God

[Rug]

And he doesnt mind the wholesale slaughter of innocents, because hes a champion of free will?

Err... free will is fine, to an extent. When people are exerting their free will to harm others, they should be stopped. This is the foundation of something I like to call lawful society.

[SS]

God can't force people to do things.

Correct.

That's one of the good things about God...he lets you choose how you want to live your life (in sin or righteousness)

He doesn't let you do anything - he simply doesn't have enough power to force people to worship him.
The whole "benevolent god" thing is just an act to try to get people to like him. He doesn't care about people being happy or anything - he just wants people to worship him. And that's why he doesn't stop wars; because a: he doesn't care, and b: the Christian side usually has the bigger army (or both sides are Christian) so he can do nothing and they think he helped them win.

[underruler]

Or maybe he wants to see what we do.  Maybe he's testing us; he wants us to stop evil doers.  As a Christian, God tests your faith b/c worse things come along like Satan who will completely destroy you.

I think you people are out of your mind.  Of course Jesus existed he was a real person, but him being the Messiah is debatable.  (I believe he was, but I'll leave that up to you to decide)

[Rug]

Didn't say he didn't exist, Under - I asked if our host here believes he did.

Article.

Biased, yes, as you can guess from the name of the site - But take the time to read it, it puts forward logical arguments with evidence to back them up.

As a Christian, God tests your faith b/c worse things come along like Satan who will completely destroy you.

I believe the following quote best answers this.

Yes, a lot of it is about guidance and living a good life, but a lot of it is not. You will go to Church on sundays! You will pay your tithes! You will not do anything I say not to! Otherwise you're going to hell! *waves arms in pseudo-scary way going "Woooooooo"*

SYL, Scholars of Shen Zhou

[Night Spawn]

Nice to finally meet you, Rug.  Can you sum up your position in a small paragraph, so I can more adequately respond - in particular, to the first question.

If God is so great, why do bad things happen to good people? Its an oldie, but a goodie.

A very nice goodie.  There's so much I have to say to that... hopefully, I can sum it up so you won't have to read a book-in-a-post.

First off, by what criteria do you use to judge between whether or not a person is good?  I ask this, because I remain dubious that an  actual "good" person does exist.  Even if majority opinion says a certain individual is good that individual would more than likely point out why he/she isn't good (Ravi Zacharias, for example).  Seems to produce a complication.
A lot of people wouldn't consider David Berkowitz as being a good person, but I'm sure he'd respond to those accusations with: "Wait a minute; I'm not Hitler!   I didn't kill millions, I just killed a few" or "I wasn't Jeffrey Dahmer; I didn't eat my victims".  Zacharias concludes,

"We tend to do the kind of comparisons by which we always emerge better than someone else, and so we think we're good."

This doesn't mean bad things should happen to people, though.  I can chop it down a little with these two:

1.  People choosing bad upon themselves -- immature choices, for example.
2.  People choosing bad upon others -- for example, intentional harm.

As stated by Opper, the vast majority of atrocities committed on this Earth are done so in the name of a Deity. Assuming that God, Allah, etc, are all the same deity (as we cant all be right), why does he allow this?

I typed to Opper:

This isn't God's fault, but man's fault. I'm sure you're familiar with a writer by the name of Tolkien (creator of LOTR), well his best friend (the guy who converted him) gave an amazing defense to this. He said something along the lines of:

'It is men, not God who have produced racks, whips, prisons, slavery, guns, bayonets, and bombs; it is by human avarice or human stupidity... that we have poverty and overwork." (The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis, p. 86)

So, God allows it... has to allow it, because of free will.  With free will comes good effects (for example, choice), but bad effects arise also (war-mongers).

[Rug]

A very nice goodie.  There's so much I have to say to that... hopefully, I can sum it up so you won't have to read a book-in-a-post.

First off, by what criteria do you use to judge between whether or not a person is good? I ask this, because I remain dubious that an actual "good" person does exist. Even if majority opinion says a certain individual is good that individual would more than likely point out why he/she isn't good (Ravi Zacharias, for example). Seems to produce a complication.
A lot of people wouldn't consider David Berkowitz as being a good person, but I'm sure he'd respond to those accusations with: "Wait a minute; I'm not Hitler! I didn't kill millions, I just killed a few" or "I wasn't Jeffrey Dahmer; I didn't eat my victims". Zacharias concludes,

"We tend to do the kind of comparisons by which we always emerge better than someone else, and so we think we're good."

This doesn't mean bad things should happen to people, though. I can chop it down a little with these two:

1. People choosing bad upon themselves -- immature choices, for example.
2. People choosing bad upon others -- for example, intentional harm.

A good person. I cited an innocent child who is beaten to death by an abusive parent as my example. You are picking at the question, to avoid the thrust of it. Answer the question.

Nice to finally meet you, Rug. Can you sum up your position in a small paragraph, so I can more adequately respond - in particular, to the first question.

I am anti-religion. Its not just christianity that has to put up with my somewhat angry/abusive style of analysis, so dont take it personally.

