Why do questions about religion generate such long threads?

" . . . religion isn't based on fact."

"Fact" is an odd word, AR. If you had said the existence of a God as depicted in the Bible isn't based on a system by which we can apply a scientific method to prove or disprove, I would agree. And perhaps that's what you intended but you simply provided a short-hand version. At the expense of sounding pedantic, religion certainly exists and the question as to whether it is based on "fact" or "a theory that can be tested by experimentation or scientific and repeatable processes" is usually hotly contested in these threads.

If I say I saw a green dog (or Black Swan), what would be your scientific method for disproving that? Is it that you can provide an explanation which satisfies your test for legitimacy, so therefore it is possible? (It's St. Patrick's Day and green dye is widely available.) But if from your own knowledge and experience you could not provide an explanation relying on your understanding of science, then you would argue that I did not see a green dog?

I had an experience which I believe was spiritual and ultimately cemented my belief. But if you don't have a tool in your tool kit that you can use to measure or investigate my claim in order to validate it against the criteria you set forth then you seem to dismiss it. Easily.

I think this is the basis for long threads. There is a tendency for non-believers to want "proof". And to believers that seems understandable and at the same time silly and frustrating. "Prove to me that this substance is going to taste good before I put it in my mouth." That's more or less what I would say to my mom as she would try and poke a strawberry in my mouth when I was very young. Yet this is what it sounds like to me when someone on a thread denies my belief because they can't get the "proof" they want.

Thanks for your responses.

Steve

Har! And atheists take the easy way out, adopting a position that allows them to say when challenged "you can't prove a negative". Just kidding . . . sorta.

Yes, you both make sense. There is no "common ground" yet opinions abound.

Steve

>>(a) claims or (b) challenges the veracity of the Bible, the existence of God, Christianity in general, or the harm that religion causes, the threads get very lengthy

These are subjects that people who participate on a forum such as this probably have strong feelings about.  Because they have strong feelings, neither side can be convinced by the other and the discussions just go on and on as each side continues to try to make their point.

>>Har! And atheists take the easy way out, adopting a position that allows them to say when challenged "you can't prove a negative". Just kidding . . . sorta.

I actually don't follow you on this one.  The only time I hear people discussing proving a negative is when an Atheist is asked to prove that God, miracle, etc  does not exist.

@sbdt8631 . . . yes, that's what I meant. Ask a believer to prove that God exists and he/she may launch into all sorts of stuff, somewhat pointlessly because the "proof" will not be of the sort that will satisfy the non-believer. Ask a non-believer to prove that God does not exist and he/she will say "you can't prove a negative" . . . that is, the easy way out. I wasn't trying to be profound.

And I said "sorta" because I think some percentage of atheists simply deny god's existence because they don't want to be judged or to be held accountable to anyone but themselves. I have no clue whether that's a small or large percentage.

Steve

>>And I said "sorta" because I think some percentage of atheists simply deny god's existence because they don't want to be judged or to be held accountable to anyone but themselves. I have no clue whether that's a small or large percentage.

I think that is a small to non-existent percentage of non-believers.  I prefer non-believer to atheist because there is no need to differentiate between agnostics and atheists and those who may believe in God but not the bible or any organized religion.
Non-believers are less concerned with judgement than believers.  If you do not believe there is a "God" who is waiting to judge you, judgement becomes less important.
I am more worried about my wife's judgement than God.

"If you do not believe there is a "God" who is waiting to judge you, judgement becomes less important."

You are making my point. Stated another way, if you don't want to be judged or held accountable, deny the existence of the judge. And I am not saying that an atheist would confess to this position necessarily. You may be correct that the percentage is small, but I'd bet a mortgage payment that it isn't "non-existent".

"I am more worried about my wife's judgement than God."

I am more concerned about God's. But to your point, God has not  directly given me a whack on the head with the TV remote and my wife has.

Steve

>>Stated another way, if you don't want to be judged or held accountable, deny the existence of the judge.

That sounds like someone with mental health issues.  It sounds like a person who "knows he is sinning", so denies the existence of sin.  It sounds like a person who knows that there is "a God to judge him", so denies the existence of God.

To a  true non-believer, there is no judge, no judgement day, so it is not an issue.

This seems appropriate to how many live and fitting here:

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
¿ Marcus Aurelius

>>¿ Marcus Aurelius

It is a good post and I agree with it.  Unfortunately Christians do not.  It is their belief that if you do not accept Jesus as God you will go to hell, or not to heaven anyway, regardless of how good you are.

And please don't beat me up SteveJ, or anyone else.  I did not make this up.  I am only repeating what I have read on this forum many times from Christians.

>>It is a good post and I agree with it.  Unfortunately Christians do not.  It is their belief that if you do not accept Jesus as God you will go to hell, or not to heaven anyway, regardless of how good you are.

I have heard the same countless times. That would be a belief in an unjust and egotistical God. I cannot see how there could be any other explanation for it. The idea that God would keep a good person out of heaven because they did not worship him enough, but was always good to their fellow man makes absolutely no sense to me.

Thanks AR . . . and now we are getting to why the posts are so long. For a Christian, living a "good life" isn't possible. Perhaps Marcus Aurelius could go without lying or cheating or stealing or having corrupt thoughts or just generally without sinning. . . but I think that would make him Jesus Christ. And that's why Christians say they are in need of a savior . . .because they sin and cannot avoid sin. "Living a Christian life" doesn't mean "not sinning" it means reducing the frequency and amplitude of my sinful way.

I am not saying man cannot perform a truly altruistic act.

But this is the stuff long posts are made of. The MA quote makes it all sound simple. "Live a good life". But by whose measure or standard? If I steal from you to feed my sick child because you have plenty but I have little through no fault of my own (I think this is "Les Miserables") have I lived a good life? That's maybe not such a good example, but I think the point I am trying to make isn't really that obscure.

