Why is disbelief a sin?

[Hitetlen]

You posted so many things that it is imposible to answer all the points.

hurst:

Also, we submit to the higher power because it is patently clear that it exists, as evidenced by the great works of nature that no creature has done or could do.

Not clear at all. All those things we could explain so far have a totally natural origin, and as science progresses these explained phenomena keep growing. What you say is called the fallacy of the “God of the gaps”.

But that is not what I really wanted to talk about. There is a short story by Stanislaw Lem (I already mentioned it in this thread), its title is “Non serviam”, and it appeared in his book: “A perfect vacuum”. It is a short story, about 17 pages long though it is not an easy read. But I would recommend you read it, you can find it in your local library, for sure.

It is a story of a human “god”, a scientist who creates “personoids”, extremely complicated self-aware programs, which are sentient beings. He runs the experiment for years, which are millenia for the creatures within the computer world. As far as his “creatures” are concerned, he is omnipotent, he can do whatever he wants to them and their world. The technical issues are complicated, but all within the theoretical limits of today’s technology.

I will not go any further, if you are interested, go get it and read it. It is an eye-opener (or should be) for every believer. If you would take time and read it, I am sure we could have a great conversation about it.

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

A few questions:

1. Were the doctors who verified those claims skeptics or believers?
2. How many millions of people visited Lourdes during those years?
3. How many amputees regrew their lost limbs?

People get misdiagnosed all the time. People experience sudden change in their health for no apparent reason (it does not mean that they will not have a relapse). You see these examples do not mean a whole lot - even if they are really impossible to explain.

I will give you an example. People claim all the time that they had a “premonition” of some event, which cannot be explained, so there “must be something”, something supernatural to explain it.

The problem is that they forget that there are four events, of which they only recall one:

1. They had a premonition about an event, and it came true.
2. They had a premonition about an event, but it did not come true.
3. They did not have a premonition about an event, but it came true.
4. They did not have a premonition about an event, and it did not come true.

To run a statistical analysis and to prove that there is a correlation, one must know the frequency of all four possibilities. But people only recall the first one. So a statistical analysis is impossible.

The same applies to those miracles at Lourdes.

1. How many people went there and were healed?
2. How many people went there and did not heal?
3. How many people did not go there and were healed?
4. How many people did not go there and did not heal?

Without having a distribution matrix of all these occurrences, we cannot run a correlation analysis. That is all there to it. Now we can return to our regularly scheduled program.

I will try to locate a copy of the last recorded miracle for you. This man had bone cancer eating at the socket where his left leg attaches to the pelvis. (I don’t know much of medical jargon.)

This is the one I would like to find for you because there are x-rays of his condition before and after the miracle. I have seen the x-ray on a documentary. If the x-ray after the miracle at Lourdes simply showed the ball and socket area healed, one might be able to dispute it. But what happened to him is that the ball of the leg bone was joined to a “new” socket below the original one which can still be seen as deteriorated.

I can only assume that the bones in the upper leg must also have been “shortened” to allow for the difference in the locations of the two sockets.

Again, I will try to find something on this.

Thal59

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

You see, you can’t have it both ways: either you do a good job and create beings which will “work” as intended, or you do a sloppy job, and your creation will spin out of control. In the second case you have absolutely no right to blame your creation for your sloppy work.

Perhaps you are right…
If so, then either:

1. God made the beings work as they were intended, and can blame them for doing something wrong (but you contend a properly made being would not do something wrong).
   or:
2. God did a “sloppy” job and creation spun out of control, in which case He cannot blame them for that problem.

Right?

And you are contending that only (2) makes sense. Right?

And thus you find it silly for any religion to say anyone is going to be punished, since it is God’s “fault” for sloppy work that allowed things to run amuck, and it is only fair that He bear the responsibility for it, and not pass it on to us by punishing us forever in hell. Right?

Let me know if this reflects your true disposition.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Note: This message is meant for all readers of this thread, and not just Hitetlen.

Hitetlen:

But that is not what I really wanted to talk about. There is a short story by Stanislaw Lem (I already mentioned it in this thread), its title is “Non serviam”,

“Non serviam” (“I will not serve”) is attributed to Satan in his rebellion against God, which is the very opposite of what it means to worship God and love our neighbor.

