Why should anyone become a Christian?

[Johnny Skeptic]

Who says that God’s moral standards are valid? What makes his judgments fair and just? Why should I love a being who does not have everyone’s best interests at heart and plays favorites, reference Romans 9:15? Why should I love a being who hurts and kills babies, and hurts and kills innocent animals? Why should I love a God who claims that he is merciful when he isn’t? Mercy is forsaking punishing people for eternity without parole even when justice demands it? [Of course, what I meant was God's justice.] Why should I love a God who refuses to do everything that he can in order to help insure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell?

[cloe]

Who says that God’s moral standards are valid? The Pope
What makes his judgments fair and just? Might makes right!
Why should I love a being who blah blah blah blah blah..? Because he'll torture you forever if you don't. :devil3:


Sorry Johnny, but I couldn't help giving you trite and unconvincing answers to your questions. It's so much easier than giving you thoughtful ones!

[SLD]

Why should anyone become a Christian?

Well for one, you could become a minister of a mega church or semi-mega church and make bazillions of dollars. You could even be like David Koresh and get a different beautiful woman to fuck every night.

There are lots of good reasons to become a Christian. Of course, you have to dump your morals along the way and be a hypocrite, but then again, aren't we all to some extent?

SLD

[Magus55]

There are lots of good reasons to become a Christian. Of course, you have to dump your morals along the way and be a hypocrite, but then again, aren't we all to some extent?

SLDWho said you have to dump your morals?

[SLD]

Who said you have to dump your morals?

Well, at least if you're going to join for the good reasons: money, sex and power.

SLD

[seebs]

These questions have a huge number of hidden premises that make it virtually impossible to answer them.

FWIW, Romans 9:15 is actually part of a rebuttal to the notion that humans are qualified to say that God won't be merciful to specific people. Many Hebrews were rather upset at the notion that their God might be nice to anyone else, but Paul rebuked them, on the grounds that God is welcome to be nice to anyone. We are told consistently that God does not have, nor approve of, "respect of persons" in the sense of "playing favorites".

[WishboneDawn]

Sorry Johnny, but I couldn't help giving you trite and unconvincing answers to your questions. It's so much easier than giving you thoughtful ones!

Well, at least you're upfront about that. :rolleyes:

Who says that God’s moral standards are valid? What makes his judgments fair and just? Why should I love a being who does not have everyone’s best interests at heart and plays favorites, reference Romans 9:15? Why should I love a being who hurts and kills babies, and hurts and kills innocent animals?

If that's your view of christianity then, of course, you shouldn't be a christian. That would be absurd.

Thankfully, your post is a post of your opinions about christianity and not facts. Others have different opinions, like me, that don't make beng a christian such a bad thing to be.

Why should I love a God who claims that he is merciful when he isn’t? Mercy is forsaking punishing people for eternity without parole even when justice demands it? [Of course, what I meant was God's justice.] Why should I love a God who refuses to do everything that he can in order to help insure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell?

Look, if YOU believe that's what God is and does, then don't believe. But it's downright ridiculous to keep parroting that when it's been so well established on this board over and over and over again that hell and eternal torment are NOT universal or fundamental christian beliefs. You don't have to believe that to be a christian.

*$%^@#...I need some chocolate now.

[Johnny Skeptic]

These questions have a huge number of hidden premises that make it virtually impossible to answer them.

FWIW, Romans 9:15 is actually part of a rebuttal to the notion that humans are qualified to say that God won't be merciful to specific people. Many Hebrews were rather upset at the notion that their God might be nice to anyone else, but Paul rebuked them, on the grounds that God is welcome to be nice to anyone.

But God is not nice to everyone.

We are told consistently that God does not have, nor approve of, "respect of persons" in the sense of "playing favorites".

We are consistently told no such thing. Romans 9:15 explicity says that God DOES play favorites. It says "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy ON WHOM [emphasis mine] I will have mercy, and I will have compassion ON WHOM I will have compassion." Calvinists use this Scripture regarding the elect who God hand picks. In addtion, Romans 9:21 basically says that might makes right, and it is similar to Romans 9:15. It says "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" Well of course any dictatorial tyrant with sufficient power is able to have power over anyone, but that does not necessarily mean that his character is acceptable.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Look, if YOU believe that's what God is and does, then don't believe. But it's downright ridiculous to keep parroting that when it's been so well established on this board over and over and over again that hell and eternal torment are NOT universal or fundamental christian beliefs. You don't have to believe that to be a Christian.