Steve

"I have heard the same countless times. That would be a belief in an unjust and egotistical God. I cannot see how there could be any other explanation for it. The idea that God would keep a good person out of heaven because they did not worship him enough, but was always good to their fellow man makes absolutely no sense to me. "

That is a highly inaccurate characterization of Christianity. For one thing, to "worship" God doesn't mean to sit around and sing songs about how great he is. It isn't a matter of ego any more than your mother or father wanting you to be an honest person reflects egotism on your parents behalf. Obedience is worship, and obedience would be those things that I think you would define as characterizing a "good" person: don't lie, cheat, steal, become a glutton, a drunk, a drug addict . . .but as sbdt8631 points out, being "a good person" isn't enough and isn't the point.

Also, the statement "The idea that God would keep a good person out of heaven just because they did not worship him enough . . . " totally overlooks another crucial belief in Christianity. What the heck is a "good" person? Christianity teaches that a person's thoughts -- his heart -- define him, not just his actions. So perhaps I hate someone with a passion because of some transgression but I never act on that hatred would I still be a "good" person?

"It is their belief that if you do not accept Jesus as God you will go to hell, or not to heaven anyway, regardless of how good you are."

sbdt8631: That's fairly accurate. I would expand on "accept Jesus as God". The way you put it, it sounds like "if I accept my mom as my mother, then I will be rewarded" and it leaves out the concept of propitiation which is central to Christianity.

Thanks to you both for your comments.

Steve

Sorry to belabor a point . . . but Christians believe you can't be "good enough", or in church-speak, you can't be sinless.

Steve

>>That is a highly inaccurate characterization of Christianity.

Really? In the commandments is "keep holy the Sabbath"and "Do not have strange Gods before me."

Sounds like worship me and keep me number one (ego).

Also the way to heaven is always described as living by the commandments. not pick and choose or don't worry about that one or something like that. I think I portrayed a very accurate characterization of Christianity.

>>So perhaps I hate someone with a passion because of some transgression but I never act on that hatred would I still be a "good" person?

According to Christianity, God decides that judgement. In reality, it becomes the leaders of the church who tend to pass judgement in most situations. Ideally a person should judge for themselves.

>>but Christians believe you can't be "good enough", or in church-speak, you can't be sinless.

That would actually be more like Catholicism.

That can easily be turned around to mean many things by filling in the blanks:

Atheists: “I am in control of my life both the good and bad that happens to me” – here is about “I can change outcome to be better and am responsible if it is not.”
Believers: “God is in control of my life both the good and bad that happens to me” – here is about “God will make things better and the devil makes the bad that happens." (Lack of responsibility)

I see this often in "Born Again" types in religion. They talk how the devil made them do the crimes in their past or the drugs. God is the one that showed them the right way to live.

I am more of the belief that you made the choice to do the crime, and you make the efforts to do the right thing.

This might surprise you but I myself am not an atheist and actually do believe in a god, of sorts. I believe that things happen for a reason. I believe that if you do good, good things happen to you. I believe doing good for others will lead to a better life for yourself. I don't however believe there is a 'being' that is watching over us helping us along the way or influencing us. I certainly don't believe all the stories in the religions as they were made by man in my opinion. I refer to it more as a karma.

"Really? In the commandments is "keep holy the Sabbath"and "Do not have strange Gods before me."

Sounds like worship me and keep me number one (ego)."

I suppose I am inferring a negative implication to your statement and perhaps that's unfair. Same analogy: If your parents want you to obey (worship) them, love and respect them (keep them number one) , are you saying that would make them egotistical? That's a bit of a stretch.

Many non-believers are confused, as you seem to be, about the "do not worship other idols . . . have strange Gods before me" commandment. The biblical reference to people making a golden calf and worshiping it is bizarre, and wasn't very enlightening to me. However, it is clear to me that if you are a glutton, you worship (make an idol of) food. If you are an alcoholic, you worship (make an idol of) alcohol . . .money, sex, drugs . . . yourself. The commandment simply says don't idolize creation.

"Also the way to heaven is always described as living by the commandments. not pick and choose or don't worry about that one or something like that."

I can't follow your point. Sorry.

"According to Christianity, God decides that judgement. In reality, it becomes the leaders of the church who tend to pass judgement in most situations. Ideally a person should judge for themselves."

Yes, in Christianity God judges, justly and harshly. When people pass judgement, it is a very unchristian thing to do. That's called hypocrisy.

">>but Christians believe you can't be "good enough", or in church-speak, you can't be sinless.

That would actually be more like Catholicism. "

That's also the Christian belief, it isn't just the purview of Catholicism.

I called your characterization of Christianity inaccurate for a number of reasons, some I just pointed out. But mostly it's inaccurate because you assert that God must be unjust and egotistical. Whether or not that's simply your view based on what you understand about the Christian religion, I would argue that having that view proves you don't understand Christianity at all.

No offense intended AnthonyRusso, but it seems as though your "understanding" of Christianity comes from stereotypes. And you may know a lot about the bible and scripture. But knowledge, even deep knowledge of the bible and scripture may be nothing more than head knowledge . . .in the sense that I can memorize every statistical detail about Troy Aikman's life and career as a quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys and yet still know nothing about Troy Aikman. And, yes, the bible is man's description of God, but the fact that you would refer to a call for respect and obedience "unjust" and "egotistical" implies you only have a sort of head knowledge.

Again, thanks for your responses.

Steve

AR, just re-read your post:

"Also the way to heaven is always described as living by the commandments. not pick and choose or don't worry about that one or something like that.""

That's old testament . . .not Christianity. We are called to live by the commandments, but that is most definitely NOT the way that you get to heaven. That's the whole point of the new testament.

Steve

Never offense taken Steve and I enjoy the discussions.  :)

>>If your parents want you to obey (worship) them, love and respect them (keep them number one) , are you saying that would make them egotistical? That's a bit of a stretch.

My mother to me and I to my kids never expected any kind of 'worship'. Respect is entirely different. But religion usually portrays 'worship' of their God. There is a huge difference. Also the concept that if you do not 'worship' then you are not going to go to heaven, regardless of whatever other good you have done in life is ridiculous to me.

