God

[FragMaster1972]

Before I offer an answer, I disagree with the traditional definition of hell (place of fire). I believe it will be banishment from God.

Fear, in english only rings of negativity (opposite of trust, and its synonyms are fright, dread and terror). In Hebrew, it has other meanings - from negative (dread, terror) to positive (worship, reverence) and from mild (respect) to strong (awe) -- Prov. 9:10; Prov. 14:26-27; 1John 4:18; Deut. 10:12; . Tverberg concludes,

"In fact, every time we read "revere" or "reverence", it comes from the Hebrew word "yareh", literally, to fear. When fear is in reference to God, it can be either negative or positive. The enemies of God are terrified by Him, but those who know Him revere and worship Him, all meanings of the word "yareh"." (Does God Want us to Fear Him?)

that doesn't answer anything at all. So fear can mean many things--I think you know what I meant' To live in fear, be afraid of, etc. No offense, but you talk a lot and don't say anything. You avoid a lot of questions by finding one single, totally irrelevant, element of a question to respond to. Please, try to focus on the *relevant* parts instead of taking the least important parts of a question, as that only creates totally meaningless answers.

You want to get technical? Here's the Oxford English Dictionary Definition for fear (v). Keep in mind this dictionary has just about every possible meaning of a word. The following is merely for the verb form.

  I. 1. trans. To inspire with fear; to frighten. Obs. exc. arch. or vulgar.
 
  c1000 ÆLFRIC Deut. i. 18 a bodan us færdon. c1200 ORMIN 675 He wile himm færenn. a1225 Ancr. R. 230 Auh heo neuede o none leaue, bute one uort to offeren [v.r. fearen] him. 1340 HAMPOLE Pr. Consc. 6429 For e mynde of am myght men feer. c1400 Sowdone Bab. 59 Here Bugles boldely for to blowe, To fere the beestis. 1485 CAXTON St. Wenefr. 20, I sawe a vysyon whiche moche fered me. 1548 HALL Chron. 166 Women in Fraunce to feare their yong children, would crye, the Talbot commeth. 1593 SHAKES. 3 Hen. VI, V. ii. 2 Warwicke was a Bugge that fear'd vs all. 1641 MAISTERTON Serm. 16 An old-wifes tale, fit for nothing but to fear fools. c1665 Roxb. Ball. VII. 524 Our King must have Seamen..most stout His enemies' hearts for to fear. 1801 MACNEILL Poet. Wks. (1844) 46 If thy slumber's sweet..no dangers can fear me. 1820 KEATS Isabella viii, I would not..fear Thine eyes by gazing. 1872 LEVER Ld. Kilgobbin xviii, Devil fear her!

    b. it fears me: = I am afraid. Obs.
 
  1503 HAWES Examp. Virt. Prol. 2 It fereth me sore for to endyte. 1646 Burd. Issach. in Phenix (1708) II. 287 It feareth me besides, that God is punishing our present Sins. 1813 HOGG Queen's Wake 67 It fearis me muckil ye haif seen Quhat good man never knew.

    2. With pregnant sense.    a. To drive away by fear, frighten away, scare (esp. birds or animals). Chiefly with away. Obs.
 
  c1420 Pallad. on Husb. I. 147 Eddres to sleyn & foules oute to fere is. 1504 W. ATKYNSON tr. De Imitatione III. xxvii, Fere away the euyll bestes. 1577 J. NORTHBROOKE Dicing (1579) 45b, If there were nothing else to feare them away from this play. 1603 SHAKES. Meas. for M. II. i. 2 A scar-crow..to feare the Birds of prey. 1613 DENNYS Secrets of Angling II. in Arb. Garner I. 174 There some great fish doth fear the rest away. 1614 RALEIGH Hist. World II. IV. ii. §7. 152 A Swallow flew about his head..and could not be feared from him. a1631 DONNE The Storm 52 Wks. 1873 II. 5 Some..would seeme there, With hydeous gazinge, to feare away Feare.

    b. To deter from a course of conduct, etc. Const. from; also occas. followed by that...not.
 
  c1380 WYCLIF Wks. (1880) 109 (title) Speculum de Anti~christo, Hou anticrist & his clerkis feren trewe prestis fro prechynge of cristis gospel. 1393 LANGLAND P. Pl. C. XVIII. 285 Eueriche busshope..sholde... Feden hem [hus peple]..and fere hem fro synne. 1530 TINDALE Gen. Prol. Wks. I. 399 The ensamples..are written to fear the flesh, that we sin not. 1531 FRITH Judgm. Tracy 251 He doth..fear us from putting any confidence in our own works. 1539 TAVERNER Erasm. Prov. (1552) 3 To feare hym that he..shulde not prouoke S. Hierom. 1583 BABINGTON Commandm. (1588) 135 Shall it not feare vs from so foule a custome? a1632 T. TAYLOR God's Judgem. I. I. v. (1642) 184 Their example feared not the Cornishmen from rebelling.

    c. To drive by fear to, into. Obs.
 
  1563 FOXE A. & M. 788a, It should somwhat touche them to be sene by werynes of pryson to feare him to it. 1646 J. HALL Poems I. 68 Nor will I..Lillies feare Into a Iandise.
 
    II. To feel fear; to regard with fear.

    3. refl. (cf. 1b) To be afraid. Formerly const. of. Now only arch. in phrase I fear me.
 
  1393 GOWER Conf. I. 294 (Fairfax MS.) So lowde his belle is runge..That of e noise..Men feeren hem..Welmore an ei don of onder. 1530 PALSGR. 547/2, I feared me alwayes that it wolde be so. 1590 MARLOWE Edw. II, II. iv, I fear me he is slain. 1608 S. WARD in Abp. Ussher's Lett. (1686) 26, I fear me, he will hardly get Copies. 1856 R. A. VAUGHAN Mystics (1860) I. 167, I fear me that..some..earthly love mingles with his friendship. 1859 TENNYSON Lancelot & Elaine 966 A flash, I fear me, that will strike my blossom dead.