As you know, my arguments are normally directed towards fundamentalist Christians. Regarding liberal Christians, if they believe that God will not punish skeptics in any way, and will provide them with the same benefits that he will provide Christians, then I do not have any problem with that.

[Minnesota Joe]

We are consistently told no such thing. Romans 9:15 explicity says that God DOES play favorites. It says "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy ON WHOM [emphasis mine] I will have mercy, and I will have compassion ON WHOM I will have compassion." Calvinists use this Scripture regarding the elect who God hand picks. In addtion, Romans 9:21 basically says that might makes right, and it is similar to Romans 9:15. It says "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" Well of course any dictatorial tyrant with sufficient power is able to have power over anyone, but that does not necessarily mean that his character is acceptable.

I read the passage too. That we can't say who will recieve God's mercy is a trivial secondary point. The main point is that God can damn well have mercy on who he wishes and withhold it from others. There are some interesting passages that seem to forcefully argue against free will as well. After all, God has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens even if you can argue that he later rewards you for it.

[ziffel]

We are consistently told no such thing. Romans 9:15 explicity says that God DOES play favorites.

IMO, real world, obvious examples of favoritism are far more potent than any interpretation of Romans 9. One can just look and simply see that the gospel (bibles, evangelists, whatever) are prevalent in the U.S. and some other modern western cultures and are (or were) virtually non-existant in pre-Columbus America, the far east, ancient central america, and a long list of other locales who never had any opportunity to hear of Christ.

God bless America, indeed.

[Patriot7]

As you know, my arguments are normally directed towards fundamentalist Christians. Regarding liberal Christians, if they believe that God will not punish skeptics in any way, and will provide them with the same benefits that he will provide Christians, then I do not have any problem with that.

I love the honesty in this post. Really. I admire Johnny for his logical consistency.

Johnny Skeptic paraphrased here...."I don't believe orthodox, historical Christianity is true, but if you tell me God is going to provide a pardon after I reject the first pardon, I don't have any problem with that".

[David B]

I love the honesty in this post. Really. I admire Johnny for his logical consistency.

Johnny Skeptic paraphrased here...."I don't believe orthodox, historical Christianity is true, but if you tell me God is going to provide a pardon after I reject the first pardon, I don't have any problem with that".

While perhaps I should hesitatate at putting words into other posters mouths, I'd hazard a guess that what Johnny meant by this is that he doesn't find the sort of view he mentions morally outrageous, even if it is wrong.

I can easily imagine that he would share my view - that someone who regards a hypothetical god as good, while at the same time regarding this hypothetical god as the sort of entity who would condemn someone to eternal suffering for not believing in it, despite its singular failure to provide good evidence for its existence, is...how to put it?...morally challenged.

David B

[Johnny Skeptic]

As you know, my arguments are normally directed towards fundamentalist Christians. Regarding liberal Christians, if they believe that God will not punish skeptics in any way, and will provide them with the same benefits that he will provide Christians, then I do not have any problem with that.

I love the honesty in this post. Really. I admire Johnny for his logical consistency.

Johnny Skeptic paraphrased here...."I don't believe orthodox, historical Christianity is true, but if you tell me God is going to provide a pardon after I reject the first pardon, I don't have any problem with that".

I was replying to Wishbone Dawn, who is a liberal Christian. She said:

Look, if YOU believe that's what God is and does, then don't believe. But it's downright ridiculous to keep parroting that when it's been so well established on this board over and over and over again that hell and eternal torment are NOT universal or fundamental Christian beliefs. You don't have to believe that to be a Christian.

It is not my position that you do. However, all Christians, whether fundamentalist, liberal, or otherwise, must deal with the simple fact that killer hurricanes do not create themselves and go wherever they want to go, and that the bacteria (Bubonic Plague) that killed one fourth of the people in Europe did not create itself. Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" Have you ever heard of cruel and unusual punishment? In my opinion, the worst thing about the Bible is that it does not say that God will eventually parole skeptics in the next life.

Must a possible creator by necessity be good? If so, where is there any evidence that this is true? If not, then Christians surely would not accept just any supposed God, in which case it seems to me that they are actually claiming that it is acceptable for them to evaluate God’s commands based upon moral concepts that are external to the Bible, but that it is not acceptable for skeptics to do the same thing.

