ask you a serious question about your concept of God. How did you come to that description of God? Is it based on what you want God to be?

But the Christian God is described as good – scratch that, the supreme Good. He is self-creating and self-sustaining and responsible for everything in the universe; good and evil are his own inventions.

No, he didn’t invent evil. You see God created us and gave us free will. Evil came to the world because we disobeyed him. What you’re saying sounds like a son blaming his disobedience on his father - because after all, if father would allow his son to do anything he likes he couldn’t disobey him in the first place, right?

That answers jealousy, but what about wrath? Why would a universal deity be so obsessed with being worshipped as to require it and its attendant sacrifices, rituals, and other trappings of an entire people?

God is perfect and as a perfect being, God’s laws are good and should be obeyed. At the same time, if God is really how Christianity describes him, if God is perfect, divine, just and love itself, if every good we have flows from God, doesn’t he rightfully deserve our praises? Worshiping God isn’t groveling before God. It is thanking him, following him and praising him. And in the end it is a gift from God that we may follow him and praise him on every step because in God we can find ultimate happiness and peace.

And to specifically answer why he asked us to sacrifice…Jews had to sacrifice because they sinned and so their sins could be forgotten. You see, God is both loving and just. He can’t just leave us sinning, disobey him and be OK with that - that wouldn’t be justice. At the same time he loves us and so he gave us a way so our sins would be forgotten. However the sacrifices of Jews must be understood as a foreshadowing of the great and ultimate sacrifice that was to come - Jesus Christ.

If God expects us to ‘take up our cross and follow him’, killing people isn’t setting a very good example to follow, is it? He may have the right, but if he is good and loving why would he smite people who merely displayed a ‘lack of faith’ like the unfortunate cart driver?

Why would he smite other people? I don’t know but if he does it I believe he has a very good reason to do so. You see, whenever we look at the world we see only a reflection of it. We see fragments of the whole story (only some of the present and a bit of the past) with our biases and misunderstandings blinding us. God knows everything and sees everything perfectly. He sees the full picture. Imagine a huge battle field with thousands of soldiers. We are only one of these soldiers but God is the commander who sees the whole picture above all knows the past and future. God is timeless. In the end all we have is faith - faith that whatever God does is done with unlimited love for our good.

Now, how can we follow God if we are merely human? Surely we can’t since there the difference is so wast! The answer lies in Jesus Christ. He is fully man and fully divine. So God sets us an example but we also have to understand his Divine authority over heavens and Earth.

But once again, I seriously don’t understand why would killing be evil. Please explain why a good and loving God can’t kill some a person. Because that would deprive him of his “earthly pleasures”?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Why do Catholics need God in their lives? My life is OK without God. I’m not a Christian. I don’t feel empty in side. In short “LIFE IS GOOD”! Who needs an impersonal god imposing rules and regulations on the way a person freely chooses to live their own life? God only crimps your style? It’s a drag.

• What do you understand by “God” ?
• What do you understand by the sentence “God is personal” ?
• Many denials are based on misunderstandings of what people mean when they make assertions.
• Do you want to believe in a God of any kind ?
• And what are you calling “a drag” ?

 

[Mirdath]

But God even tells us He wants our love, not our sacrifices. “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings.” The purpose of the sacrifices was to prepare the people to fathom the real, saving sacrifice.

Then I find that only really compatible with the Gnostic understanding of the demiurge. Wanting only love is a definite change in tune from the Old Testament.

GandalfTheWhite:

And let me ask you a serious question about your concept of God. How did you come to that description of God? Is it based on what you want God to be?

It is what I think an actual deity would be, whether I want it or not. I started from the concept of a supreme entity and worked it out from that.

No, he didn’t invent evil. You see God created us and gave us free will. Evil came to the world because we disobeyed him. What you’re saying sounds like a son blaming his disobedience on his father - because after all, if father would allow his son to do anything he likes he couldn’t disobey him in the first place, right?

My concept of a deity isn’t the father-figure you have. If we are important at all to such a being, I think it’s more likely we’re important like a child’s ant-farm. As I said earlier, a god is beyond morality, beyond good and evil – that begins and ends with us, and we are responsible for our own actions.