Hitetlen:

and it appeared in his book: “A perfect vacuum”. It is a short story, about 17 pages long though it is not an easy read. But I would recommend you read it, you can find it in your local library, for sure.

I tried finding it online, but I could only find book reviews - which were very informative by themselves.

However, I came across some very interesting quotes from Lem in the book’s intro (provided by Amazon).

…
Being a worshiper of science, having prostrated himself before its sacred methodology, Lem could not well assume the role of its foremost heresiarch and dissenter.
…
Did Lem really think he would not be seen through his machination? It is simplicity itself: to shout out, with laughter, what one would dare not whisper in earnest.
…
the critic’s freedom… lies in this, that through the book, as through a microscope, he may observe the author…

A Perfect Vacuum, pp. 6-8
Stanislaw Lem

Of course, the critic is the author, so he is talking about himself. And while you may say it was all in jest, he uses jest to reveal what he really thinks.

What I see here reminds me of the flavor of your posts - upbeat, light-hearted, controversial criticism aimed towards those who take God seriously.

Could it be… ?

I have already commented on worshiping of science (“They are intellectually bowing down to their theoretical creation” in #148, more in #224). And I have seen you mark the words of practically every criticism with the air of an objective observer (in countless posts).

Perhaps you find this amusing, and that is what draws you back to this petry dish with an interesting culture therein. On page 185, he writes:

The idea is to hear, to understand - in short, to be a constantly eavesdropping witness - but at the same time to prevent one’s “monitorings” from disturbing in any way the world of the personoids.

A Perfect Vacuum, p. 185

Someone questioned your sanity. I question your humanity towards us.

Conversation with such a withdrawn objectivist is sure to be fruitless. If I do so, then may other readers benefit from it. I do not expect a kitchen appliance to understand me (cf. Lem). Nor do I expect someone observing me as if I were a bacteria in a petry dish to take me seriously, even if I did learn English (cf. Lem).

hurst

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

Perhaps you are right…

This may be a huge step forward. The fact that you are willing to even contemplate my position is enormously promising. Almost no one is willing to do that.

hurst:

If so, then either:

1. God made the beings work as they were intended, and can blame them for doing something wrong (but you contend a properly made being would not do something wrong).
   or:
2. God did a “sloppy” job and creation spun out of control, in which case He cannot blame them for that problem.

Right?

And you are contending that only (2) makes sense. Right?

I think we are close. I can imagine a third possibility, but it is farfetched:

1. God created us exactly as we turned out to, because he wants to punish us, unfairly.

Needless to say, I don’t believe that this third possibility is valid. I cannot imagine that a being whose knowledge and power is on the level attributed to God, would be so vicious. But I had to mention it for completeness sake.

Actually I am struggling with your first proposition. If we work precisely as “intended”, why blame us? I cannot understand this.

And yes, I contend that a properly designed “product” will do everything it is intended to do, and will do nothing it was not intended to do. Since God’s omniscience allows him to foresee all the consequences of his planned work, and his omnipotence allows him to make “things” precisely as he wants them, there is no uncertainty. Whatever the current conditions of the world are, they precisely reflect God’s will, plan and intention. If God is truly omnipotent and omniscient, there is no other conclusion.

Yes, so far only number two makes sense, but only if you are willing to accept that God is not perfect, and he could not have designed a better universe. If you would contemplate that God does not have perfect omniscience (since the future has not happened yet, how could he foresee it?) and did as good a job as possible, building in all the possible safeguards as he could, then I would not blame him either.

If that is the case, there would be no one to blame. If this is the best world that is conceivable then why blame anyone?

Again, if you could explain why should God blame us if we turned out precisely as he designed us? I don’t understand the possible reasoning behind it.

hurst:

And thus you find it silly for any religion to say anyone is going to be punished, since it is God’s “fault” for sloppy work that allowed things to run amuck, and it is only fair that He bear the responsibility for it, and not pass it on to us by punishing us forever in hell. Right?

Let me know if this reflects your true disposition.

Precisely and exactly. Without the slightest shadow of a doubt. In my eyes with power comes responsibility, with infinite power comes infinite responsibility.

---

Now let me ask you something. Did you ever talk to your son about the disasters in nature, famines, tsunamis etc? In other words, did you already pass along your opinion about them, and your reasoning, how to reconcile them with God’s love?