[WishboneDawn]

As you know, my arguments are normally directed towards fundamentalist Christians. Regarding liberal Christians, if they believe that God will not punish skeptics in any way, and will provide them with the same benefits that he will provide Christians, then I do not have any problem with that.

The start directing them to fundy christians. Use 'fundamentalists' in your title and posts. Because yes, I know, but I start to doubt and also because a lot of people don't know and you end up perpetuating the generalization of christianity that tends to go on here. Not to mention all the 'go nowhere' responses from folks who just want a kick at the christian can. Be more specific and focused with who you're directing a question at. Maybe I'll get off your ass then. :)

[WishboneDawn]

Must a possible creator by necessity be good?

I don't think so. creation isn't a force of good or evil, it just is. A hurricane, a forrest fire, a death...They're all forces of creation too, not just destruction. Destruction IS creation. I think good and evils are human concepts and concerns.

If so, where is there any evidence that this is true? If not, then Christians surely would not accept just any supposed God, in which case it seems to me that they are actually claiming that it is acceptable for them to evaluate God’s commands based upon moral concepts that are external to the Bible, but that it is not acceptable for skeptics to do the same thing.

This is interesting but either I don't get it or I don't agree. The very evidence that God is good, for christians, comes from the Bible. There's nothing external to a holy book or scripture that could offer evidence of God's goodness or evilness. I accept the christian tradition of a good god. I accept that he's the creator, that creation, despite the destruction it requires, is a good thing. Ultimately it's neither good nor evil but I view it as good. See the glass as half full.

I have no idea where I'm going with this.

Even when I get snarky I do look forward to your threads Johnny. They usually lead to intreting things.

[Grim Shogun]

I accept that he's the creator, that creation, despite the destruction it requires, is a good thing.

Huh? Could you explain that to me? I'm confused.

[WishboneDawn]

Huh? Could you explain that to me? I'm confused.

Maybe I made that point too strongly. Not always?

[Ubercat]

Originally Posted by SLD

There are lots of good reasons to become a Christian. Of course, you have to dump your morals along the way and be a hypocrite, but then again, aren't we all to some extent?

SLD

Who said you have to dump your morals?

The fact that you have to approve of biblegod in order to worship him is a good indication. Approving of biblegod means approving of rape, human sacrifice and genocide. Yup. The morals definitely go out the window.

-Ubercat

[Mr Average]

Who says that God’s moral standards are valid?

I suppose those that choose to follow him...?

It seems like you are looking for answers with regards to the nature of God? Could it be possible that you are looking in the wrong place?

[WishboneDawn]

The fact that you have to approve of biblegod in order to worship him is a good indication. Approving of biblegod means approving of rape, human sacrifice and genocide. Yup. The morals definitely go out the window.

-Ubercat

Test that. Honestly, is every christian you know lacking in any idea of morals? And yes, those christians in this forum count.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Who says that God’s moral standards are valid?

I suppose those that choose to follow him...?

And who made Christians authorities on what constitutes goodness? Is it your position that morality does not transcend God? In other words, is murder wrong only because God says it is wrong, or is murder wrong because God is aware that morality transcends even him?

It seems like you are looking for answers with regards to the nature of God. Could it be possible that you are looking in the wrong place?

Well, God could tangibly show up today in person and easily eliminate a lot of doubt and enable people to make much better informed decisions, but he obviously prefers to create doubt. My conscience compels me to resist such a being.

What makes God's judgments right? Possibly because he is able to beat up anyone who disagrees with him?

[Mr Average]

And who made Christians authorities on what constitutes goodness?

I did not mean to suggest that, more that when you ask "who says God's moral standard are valid", I think the most likely candidates are his followers if you see what I mean?

Is it your position that morality does not transcend God? In other words, is murder wrong only because God says it is wrong, or is murder wrong because God is aware that morality transcends even him

I could answer this in some detail, but it would be just another opinion in a sea full of them. It does not really matter what *I* think, when *you* are trying to understand the alleged nature of the Christian God. My understanding of things, will not translate into you understanding the same things.

Advice that I was given, I'll pass on...

Do not look to the Church for answers about God
Do not look to Christians for answers about God
Look only to Christ

It's probably not want you want to hear, but I can only tell it how I see it, if you know what I mean.