Why would he smite other people? I don’t know but if he does it I believe he has a very good reason to do so. You see, whenever we look at the world we see only a reflection of it. We see fragments of the whole story (only some of the present and a bit of the past) with our biases and misunderstandings blinding us. God knows everything and sees everything perfectly. He sees the full picture. Imagine a huge battle field with thousands of soldiers. We are only one of these soldiers but God is the commander who sees the whole picture above all knows the past and future. God is timeless. In the end all we have is faith - faith that whatever God does is done with unlimited love for our good.

The story of the cart-driver is pretty explicit. The guy’s driving the cart with the Ark back to Jerusalem, the road’s bumpy, he reaches out to steady it, and kablammo. He meant no disrespect; in fact, his character was extolled earlier in the story. Why would a loving god do such a thing?

But once again, I seriously don’t understand why would killing be evil. Please explain why a good and loving God can’t kill some a person. Because that would deprive him of his “earthly pleasures”?

Does a good, loving father tell his children ‘I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it’? And if we are to follow the Christ and act as he would, what kind of example does that set for us?

 

[ricko]

I don’t need a law to prevent me from stealing or murdering someone. Why do Christians? I know a number of atheists that live what you would define to be a moral life? Why do you need a god threatening to zap you to keep you in line and an atheist doesn’t.

Well Nancie, we might say that you belong to the “I” generation. Anything is ok as long as you get to do what you want to. I’ve heard the same thing from many people. “Why should “I” have to stop at a red light”. Why should “I” have to work for a living, it’s easier to steal”. If everyone was allow to pursue their own personal interests without regard for anyone else we would be in a state of anarchy. Look it up, it’s not a good situation to be in.

As far as God is concerned, all that you see belongs to him as he created it. He also gave you free will, which allows you to think the way you do. He gave us natural and religious laws for a good purpose. Not to stifle us but to protect us and one day soon to allow us to have a supernatural life that you cannot imagine. No, He will not zap you, but he will give to you the justice as you merit it. It’s your choice. Eternal happiness or Hell. You have a lifetime to decide. That may be tonight.

 

[Subrosa]

Then I find that only really compatible with the Gnostic understanding of the demiurge. Wanting only love is a definite change in tune from the Old Testament.

It is what I think an actual deity would be, whether I want it or not. I started from the concept of a supreme entity and worked it out from that.

My concept of a deity isn’t the father-figure you have. If we are important at all to such a being, I think it’s more likely we’re important like a child’s ant-farm. As I said earlier, a god is beyond morality, beyond good and evil – that begins and ends with us, and we are responsible for our own actions.

The story of the cart-driver is pretty explicit. The guy’s driving the cart with the Ark back to Jerusalem, the road’s bumpy, he reaches out to steady it, and kablammo. He meant no disrespect; in fact, his character was extolled earlier in the story. Why would a loving god do such a thing?

Does a good, loving father tell his children ‘I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it’? And if we are to follow the Christ and act as he would, what kind of example does that set for us?

Mirdath -

Do you consider these assessments free from error, or would you concede that you could be wrong?

Subrosa

 

[junk]

Does a good, loving father tell his children ‘I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it’? And if we are to follow the Christ and act as he would, what kind of example does that set for us?

God brings us into and takes each one of us out of this world. Remember that from a Christian perspective death is just a transition and not a finality. God can choose when to end our lives and He does.

 

[Mirdath]

Mirdath -

Do you consider these assessments free from error, or would you concede that you could be wrong?

Subrosa

Oh, I’m quite possibly wrong – I just don’t think so . Keep in mind I’m actually agnostic; I believe we can’t truly know whether there is a God or what characteristics such a being has. These are all thoroughly-thought-over guesses.

 

[Subrosa]

Mirdath -

In examining your perspectives on God of the Old Testament I’ve noticed that you seem to be focused on destructions inflicted by God.

What you are missing is the evolutionary nature of the document. Also, while I will concede that some christian groups consider the Bible to be absolute truth - that is verbatim, the Catholic Church, while still holding to the inerrency of the document, understands it to be a homogeneous document that contains information intended by the writer. Therefore the perspectives of the writer are certainly a factor and must be considered while reading the biblical stories.