>>If you are an alcoholic, you worship (make an idol of) alcohol . . .money, sex, drugs . . . yourself. The commandment simply says don't idolize creation.

I like your definition much better.

>>But mostly it's inaccurate because you assert that God must be unjust and egotistical.

Never have I said that. I said that if someone believes that, then that is ridiculous to me. I would believe that God is just and not egotistical. It is when the image of him that religions portray is unjust and egotistical that I am addressing.

>>but it seems as though your "understanding" of Christianity comes from stereotypes.

No, my understanding comes from being raised a Christian and a Catholic. I am referencing first hand accounts of my own experience in most cases rather than reading information on the subject. My views have been formed over a lifetime of many influences and thought.

>>And, yes, the bible is man's description of God, but the fact that you would refer to a call for respect and obedience "unjust" and "egotistical" implies you only have a sort of head knowledge.

I have already addressed the difference between respect and obedience from unjust and egotistical. I also addressed that I portray none of this on God but actually religion does this, and not me. The religion created by man. None of us know how God is because none of us know if he is even there. It is all a fabrication of man, and man has created a fear of God more than anything else. It really is a shame if there is a just and loving God.

>>Atheists: “I am the God of my life” – here is about “I”
>>Believers: “God is the God of my life” – here is about “God”
>>In other words: “To whom you allocate the authority of decisions ?”

Why do non-believers, atheists, need to be portrayed as such egotistical people.  "I am the God of my life - here is about "I"
Believe it or not, the absence of belief in a supreme being that has a personal interest in your well being has no relation to how egotistical a person is.  In fact, a person could argue that believing that there is an all powerful supreme being that has a personal interest in your life implies a certain amount of egotism.

To whom do you allocate the authority of decisions?  Not to an unknown and unseen "God" that may not be real.

@sbdt8631

"Why do non-believers, atheists, need to be portrayed as such egotistical people.  "I am the God of my life - here is about "I""

Probably should not be "egotistic", but "egoistic". No negative connotation.

@AnthonyRusso

"My mother to me and I to my kids never expected any kind of 'worship'."

I am honestly NOT trying to play a word game. I am simply saying that one way to worship God is to obey, which is to show respect. And I am saying that if parents want the best for their kids, it is not an egotistical desire.

And thanks for the clarification of the "just / unjust" comment.

Steve

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/egoistic
1. One devoted to one's own interests and advancement; an egocentric person.
2. An egotist.
3. An adherent of egoism.

I fail to see that as an improvement.  It would seem to me to be somewhat egoistic to believe that a supreme being that is all powerful and omniscient would have any interest in any individual life, be it human or animal.  Just observing the way that nature works, it seems to me that if there is any supreme being, it is not overly concerned with individuals. So I fail to find the egoistic nature in that belief.

Sorry . . . I was relying on my apparently faulty memory / dictionary:

egotistic = self absorbed (negative connotation)

egoistic = concerning the self (no negative connotation)


Or perhaps my memory is correct and egoistic and egotistic have become synonymous because people used them incorrectly so often. Like nauseous and nauseated . . .they used to mean very different things, but people said "I feel nauseous", which by the older definition is almost the opposite of what they likely meant, instead of "I feel nauseated". So now most dictionaries show them to be synonyms.

Steve

Steve
You are missing the point.  Why is a believer less concerned with the self than a non-believer?  Seems to me that a believer is more concerned with the self when he spends so much time and effort concentrating on whether the state of his soul measures up to some undefined yardstick.

>>I am honestly NOT trying to play a word game. I am simply saying that one way to worship God is to obey, which is to show respect. And I am saying that if parents want the best for their kids, it is not an egotistical desire.

It is not a word game at all. Use whatever word you want for worship. Religion wants you to WORSHIP their God. Pray to them. Go to church/temple on Sunday/Sabbath. Bring gifts to the church (ancient times). They are better than you. There is no downplay to what worship means within religion. Worship is to worship.

Respect means to hold someone in high regard but not that they are perfect or infallible. I respect my mother for the person she is with her strengths, ,weaknesses, attributes and faults. We disagree on things and argue about other things. That is respect. That is not acceptable for a God according to religion. You have to worship a God according to their religion.

Before the rebuttal of "Don't you bring gifts to your mother?" or "Don't you go visit your mother?" It is not at all the same. I hope you can see that difference.

@sbdt8631 . . . I concede the point. I didn't feel strongly about it, I simply read viki2000's post and felt that "egotistic" had a negative connotation and tried to soften it by suggesting the word "egoistic". Yet, egoism says basically that one's aim is their own well being. I don't think that's synonymous with atheism.

@AnthonyRusso . . . I think you are making too much of the word "worship" and seem to be implying that a "god" who "requires" worship is somehow defective or egotistic or by the nature of "requiring" worship is unworthy of it. And I am not trying to equate mom and God.

"It is not a word game at all. Use whatever word you want for worship. Religion wants you to WORSHIP their God. Pray to them. Go to church/temple on Sunday/Sabbath. Bring gifts to the church (ancient times). They are better than you. There is no downplay to what worship means within religion. Worship is to worship."

I related how my church (and religion) tells me to worship God. "Worship is to worship" sounds a little Clinton-esque as an argument or statement. I don' disagree so much as I don't really see the point you are trying to make.

"Respect means to hold someone in high regard but not that they are perfect or infallible. I respect my mother for the person she is with her strengths, ,weaknesses, attributes and faults. We disagree on things and argue about other things. That is respect. That is not acceptable for a God according to religion. You have to worship a God according to their religion."

Respect has nothing to do with imperfection or infallibility. And that you can disagree on things and argue about other things is not a definition of respect, nor is it a characteristic of respect. So derivatively, what you are saying vis a vis "respect" has nothing to do with my point about parents wanting their kids to respect them as a metaphor for God wanting his children to worship and obey him. My point about parenting was simply to demonstrate that a desire for respect and obedience is not egotistical as you suggested.