Well, God could tangibly show up today in person and easily eliminate a lot of doubt and enable people to make much better informed decisions, but he obviously prefers to create doubt. My conscience compels me to resist such a being?

If he did show up, how would you know it was God and not a hallucination? If he was to turn up, would you want him to do magic tricks to prove himself to you? Would anyone else believe you? If not, would you want him to turn up for them and do same/similar/different tricks.

What makes God's judgments right? Possibly because he is able to beat up anyone who disagrees with him?

You disagree with God as far as I can tell, and this is obviously an honest expression of your freewill. God could 'beat you up' at any moment, but he does not seem to be, or does he?

A slight diversion if I may?

Johnny, do you have peace of mind, or is your quest for truth/answers actually troubling you?

[post tenebras lux]

Test that. Honestly, is every christian you know lacking in any idea of morals? And yes, those christians in this forum count.Well, to me at least, the 'morality' of many christians seems to boil down to 'might makes right' and 'the devil [sic] take the hindmost'.

Does morality come from your god WishboneDawn or is morality separate from him?

[Johnny Skeptic]

Is it your position that morality does not transcend God? In other words, is murder wrong only because God says it is wrong, or is murder wrong because God is aware that morality transcends even him?

I could answer this in some detail, but it would be just another opinion in a sea full of them. It does not really matter what *I* think, when *you* are trying to understand the alleged nature of the Christian God. My understanding of things, will not translate into you understanding the same things.

That is not sufficient. In order for me to understand the nature of the Christian God, I need answers to the questions that I asked you. Regarding “I could answer this in some detail, but it would be just another opinion in a sea full of them”, are not many of your opinions commonly used by Christians? I request that you post some of this “sea full of them”.

It most certainly does matter what you think about where morality comes from. Morality is in fact THE fundamental issue in the entire Bible. Unless you provide a credible basis for it, you cannot make any intelligent arguments whatsoever.

Advice that I was given, I'll pass on...

Do not look to the Church for answers about God

Do not look to Christians for answers about God
Look only to Christ.

That is fine. I request that Christ answer the questions that I asked you, of course, in person, and in tangible form.

Well, God could tangibly show up today in person and easily eliminate a lot of doubt and enable people to make much better informed decisions, but he obviously prefers to create doubt. My conscience compels me to resist such a being?

If he did show up, how would you know it was God and not a hallucination?

I ask you the same question.

If he was to turn up, would you want him to do magic tricks to prove himself to you? …….would you want him to turn up for [other people] and do same/similar/different tricks?

Well of course. Evidence that is fair for one is fair for all. However, even if I was reasonably certain that Jesus had returned to earth, that would not sufficient evidence for me to accept him. I would need some answers to some questions. If I deemed his answers to be appropriate, I would accept him. This is appropriate procedure regarding humans assessing other humans, and it is no less appropriate regarding assessing supposed Gods.

What makes God's judgments right? Possibly because he is able to beat up anyone who disagrees with him?

You disagree with God as far as I can tell, and this is obviously an honest expression of your freewill. God could 'beat you up' at any moment, but he does not seem to be, or does he?

According to the Bible, God will eventually beat up all skeptics, and he is already doing a pretty good of beating up skeptics and Christians now with killer hurricanes. Exodus 4:11 says “And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?” Who needs the Devil around to attack people when God is doing such a good job of it himself?

A slight diversion if I may?

Johnny, do you have peace of mind, or is your quest for truth/answers actually troubling you?

I am quite certain that millions of Deists and the followers of a number of religions will tell you that they have peace of mind. Is my quest for truth/answers actually troubling me? Sure it is, but if a person has peace of mind, is that adequate proof of his world view? Of course it isn’t. If you had never heard of the Bible, would you have peace of mind? Hundreds of millions of people died without ever having heard about the Bible.

Even if it is very unlikely that the God of the Bible does not exist, and that some other God exists, since Christians are not infallible, they must deal with the following hypothetical scenarios:

In the next life, Christians become aware of a powerful being, let’s call him Being A, who claims that he is the one true God. He demonstrates that he has the same powers that are attributed to the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible does not show up to contest the being. Being A states what his requirements are for entry into heaven. Some of the requirements are endorsing murder, lying, and theft, and loving him because he endorses those practices. Would Christians assume that might makes right and love the alien, or would they reject him based upon their assessment of moral standards that they believe transcend any being?