    4. intr. in same sense.    a. to fear of (rarely at): = sense 5.
 
  c1400 Destr. Troy 1929 We fors not his frendship, ne fere of his hate. 1509 BARCLAY Shyp of Folys (1874) I. 173 He or she that mariage doth breke May fere of deth eternall whan they dye. c1600 SHAKES. Sonn. cxv, Fearing of love's tyranny. 1606 G. W[OODCOCKE] tr. Hist. Ivstine 97a, The men..which feared not at the command of King Phillip.

    b. with dependent clause: To feel alarmed or uneasy lest (something should happen).
  (Closely approaching the trans. use with clause; cf. 7b.)
 
  c1489 CAXTON Sonnes of Aymon xx. 455 He feered sore leste Reynawde sholde make to deye rychard of normandy. 1559 W. CUNINGHAM Cosmogr. Glasse 38, I ever feare lest th' Earth..should fall to the other part of the Heavens. 1691 tr. Emilianne's Obs. Journ. Naples 135 Fearing lest some Insurrection might be caus'd. 1823 F. CLISSOLD Asc. Mt. Blanc 20, I..feared lest I should drop down.

    c. simply. (Blends with the absol. use of senses 5 and 7.) Phrase (colloq.), never fear: = ‘there's no danger of that’.
 
  1588 SHAKES. L.L.L. I. ii. 108 If she fear..By this [pale white cheekes] you shall not know. c1590 MARLOWE Faust. Wks. (Rtldg.) 100/1 'Tis but a surfeit; never fear, man. 1611 BIBLE Gen. l. 19 And Ioseph saide vnto them, Feare not. 1651 HOBBES Govt. & Soc. i. §2. 7 To..take heed, provide so that they may not fear. 1798 COLERIDGE Anc. Mar. IV. ii, Fear not thou wedding guest! 1800 COGAN Philos. Treat. Passions I. ii. (1802) 102 As soon as we cease to fear, we begin to hope. 1838 LYTTON Lady of Lyons II. i, I'll find the occasion, never fear! 1888 MRS. PARR Runaways in Longm. Mag. Apr. 640 I'm not going to blab on myselfnever fear! 1893 MORLEY in Westm. Gaz. 19 Apr. 3/2 Those only see aright into the future of civilised communities who hopenot those who fear.

    5. trans. To regard with fear, be afraid of (a person or thing as a source of danger, an anticipated event or state of things as painful or evil).
 
  c1460 FORTESCUE Abs. & Lim. Mon. x, Ther shulde non off hem growe to be like vnto hym; wich thynge is most to be fered of all e worlde. 1477 EARL RIVERS (Caxton) Dictes 97 Thoo that sawe not yesterday Alexander ferede him gretely, and now thoo that see him fereth him not. 1530 PALSGR. 547/2 He feareth me above all the men lyvynge. 1563 GOLDING Cæsar 30b, They feared not the enemy, but the narrownes of the wais. 1611 BIBLE 2 Esdras xii. 13 It shall be feared aboue all the kingdomes that were before it. a1618 RALEIGH Rem. (1664) 116 To fear the losse of the bell, more than the losse of the steeple. 1667 MILTON P.L. IX. 282 His violence thou fearst not. 1697 DRYDEN Æn. x. 1261 Nor Fate I fear, but all the Gods defy. 1841 LANE Arab. Nts. I. 92 Every..person whom thou fearest. 1885 CLODD Myths & Dr. II. iii. 155 What man cannot understand he fears.
 
  transf. c1489 CAXTON Sonnes of Aymon vi. 149 It [ye castell] fered no sawtyng on no side of it.

    b. with inf. (vbl. n., etc.) as object: To hesitate (to do something) through fear of the consequences; to fear offence = to fear to offend.
 
  1603 FLORIO Montaigne 563 As if he feared to attediate..us. 1700 DRYDEN Cymon & Iphig. 114 He..would have spoke, but..found his want of Words, and fear'd Offence. 1794 MRS. RADCLIFFE Myst. Udolpho xliv, Dorothee..feared to obey. 1799 tr. Diderot's Natural Sin ii. 26 You feared disturbing our tranquillity.
 
    6. To regard with reverence and awe; to revere. Now only with God as obj.; formerly in wider sense.
 
  a1400 Prymer (1891) 101 Gretly is thi word fyred. 1526 TINDALE Eph. v. 33 Lett the wyfe see that she feare her husbande. 1593 SHAKES. Rich. II, II. i. 52 This..Wombe of Royall Kings, Fear'd by their breed. 1611 BIBLE Ps. ciii. 13 The Lord pitieth them that feare him. 1715 DE FOE Fam. Instruct. I. i. (1841) I. 10 If you fear God..as your father. 1827 POLLOK Course T. IV. 135 Who..feared nought but God.

    7. To have an uneasy sense of the probability of (some unwelcome occurrence in the future); to apprehend. Opposed to hope for.
 
  1597 SHAKES. 2 Hen. IV, I. i. 87 He that but feares the thing, he would not know Hath..knowledge from others eyes, That what he feard, is chanc'd. 1759 JOHNSON Rasselas xxviii, If they have less to fear, they have less also to hope. 1861 M. PATTISON Ess. (1889) I. 47 London had ceased to fear a foreign foe.

    b. with subord. clause. To be afraid that (something will be or is the case). In negative sentences the clause may be introduced by but or but that = that..not. Also with direct obj. and to be or simple complement; rarely, with inf. as obj. Also parenthetically.
 