If you did not, then you can conduct a somewhat risky experiment. You can show him the picture of a child in Africa, who is on the verge of starvation (unfortunately those pictures are easy to come by) and ask him, how can a loving God allow that to happen, when the reason for it is simply the lack of rain? Why did he not send the necessary rain to allow the parents to feed their children?

As I say, this could be a risky experiment. Your son could draw the proper conclusion and decide that a loving God is not compatible with such disasters.

 

[Hitetlen]

Note: This message is meant for all readers of this thread, and not just Hitetlen.

“Non serviam” (“I will not serve”) is attributed to Satan in his rebellion against God, which is the very opposite of what it means to worship God and love our neighbor.

I tried finding it online, but I could only find book reviews - which were very informative by themselves.

Yes, indeed they are, but they are also a far cry from the original.

hurst:

However, I came across some very interesting quotes from Lem in the book’s intro (provided by Amazon)…Being a worshiper of science, having prostrated himself before its sacred methodology, Lem could not well assume the role of its foremost heresiarch and dissenter. …
Did Lem really think he would not be seen through his machination? It is simplicity itself: to shout out, with laughter, what one would dare not whisper in earnest.
…
the critic’s freedom… lies in this, that through the book, as through a microscope, he may observe the author…

A Perfect Vacuum, pp. 6-8
Stanislaw Lem

Of course, the critic is the author, so he is talking about himself. And while you may say it was all in jest, he uses jest to reveal what he really thinks.

What I see here reminds me of the flavor of your posts - upbeat, light-hearted, controversial criticism aimed towards those who take God seriously.

Could it be… ?

I wish you had finished the question, I would be very interested to know what you left out. I will not deny that Lem had an enormous influence on my development. Many, though not all his books contain very deep philophical ideas, sometimes in playful form. I found a whole copy of one of his playful stories on-line, its title is “Mymosh the self-begotten”. Even taken out of its environment it is most thought-provoking.

hurst:

I have already commented on worshiping of science (“They are intellectually bowing down to their theoretical creation” in #148, more in #224). And I have seen you mark the words of practically every criticism with the air of an objective observer (in countless posts).

Perhaps you find this amusing, and that is what draws you back to this petry dish with an interesting culture therein. On page 185, he writes: The idea is to hear, to understand - in short, to be a constantly eavesdropping witness - but at the same time to prevent one’s “monitorings” from disturbing in any way the world of the personoids.

A Perfect Vacuum, p. 185

Someone questioned your sanity. I question your humanity towards us.

Why would you do that? The difference between us and bacterium is much smaller than the difference between God and us. But at least we are sentient beings, which the bacterium is not. And what do you mean by the word “us”? Humanity in general or believers in particular? I certainly consider everyone around here as worthy human beings, even if we disagree on many things.

hurst:

Conversation with such a withdrawn objectivist is sure to be fruitless. If I do so, then may other readers benefit from it. I do not expect a kitchen appliance to understand me (cf. Lem). Nor do I expect someone observing me as if I were a bacteria in a petry dish to take me seriously, even if I did learn English (cf. Lem).

If you use the word “objectivist” in the Randian fashion, you are mistaken. I do not subscribe to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. If you use as a detached observer, then I agree.

One more remark: Lem does not stop at being critical of religion, he criticises everything. In his book: “The Cyberiad”, he gives an absolutely scathing criticism of “theoretical” science, too.

Let me add one more remark: your posts justify my time I spent on these boards. I cannot give a higher praise than that.

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Now let me ask you something. Did you ever talk to your son about the disasters in nature, famines, tsunamis etc? In other words, did you already pass along your opinion about them, and your reasoning, how to reconcile them with God’s love?

If you did not, then you can conduct a somewhat risky experiment. You can show him the picture of a child in Africa, who is on the verge of starvation (unfortunately those pictures are easy to come by) and ask him, how can a loving God allow that to happen, when the reason for it is simply the lack of rain? Why did he not send the necessary rain to allow the parents to feed their children?

As I say, this could be a risky experiment. Your son could draw the proper conclusion and decide that a loving God is not compatible with such disasters.

He just woke up, and I asked him.

Q: How do you reconcile God’s love with natural disasters like famines, tsunamis, etc.?
A: You just have to accept that as God’s Will

Q: But what about children starving in Africa?
A: Other people should be helping them.