Ok, here is another hypothetical scenario:

In the next life, Christians become aware of a powerful being, let’s call him Being B, who claims that he is the one true God. He demonstrates that he has the same powers that are attributed to the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible does not show up to contest the being. Being B states what his requirements are for entry into heaven. Some of his requirements are endorsing love, mercy, forgiveness, and punishment WITH parole. Would Christians accept Being B?

Lest some Christians criticize my use of hypothetical arguments, I will tell them that Christians frequently use hypothetical when they feel that it suits their purposes to do so. A good example is C.S. Lewis’ ‘Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?’

[Mr Average]

That is not sufficient. In order for me to understand the nature of the Christian God, I need answers to the questions that I asked you.

If I answer them though, that will give you my understanding of the Christian God, but will not give you your own understanding of the Christian God. It's the old banana thing you know? I cannot possibly offer by description the full creamy taste of a banana to someone who has never eaten one.

Regarding “I could answer this in some detail, but it would be just another opinion in a sea full of them”, are not many of your opinions commonly used by Christians? I request that you post some of this “sea full of them”.

I just think that you could ask these questions a million times and get a variety of answers, none of which will satisfy you. Intellectual puzzling, is something I also go through and have been going through for a long long time. It seems to me that it is possible to remain confused and asking questions indefinitely. The more answers you get, the more questions you need to ask. It doesn't even matter whether expert Theologians respond to you as opposed to average dudes, because the weight of what they say is still just another opinon, another personal take on what is true. I do not think that their take on what is true, should be your take.

I suppose I want to understand if you are asking questions so that you may debunk the answers and thus the tradition behind them, or if you are asking because you actually want to try and understand the nature of God? If the latter, do you believe in God or want to believe in God?

It most certainly does matter what you think about where morality comes from. Morality is in fact THE fundamental issue in the entire Bible. Unless you provide a credible basis for it, you cannot make any intelligent arguments whatsoever.”.

I am not particpating in this thread to provide a credible basis for morality, although I know this is what the thread is for. My take on morality is my take, what is your take? I feel that your view of morality is the only view of morality that actually matters in this particular thread, as I get the bfeeling that this thread is not about what others think, but about you working out what you think.

That is fine. I request that Christ answer the questions that I asked you, of course, in person, and in tangible form.

I cannot answer or comment here.

However, even if I was reasonably certain that Jesus had returned to earth, that would not sufficient evidence for me to accept him. I would need some answers to some questions. If I deemed his answers to be appropriate, I would accept him..

That sort of sounds like you want God to say what you want to hear, otherwise you would reject him. Is that what you are saying?

Is my quest for truth/answers actually troubling me? Sure it is, but if a person has peace of mind, is that adequate proof of his world view?..

Not at all. I could probably get some measure of peace of mind by taking one or more various illegal substances. Peace of mind points to nothing, other than piece of mind.

I ask because you seem to be very much like I am and have been many times.

Of course it isn’t. If you had never heard of the Bible, would you have peace of mind??..

I don't have peace of mind, I never have had. Doubt I ever will have.

[Johnny Skeptic]

However, even if I was reasonably certain that Jesus had returned to earth, that would not sufficient evidence for me to accept him. I would need some answers to some questions. If I deemed his answers to be appropriate, I would accept him.

That sort of sounds like you want God to say what you want to hear, otherwise you would reject him. Is that what you are saying?

Well sure, why would anyone accept another being who they did not respect?

There is no doubt whatsoever that regarding religion, THE fundamental issue is "Where does morality come from?" I will never accept any supposed God unless he answers this question, and some other questions, to my satisfaction. No supposed God can fairly require other beings to accept his moral standards unless he first provides proof whether or not the standards transcend him.

Even if it is very unlikely that the God of the Bible does not exist, and that some other God exists, since Christians are not infallible, they must deal with the following hypothetical scenarios:

In the next life, Christians become aware of a powerful being, let’s call him Being A, who claims that he is the one true God. He demonstrates that he has the same powers that are attributed to the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible does not show up to contest the being. Being A states what his requirements are for entry into heaven. Some of the requirements are endorsing murder, lying, and theft, and loving him because he endorses those practices. Would Christians assume that might makes right and love the alien, or would they reject him based upon their assessment of moral standards that they believe transcend any being?