[matt_the_shark]

I'm just gonna answer a question by SS earlier that was left unattended:

Next thing, Jesus. Why do Christians worship him? Yahweh has specifically said not to worship anyone or anything else. Jesus never asked to be worshipped, either.
Yeah, so maybe he was the Son of God, but that doesn't mean you worship him. Not when both him and his father have said not to.

ok, here's a little bit of info on the subject.  God is one being, but he exists in 3 parts (the trinity): father, son, and holy spirit.  Jesus was God's extension on earth, created to help spread his message, and i say extension, therefore, He is still the same God.  With this evidence, I'll say that it is not against the religion to worship Jesus, because Him and God are one and the same.

I'm too lazy to run over the other statements out there, maybe later.

[Rug]

I'm just gonna answer a question by SS earlier that was left unattended:

Next thing, Jesus. Why do Christians worship him? Yahweh has specifically said not to worship anyone or anything else. Jesus never asked to be worshipped, either.
Yeah, so maybe he was the Son of God, but that doesn't mean you worship him. Not when both him and his father have said not to.

ok, here's a little bit of info on the subject.  God is one being, but he exists in 3 parts (the trinity): father, son, and holy spirit.  Jesus was God's extension on earth, created to help spread his message, and i say extension, therefore, He is still the same God.  With this evidence, I'll say that it is not against the religion to worship Jesus, because Him and God are one and the same.

I'm too lazy to run over the other statements out there, maybe later.

Sorry for lowering the tone of the argument, but I cant resist...

The Brick Testament.

[SS]

ok, here's a little bit of info on the subject.

<_< I was a Catholic for well over the first half of my life. I know all the basics.

God is one being, but he exists in 3 parts (the trinity): father, son, and holy spirit.  Jesus was God's extension on earth, created to help spread his message, and i say extension, therefore, He is still the same God.  With this evidence, I'll say that it is not against the religion to worship Jesus, because Him and God are one and the same.

If you worship my finger, then you are worshipping my finger, not me.
Sure, my finger might be me, but if you're obsessing over only my finger then you're not directly worshipping me, and if you create a cult named after my finger, that makes it even more obvious that you'd prefer to cut my finger off and just worship it without me.

There's also the question of worshipping the cross as a symbol - that is not worshipping Jesus/God. At a stretch you could say it's worshipping his deeds/actions, but why then is the cross such a strong symbol, rather than specifically crucifixes?
And then you also get Mary. Jesus' mum. She's worshipped all the time. She aint part of the trinity, and she didn't actually do anything. Infact this wonderful free-will which Yahweh supposedly gives wasn't given to her, by Biblical accounts; the angel came down and said something along the lines of "You're having Gods baby. Call him Jesus. kthnxbye".
And, of course, there's still all the statues of saints and crap which Catholics idolise.

That's not just bending the first commandment, it's grabbing a sledgehammer and smashing it into tiny pieces, throwing them on a fire, and doing a dance around the flames!

[Night Spawn]

SS,

1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. (or: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.)
If the Yahweh is the only god, why does he feel put this as the First Commandment?
It's not even a "I am the only god." He is specifically saying not to worship other gods. For me, he is as good as saying that he is just one of many gods.

"I am the only God" is throughout the Bible (throughout the NT especially), so just because it doesn't say it in that particular spot doesn't mean it's there.  It's just summing up a group of commandments.
Of course he's saying not to worship other Gods, because the worship will be false.  This is looking too much into the text in an attempt to pin-point an error.  I'm sure you realize the basic point of it - 'don't worship other Gods, because I am the One and Only'.  Combining that scripture with the Bible as a whole and the paraphrase seems justified.

Also, Genesis. This place "Nod, on the east of Eden" - it has people in it. Where did these people come from? If Yahweh made them, why does Genesis only focus on Adam and Eve? The logical explanation is that he didn't make these other people. Maybe another god created them. Maybe they evolved from monkeys.

What scripture are you referring to exactly in Genesis?

why should there only be a single god?

Firstly, because this goes against Occam's Razor.  Secondly, because of the biblical evidence which exists for Christianity (I can bring forth some, if you like) and philosophical evidence for a single God (Kalam Cosmological Argument, teleological argument).

Next thing, Jesus. Why do Christians worship him? Yahweh has specifically said not to worship anyone or anything else. Jesus never asked to be worshipped, either.
Yeah, so maybe he was the Son of God, but that doesn't mean you worship him. Not when both him and his father have said not to.
If I was still a Christian - well, I wouldn't be. I'd call myself a ... whatever, something that specifically does not represent a worship of Jesus, because it's completely against the laws of the religion!

Jesus claimed to be God (John 10:33), so why isn't he to be worshipped?  Peopl worship him throughout Matthew (Mt 8:2; Mt 9:18; Mt 14:33; Mt 15:25; Mt 20:20; Mt 28:9; Mt 28:17).