Steve

>>I think you are making too much of the word "worship" and

It's not the word worship, but the act of worshiping that I am addressing.

>>...seem to be implying that a "god" who "requires" worship is somehow defective or egotistic or by the nature of "requiring" worship is unworthy of it.

Yes.

>>...a desire for respect and obedience is not egotistical as you suggested.

I agree with this for respect 100%. A desire for worship though is egotistical. Obedience is from the church and it's leaders more than I could imagine it being from God. If that was God's plan, he wouldn't have given us the free will.

Actually it is all from the church and it's leaders. The twisting of religion from it's original purpose that we've gone over many times about morals and educating people into the control tool it is used from modern religions is it's biggest problem.

>>I simply read viki2000's post and felt that "egotistic" had a negative connotation and tried to soften it by suggesting the word "egoistic".

Which is why I kept after it.  viki2000's post implies that atheists, non-believers, are only interested in themselves, are inherently selfish, while believers unselfishly are devoted to God.  IMO, there is nothing inherently superior about believers.
>>Atheists: “I am the God of my life” – here is about “I”
>>Believers: “God is the God of my life” – here is about “God”

As far as your discussion about worship, I have never understood why an all powerful, omniscient God would be interested in being worshiped.  What possible use could it serve?
(Added-above written before reading Anthony's post)

Yes, I get it. The image of a god sitting on a throne high above his subjects saying "worship me, worship me or I will send you to hell" is disconcerting if not downright goofy. And a gross mischaracterization of worshiping God.

And I think you are making far too big a deal out of the word and the act.

In Christianity, worshiping God is not a requirement for entry into heaven, by the way.

Steve

>>And I think you are making far too big a deal out of the word and the act.

I am making a big deal of the big deal most religions make of it.

>>In Christianity, worshiping God is not a requirement for entry into heaven, by the way.

Depends on which Christian you ask. The loud religious zealots will tell you otherwise.

"Depends on which Christian you ask. The loud religious zealots will tell you otherwise. "

The new testament is very clear about this. There is no equivocation. Faith not works gets you to heaven. Any "loud religious zealot" telling you otherwise is flatly wrong. And, yes, I suspect you hear this over and over on religious subject forums . . ."the other guy is wrong." This is THE central issue of the new testament. Loudness is not a litmus test for truth or accuracy.

Steve

>>Faith not works gets you to heaven.

I don't quite get this.

So the talk about having to accept Jesus as Lord to get into heaven is wrong?

"So the talk about having to accept Jesus as Lord to get into heaven is wrong? "

Faith in Christ . . .

Steve

There's a whole lot of churchy talk about "accepting Christ", "having faith", "faith in Christ" that confuses the bejeebers out of what I think is a fairly simple concept. Basically, accepting the gospel -- that Christ died for our sin -- is the ticket to heaven.

Then there's this notion notion about "rejecting Christ" . . .which to some leaves open the possibility of avoiding hell if you don't believe in Christ. That is, you never hear the gospel so how can you "accept" Christ versus you hear the gospel and you say "that's crap."

I spent 15 years in the Catholic church. It was never clear to me that this was what was intended to be purgatory, but I no longer attend the Catholic church, so some authority on Catholicism may have to answer that.

Steve

We have discussed the different aspects of this from every angle and with more and more explanation. Do you think the following statement is 'generally' accurate:

If you tell a heavily religious, every week church attending, Bible quoting person that you do not believe in Jesus Christ, they will believe that you will not make it into heaven. They may not state it, but that would be what they would believe.

Do you think that statement is 'generally' accurate?

Yes.

But I change up the 2nd paragraph to say "If you tell a true disciple of Christ . . . "

And as true disciples of Christ they would begin to evangelize . . .not beating you down, not giving you "fire and brimstone" not judging you because you sin. But urging you to consider what is called the truly free gift. If they simply beat you down, act condescendingly toward you and act superior then they are no disciples of Christ, they are likely legalistic church goers. And they will likely not emphasize that you will burn in hell, rather they will point out that you are rejecting something that is free, eternal and made available through grace. There's a vast difference.

I am wary of those whose default mode is to point out that you will burn in hell. That's similar to a mom who wants a child to eat his vegetables saying "you will get sick and die a horrible death unless you eat your green beans" instead of "you will grow up to be strong and healthy . . .". Perhaps a minor, subtle point, but significant in attracting converts.


Steve

Anthony,
If you heard the Gospel of Jesus and maybe you have read it then is your decision in which direction you choose to go. Is not about what different people from different denominations say, it is about what is written in Bible.
I think the best is to turn back to the Scripture, no matter what different people may tell you:

1 John 5 :
1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
6 This is the one who came by water and blood —Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

>>not beating you down, not giving you "fire and brimstone" not judging you because you sin.

That is not at all what I mean. I am talking about those that are the nicest and non-judgmental people. Wouldn't lecture you or say you are wrong for your beliefs or anything. But they still would believe that I would be a person who is not going to get into heaven because I choose to not believe in God. That is what their religion taught them. They are fine that I don't believe it and don't try to force it on me, but I just wont get into heaven in their minds.

>>Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Right. Doesn't that mean that if you do not believe in the Son of God, then you do not have life (afterlife in heaven I would think). It pretty much affirms my point I think.

We affirmed your point already. Just trying to make the additional point that the negative (you are going to hell if you dont believe) is generally less palatable than the positive whuch is what I tell people. It doesnt change anything, but I would rather induce someone to take a look than to attempt to lead with fear.

Steve

>>...but I would rather induce someone to take a look than to attempt to lead with fear.

I agree Steve. If only the religions of today would try that tactic. That is usually their initial tactic but it quickly turns to influencing with fear.

That's probably why God gets such a bad rap, he's seen as the moral cop, playing the role of a poorly paid disgruntled prison warden. Not that some of the old testament doesn't foster that view, but the God of the new testament is most certainly a loving God.