  1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 16b, I feare sore that many chrysten people..do as the chyldren of Israel dyd. a1533 LD. BERNERS Huon lxi. 212 Fere not but ye shalbe well payed. 1593 SHAKES. 3 Hen. VI, V. vi. 12 The Theefe doth feare each bush an Officer. 1638 BAKER tr. Balzac's Lett. I. 25 Never feare that I will impaire his ill nights. 1658-9 Burton's Diary (1828) IV. 47, I fear they are troubled with King's evil. 1667 MILTON P.L. I. 628 What power of mind..could have fear'd, How such united force of Gods..could ever know repulse. 1692 tr. Zingis 11 He feared with reason to be unable to do any thing for Zingis. 1726 Adv. Capt. R. Boyle 47, I fear'd it would be..two hundred Pounds. 1771 E. GRIFFITH tr. Viaud's Shipwreck 255, I fear much that of the sixteen persons..three only of us have survived. 1848 MACAULAY Hist. Eng. II. 225 He might do so without fearing that the Five Mile Act would be enforced. 1857 TROLLOPE Three Clerks v, I fear we are all in your black books. 1863 F. A. KEMBLE Resid. in Georgia 16 The account..will hardly, I fear, render my letters very interesting.
 
    8. a. trans. (Perh. originally const. dat.: cf. L. timere alicui). To be apprehensive about, to fear something happening to (obs.).    b. In same sense intr.; const. for, of.
 
  1526 TINDALE Gal. iv. 11, I feare off you, lest I have bestowed on you laboure in vayne. c1530 LD. BERNERS Arth. Lyt. Bryt. (1814) 213 Arthur fered his horse, lest that the lyon sholde haue slayne hym. 1594 SHAKES. Rich. III, I. i. 137 His Physitians feare him mightily. 1611 TOURNEUR Ath. Trag. V. i, If any roote of life remaines within 'em..feare 'em not. 1651 N. BACON Disc. Govt. Eng. II. i. (1739) 6 The people..feared their own Free-holds. 1686 DRYDEN Horace I. xxix. 10 Let the greedy merchant fear For his ill~gotten gain. 1695 PRIOR Ode death Q. Mary 47 So much she fears for William's life. 1841 LANE Arab. Nts. I. 11, I fear for thee that the same will befal thee. 1853 KANE Grinnell Exp. xxxiii. (1856) 284 note, We feared for his recovery.
 
    c. In 18th c., when the vb. was conjugated negatively, a following negative was often illogically omitted, so that the vb. seems to mean: To apprehend the non-occurrence of (some event).
 
  a1699 STILLINGFL. Serm. Wks. 1710 I. 619 We need not fear a gracious answer. 1747 S. FIELDING Lett. David Simple I. ii. 63, I liked him, and was so accustomed to the Addresses of every Man by whom I was seen, that I did not at all fear his immediately becoming one of my Train. 1771 T. HULL Sir W. Harrington (1797) IV. 211 If I apply for it, I don't fear its being granted.

    9. To regard with distrust; to doubt. Obs.
 
  1578 T. N. tr. Conq. W. India 16 The governour feared the wisedome and courage of his kinsman. 1607 TOPSELL Serpents (1653) 681 If a bird it tast..It dies assured death, none need it fear. 1730-6 BAILEY (folio), Fear..to doubt or question.

All but one entry has to do with being afraid of something. This is obviously what I was referring to. Did you need that full OED entry to grasp that? I'm sure you didn't. I hope I've made my point. Now please, try to answer my question.

Also, in the DT forums thread, my first question was answered with more or less the following: A quote saying that a being is o all powerful if they can create anything, and don't have a reason for not wanting to. That works out nicely for any supporter of religion; any hint that he might not be all powerful is refuted by saying that God doesn't *want* to. That sounds almost childish.
Another part of the response is that He can't do anything that isn't logically possible. It seems fairly logical to me, however. There are plenty of soundwaves that are too low or high frequency for me to hear. There are plenty of light wavelengths that I can't see. So would it be so strange for there to be a sound that God can't hear? Or would it not be strange because he doesn't *want* to hear that particular sound?

Besides.... "enjoying our lives" usually conflicts with leading a Godly one.

And I have a problem with that. Again, should I live a boring, dull life, constantly struggling, simply because there might be a God and afterlife? Consider this then: say that all religions are wrong. Pretend for a moment that everything you believe, everything you've been taught--all wrong. No gods. No correct religion. But you've just spent 70? 80? Maybe 90 or more years, devoting your life to something that doesn't even exist. So you die, having lived a lie, accomplished nothing, with absolutely no reward. Congratulations, you've just wasted your entire life, as have countless others. And say maybe there is a god, but yet the whole religion is wrong and your life here is all you get. Again. Wasted life. Is this really what your god would want, if indeed he exists?

Religious people judge between good and evil as according to how their God or "force" does (and pretty much every major religion agrees with each other on this). Those that don't accept any type of religious doctrine have a good bit to answer for when they call one man "good" and one man "bad". They aren't using any sort of objective standard to judge this. According to their position, who is "good" or "bad" all falls down to subjectively based preferences, which wrips apart any attempts at commenting on the subject.

It's just as subjective for religious people. The only difference is that they have a fall guy for everything: they just blame God. We decide who is good and bad based on our own standards. Will it vary from person to person? of course. but don't you think there's something to be said for not just following what someone else says?
No matter what religion, or lack thereof, you follow, you're going to have your own beliefs that vary from everyone else's who follow the exact same religion. For every religious person who thinks they're a very good person, there's a person who thinks the exact opposite of them. For every person(A) a religious person considers evil, there's a person(B) that thinks that same person(A) is good. The above quoted comment is irrelevant and proves nothing.


and Hitler wasn't necessarily that bad. Before you write me off as some twisted fuck, think about it this way: He had an insanely powerful, incredibly loyal army. His people followed him without question. He was a great leader. The only problem was when he started to abuse his power. *THAT'S* when things turned sour. But read the above again: People followed him without question. Sound familiar?
 

[Rug]

I'd like a response from the anti-religious side as to how they can possibly consider one man actually good or bad?

By utilising the principles laid down by religions. I said that above. I don't have to abide by your religion, or like the vast majority of it, nor do I have to worship your God to think some of your principles are right. I also think some of the things professed in the bible are sick. Killing homosexuals because they're homosexual, for example.

I see no reason to stop at any particular level of harm besides subjectively based preferences, which really amounts to no reason at all.