Q: Why doesn’t God send them rain?
A: They live in the wrong part of the world.

(After showing him pictures of skin-and-bones people)
thesahara.net/starving.htm
Q: What about this? Is God loving them?
A: Well, we are fed well, so God loves us. God loves them, too.

I did not coach him on these answers, except to say that you wanted me to ask him (so he knew it was from an atheist). I also told him what you said before about repeating my answers, and he laughed.

He just came in added, “he is just using that as an example to try to say that God doesn’t love anyone, when they have plenty of cases where He does love other people”.

Looking at his answers, I think two things came out:

1. He recognizes that we are called to help our neighbor in need
2. He feels fortunate he is not in their situation!

hurst

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

He just woke up, and I asked him.

Q: How do you reconcile God’s love with natural disasters like famines, tsunamis, etc.?
A: You just have to accept that as God’s Will

Q: But what about children starving in Africa?
A: Other people should be helping them.

Q: Why doesn’t God send them rain?
A: They live in the wrong part of the world.

(After showing him pictures of skin-and-bones people)

Q: What about this? Is God loving them?
A: Well, we are fed well, so God loves us. God loves them, too.

I did not coach him on these answers, except to say that you wanted me to ask him (so he knew it was from an atheist). I also told him what you said before about repeating my answers, and he laughed.

He just came in added, “he is just using that as an example to try to say that God doesn’t love anyone, when they have plenty of cases where He does love other people”.

Looking at his answers, I think two things came out:

1. He recognizes that we are called to help our neighbor in need
2. He feels fortunate he is not in their situation!

hurst

Smart kid You can be proud of him.

Of course I disagree with his assertion that “I try to say that God does not love anyone”, but to realize that would be too much to ask from a ten years old, even if he is as smart as he is.

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Yes, so far only number two makes sense, but only if you are willing to accept that God is not perfect, and he could not have designed a better universe. If you would contemplate that God does not have perfect omniscience (since the future has not happened yet, how could he foresee it?) and did as good a job as possible, building in all the possible safeguards as he could, then I would not blame him either.

By the way, since the future has not happened yet, then how can the universe contain itself? How can the physical universe have always been? Answer: it can’t. Therefore, something above and beyond the physical universe must exist. So that which must have always existed cannot be the physical universe, which changes. And so the universe cannot be “God”, as some allow themselves to believe.

You ask how God could foresee all future activity of the universe?

Tough question, but at a minimum, you should find it easy to realize that He enabled it with the means to be able to do whatever it would ever be able to do. If He didn’t give it a capability, it could never manifest it at any time.

Secondly, since it requires His power and participation for every single thing done in the physical universe, He cooperates with every action, and it doesn’t happen without Him.

Thirdly, since God never changes, He knows exactly what He would ever do given any particular combination of circumstances.

Lastly, anything in nature cannot change except by His enabling it to do so. So then, He knows exactly what will ever happen, even though His creatures are overwhelmed with the overload of information and power, and are as a fish in the sea with seemingly endless possibilities. Their freedom is certainly limited, but it is enabled by the vastness of options and unpredictability of other influences, among other things, not least of which is God’s Will that they have free will.

That is why it is so important to respond to moments of God’s grace when He offers it. A single moment like that changes one’s whole future for the better, if they receive it. Otherwise, we continue on our own self-inflicted downward spiral. Not everyone gets more than one chance. How many times would you be willing to repeat the same thing to your students before you conclude they are obstinately refusing to listen or learn?

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

This may be a huge step forward. The fact that you are willing to even contemplate my position is enormously promising. Almost no one is willing to do that.

We must meet people where they are. Of course, my concern becomes whether you are personally in this place seeking help, or are positing it without any intention of moving…

Hitetlen:

I think we are close. I can imagine a third possibility, but it is farfetched:

1. God created us exactly as we turned out to, because he wants to punish us, unfairly.

Of course, that is the Calvinist position. Didn’t you say you were raised Calvinist?

Hitetlen:

Actually I am struggling with your first proposition. If we work precisely as “intended”, why blame us? I cannot understand this.

Because if He made us to be able to do what is right, then it is not His fault if we do something wrong, but rather our own fault.