Steve

>>but the God of the new testament is most certainly a loving God.

You sure about that?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

"Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15"

God is love also in Old Testament.
God seems cruel also in New Testament. But the right word is just, righteous.
In Revelation are mentioned similar killings compared with Old Testament.
The killings are mass killings – genocide, compared with flood time.

How can be God understood just without punish those who do not respect His laws?
The wrath of God is a face of His justice.

He is also loving and merciful.
According with His justice we, all deserve to perish.

Many people ask after a catastrophe, tsunami, earthquake where thousands of people died, where is God, where is His mercy and His love?

God does not owe us anything.
We belong to Him.

OK, I remembered one explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taYhbRm6pnU

Yep, I'm sure. Thanks viki2000.

Steve

OK. So God does a lot of good and love and owes us nothing. Similar to the way an adoptive parent would for an orphan he takes in.

But if that parent, among all the good he does for the orphan, also occasionally abuses the child for lack of respect or following the rules, that is OK? I'm not talking about discipline. I'm talking about child abuse. I'm sure the link I shared would be more brutal and extreme than just discipline by God.

So since God is the creator and does so much good for us and owes us nothing, his cruelties are excused. Is that correct?

You understood wrong.
There are no cruelties, nothing to be excused.
God is Justice. God is right.
In the universe created by Him "Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
We all deserved to die yesterday.
We only live now because God gave us more time, because He is merciful.
He still gives chance to the people to turned back from their ways.

There is no cruelty. He gives and He takes life.

>>There is no cruelty. He gives and He takes life.

"Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12"

""Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28"

"Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50"

"Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24"

That sounds more like cruelty than just taking life.

Also this sure sounds like leading with fear than anything else.

"OK. So God does a lot of good and love and owes us nothing. Similar to the way an adoptive parent would for an orphan he takes in."

Precisely.

"But if that parent, among all the good he does for the orphan, also occasionally abuses the child for lack of respect or following the rules, that is OK? I'm not talking about discipline. I'm talking about child abuse. I'm sure the link I shared would be more brutal and extreme than just discipline by God. "

This is such bizarre statement I don't know how to respond . . .except perhaps that I am likely uninterested in whatever link you have to share. I have absolutely no doubt -- especially after watching "Zietgiest" -- that anyone with a modicum of intelligence and a some spare time can make some outrageously strange claims about God and substantiate them. I once wrote a paper claiming that Moby Dick represented the Republic of Ireland and found references to support it. But any clown who read it knew that I was not serious. I got a "C" because the professor didn't have a sense of humor.

Your references, by the way, are not in reference to someone who jaywalks or shows up late for dinner. They are for folks who reject Christ. You already said you understood that. I'm not sure what point you are making.

And there are several hundred pages to the new testament, and you've picked out about an eighth of one page at most.

Oh well. I am truly sorry you have the view that you have. You must have dealt with some really odd folks.

Steve

Steve

I don't see why it is so bizarre. It is along the lines of many analogies that we have been making. Parents can commit child abuse. The link I referenced is one that I already posted above. It shows many examples of cruelty and barbaric punishment for not believing in God. This is similar to how a child abuser administers cruel and barbaric punishment to a child.

There is nothing strange about stating God is cruel. Many have stated this and the Bible has many examples of this. You may choose to not believe it, but nothing strange about the statement.

I am aware there is much more good in the Bible than bad. The bad however is in there. To disregard it and say God is not cruel is to really be cherry picking what you want to believe. That's similar to the wife that defends the child abusing father because he does so much good for the child too.

The odd folks is really whoever wrote this all in the Bible.

I don’t know if you took time to watch Piper’s explanations. He said the entire question can be asked harder: not only when God kills people through events as flood for instance, but when He put other people to kill people. That is the hard part difficult to be accepted by us in our thinking, in our terms of good and right, cruelty.
My opinion is that you have the wrong reference in judgment.
I do not say that you do not think right or good, but you think from human being point of view. And that is not OK.
God is Sovereign.
Your statements are generally as we all have a kind of democracy, equal rights: we and God. Is not like that.
And you point at the situation as you would be an outsider, in a 3rd state: God, people and the neutral observer.
You cannot be the neutral observer to judge God actions and decisions as cruel.
There are only 2 positions: either you are God Creator or man-creature. There is no external possibility as judge.
The definition of cruel make no sense with God’s references. Cruel is valid for us human beings.
He does what He pleases and is never wrong.
Cruelty is what we see here when we try to protect ourselves from the wrath of God.
Here comes the important side.
We expect God to be just but we do not want to respect the rules of justice. We like to sin continuously and we want Him to not punish, in other words to not exercise His justice.
Is like: when a criminal attack your family you shout for justice, where is the police? And when you are the criminal then you call the decision of the court cruel. Moral policeman is always nice as long as you do not break the law, as long as he is on your side.
The hard part is not the cruelty mentioned by you. The hard part is that we sin continuously and we do not even realize or we do not want to realize that. We are continuously against God. We reject Him. We do not want Him. We prefer to think He does not exists.
God is not only just, but He is also Holy. And sin cannot stay together with His holiness. And from here comes the entire fight that we have. And the sin is defined by Him, not by us. We play by His rules and not ours, because He made all things.
God is love because instead of wiping all of us second time, He exercised His justice (seen as cruel, wrath of God) over His Son instead over us. That’s why Jesus came: to give us another chance and save us from the justice of God.

>>And when you are the criminal then you call the decision of the court cruel.

Here is the difference. Getting put in jail is justice. Even getting put to death is justice. Getting eaten alive by rats is called cruel and unusual punishment. There is justice and there is cruelty.

>>He does what He pleases and is never wrong.

Because of this belief, you lose the power of reason. You do not think for yourself in relation to God but just accept it as right no matter how much it might be against what you would believe to be cruel and wrong.