If you see no reason, you're not looking. You're being quite irrational there, actually. Yes, serious harm should not happen to people. Minor things are fine. Assuming God is a busy person, I imagine he has better things to do than prevent lil' Jimmy from getting a boo boo on his pinky. He could, however, step in to save someone who's about to be crushed by a juggernaught... yaknow, just looking after his own creations.

One doesn't write a computer program then leave it to its own devices - you help it out, improve it, and stop it from destroying itself if something goes wrong.

He has set rules and enforces punishments (though, not immediately) when we go wrong.

When you can prove an afterlife exists, I'll accept that God actually bothers to punish people. As that isn't going to happen anytime soon, I'll be morbid and believe we simply cease to exist when we die - so God doesn't actually get around to punishing anyone.

You're saying it's wrong for God to allow that to happen, but would you be questioning such an incident, if the parents raised the kid up to be good?

Again, if God is almighty and omnipotent, he will be able to see which cases harm causes good, and is worth continuing, what harm isnt really substantial, and which harm amounts only to evil.

[Killing] should not happen, but it does happen... yes, because of free will.

Which is precisely why free will is limited, via the laws.

That's like me creating a long list of anti-religious people who've done terrible things, then saying I dislike the anti-religious movement just because of what those people did. I wouldn't do that. I respect the anti-religious movement and learn from it day in and out.

Has the Anti-religious movement done the following:

-Allowed and encouraged the wholesale slaughter of 26 million people, because the live a different way of life to us.
-Waged incessant warfare against a part of the world, because we thought it should belont to us, and they were wearing turbans.
-Professed the murder of thousands of women, because they could float, and we quite liked the look of their money?

Christian church, catholic or protestant = a tool for capitol gain and control. Nothing more.

You avoid a lot of questions by finding one single, totally irrelevant, element of a question to respond to. Please, try to focus on the *relevant* parts instead of taking the least important parts of a question, as that only creates totally meaningless answers.

Its something thats learnt at Sunday schools, I swear. A simple, bolded, 'answer the fucking question' usually works.

[Night Spawn]

FragMaster,

Thanks for taking the time to respond.  

When defining a word from the Bible, you have to go back to the original language.  That's why I keep several Concordance's handy.  That's also why the Oxford Dictionary isn't meant to be a Concordance.

I gave the meaning in the original language, while you're still stuck on giving an English definition.  I also gave scripture where it is written "fear God", but meant in a worshipful, following way, which means your holding a groundless interpretation.   The interpretation your giving was only meant for those in opposition to God.

A quote saying that a being is o all powerful if they can create anything, and don't have a reason for not wanting to. That works out nicely for any supporter of religion; any hint that he might not be all powerful is refuted by saying that God doesn't *want* to. That sounds almost childish.

It appearing childish doesn't take away it's reasonableness.

Another part of the response is that He can't do anything that isn't logically possible. It seems fairly logical to me, however. There are plenty of soundwaves that are too low or high frequency for me to hear. There are plenty of light wavelengths that I can't see. So would it be so strange for there to be a sound that God can't hear? Or would it not be strange because he doesn't *want* to hear that particular sound?

I see no reason for there to be a sound that God can't hear.  The "God can't do anything that isn't logically possible" is very much valid and senseful.  Is there anything you find wrong with it?

Probably the greatest atheistic philosopher of the century, JL Mackie, didn't even concentrate on such arguments like that in his book The Miracle of Theism.  He concentrated on those that were more reasonable (i.e. argument from evil).

It's just as subjective for religious people. The only difference is that they have a fall guy for everything: they just blame God. We decide who is good and bad based on our own standards. Will it vary from person to person? of course.

I digress that it's just as subjective, but I'll grant you that.  Even if it is, there still doesn't exist any actual good or bad person alive today, which means the question "Why does bad things happen to good people?" needs to be put in a much different way for it's misleading.

but don't you think there's something to be said for not just following what someone else says?

We all follow what others say at certain points in life.

-Spawn

[Night Spawn]

Rug,

Its something thats learnt at Sunday schools

Sorry, but I don't go to Sunday school.

A simple, bolded, 'answer the fucking question' usually works.

As you can see, his quote was left unjustified and is based off of misunderstandings on how to look up the original language in a Concordance.

It's an ad hominem at best.

By utilising the principles laid down by religions. I said that above. I don't have to abide by your religion, or like the vast majority of it, nor do I have to worship your God to think some of your principles are right. I also think some of the things professed in the bible are sick. Killing homosexuals because they're homosexual, for example.

Red Herring.  I never said you have to worship my God to think the principles are right.  

I said your belief is founded on subjectively based preferences, so how can you say one man is good or bad.  Some other person may found his on SBP's also and disagree with yours (he may believe Hitler was right for what he did).  How can you prove his wrong?  You can't, because SBP's will merely be clashing with each other.  Therefore, according to your view, there is no such thing as an actual good or bad person.

If you see no reason, you're not looking. You're being quite irrational there, actually. Yes, serious harm should not happen to people. Minor things are fine. Assuming God is a busy person, I imagine he has better things to do than prevent lil' Jimmy from getting a boo boo on his pinky. He could, however, step in to save someone who's about to be crushed by a juggernaught... yaknow, just looking after his own creations.

One doesn't write a computer program then leave it to its own devices - you help it out, improve it, and stop it from destroying itself if something goes wrong.

Thanks for answering the question.

Why is it that minor things are fine?  I'm not being irrational at all, because I'm not seen basing most of my conclusions off of SBP's.  So, basically, 'serious things should be stopped, but not minor things, just cause I say so'?

When you can prove an afterlife exists, I'll accept that God actually bothers to punish people. As that isn't going to happen anytime soon, I'll be morbid and believe we simply cease to exist when we die - so God doesn't actually get around to punishing anyone.

Well, you've already granted God's existence during the discussion so we can discuss free will, yet you exclude it to escape a point?