Ok, here is another hypothetical scenario:

In the next life, Christians become aware of a powerful being, let’s call him Being B, who claims that he is the one true God. He demonstrates that he has the same powers that are attributed to the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible does not show up to contest the being. Being B states what his requirements are for entry into heaven. Some of his requirements are endorsing love, mercy, forgiveness, and punishment WITH parole. Would Christians accept Being B?

Lest some Christians criticize my use of hypothetical arguments, I will tell them that Christians frequently use them when they feel that it suits their purposes to do so. A good example is C.S. Lewis’ ‘Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?’

[Mr Average]

I suppose I want to understand if you are asking questions so that you may debunk the answers and thus the tradition behind them, or if you are asking because you actually want to try and understand the nature of God?

Will you respond to this Johhny?

[Johnny Skeptic]

I suppose I want to understand if you are asking questions so that you may debunk the answers and thus the tradition behind them, or if you are asking because you actually want to try and understand the nature of God?

Will you respond to this Johnny?

I am not trying to understand the nature of God. I was a fundamentalist Christian for over 35 years. Now I am an agnostic. I am reasonably convinced that if the universe was created by an intelligent being, he is not the being who is described in any religious book. I am also reasonably convinced that if the God of the Bible exists, he is bi-polar, mentally incompetent, or evil. If a God does exist, if he wishes to show up tangibly, in person, and tell me what he wants me to do, I will consider what he says before I choose whether to accept him or to reject.

It is my intention to “debunk the answers and thus the tradition behind them” mainly because fundamentalist Christians attempt to unfairly legislate their religious views. My main areas of interest are homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and physician assisted suicide. If fundamentalist Christians stopped interfering with the rights of other groups of people, I probably would not debate Christians anymore.

Please reply to my previous post. In addition, please consider the following post that I just made in another thread:

I think murder is wrong because all life is sacred, not because God says so.

How could morality transcend God? That doesn't really make sense.

Do you seriously not see the complete contradiction here? In consecutive sentences, no less?

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines the word “transcend” as follows:

1 a : to rise above or go beyond the limits of b : to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : OVERCOME c : to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)

2 : to outstrip or outdo in some attribute, quality, or power

intransitive verb : to rise above or extend notably beyond ordinary limits

synonym see EXCEED

Johnny: Readers, in order to simplify this situation, please consider the following post that I just made at the EofG forum:

Message to luvluv: If as you say morality is prior to God, which I too believe is the case, which principles comprise this morality? Even a set of encyclopedias would not be big enough to contain these principles. Even if we knew what the principles were, who has the right to enforce them, and is it a given that whoever is able to enforce them has interpreted the principles in the spirit that they embody?

Regarding "If as you say morality is prior to God", possibly a better way of stating that would be "If as you say morality is not valid solely because God says it is......."

[Ubercat]

Test that. Honestly, is every christian you know lacking in any idea of morals? And yes, those christians in this forum count.

Any christian who reads their bible, believes it is the accurate word of [bible]god, and maintains that this god is good, is certainly morally challenged. A christian who claims that the bible is true, that biblegod is good, but is ignorant of what the bible actually says, is merely negligent and ignorant, and should rectify the situation. Any person who claims to be a christian, but rejects most or all of the bible as innacurate, well, I don't know what they are.:huh: I wonder why they bother, when just being a good person with no need for any religious titles, seems like it should suit them fine. I don't really associate with christians anymore, save on the board.

-Ubercat

[Joan of Bark]

I don't think so. creation isn't a force of good or evil, it just is. A hurricane, a forrest fire, a death...They're all forces of creation too, not just destruction. Destruction IS creation. I think good and evils are human concepts and concerns.



This is interesting but either I don't get it or I don't agree. The very evidence that God is good, for christians, comes from the Bible. There's nothing external to a holy book or scripture that could offer evidence of God's goodness or evilness. I accept the christian tradition of a good god. I accept that he's the creator, that creation, despite the destruction it requires, is a good thing. Ultimately it's neither good nor evil but I view it as good. See the glass as half full.



Why does creation require such horrible destruction? God is omnipotent, so why is all this suffering, usually by innocents, required? If a powerful human being behaved in the manner of the Judeo-Christian God, he would be vilified by almost everyone, including Christians. How you can see a baby slowly dying of malaria as being a half-full glass, I don't understand.:huh:

[Mr Average]

Any christian who reads their bible, believes it is the accurate word of [bible]god, and maintains that this god is good, is certainly morally challenged.

