What God would you rather accept?

[Minor Axis]

So you believe that there is a heaven, a place for people that lead a christian lifestyle, but no hell, which is saved for everyone else?

You are reading into his reply I think. What's the problem with believing in an afterlife, minus Hell? It's just as plausible as any other theory.

 

[StanJon]

I would like a god who lets people live their lives without having a set of rules in place to wreak revenge on them when they die. Oh, and one that isn't so secretive/absent.

If there were no rules set in society to govern us, how would our world be today? Answer. Chaotic. If the president was to abolish all rules and let everyone live their lives as they see fit, there will be no order. So to say that people should live their lives without having a set of rules is ridiculous . We have to have law and order to make our nation a civilized nation. Therefore, the rules that God intends us to live by is not to punish or enslave us, but for correction and instruction in righteousness.

God created hell by creating satan, and allows eternal torture to go on...even though he is all loving? That is not love. A parent wouldn't let his child die in a burning house just because they didn't obey them. He invites us to join him, in eternal happiness, but if we choose otherwise, he allows us to slip into excruciating pain for the rest of our days, thats not even a choice. Thats a fucking threat.


See, if god was real, and if god was all loving, he would simply let the people who didn't believe in him die, and thats it (like it is already) and not have them be tortured (something he could easily stop, but chooses not to), and let the ones who did follow him into heaven. Simple enough. Hey look, I'm more fair, understanding and loving than gawd!

"If God is all loving why is He allow this to happen or why does He do that" One of atheist's strong arguments. The measure of Gods love is that He loves without measure. Don't blame the rules if you don't measure up.

 

[Minor Axis]

If there were no rules set in society to govern us, how would our world be today? Answer. Chaotic. If the president was to abolish all rules and let everyone live their lives as they see fit, there will be no order. So to say that people should live their lives without having a set of rules is ridiculous . We have to have law and order to make our nation a civilized nation. Therefore, the rules that God intends us to live by is not to punish or enslave us, but for correction and instruction in righteousness.

The real problem with "the rules" is what the church teaches as rules come from ancient scripts written by superstitious man, possibly inspired by God, translated multiple times, vetted by the Church. Considering that the church has a very long colorful history of manipulation, we really have not idea what the basis of these rules are. Not to say they are bad rules, but no way to confirm it is the word of God.

"If God is all loving why is He allow this to happen or why does He do that" One of atheist's strong arguments. The measure of Gods love is that He loves without measure. Don't blame the rules if you don't measure up.

Now you sound like the Sphinx*!

He who questions training only trains himself in asking questions.

.

*The Sphinx from Mystery Men, a movie I love.

 

[Minor Axis]

I personally believe in having a set of rules that must be adhered to, just that they are not as strict as certain people make them out to be. I feel that the most despicable of people should be punished for their sins in the afterlife.

I'd say your problem is that you view our lives on Earth in the context of this is all there is. I assume you believe you have a spirit, and that after physical death you rise to heaven, if you've been good, and live for eternity? In that context our lives on Earth last about a nano second. On that basis it's very simplistic to think that you are going to pay for all eternity for a bad decision you made in that nano second. I'd guess (or like to believe) if there is judgment it might come in the form of self examination, you might be forced to give it multiple more tries (as in reincarnatin) or some other learning experience. I think eternal punishment in Hell is just a way for the Church to try to keep the sheep in line, not that it works.

BTW, I've spoken about this before, but is the threat of eternal punishment the reason why the majority of church goers vow to be good? (cause if I'm not, I'm gonna burn). What a sorry reason to be good.

 

[Valde Bovis]

Here's the deal. For religious & spiritual folks it will be interesting to see the answers to this question. For atheists and all others, just play devil's advocate with this in presuming there is a higher power.

What I would like to hear from our members is this:

If you could choose between a God who has a set of rules that must be adhered to where some are "saved" based on following those rules OR a God who has no rules or constraints and everyone is "saved" yet it means that those you consider vile and "sinners" are also invited into heaven with you, which God would you choose if you knew that the first God meant that the majority of human-kind would have to either burn in hell or be destroyed forever?

I thank God he is niether- but if I could only choose one I'd choose the 'ruler god', at least there would be some justice in the world, if only just some sense of fairness.

 

[Minor Axis]

Here's the deal. For religious & spiritual folks it will be interesting to see the answers to this question. For atheists and all others, just play devil's advocate with this in presuming there is a higher power.