With the Christian God's existence still being granted, He will punish those that do bad.  If you're going to exclude his existence, then why even par-take in the discussion, which granted his existence from the get-go?

Again, if God is almighty and omnipotent, he will be able to see which cases harm causes good, and is worth continuing, what harm isnt really substantial, and which harm amounts only to evil.

You didn't have to re-state that, because I responded to it right in the area of the sentence you cherry-picked and snipped.  I typed:

"Take your example of the kid who got beat to death by his parent.  It was all up to the parents. Granted that the kid went to Heaven, I'm sure the kid would realize who swung the fist or weapon and I'm sure the kid would realize God set up the system in such a way that the parents didn't have to do that. It was all up to them what was to be done.

The only ones irresponsible are the parent(s). The only one acting irresponsibly with the Jews was Hitler. They chose and will reap whatever judgments come their way."

Basically, what you're asking for is life to be kind of like a play where we (as the actors) have to do whatever the script (God) says.

Which is precisely why free will is limited, via the laws.

Once again, you cherry-pick and snip a sentence.  The full quote is thus:

"if God were to force us to do only that which is good (not kill or have the thought to kill), then it amounts to puppetry. [What we're doing, in itself, won't even be good, because we wouldn't be doing it, but God would be jury-rigging it.]

[Killing] should not happen, but it does happen... yes, because of free will.  That's what happens with free will, though. It's a sort of irreducibly complex system whereas it contains several working "parts" in order to achieve what we call "free will". Take one of these parts out and free will is gone against or demolished. You're taking out certain kinds of choices, which ultimately means taking choice, itself, out. With free will comes a big responsibility - the responsibility to choose what is right. It may be gone against a lot, but that doesn't make free will a bad thing. It's merely a beautiful thing gone bad in some aspects due to mankind."

Read what I typed after and before the sentence you snipped and respond, please.

Has the Anti-religious movement done the following:

-Allowed and encouraged the wholesale slaughter of 26 million people, because the live a different way of life to us.
-Waged incessant warfare against a part of the world, because we thought it should belont to us, and they were wearing turbans.
-Professed the murder of thousands of women, because they could float, and we quite liked the look of their money?

Christian church, catholic or protestant = a tool for capitol gain and control. Nothing more.

The Christian movement/church didn't do that, but the corruptible nature of men did that.  Once again, it's like me citing examples of atheists who have done wrong, then say it was the "anti-religious movement that did wrong".  Sometimes, even most of the time, certain individuals will tend to corrupt the beauty of their belief.  That's not the belief's fault.

-Spawn

[FragMaster1972]

FragMaster,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. 

When defining a word from the Bible, you have to go back to the original language.  That's why I keep several Concordance's handy.  That's also why the Oxford Dictionary isn't meant to be a Concordance.

I gave the meaning in the original language, while you're still stuck on giving an English definition.  I also gave scripture where it is written "fear God", but meant in a worshipful, following way, which means your holding a groundless interpretation.   The interpretation your giving was meant only meant for those in opposition to God.

My point is that it's obvious which meaning of fear I meant, and you took it entirely the wrong way.

I see no reason for there to be a sound that God can't hear.  The "God can't do anything that isn't logically possible" is very much valid and senseful.  Is there anything you find wrong with it?

I didnt say that argument wasn't valid or sensible--in fact I ran with it. But it's logical that there might be certain objects, no matter what form they come in, that certain beings couldn't detect.

I digress that it's just as subjective, but I'll grant you that.  Even if it is, there still doesn't exist any actual good or bad person alive today, which means the question "Why does bad things happen to good people?" needs to be put in a much different way for it's misleading.

Exactly my point. Either way it's just as subjective. It's only a matter of whether you hold it up to your own personal standards, or your deity's.

We all follow what others say at certain points in life.

Agreed. But we're talking you're whole life here, not just a day, month, a couple years--your whole life. That's a long time.

[Night Spawn]

FragMaster,

I didn't take it the wrong way.  I realized you were using an English definition, so I went back to the original text in an attempt to show what "fear" means within that original text - further verified with examples from scripture.  It doesn't just mean what the Oxford dictionary reads (being afraid of something).

I didnt say that argument wasn't valid or sensible--in fact I ran with it. But it's logical that there might be certain objects, no matter what form they come in, that certain beings couldn't detect.

I'm sure you don't enjoy reading the Bible (if so, then my sincere apologies), but it lays out the groundwork for God - what He can or can't do.

Granted that God is omnipresent, omniscience, and omnipotent, what couldn't He possibly detect?  In accordance with the two defenses me and the other poster at DT gave, any responses to that question will be dealt with adequately.

Exactly my point. Either way it's just as subjective. It's only a matter of whether you hold it up to your own personal standards, or your deity's.

It may be, but I don't feel like getting into that.  It's in the area of ontological status' and such, which would give me a headache attempting to summarize.  So, instead, I'll grant you that (which I did), then move on to how can one person be actually good or bad when it all falls down to subjectively based preferences?  One person may disagree with your preferences, which would just amount to them both clashing... not one coming out on top.
We seem to be agreeing here, though, right?  My entire point was just that the original question was misleading and incorrect.

we're talking you're whole life here, not just a day, month, a couple years--your whole life. That's a long time.

If that's in reference to me following God, well, I'm simply placing hope in that which I reason to be true.  If this isn't what you're talking about, my apologies.

[Rug]

Sorry, but I don't go to Sunday school.

The statement was made with my tongue firmly in my cheek, as it is a phenomenon I only truly encounter in theological discussion.

That's what happens with free will, though. It's a sort of irreducibly complex system whereas it contains several working "parts" in order to achieve what we call "free will". Take one of these parts out and free will is gone against or demolished.

No, it is not. How is free will demolished in, er, EVERY CIVILISED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD?

If anything, the countries which have clear laws and rules are better off than the ones without. So, the limiting of free will is a good thing. Here, in bold:

Limitation != destruction.