Hitetlen:

And yes, I contend that a properly designed “product” will do everything it is intended to do, and will do nothing it was not intended to do. Since God’s omniscience allows him to foresee all the consequences of his planned work, and his omnipotence allows him to make “things” precisely as he wants them, there is no uncertainty.

Agreed. And He made us able to choose our own destiny, and did it precisely in such a manner that He did not exert any undue or unwanted interference in our free will. He was so successful, that many don’t think He exists! How’s that for not interfering?

And He foresees what everyone will end up freely choosing - who will seek His help, and who will attack Him. Those who attack Him refuse His mercy, but they are legitimate working creatures as far as His justice is concerned. He does not punish them for being His creature, but He enforces in their nature what they have freely chosen to do to their fellow man. “As you have measured it out, so will it be measured back again to you”.

And furthermore, He arranges it so that those who choose to do good will benefit from the evil that those who choose to do evil will do. Not only that, but He is even able to maximize it so that this benefit is offered again back to the evildoers to give them additional chances to change their mind concerning their final destination, while they still can (e.g. a martyr praying for his persecutor).

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Again, if you could explain why should God blame us if we turned out precisely as he designed us? I don’t understand the possible reasoning behind it.

Ok, pay close attention here. God does not punish what you might be thinking.

His creation works quite well, don’t you think? I mean, gravity is quite effective along with the rest of nature. I don’t know of any religion where God punishes gravity for causing people to fall to their death. Some things are just accidents resulting from people’s incomplete knowledge or abilities, as when someone slips.

But other times people step deliberately off a building, either to try to fly, or else to try to end their life. Or maybe they push someone else off to end another person’s life.

Certainly their body worked properly in walking and pushing. But in spite of this skill, a family member of the victim will clamor for the criminal to be punished.

Now, if God were at fault, then the people should not blame the criminal any more than someone blames gravity. But they don’t, because the criminal is expected to know how to treat his fellow man using the golden rule.

Is the criminal acting according to his nature? Yes and no. He is acting according to the nature of his soul (memory-intellect-will), which chooses freely regardless of anything else. Yet he acts against humanity by harming his fellow man.

Herein is a large proof for the fact that we are composed of two parts - spiritual soul and physical body, and that one part rules over the other. Our soul is not dependent upon our body, yet works in the world by means of the body. The body is dependent upon the physical world for energy etc., but upon the soul for its life principle determining what it will do.

So God made the physical body to be ruled over by a spiritual soul that need not base its decisions on the welfare of its own body (or others). Therein lies the choice. We use the freedom of the nature of our soul independent of the physical world to make decisions that are applied to the physical world in and through our bodies, and our own decision is allowed, but with consequences.

Those consequences are rewards and punishments either in the physical world or in the spiritual world. God has made an amazing creature in us! For He made good nature in us, but in such a way that it is composed of two parts because He has given us a role in His image to rule part of the creation that we consist of, and thus be responsible for our actions! Behold, our God is a King of kings and God of gods.

God created us to choose our own end. The car works well, but the driver has to choose his destination. You have to believe that a road will take you to your destination before you travel it, for you cannot know with certainty where it will end up, since you are not there yet. But we are intended to choose our own destination, and for that purpose, we work quite well. No one else can make us be willing to do something we don’t want to do.

So in an amazing way, we are intended to choose our own destiny, which is eventually manifested in eternity. What? Would you act differently if you knew it was going to count for all eternity?

By the way, there are only two possible categories of choices, life and death.

Hitetlen:

Whatever the current conditions of the world are, they precisely reflect God’s will, plan and intention. If God is truly omnipotent and omniscient, there is no other conclusion.

There is a nuance to that. Since God’s will, plan, and intention was that we choose our own destiny, it follows that the current conditions of the world should reflect the diversity of our freely made choices, which He enforces over and above the powers of nature. Nature is just going to have to endure it for awhile. We are also going to have to endure each other for awhile. Recompense will be made both during and after our bodily lives are naturally over. The final judgment will be made on the last day, when all bodies will be resurrected, some to eternal glory in God, others to eternal reproach in themselves.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Originally Posted by hurst
And thus you find it silly for any religion to say anyone is going to be punished, since it is God’s “fault” for sloppy work that allowed things to run amuck, and it is only fair that He bear the responsibility for it, and not pass it on to us by punishing us forever in hell. Right?