I feel as long as someone is happy with how they live their lives and not harming others, then that is fine. However up above Steve said he was truly sorry that I had the view that I have. I am glad I think for myself and there is nothing to be sorry about. As long as you are glad that you do not think for yourself in relation to God and rather accept blindly that it is all right, then I am not sorry for you having the views you have. I myself would be very sorry for myself though if I did not have the capability to think for myself on something.

AnthonyRusso . . . my formal answer would be somewhat similar to viki2000's answer. She replies with answers straight from verse and from Christian teaching.

It seems that only non-believers want to characterize God as cruel. And they almost always say something like "worship me or I will destroy you" and then they cite verses where God destroys a city or instructs his people to destroy a city . . . and not only the city but every man, woman, child and animal. That said, there are certainly believers who struggle with the notion of God's action but the answer lies in seeking to understand the nature of God.

And the problem with answering this way, more or less anonymously on a forum is that it is very difficult to respond to assertions like yours with short answers. Replace the idea of describing Christianity and the character of God with "describe how quantum chromodynamics works" or "explain differential geometry." Do you believe that either of those subjects could be adequately covered in a 200-300 response give-and-take thread?  And to truly understand, you have to want to understand. That's the kicker.

Thanks for your responses. I never want to sound condescending, but I have spent a lot of time thinking about these issues and when you suggest that "God is like a child abuser" it appears as though you are not trying to understand my view, but simply asserting that your view as correct. I'm not sure that's the case, but it sounds a little like that. And I am trying to understand your perspective, and that's difficult as well because to me it sounds as if you are saying that if a parent disciplines a child it equates to child abuse. I say this in the context of a person calling the bible allegory and then citing specific examples of cruelty to prove his point. I don't think you are deliberately doing that. Read Jonah, it's short. And new believers usually come away thinking "God changed his mind, I thought God was always right."

Steve

Steve,
viki2000 is a „he“ not a “she”.

Anthony,
You maintain your view only because you like to do the things which God consider sins and you don’t consider them sins.
Why would somebody think at God as cruel as long as that person is doing the things right?
The way how God decide to make justice, His wrath is at His latitude not  at ours, because we are not the judge. He is the Judge.

And people tend to see the entire justice of God considering the human life only the present life. This is only a tiny part of eternity. If you look like that, then the situation may be seen different.

Perhaps is worthy to mention one more thing: there are situations when God gives free hand to Satan. The people suffer because Satan troubles them, tries them, harass them, torment them, torture them….

You may ask: where is then the justice of God?
The situation become harder to be understood when those persons are believers, are following God and respect His laws.
Can that happen?
Yes.
We can read the book of Job and what God did and what God answered at all the questions that Job had in his pain.
It is a good book to be studied in order to understand your questions.
I can summarize it here in few phrases but is better if you read it first.

@viki2000, most humble apologies

@AR

"Because of this belief, you lose the power of reason. You do not think for yourself in relation to God but just accept it as right no matter how much it might be against what you would believe to be cruel and wrong."

That could not be any further from the truth. It may apply to some robots that mindlessly follow a Gyana/Jim Jones or Waco/David Koresh. . . but it most certainly does not even follow scripture.

Re: "However up above Steve said he was truly sorry that I had the view that I have."

I think you misunderstood me. I am not sorry that you are not a believer (well, actually I am. But that wasn't the point of my statement.) I am sorry that you have wrong impressions about the character of God. It's as if you told me that you were against nuclear power because of all the elephants that it takes to fuel a nuclear power generator. And I say "I am sorry you feel that way" not sorry necessarily that you are against nuclear power, just sorry that you have come to conclusions based on what I believe to be faulty data. I am not trying to persuade you to believe or not believe, I am trying to tell you that at least some of your beliefs vis a vis God are based on misconceptions and notions held by very small fringe elements of my religion and non-believers who are essentially bigots who have some sort of agenda whose main objective is to tear down religion at the expense of intellectual honesty . . . like the "Zeitgeist" author/lunatic. Who knows? Perhaps he actually believes the tripe and drivel he puts forth in that movie. I digress. Mainstream Christianity certainly doesn't believe God is cruel or that you should mindlessly follow anyone or anything.

Steve

>>It seems that only non-believers want to characterize God as cruel.

It seems this went off on a tangent of cruelty that is not intended as much as the fact that religion has a history of using fear to maintain the belief. Have you not heard a religious person use the term "God fearing" as a good term to define someone? It's more rare in the last 50 years but used to be pretty common. Good example off the top of my head is that it is often used in 'To Kill A Mockingbird' to describe a 'good' man such as "He was a good, God-fearing man."

Obviously there is more to all this than we discuss in this thread but to say that religion doesn't invoke a fear of God in it's followers is naive to me. I know there is predominately good, but to act like the fear is not there and used as a motivating factor is denying a basic part of most religion. Fear of God's wrath. Fear of loss of God's love. Fear of burning in Hell with flames and eternal suffering. Fear is a core part of most religion, even if not the main part.

>>You maintain your view only because you like to do the things which God consider sins and you don’t consider them sins.

So not believing is just a way for me to continue to act in a way that believers believe is a sin? If the sins you might be referring to are not attending church weekly and about my belief in God, then maybe that is true.

If the sins you are referring to are things along the lines of homosexuality or same-sex marriage, contraception, or even divorce (annulments and such), then those would be good examples of things I do not consider as bad things, but are sins of the Bible. So yes then that would be true as well.

If you are talking about my enjoyment of stealing, and murder, or even lying, that would be offensive to me. I choose not to do those things because they are wrong to my sense of values. I so very much wish believing would make those things not happen. We all know there are way too many people who are devout believers, even members of the church, who do unspeakable acts upon others.

>>I think you misunderstood me. I am not sorry that you are not a believer...

Understood Steve. My misconception.

One more thing about God being cruel.

If you remember back at the top that started all this, I stated that I honestly don't believe that if God exists, that he is cruel. I believe he would be a much more loving and peaceful God than what the Bible portrays. There is no reason to try to convince me of God not being true because I'm already there.