The only time where the above statment is incorrect is when limitation is taken to extremes - asking God to be his own police force is not extremely limiting free will. You can still choose who to vote for, whether to watch the game, everything thats important to you. So long as murdering your wife isnt important to you, anyway.

I said your belief is founded on subjectively based preferences

This is called having an opinion. It is part of your much loved free will. My beliefs are founded on what I think is correct, yes. Yes this will contradict with what other people think is correct. Do I care about that, if we all coexist and abide to the laws? No. The laws are set for a reason, and my opinion, my belief, is that they should be upheld. If someone thinks differently, and chooses to disrespect and break the laws that have been laid down, they should be punished, in this life, right now.

Basically, what you're asking for is life to be kind of like a play where we (as the actors) have to do whatever the script (God) says.

I'm asking for him to take responsibility for his actions. If hes created a race, he shouldn't leave it unattended. Least he could do is nurture us somewhat, yes?

Does he? Does he beans. People may say he nurtures us through the creation of new life and things; fuck em. If God really cares, he'd actually try to look after us rather than letting us destroy ourselves.

If someone turned the Earth to an ashen wasteland tomorrow (how is irrelevant - lets say a really big bomb, if you really want a how) would God care that someone utterly annihilated his world because of their free will, even if the other 6 billion people on the planet thought 'Er, no, I'd rather not be a grease spot'? What right would one person have to end an entire planet?

Would God stop it? No. You won't say that he would, either, because thats the most convenient option.

Why is it that minor things are fine?

Because they're minor.

Stupid question, stupid answer.

The Christian movement/church didn't do that, but the corruptible nature of men did that.

The corruptable nature of man. Yep. Unfortunately for you, the most corruptable person on the planet appears to be the Pope, which does very little for the credibility of your religion.

Well, you've already granted God's existence during the discussion so we can discuss free will, yet you exclude it to escape a point?

With the Christian God's existence still being granted, He will punish those that do bad. If you're going to exclude his existence, then why even par-take in the discussion, which granted his existence from the get-go?

Why does God punish people where he can't prove hes doing it, rather than assuring us that all the bad people get roasted alive for the rest of eternity? I'd watch 'The Hell Channel' on satellite. Would be fun.

[FragMaster1972]

If that's in reference to me following God, well, I'm simply placing hope in that which I reason to be true.  If this isn't what you're talking about, my apologies.

heh, I think I mighta just read part of the quote and replied about somethin different...oops. I'm tired. <insert sheepsish grin here>

[Night Spawn]

Rug,

Unless I read wrong somewhere, you're 15, right?  If so, then much deserved credit is given to you.  I haven't met many people of that age interested in this area of discussion; in particular, any as smart as you are.

It seems like we're going nowhere, so I'm going to offer 2 or 3 more responses, then a concluding post followed by yours.  Simply agreeing to disagree is best at times.

In response to SBP's you type,

This is called having an opinion. It is part of your much loved free will. My beliefs are founded on what I think is correct, yes. Yes this will contradict with what other people think is correct. Do I care about that, if we all coexist and abide to the laws? No. The laws are set for a reason, and my opinion, my belief, is that they should be upheld. If someone thinks differently, and chooses to disrespect and break the laws that have been laid down, they should be punished, in this life, right now.

What if the law seriously disagreed with your opinion?  Say, what if it was lawful to kill those that are sick?  Would you consider that a good law or bad law?

Even if the law you're talking about is gone against, it doesn't make the man actually wrong, but lawfully wrong.  The law is based on SBP's also.  Maybe, now, you're beginning to see why I raised this issue to your question.  If everyone has preferences, which are based subjectively, then how can anyone be actually good or bad?  A simple answer will suffice.

I'm asking for him to take responsibility for his actions. If hes created a race, he shouldn't leave it unattended. Least he could do is nurture us somewhat, yes?

Does he? Does he beans. People may say he nurtures us through the creation of new life and things; fuck em. If God really cares, he'd actually try to look after us rather than letting us destroy ourselves.

If someone turned the Earth to an ashen wasteland tomorrow (how is irrelevant - lets say a really big bomb, if you really want a how) would God care that someone utterly annihilated his world because of their free will, even if the other 6 billion people on the planet thought 'Er, no, I'd rather not be a grease spot'? What right would one person have to end an entire planet?

Would God stop it? No. You won't say that he would, either, because thats the most convenient option.

I've already responded to that here:

"Take your example of the kid who got beat to death by his parent. It was all up to the parents. Granted that the kid went to Heaven, I'm sure the kid would realize who swung the fist or weapon and I'm sure the kid would realize God set up the system in such a way that the parents didn't have to do that. It was all up to them what was to be done.

The only ones irresponsible are the parent(s). The only one acting irresponsibly with the Jews was Hitler. They chose and will reap whatever judgments come their way."

So, my answer is "no" and that God gives us the power to stop it ourselves if we act responsibly and wisely.

Because they're minor.

Stupid question, stupid answer.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a stupid question.  It all falls down to you wanting to exclude them just because you feel or think it's the best way.  Once again, this is you arguing with an opinion just as I am.  We're going to have to agree to disagree, I guess.

the most corruptable person on the planet appears to be the Pope, which does very little for the credibility of your religion.

Over here, what the Pope says doesn't have much of an effect (if any) on Christians.  A lot of Christians simply ignore him... as I do.  He'd probably get on my nerves, if I didn't.

Why does God punish people where he can't prove hes doing it, rather than assuring us that all the bad people get roasted alive for the rest of eternity? I'd watch 'The Hell Channel' on satellite. Would be fun.

LOL

Well, I believe punishment will simply be banishment (don't know about exact details, though), so there wouldn't be much to see.  I'd rather watch a Backstreet Boys video, probably.    

[SS]

Thanks to Rug and SS.  I usually already get flaming responses by now... I think I'm liking this place more and more.

Yup, it's nice to host a place where people can discuss things properly, even when they disagree.

-

Jesus claimed to be God and was worshipped as God.  The reason Jesus is worshipped is because the Father sent him to be worshipped.  I may be blind, but I don't see the problem.