Let me know if this reflects your true disposition.

Precisely and exactly. Without the slightest shadow of a doubt. In my eyes with power comes responsibility, with infinite power comes infinite responsibility.

Makes sense. And I say God does not punish us for anything that is not our own fault. As I explained, the “punishment” is the justice by which our own freely made decisions are applied to our bodies and souls for eternity. It was said before that we “create” our own hell. Likewise do we “create” our own heaven. That is, we participate in the preparation for one or the other, for we do not have the power to enforce either hell or heaven. But God measures out to us as we measured out to others, and applies it in eternity. This is much more important than a final exam!

It is as if God allowed us to write a program with punch cards, but we had to test it manually, because we only had one chance to run it in the real computer, and had to live forever with its results whether or not it worked. We could follow the rules He gave us, but we were not forced to. Some decided to make fancy designs on the cards because they were waiting so long for their turn, and figured it was either not important or just a scam to keep them from doing really interesting things with their cards. Despite warnings, they persisted. In the end, their turn came up and their cards were worthless as far as the computer was concerned. They had to be pitched and burned, and those people then spent eternity bored and useless for any task. But those who did small and simple things with their cards and had been ridiculed as being dupes for following the archaic rules, now had a perpetual source of share-time for running their task, and so their works followed them, to their great delight. That is what the Kingdom of Heaven is like.

hurst

 

[Hitetlen]

I will make a consolidated reply to your posts, so we can stay closer to the main track of this conversation.

hurst:

Of course, that is the Calvinist position. Didn’t you say you were raised Calvinist?

Yes, but that has no effect on me. The pastor never even mentioned “predestination” to my best recollection. (Of course I could be wrong. I never paid attention to the sermon. It was boring.) And don’t forget that I immediately repudiated the validity of this “third alternative”.

hurst:

Because if He made us to be able to do what is right, then it is not His fault if we do something wrong, but rather our own fault.

Wait a second. If he “allowed” us to deviate from the “design specs” - beyond the “tolerance limit”, then there is something wrong with the “building process”. If we are allowed to go beyond the tolerance limits, then the ball is back again in his court.

The “free will defense” simply does not work. Here is why:

I am sure you know very good people, those who never even dream about harming anyone else. Those who are helpful and caring. Some even might be atheists, for all you know. They don’t live their lives in such a manner, because they want rewards; and don’t behave as they do because they are afraid of punishment. In other words, they are simply exceptionally good people. They don’t have to “force” themselves to be good - against their hidden desire to act otherwise. It is just the way they are.

Do these people have free will?

I am sure you agree that they do. So they work within the contraints of the “design specs”, possibly bordering on the most desirable limit.

If you agree that these people do have free will, then the question is: “why can’t all people be like that?”. I know that the world would be “boring”, but what of it? If this world would be “boring” because of the abundance of good will and good behavior, then heaven would be “boring”, too.

hurst:

Now, if God were at fault, then the people should not blame the criminal any more than someone blames gravity. But they don’t, because the criminal is expected to know how to treat his fellow man using the golden rule.

Indeed, they should not, but people do not act in a consistent manner.

Let me explain: even the most devout believers act as atheists most of the time. They live as if there was no God. When you step off the sidewalk, you look both left and right, you do not trust God to stop the cars, so you will not be run over. When you drive your car, you exercise caution, you do not close your eyes while driving and trust God that he will guide you. When you are hungry, you do not pick up a stone and bite into it hoping that it will turn into a piece of bread.

Now, ostensibly this is because “testing” God is forbidden. Why is it forbidden? Because even the most devout believer knows, that God will not interfere and guide them.

In other words: you behave just like me, just like any other atheist, and rely on your experience, knowledge, logic and reason, all your life. Why? Is it because you know deep inside that what you believe in is - bogus?

I don’t want to deviate from our main path, so let’s drop the questions of cosmology and the “soul”. They are not helpful in this context.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

I am talking about those passages, where God orders the total annihilation of whole tribes and towns, because he got angry at them. He even orders all the animals to be slaughtered, and orders that the virgins be kept as sex-slaves.
Are you ready to follow those “glorious” commands, so filled with love and caring? All in the name of “absolute morality” and “natural law”, of course. Come clean, buddy! Would you follow God’s orders in such a case?