“not attending church” is not a sin
“homosexuality” is a sin
“stealing, and murder, or even lying” also sins

Why?
Because sin is not something defined by mankind.
Sin is defined by God. Sin is breaking God’s law.
Sin is when you repeat the initial issue between man and God: disobeying.

“I choose not to do those things because they are wrong to my sense of values”

If everybody will think in that way what will happen when that common sense of values goes in wrong direction?
People made their own laws but they are not better than God’s law.
If people will respect God’s law then would be heaven on earth.

There's a lot of churchy lingo that has bothered me since I became a believer. "Fear" is one of those words. There was a time, particularly in the "fire and brimstone" periods, where I *think* people were made to feel afraid of not obeying God. "You'll burn in hell" or "would you rather go to heaven with mommy and daddy or burn in hell for an eternity?"

I believe that what I've read in a couple of Bible dictionaries comes closest to the truth. The word "fear" in Greek / Aramaic / Hebrew in the Bible in some places means "to abide by" or "stand in awe". In other places the Greek / Aramaic / Hebrew word for "fear" refers to an emotional anxiety or what we commonly call a sort of human fear or to be frightened, and that use of the word fear is never used to admonish us to "fear" God. See "Strong's Bible Definitions."

I don't disagree that many people "lead" with fear to frighten you into believing. But I do believe that in the Bible a fear of God never means to be afraid of him. And I believe "God fearing" is synonymous with "God respecting". I have a healthy fear of the ocean. I don't think that means that I am scared or "fear" pain or punishment. I respect the ocean.

"We all know there are way too many people who are devout believers, even members of the church, who do unspeakable acts upon others."

Two things: being a church member doesn't mean you are truly a follower of Christ. A phenomenally large number of people who attend my church attend and serve to "buy" their way into heaven because they simply cannot understand or accept grace. Second, being a Christian doesn't mean you are without sin. It means your sins - all sin, past, present and future -- have been forgiven. So if I see someone who claims to be a Christian doing something unspeakable, I don't immediately think "hypocrite" because it may very well be possible that person did unspeakable things 3 or 4 times a day, became a Christian and now only does unspeakable things 3 or 4 times a week. That is a very difficult concept for non-believers to accept. Perhaps. Or they simply pretend it's hard to accept because it's so easy to throw in the face of believers. Sanctification is a process. Simply saying "I am a Christian" doesn't sanctify you, it starts the process, a process that can progress if you honestly try and obey God.

Steve

>>“homosexuality” is a sin

Calling this a sin exactly is my point. There is no logical reason for it to be a sin. It harms nobody. .The only reason it is called a sin is because God said it is. Anyone who thinks for themselves may agree or disagree with the lifestyle, but generally would not see it as a sin in any way. The ONLY reason anyone thinks this would be a sin is because God said so.

>>I believe that what I've read in a couple of Bible dictionaries comes closest to the truth. The word "fear" in Greek / Aramaic / Hebrew in the Bible in some places means "to abide by" or "stand in awe". In other places the Greek / Aramaic / Hebrew word for "fear" refers to an emotional anxiety or what we commonly call a sort of human fear or to be frightened, and that use of the word fear is never used to admonish us to "fear" God. See "Strong's Bible Definitions."

That's a whole lot of rationalization to make what you believe try to make sense. Unfortunately fear is still fear. Not respect. I fear something because I think something bad can happen from it. I respect something that has earned my respect.

>>I have a healthy fear of the ocean. I don't think that means that I am scared or "fear" pain or punishment. I respect the ocean.

Yes it does mean that exactly. Your fear of the ocean is because the ocean has the ability to kill you. You may still have a respect for the ocean too, but you also have the fear, and that is a good thing as it is there to keep you alive.

I'm sure you would share my fear of tightrope walking across the Grand Canyon. That is a healthy fear because it is dangerous and can kill me.

>>being a church member doesn't mean you are truly a follower of Christ.

I'm was actually referring to actual Clergy.

>>I don't immediately think "hypocrite" because it may very well be possible that person did unspeakable things 3 or 4 times a day, became a Christian and now only does unspeakable things 3 or 4 times a week.

This statement boggles my mind. Maybe we are thinking of different unspeakable acts and I'd rather not specify. One time a lifetime is too much to me! To accept 3 times a week as an improvement so they are better than when they were committing these acts more frequently? I can't even fathom this kind of acceptance.

"That's a whole lot of rationalization to make what you believe try to make sense. Unfortunately fear is still fear. Not respect. I fear something because I think something bad can happen from it. I respect something that has earned my respect."

No, it isn't. You are limiting the word "fear" to mean what you want it to mean to make your point. Unless of course you speak Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic and you know from context how various words in those languages translated to "fear" are used. In which case, I stand corrected.

"I'm was actually referring to actual Clergy."

I stand by what I said.

"This statement boggles my mind. Maybe we are thinking of different unspeakable acts and I'd rather not specify. One time a lifetime is too much to me! To accept 3 times a week as an improvement so they are better than when they were committing these acts more frequently? I can't even fathom this kind of acceptance. "

As I said, most non-believers don't get this. Let's use 2 societal extremes: lying and child molestation. First of all I didn't say I accepted the unspeakable act, and you seem to be reacting as if I did. Second, if a person molests a child, in God's eyes that is certainly an unspeakable act but so is lying. To you, they may seem worlds apart because society more or less condones lying (to wit, almost all advertising) but condemns (as it should) child molestation. But in fact they are both sins. To reduce the frequency of my sin is progress. Not sure why your mind is boggled.

Steve

>>No, it isn't. You are limiting the word "fear" to mean what you want it to mean to make your point. Unless of course you speak Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic and you know from context how various words in those languages translated to "fear" are used. In which case, I stand corrected.

Why use different languages to define a word when we are talking about the usage of the word in the English language?

Sorry to use a fictional reference but it is very fitting here. Obi Wan Kenobi told Luke that Vader killed his father. Later he explains that was truth "from a certain point of view". No it isn't. He lied to him plain and simple. He rationalized a way to make it wound like it wasn't lying, but it was false no matter how you look at it. (Hope you are familiar with the Star Wars reference).