From the early write’s perspective, God is the do-all and end-all. He is the reason that everything occurs. It is especially true with the Prophets.

However, the writer’s perspective changes in later documents.
Now it is the human that is more and more responsible for his/her own actions. When the books enter the christian era the original perspective is turned completely around. Now Christ teaches us that we must “love one another.” This statement alone puts that responsibility squarely in the hands of the person receiving the message.

Nowhere in the New Testament does God smite, strike, command war or infanticide. Indeed, the only person to do anything like in the book is Herod, a human being.

The key now is to view the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. I know from these public discussons that you a person of reason. Use that reason now by taking New Testament lessons and apply them to the Old Testament. See how it changes you perspective.

I must ask you a question - Why is it that you are so obsessed with what is “wrong” in the bible, when the truth is that when people read this document it turns thier lives around? Murderers and thieves turn themelves in, alchohol and drug abusers cease to be so, families find themselves and love each other, and I could go on. They do all this and read the very same words that you do. What is different?

Subrosa

 

[guanophore]

Why do Catholics need God in their lives? My life is OK without God. I’m not a Christian. I don’t feel empty in side. In short “LIFE IS GOOD”! Who needs an impersonal god imposing rules and regulations on the way a person freely chooses to live their own life? God only crimps your style? It’s a drag.

I don’t know how other peoplel live without God. It was miserable for me. However, if you feel good, and are full, why concern yorself with it? Why even consider allowing God to crimp your style? Go you way in peace,a nd enjoy the fullness and goodness of life!

 

[Mirdath]

Mirdath -

In examining your perspectives on God of the Old Testament I’ve noticed that you seem to be focused on destructions inflicted by God.

True enough; in determining whether or not a god is worthy of worship, one must look carefully at what it’s done that might make it unworthy, no? And I find often that when the OT God is doing good for his chosen people, he’s doing it at the expense of others – innocent Egyptian children, Canaanite city-states, Babylon, and so forth. The OT God’s character more befits a god of war and death than it does a loving father.

What you are missing is the evolutionary nature of the document. Also, while I will concede that some christian groups consider the Bible to be absolute truth - that is verbatim, the Catholic Church, while still holding to the inerrency of the document, understands it to be a homogeneous document that contains information intended by the writer. Therefore the perspectives of the writer are certainly a factor and must be considered while reading the biblical stories.

However, the writer’s perspective changes in later documents.
Now it is the human that is more and more responsible for his/her own actions. When the books enter the christian era the original perspective is turned completely around. Now Christ teaches us that we must “love one another.” This statement alone puts that responsibility squarely in the hands of the person receiving the message.

I see more of a turn-around between the two testaments than I do an evolution. And even that’s incomplete: Jesus says in the book of Matthew, ‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.’ He preaches love, mostly, but the old, warlike God is still there behind him. And that is a large part of what I find unsettling about the Abrahamic God: we are supposed to see him as a father, yet there is strife and discord in all he does. For all I am supposed to have been created in his image, God seems very alien to me.

Nowhere in the New Testament does God smite, strike, command war or infanticide. Indeed, the only person to do anything like in the book is Herod, a human being.

So wherefore the Old Testament at all? The new one preaches a (mostly) radically different understanding of God, claims to fulfill the old covenant and bring about the new one on a clean slate. Is there really any place for the old, bloodthirsty God anymore?

I must ask you a question - Why is it that you are so obsessed with what is “wrong” in the bible, when the truth is that when people read this document it turns thier lives around? Murderers and thieves turn themelves in, alchohol and drug abusers cease to be so, families find themselves and love each other, and I could go on. They do all this and read the very same words that you do. What is different?

The same thing can happen when one reads the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Tao te Ching, the Analects of Confucius, or for that matter a Chick tract. It’s pretty simple: ideas are powerful. They can harm, and they can heal. But they don’t affect everyone the same way. One person may read the bible and give up everything he has to study and preach Christ’s love; another may read it and decide God has commanded him to murder. I read it, and I simply find no reason to believe what it says about God and the nature of the universe.