That, I don't agree with. I see no reason why love should be limited by gender or number. ie: I think it's entirely possible for three people to love each other. Afterall, most people have that many family members.
Yeah, so 'family love' is a different type of love, but I think 'partner love' is ultimately a richer extension of that

I digress, but I'll grant you that partner love is a richer extension of family love, so I can make a point.  I have 5 brothers and 4 sisters.  I love them all to death, but my love for some is much closer than others - more on a personal level.  To go even further, my love for one surpasses them all, because of the closer relationship we have and keep.  If this is true, and it is equivalent to 'partner love', then that means I'd love one partner over all the others.  
It's rather simple, actually.  Any male saying they truly love 3 females can be introduced with a hypothetical where they had to choose one to live with forever.  Obviously, the one they choose must be their true love... the other ones are just loves.

 

[mole]

*waves hand away* i hate long posts i read about...3 of them.

Yes, why are the Bible and Members of the Christian Church so hippocritical?

power my friend...power.


uhh all i can really say to this topic is that im an Athiest-Existentialist hybrid and i like it *feels warm in side*

[Night Spawn]

A good person. I cited an innocent child who is beaten to death by an abusive parent as my example. You are picking at the question, to avoid the thrust of it. Answer the question.

I still await this criteria you use to determine whether or not someone is good.  You just type "a good person", which brings us right back to the starting point.  If you're saying a parent who beats their children is bad, then what if the parent responds with "That's not right, because Hitler is bad.  He killed millions, while I killed no one.  I just beat my child".  I still conclude that no "good" person actually exists.  

On your original question, I answered in good detail.  I summed it up with:

"1. People choosing bad upon themselves -- immature choices, for example.
2. People choosing bad upon others -- for example, intentional harm."

I gave the free will defense, of course.  You responded with these two quotes:

And he doesnt mind the wholesale slaughter of innocents, because hes a champion of free will?

Err... free will is fine, to an extent. When people are exerting their free will to harm others, they should be stopped. This is the foundation of something I like to call lawful society.

The fact that they don't get judged for their crime(s) now doesn't mean they never will.  

If your statement was put into effect, free will wouldn't exist.  People would absolutely be doing whatever God forced them to do, which amounts to puppetry.  
Let's have some fun witht he implications of the above: boxers harm others, football players harm others, so do video games (temporary emotional harm), paper factories harms others (paper cuts), paintball wars harm others, etc.

Sure, it's not great harm, but you weren't very exact.  Harm is harm, so should God also stop all of the above?  

Its not just christianity that has to put up with my somewhat angry/abusive style of analysis, so dont take it personally.

Just so long as we both stay away from immature name-calling or [insert rude remark here], then I'll consider the discussion fruitful and will be continued.

 

[SS]

What scripture are you referring to exactly in Genesis?

That specific quote is 4:16, but it's the whole section about Cain being cast out for killing his brother.

Firstly, because this goes against Occam's Razor.

Gah! I hate Occam's Razor. People always use it to 'prove' stuff, without any consideration for the fact that they don't actually know what it really is - that being a guideline. It states that the simplest explanation is often true. Not always, just often. So using it to prove anything is stupid.

Secondly, because of the biblical evidence which exists for Christianity (I can bring forth some, if you like) and philosophical evidence for a single God (Kalam Cosmological Argument, teleological argument).

Might be interesting to hear.

Jesus claimed to be God (John 10:33), so why isn't he to be worshipped?  Peopl worship him throughout Matthew (Mt 8:2; Mt 9:18; Mt 14:33; Mt 15:25; Mt 20:20; Mt 28:9; Mt 28:17).

See my reply to matt. If they are the same being, they should be worshipped as one. (If they are to be worshipped at all.)

It's rather simple, actually.  Any male saying they truly love 3 females can be introduced with a hypothetical where they had to choose one to live with forever.  Obviously, the one they choose must be their true love... the other ones are just loves.

Fair enough. But the problem I have with that is that love isn't really a relative thing, it's an absolute.
To quantify things: If X loves A by 96% and B by 97%, then B is X's 'true love'. But X still loves both over 95%. And then we have the problem... if A loves X by 97% and B by 96%, and B loves A by 97 and X by 96... well it all goes in a triangle. Rather than trying to force two people together, if they are all happy to be a trio then why not let them?

[Rug]

If you're saying a parent who beats their children is bad, then what if the parent responds with "That's not right, because Hitler is bad. He killed millions, while I killed no one. I just beat my child". I still conclude that no "good" person actually exists.

Why can they not both be bad? You generalise overly. If you say that someone who follows Gods commandments to the letter isn't good, you're contradicting your entire religion, and need a rethink.

If your statement was put into effect, free will wouldn't exist. People would absolutely be doing whatever God forced them to do, which amounts to puppetry.

No, free will would be limited. Which, to all intents and purposes, is a damned good thing. If free will was totally unlimited, we would have total chaos. That is, more or less, what you are suggesting through your constant championing of total free will.

Sure, it's not great harm, but you weren't very exact. Harm is harm, so should God also stop all of the above?

Yep, sorry, had a bad case of over generalisation there - the examples you cite contain nothing that was not consentual, and nothing that was lethal. We'll leave harm at non-consentual bodily damage and murder, for the moment.

[underruler]

SS: Catholocism isn't wrong.  It's just different I guess.  If you know what's right then you can still be Catholic, but know when a church is crossing the line.