What I would like to hear from our members is this:

If you could choose between a God who has a set of rules that must be adhered to where some are "saved" based on following those rules OR a God who has no rules or constraints and everyone is "saved" yet it means that those you consider vile and "sinners" are also invited into heaven with you, which God would you choose if you knew that the first God meant that the majority of human-kind would have to either burn in hell or be destroyed forever?

Somehow I don't think I ever answered the original question of this thread!

I don't believe burning in hell or non-questioning belief are good standards for an enlightened supreme being to have, so if there is a really good God/committee up there, I'd like to believe it's more into forgiveness than punishment. Why would your time on Earth be the only situation where you would be evaluated anyway?

 

[StanJon]

The real problem with "the rules" is what the church teaches as rules come from ancient scripts written by superstitious man, possibly inspired by God, translated multiple times, vetted by the Church. Considering that the church has a very long colorful history of manipulation, we really have not idea what the basis of these rules are. Not to say they are bad rules, but no way to confirm it is the word of God.

What is wrong with conforming to those rules Axis? Because it was supposedly created by men you cannot conform to that way of living? And what would man gain or achieve by simply creating a book which teaches of one divine being (God)? All the honor and glory is not going towards the writer but the one person who the book is teaching about.

The bible was written by over forty different writers and all of them is sending one message. If they all were not inspired by one person, God, then their message would not add up.

Now you sound like the Sphinx*! .

*The Sphinx from Mystery Men, a movie I love.

Never saw that movie. Sounds pretty old.

 

[Minor Axis]

What is wrong with conforming to those rules Axis? Because it was supposedly created by men you cannot conform to that way of living?

You are making assumptions again. Some of them are pretty good such as treat others as you would have yourself treated. But it's actually a different discussion. Are the rules of the Bible good ones?, really has nothing to do with validating the existence of the Christian God. And a problem is that 80% of church goers don't bother to conform to them anyway.

And what would man gain or achieve by simply creating a book which teaches of one divine being (God)? All the honor and glory is not going towards the writer but the one person who the book is teaching about.

1) Belief answers questions and gives you reassurance that everything is going to be all right. 2) It's also gives Earthly agents of God control over the sheep for fun and profit.

The bible was written by over forty different writers and all of them is sending one message. If they all were not inspired by one person, God, then their message would not add up.

I disagree, the message is all over the place from a vengeful wrathful God to a forgiving God. Come on dude.

Never saw that movie. Sounds pretty old.

1999.

 

[satinbutterfly]

The bible was written by over forty different writers and all of them is sending one message. If they all were not inspired by one person, God, then their message would not add up.

Have you read the Bible? Seriously? It most certainly does not all add up.

 

[StanJon]

You are making assumptions again. Some of them are pretty good such as treat others as you would have yourself treated. But it's actually a different discussion. Are the rules of the Bible good ones?, really has nothing to do with validating the existence of the Christian God. And a problem is that 80% of church goers don't bother to conform to them anyway.

Some of the rules in the Bible are rather unfair. That i must agree with you on. And i think that some of them might be written from a mans perspective. i cannot conceive the thought that some of those rules came someone who is all loving.

1) Belief answers questions and gives you reassurance that everything is going to be all right. 2) It's also gives Earthly agents of God control over the sheep for fun and profit.

Just because people use it for their own greed or gains, doesn't prove that men wrote the bible.

I disagree, the message is all over the place from a vengeful wrathful God to a forgiving God. Come on dude.

God was both wrathful and forgiving in the OT, and in the NT... maybe they put more emphasis on His forgiving ways. Don't think for a second that God does not punishes us for our sins if we fail to make remissions for that wrong.

 

[StanJon]

Have you read the Bible? Seriously? It most certainly does not all add up.

If you are going to read the Bible literally, you would need to read it from the original Hebrew text (for the Old Testament) as well to understand it fully. In translation alone, we would find that there were phrases that made perfect sense in Hebrew, but in English, are taken quite differently.

 

[Minor Axis]

Just because people use it for their own greed or gains, doesn't prove that men wrote the bible.

Huh? I never implied anything as proof one way or the other, however evidence would indicate the ancient scripts were written by human beings, wouldn't you say? Please, please don't tell me that you think God wrote the Bible or this is the word of God straight from his mouth because for that to happen he would have had to sit down and either dictate to or takeover the mind of the author for each book of the Bible.

The Bible reads like a suedo-history book. Why would God have to dictate those things when it's supposed to be people who either experienced it for themselves or had the stories passed down to them? Now you can argue that God influenced or inspired men/woman (Book of Mary?) to do the writing, but is it based on real happenings or inspiration, we'll never really know. Gotta go on faith I guess.