I see the problem as creating a set of rules, but stretching one of them when it benefits him.
In itself I don't see a problem - it's something everyone does - but I do see it as a sign of a fallible god.

-

Was Mary worshipped in the NT?  If not (trust me, she isn't), then people who worship her now are doing a blind act.  The offical Catholic site, I believe, doesn't say anything about Mary being worshipped.  I think people pray to her as they would a spiritual leader.  I'm not sure... not a Catholic.

Don't know of any NT worship. Generally Catholics use the excuse of praying as they would to a spiritual leader, but there can be a thin line between praying and worshipping, and I think many people (Catholics) cross it.

-

I don't see any implications of people living there.  All I see is a bunch of land called Nod; in which Cain was banished.

The version of Genesis I'm looking at at the moment doesn't specifically mention the people, but I've definitely seen a version which does.
This version does mention Cain's wife, though. Where'd she come from?

-

Sorry for riling you... I'm a philosophy buff, so it's my next best friend.  What it states is that it's best and more logical to go with the simplest explanation rather than introducing unneeded complexities.  That's what a multi-God does.

Well, the keywords being 'unneeded complexities'; Personally, I see a single unique entity as more of an anomoly then multiple entities.

-

this entire argument rests on the question of how anything can exist without God.  Typically atheists have maintained that the universe existed eternally.

Most atheists seem to support the Big Bang theory, which relies on a single starting point?

But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality.

Infinity is a concept, not a numeric value, so yeah - it can't be minuses from itself. That's an illogical concept.
That doesn't mean that something cannot be infinite, infact quite the opposite: there is a hell of a lot of mathematics that relies on the concept of infinity - without it, several key concepts break down.

Thus, what the Big Bang model requires is that the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing.

Which is apparently possible with "Quantum Electrodynamics and some very impressive physics", because: "Particles are constantly created and destroyed from nothing (in a vacuum)."
I don't actually know any of the theory behind that, but I trust the person who I'm quoting to know what they're talking about.

-

1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2.  The universe began to exist.

3.  Therefore, the universe has a cause.  That cause must be beyond space, beyond time (since both began at the big bang) and powerful enough to have created this universe.  The creator was God.

Bleh, that's just a string of statements.
You can prove anything like that.

1. Whatever is hot will appear red.

2. Tomatoes are red.

3. Therefor, Tomatoes must be hot. The heat can't come from the plant, because it doesn't have any. Therefor God made the heat.

See, that's just silly.

P1. If the universe displays design, then it is designed.
P2. The universe is designed.
C. Therefore, the universe is designed.

Blah. (I assume that's a typing mistake on the second line.)
P1. If chaos shows order, then it is ordered.
P2. Chaos shows order.
C. Therefor, chaos is ordered.
Which is blatantly rubbish.
One can see patterns in chaos, and a small subset can appear ordered, but as a whole it isn't.
The same is true with the universe - you can see patterns, it can appear designed, but if we could see it all it might not be.
(It might be designed, but it just as easily might not be)

This may get quite lengthy, so I understand if you want to pursue this at a later time.  One thing I do want to get into is a new argument for God's existence a friend of mine came up with called "Impossible Faith".  You can check it out here.  I'd like to see any responses to this.

Hmm, there's a lot of weird writing style there (and not just the bible bits), so I might miss bits in my reading, but I'll give it a try:

Factor #1 -- Who Would Buy One Crucified?
Blah. Who indeed? It's not like apparent ultimate defeat followed by glorious victory is not a common theme in stories.
There are plenty of cases of people being completely and utterly defeated, then coming back to win.
Everything from Lord of the Rings to the Matrix has it.
Sure, in most cases it's not complete and utter humiliation and death that someone comes back from, but that's just an attribute difference. And for someone as humble and powerful as Jesus, it's probably the only thing that could be accepted as ultimate defeat - it's not like he could just be locked in a prison; he's already spent 40 days in the wilderness without food or water. It had to be death, and the whole risen-from-the-dead thing would never be believed if it wasn't a public death.

If the life of Jesus was a story, it's the most logical thing for the author to have happen.
If the life of Jesus was real, then it's the most logical thing fo the romans to do: public death & humiliation, to remove all threat of the religion. Afterall, they weren't expecting his come back.

Factor #2 -- Neither Here Nor There: Or, A Man from Galilee??
When you're looking for a humble leader, who better than an outcast?
One of the key concepts of Christianity is forgiveness - who better to teach this?
Not a mistake, but a vital component for success I'd say.

Factor #3 -- Getting Physical! The Wrong "Resurrection"
Eh? I'm not sure I understand the point trying to be made here?

Factor #4 -- What's New? What's Not Good
Ok, lets assume that Christianity was something completely new (despite it being born from Judaism).
It can't succeed because the Roman's disliked innovation? Pffft.
By those lines, how did we come into a world where people go round wearing next to no clothes,
gay marriage is [almost] accepted, and so on.
Only a hundred years ago, today's normalities would have shocked people of that time.
People might fear change, but they also get bored with sameness.

Factor #5 -- Don't Demand Behavior
Ok, I'll accept that - it is very hard to get people to do what they don't want.
So there must have been a good reason, or people with good persuade scores.

Factor #6 -- Tolerance is a Virtue
Meh. This is a bit of a combination of #4 and #5.
Yeah, getting people to do what they don't want is hard, but people wont stay the same forever.

Factor #7 -- Stepping Into History
Fair point - it's difficult to create rumours when people want to prove you wrong.
But not impossible, if you have a strong enough control over things.
But who had such strong control? Well, the Romans did.
The Romans were extremely successful at a lot of things they did.
What if the Romans wanted to try controlling the Jewish religion. Could they create an elaborate and fragile religion and make it strong enough whilst maintaining control into the future. Of course they could!
Some food for thought: The centre of Christianity; the ruler of the Church, where? Rome.

Factor #8 -- Do Martyrs Matter, and More?
Same as point five really. Yeah, there needs to be something to convince people.
That can either be an impressive deity, or just someone very good at persuading people.