Let me first know:
This ”total annihilation of whole tribes and towns”, was it a historical fact?
Or it is only a metaphor to explain God’s exclusiveness?
If it was a historical fact the Bible is no longer a book of “myths” and “legends” as you consider it.
If it is only a metaphor, we don’t have to care: that people never lived, never died. God never killed them.

 

[doomhammer]

hurst:

And I say God does not punish us for anything that is not our own fault. As I explained, the “punishment” is the justice by which our own freely made decisions are applied to our bodies and souls for eternity. It was said before that we “create” our own hell. Likewise do we “create” our own heaven. That is, we participate in the preparation for one or the other, for we do not have the power to enforce either hell or heaven. But God measures out to us as we measured out to others, and applies it in eternity. This is much more important than a final exam!
hurst

Council of Quiersy: “Almighty God wills all men without exception, to be saved, even though not all are saved. The fact that some are saved is the gift of Him who saves: the fact that some are lost, is the merit of those who are lost.”
Keep in mind that our friend considers the teachings of the Church as nonsense.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

There is a short story by Stanislaw Lem (I already mentioned it in this thread), its title is “Non serviam”, and it appeared in his book: “A perfect vacuum”. It is a short story, about 17 pages long though it is not an easy read. But I would recommend you read it, you can find it in your local library, for sure.
It is a story of a human “god”, a scientist who creates “personoids”
It is an eye-opener (or should be) for every believer.

“Non Serviam” is a Satanist saying. And Hitetlen’s words “It is an eye-opener for every believer” remind me the words of Satan: “your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods” (Genesis 3, 5).
That’s why I wrote regarding our friend: “And you are the perfect example (of Protestantism ending in atheism), and you are devilishly proud of this…” (Post # 306).

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

Let me first know:
This ”total annihilation of whole tribes and towns”, was it a historical fact?

Quite possibly so. The Jews were a fierce tribe. And God allegedly ordered them to perform those killings.

doomhammer:

If it was a historical fact the Bible is no longer a book of “myths” and “legends” as you consider it.

Just because the Harry Potter novels happen in England, it does not mean that the sorcerers are also real, and not just a “legend”.

But I think you ran enough circles. Would you follow God’s command and slaughter children?

“Non Serviam” is a Satanist saying.

Lem also wrote a book titled “Summa Technologiae”, clearly modeled after the “Summa Teologiae”. What’s in a name? And if you can tell me who wrote a short story with that title, you can get an extra “attaboy”.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

you ran enough circles. Would you follow God’s command and slaughter children?

As you don’t understand this:
“The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.
Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined.
This one true God, by his goodness and almighty power, not with the intention of increasing his happiness, nor indeed of obtaining happiness, but in order to manifest his perfection by the good things which he bestows on what he creates, by an absolutely free plan, together from the beginning of time brought into being from nothing the twofold created order, that is the spiritual and the bodily, the angelic and the earthly, and thereafter the human which is, in a way, common to both since it is composed of spirit and body.
Everything that God has brought into being he protects and governs by his providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare to his eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.” Council Vatican 1869-1870,

you won’t understand my answer.

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

As you don’t understand this: you won’t understand my answer.

Why did you post it then? If you do not want to answer, then don’t, and say so.

You certainly did not say that if God would order you to slaughter, kill, maim and torture children, then you would refuse. There are more than ample precedents in the Bible for ordering exactly such atrocities. So why the hesitation? Are you scared of expressing your thoughts in a clear, precise manner?

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

So why the hesitation? Are you scared of expressing your thoughts in a clear, precise manner?

There is still another deeper thing, and probably where the profit of this thread lies…
Because of this continuous “non serviam”, this devilish pride and superb, this permanent mockery and denial, this absolute lack of capability and good will to recognize God…
Because of this deplorable state of a soul condemned forever to hell, how much brighter the lives of saints! How much stronger martyrs! How much marvelous the conversions of sinners! How much eternal the Gospel! How much divine Bach’s and Mozart’s masses, Michelangelo’s sculptures, Dostoyevsky’s writings! How magnificent medieval cathedrals! How much beautiful Gregorian chant and organ compositions! How much precious the gift of reason and faith! How precious humility and confidence in God! How merciful God with us!