Ubercat, would you say that you are morally challenged yourself?

[Aeron]

"And I will set my jealousy against thee, and they shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears; and thy remnant shall fall by the sword: they shall take thy sons and thy daughters; and thy residue shall be devoured by the fire."


The moral question is certainly an interesting one. As the above quote indicates, the bible is not quite useful when used as a primary moral compass. Amputation and stoning are hardly befitting of "whoredom" which the passage refers to.

The tricky part, though, is referring to christian morality at all. This is primarily due to the fact that christians are not all the same. There are some who are nearly identical to a secular humanist - morally speaking - with the exception that they believe ina god. There are others who think everyone who isnt a christian will suffer for eternity. Then there are some who think god kills soldiers because he "hates fags."

The general problem, in most of these cases, is that the bible is very much a human work. In the same book that advocates stoning, burning, flaying, amputation, infanticide, etc - you have passages that talk about loving your neighbor and forgiveness. Seeing as how ALL of our "objective" information about god comes from the bible, this leaves us in a difficult position.

1. How do you reconcile varying belief systems that are all found in the same book when some are batshit crazy?

2. How do you derive a system of morality from a book with so many inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and evil in it?

3. How can "liberal" christians let "fundie" christians drag their religion through the mud?

[Ubercat]

Originally Posted by Ubercat
Any christian who reads their bible, believes it is the accurate word of [bible]god, and maintains that this god is good, is certainly morally challenged.

Ubercat, would you say that you are morally challenged yourself?

Good question! I am, if by morally challenged you mean morally imperfect. Of course I don't claim to have a higher power as a guide to morality. I actively dislike bad people. Does this make me morally challenged?

If you mean that I actively support evil things, (as fundies do) then that is a much tougher question. I despise President Shrub, but have no sympathy whatsoever with the terrorists in his grasp. (or their "rights") Water torture of a terrorist sounds fine and dandy to me. On the other hand, what if a significant number of prisoners at gitmo are really innocent? I could be enjoying the suffering of innocent people! It's a tough question, which often seems to require hindsight to become clearer. There were things I did as a younger man which appal me today.

In short, I'm only human, and I know it. I don't have some made up higher power justifying my evil acts, so I try not to commit any. I don't always succeed. Thats human.

-Ubercat

[Joan of Bark]

My most general and fundamental question to Christians goes like this ...

How can you worship a being who has brought more suffering to humanity than ANY human being has ever done, and with far less justification?

[Mr Average]

My most general and fundamental question to Christians goes like this ...

How can you worship a being who has brought more suffering to humanity than ANY human being has ever done, and with far less justification?

I guess I would sanswer by saying that God brought humanity into existence, and offered a world of pain and joy in equal measure.

[Joan of Bark]

I guess I would sanswer by saying that God brought humanity into existence, and offered a world of pain and joy in equal measure.

My mother brought me into existence, also, but no-one would label her as "loving and merciful" if she tortured me with disease and disaster. She would be labelled as an unfit parent, and everyone would agree with my decision to reject her.

[angela2]

My most general and fundamental question to Christians goes like this ...

How can you worship a being who has brought more suffering to humanity than ANY human being has ever done, and with far less justification?
Gee. And I thought it was human beings who brought suffering to humanity.

I guess in a way you must think that too. Because if you don't believe in God, there are no other options.

[Joan of Bark]

Gee. And I thought it was human beings who brought suffering to humanity.

I guess in a way you must think that too. Because if you don't believe in God, there are no other options.

1) Human beings are not responsible for floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, polio, malaria, smallpox, etc. They are all gifts from your loving and merciful god. "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster, I, the lord, do all these things." Isaiah 45:7 (NIV).

2) There is another obvious option: that is how the universe operates, independant of humans or make-believe gods.

[Johnny Skeptic]

I guess I would answer by saying that God brought humanity into existence, and offered a world of pain and joy in equal measure.

Well sure, that is exactly the kind of world that a deceptive, evil God would create. However, if God is evil and sends everyone to hell, I doubt that there will be equal pain and joy. Children who are born with serious birth defects most certainly do not experience pain and joy in equal measure. In addition, some evil people enjoy much better physical health than some of God's most devout followers do.