>>As I said, most non-believers don't get this. Let's use 2 societal extremes: lying and child molestation. First of all I didn't say I accepted the unspeakable act, and you seem to be reacting as if I did. Second, if a person molests a child, in God's eyes that is certainly an unspeakable act but so is lying. To you, they may seem worlds apart because society more or less condones lying (to wit, almost all advertising) but condemns (as it should) child molestation. But in fact they are both sins. To reduce the frequency of my sin is progress. Not sure why your mind is boggled.

Still boggled. Considering that most everyone I ever met has probably lied in their life, and probably not molested children, they are not the same thing. They are both sins. I remember as a kid hearing this in religious class and thinking it was bogus then. They told us murder and lying are equal sins. That's BS!

I don't care if believer or not, if you think someone who lied and someone who molested a child 3 times a day are both equally good people or equally bad people, then that is truly twisted.

If you think molesting a child 3 times a week is better than 3 times a day, that person is improving and getting better, that is also equally twisted.

Ask the child.

"Why use different languages to define a word when we are talking about the usage of the word in the English language?"

Because the bible wasn't written in English and it is the biblical concept of "fear" that we are talking about.


"If you think molesting a child 3 times a week is better than 3 times a day, that person is improving and getting better, that is also equally twisted. "

I think you are confusing concepts. Child molestation is bad. Sinning 3 times a week is better than sinning 21 times a week. Conceptually, I don't understand what's difficult about that. You seem to want to merge the 2.

" . . . they are not the same thing. They are both sins."

Oops. Unintentional contradiction? (sorry, couldn't resist).

"I remember as a kid hearing this in religious class and thinking it was bogus then. They told us murder and lying are equal sins. That's BS!"

Ok, you realize that "not bearing false witness" and "not committing murder" are 2 of the 10 commandments. I'm not sure what you are calling BS. Perhaps, you are thinking that the commandment refers to saying "gee you look nice in that dress" to your wife when she doesn't really look nice in that dress. No, I would agree that probably doesn't compare to a brutal murder.

"I don't care if believer or not, if you think someone who lied and someone who molested a child 3 times a day are both equally good people or equally bad people, then that is truly twisted."

The commandment cautions against bearing false witness . . . I referred to advertising ("gets your teeth whiter") as a joke. But if I say I saw you kill someone (a lie) and you were sent to prison or executed for it, wouldn't you agree that's not all that different from murder?

You still seem to want to frame concepts and semantics to support your point of view. Am I doing that? If so, it's unintentional.


Steve

>>Because the bible wasn't written in English and it is the biblical concept of "fear" that we are talking about.

I'm pretty sure that most religions will invoke fear as a method of keeping people believing. Rationalizing translations around it doesn't change that most religions use fear as a powerful influencer.

>>Child molestation is bad. Sinning 3 times a week is better than sinning 21 times a week. Conceptually, I don't understand what's difficult about that.

Again, ask the child that.

>>" . . . they are not the same thing. They are both sins."

Excuse me, I forgot a word: " . . . they are not the same thing, {but} They are both sins."

>>Ok, you realize that "not bearing false witness" and "not committing murder" are 2 of the 10 commandments.

That doesn't make them equally reprehensible. Murder is worse. Molestation  is worse. Lying your way out of a parking ticket is not as bad as murdering someone. Lying about infidelity even, and bringing another commandment into it is still not as bad as murder or child molesting. Anyone who doesn't see that is brainwashed. The only logic anyone could have for saying they are equal is "God said so." Sorry but I prefer to use my brain and actually think .

>>You still seem to want to frame concepts and semantics to support your point of view. Am I doing that? If so, it's unintentional.

What you are calling framing concepts I call analytically thinking and thinking for myself. You are doing the same thing only rationalizing reality to fit your worldview from the Bible.

You are working backwards as religion usually does:

"There are our conclusions. Let's find facts to back them up." In reality it should be "These are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them."

"That doesn't make them equally reprehensible. Murder is worse. Molestation  is worse. Lying your way out of a parking ticket is not as bad as murdering someone"

Again here is your man view. I would answer the same as you normally.
But God’s view is different. The penalty for sin is death.
Don't you remember kings condemning people to death for lying?
Even us (humans) kill for lying in extreme conditions when entire nation has to suffer, martial law,…we do the same and find that right.
Our relation with God is special because is about trust for eternity.
How can God give the treasures of the heavens to someone – for eternity – if is found liar?

"I'm pretty sure that most religions will invoke fear as a method of keeping people believing. Rationalizing translations around it doesn't change that most religions use fear as a powerful influencer."

How people use a tool is not a reflection of the tool. That people will use fear to influence is a reflection on people, not on religion. And I don't agree with your generalization either.

"That doesn't make them equally reprehensible. Murder is worse. Molestation  is worse. Lying your way out of a parking ticket is not as bad as murdering someone. Lying about infidelity even, and bringing another commandment into it is still not as bad as murder or child molesting. Anyone who doesn't see that is brainwashed. The only logic anyone could have for saying they are equal is "God said so." Sorry but I prefer to use my brain and actually think ."

That's a silly comparison, which doesn't prove your point, it makes me suspect you are simply arguing to be right. The commandment is not "Don't lie your way out of a parking ticket." You ignored my comparison which was "bearing false witness", for example, claiming my neighbor committed a crime that he in fact did not commit.

">>Child molestation is bad. Sinning 3 times a week is better than sinning 21 times a week. Conceptually, I don't understand what's difficult about that.

Again, ask the child that.""

What? Ask a child if 3 is less than 21?

AnthonyRusso, your comments are becoming irrelevant. You say I am thinking backwards, you suggest that my thinking is a result of brainwashing, and you are making claims that are purely subjective in nature and logically suspect. I've lost interest in this discussion.

But thanks for your earlier thoughtful comments.

Steve

We will have to agree to disagree. Good discussion with both of you though.