Factor #9 -- Human vs. Divine: Never the Twain Shall Meet!
Sure, the idea doesn't fit perfectly for the Jewish. The fact that Judaism still exists as a major religion shows how difficult it would be for Jews to believe. But Roman & Greek history are full of gods and mortals interacting, so the idea is not so abhorrant to them.

Factor #10 -- No Class!
Again, back to point two. This is a perfect role for Jesus - as the complete underdog.

Factor #11 -- Don't Rely on Women!
Pffft. The women wanted to go put herbs on or something? That's something men wouldn't do.
And they then went and got the male disciples.
A weak excuse at best.

Factor #12 -- Don't Rely on Bumpkins, Either!
Well you'd hardly convince non-believers to go look at an empty tomb, and who would want more to be told than the people that loved Jesus the most?
They're the most logical people who would go to the tomb, whether for real, or in a story.

Factor #13 -- You Can't Keep a Secret!
Essentially, it couldn't spread due to the Romans being in control? See #7.

Factor #14 -- An Ignorant Deity??
Jesus was sold as just a human - ie: someone who the lowest people could identify with.
There are plenty of stories of his 'perfection' though - he never cried as a baby? Pfft.

Factor #15 -- A Prophet Without Honor
Not this again? See #2 and #10.

Factor #16 -- Miscellaneous Contrarium
Jesus was a rebel, we know that. Why is it odd that he brought with him unsual customs?

Factor #17 -- Encouraging People to Check the Facts for Themselves
The best way to build belief in a falsity - if people can verify things themselves, then they are more likely to believe.
All you need to do is make the verifications good enough to fool most people.
example: If I rolled a dice 24 times and got 4 of each number, most people would assume it fair. However, I could have built a timer mechanism that kept the dice fair for a short time, and have it weighted at other times.
If someone did a proper check, rolling the dice repeatedly for half an hour, they might see the bias, but the majority will always be pleased with a simple check.


Overall - yeah, a couple of those factors are fair, but the majority are just appear to be grasping attempts to find 'flaws' in the spreading of the religion.

-

I think we'll have to agree-to-disagree on the love/marriage bit.

-

Could God create an object he couldn't lift, and image he couldn't see, a noise he couldn't hear? One way or the other, it would prove this infallibe god of yours fallible.

I have absolute power over these forums, but I can't create a post which I cannot delete. It's a logical impossibility.
The problem in that is that the English language allows logical flaws to appear as valid points.
Being all-powerful doesn't allow you to circumvent mathematics or logic.

-

Like any good father who wouldn't want his kids listening to this other father's rules and that other fauther's rules, God wants us to obey and love Him alone.

A good father protects a child whilst allowing them to grow and develop into a unique, free-thinking being.

If any father today acted like the Christian God, they'd have social security coming down on them in an instant.

Free-will is all well and good, but I wouldn't have wanted my parents to give me the free-will to whack my brother in the face with a hot iron. (And they didn't.)

-

Re: good/bad.
Yes, it's subjective. Without knowing the Rules of Life, it can't be anything else.

Just because there's no clear cut answer doesn't mean we should create one (or follow the most common one).

Life isn't easy; no-one ever said it was. Moral decisions can be difficult. I wish there was a real source to consult, but no gods have ever answered my questions in any detectable way.

-

Re: The fear thing.
If it didn't mean the same thing in the original language, it should be translated to it's proper, equivalent definition in English.


--

Right, now I've spent at least two hours on this now, and probably missed a whole load, but I'm just going to post it before it gets too long.

[mole]

Basically, what you're asking for is life to be kind of like a play where we (as the actors) have to do whatever the script (God) says.

now your coming tot he book of life which in the bible says that god wrote out every possibility of life in his wee little book and is sposed to whip it out on judgement day *looks around fro the fourhorsemen*

[FragMaster1972]

Could God create an object he couldn't lift, and image he couldn't see, a noise he couldn't hear? One way or the other, it would prove this infallibe god of yours fallible.

I have absolute power over these forums, but I can't create a post which I cannot delete. It's a logical impossibility.
The problem in that is that the English language allows logical flaws to appear as valid points.
Being all-powerful doesn't allow you to circumvent mathematics or logic.

well you did manage to create a post that I couldn't quote.  :angry: *grumble* Anyway, that's quite different really. First, I'm sure that if you really tried, you could find a way. Granted, it might not quite be legal, but the possibility is there. However, this essentially something borrowed from Invision. This isn't your creation. A more correct comparison would be if Invision could create a post they couldn't delete. And they could. They might have to tinker with the forum coding, but it could be done.

[FragMaster1972]

I haven't read through all the posts, so hopefully no one has brought this up already...
We can see other glaxies that are billions of lightyears away. How did the light from them get here in only a few thousand years? Someone once suggested to me that the speed of light was initially faster. That is impossible, since the energy output of nuclear fusion (the energy source of the sun) depends on the square of the speed of light (e = mc^2). If light ever traveled fast enough to get here from the more distant objects we can see, the sun would have put out enough energy to blow up to many times its current size, and would have engulfed the first few planets.
Conclusion: The universe must be around 13 billion years old.
-Blake

[FragMaster1972]

btw, this is frag's bro.
-Blake

yeah, so don't blame me for the triple post  <_<

[SS]

LOL Yeah, annoying bug in the forum - any posts over X character screw up the quoting/editing page. :/
Hopefully it'll be fixed with IPB2, but I'm not sure.

If you've got full access & control to the source code then you can always edit and change it, to allow deletion/whatever.
I suppose you could always relinquish control over it - give the source to someone else and have them to not allow you access to it, but then you wouldn't be all-powerful anymore, and it would need someone to have the power to stop you accessing it.
So, back in god terms, it would need a higher level god to create an unmovable boulder/whatever. And with the concept of a single all-powerful god, you can't have a higher level god.

btw, this is frag's bro.
-Blake

Oooh, hello Blake.