Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Because God was good, and bigotry was evil, you see. God therefore hated bigotry. Everything was a lot simpler back then.
(Incidentally, that particular principle has stuck with me, and my current views on God are rather similar to when I was a child in that respect.)
Also, nontheists seem to think that you will get sent to hell for doing any type
of sin. I'd hate to Godwin again, but you pretty much have to be Hitler
for God to send you to hell. Most people are going into Purgatory and
then into heaven.
Agreed here. But thing is, nontheists, by definition, do not have the concept of god they believe in. The concept they are judging is the one theists present to them, and the one about god sending people to hell for every minot sin is not uncommon. As far as this one knows, it is actually the mainstream one. Just because it does not matches your personal beliefs does not mean that misotheists are wrong to have problem with this concept of god. Basically, you are saying the same thing misotheists say - that only a Hitler of God would send people to hell for any minor sin.
Uh, no. You will not sent to hell for one sin. Given that original sin exists, that would damn every single one of us to hell.
As far as this one knows, this is one of themost common interpretation. That without accepting Jesus as a Lord and Saviour each and every human is going to hell, because there are no, and cannot be, sinless humans. The most baffling thing is that people who think so also think that it is exactly what people deserve. Heh, and after that they call atheists misanthropes.
(I actually wanted to write a short story, "An Atheist goes to Heaven", where an avowed Atheists dies, goes up to Heaven, and has a philosophical discussion/debate with God).
This one would be interested in reading that. Honestly. Personally, this one thinks that in the unlikely event she'll meet The God in the afterlife, the conversation would be something like
- So, umm, you're here after all?
- OF COURSE I'M HERE! NOW WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ALL THIS TIME, CARE TO EXPLAIN?
Argumentum Ad Populum.
It is not quite Argumentum Ad Populum. Or, rather, it ceases to be one when populsr interptretation is the one being argued against. Hmm, if it makes sense, most misotheists do not have problem with your god - they have problem with the god mainstream Christianity follows. In fact, their very objections cease to be applicable under your interpretation, so they are not talking about your god at all.
It doesn't make them right, it makes them the ones that we are most
likely to argue against. I'm pointing out that if your take on religion
deviates from the norm, you'll have to explain it to us. I've had a few
arguments take forever because someone demanded that I read their minds
and argue with their own unique definition of religion, instead of
stating what they actually believed.
True. This one is often called to specify some of her uncommon positions, and there is nothing wrong with it. When one's position is not mainstream, it is not unreasonable for people to assume that it is unless specified otherwise. Now, refusing to listen if it is specified is rather strange.
Ahem, alright, done with replies here. Now to different issues.
The reason this one brings her misotheistic attitude into discussions is, as been said above, the opinions most believers tend to hold. If people belive that god really did commit/command an atrocity and yet consider him just and good (even though they would curse a man for the same), is it not fair to call them out about exactly what they worship? It does not, in any way, mean that each and every possible deity is evil - only that the one they worship is. Hmm, to think of it...can it be said that someone who believes in a deity that caused the great flood and sends people to eternal torture for every minor transgression and the one who believes that flood is figurative and concet of hell is entirely different (not eternal, separatin instead of suffering, only Complete Monsters go there - there are number of variations) are really worshipping the same deity? This one doubts it. So if you do not think that god caused anything misotheists accuse him of, please do not be offended - it is not your god that is being talked about.
About hell. Again, popular doctrine says that everyone goes there without Jesus intervention, and that it is completely deserved. Which is something you see problems with.
Another point is that even if we accept that only Complete Monsters go there, their crimes are still finite. Even if we combine the pain each and every of millions of Hitler's victims held, it still ends somewhere. Multiply it by thousand,let him suffer a thousand times for each - it is still a finite number. Still ends somewhere. Still not eternity. What crime can justify eternal punishment?
This sums up my attitude perfectly. I don't mind when people complain that God is evil, because I know that my God is not evil, so they must be talking about a different one.
That said, I do think it's worth remembering that in many Christians' worldviews, the universe is such that God cannot be judged as evil by human standards, if He can be judged by those standards at all. For example, it's my understanding that in most Christian worldviews, there are inherent properties of free will, evil and Heaven which make allowing sinners to go to Hell an entirely fair and justified course of action on God's part. This doesn't make sense to me or a nontheist because our worldviews are so drastically different, but I think it's safe to say that if you told most Christians that their God was evil because of some particular action, they'd disagree.
That said, I do think it's worth remembering that in many Christians' worldviews, the universe is such that God cannot
be judged as evil by human standards, if He can be judged by those
standards at all. For example, it's my understanding that in most
Christian worldviews, there are inherent properties of free will, evil
and Heaven which make allowing sinners to go to Hell an entirely fair
and justified course of action on God's part. This doesn't make sense
to me or a nontheist because our worldviews are so drastically
different, but I think it's safe to say that if you told most
Christians that their God was evil because of some particular action,
they'd disagree.
Exactly. And this is an attitude I am talking about when I think of god being evil. And of course they will disagree, but hey, that's the point=) If we agreed, there won't be any argument in the first place.
So it's kind of like saying to a physicist, "in my opinion, blue is actually red". I don't imagine many physicists would care about your opinion on the matter, since blue is, by its very definition, not red.
standard of goodness, but simply by the will of God, it seems to me
that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all
his glory; for why praise him for what he has done, if he would be
equally praiseworthy in doing the contrary?"
Your quote is Leibniz, who was a theist himself. The idea is not that things are good purely by the will of God, it's that some things are good by their inherent nature and so is God, making the concepts of "God" and "good" inextricable.
previously called "good" is not a scenario that makes any sense in that
worldview. It simply wouldn't, and couldn't, happen. At the very
least, if it did happen, it could be safely assumed that God must have
good reasons - that something must have changed that renders that which
was previously good no longer good.
Of course. But exactly what would stop him from picking a different set of "good" and "evil" from the beginning? If there were some reasons, then good and evil exist independently of god. If there was no reasons, then good is nothing but preference of an almighty being. Might makes right?
For the record, this one is currently a tentative agnostic theist and does not believe in evil god. But Abrahamic god (as this one is told about him) does seem evil to this one so far. But this, again, is something for another discussion entirely.
Various theologists and apologists have various ways of reconciling the apparently contradictory aspects of the Bible.
Personally, I don't think there's anything to reconcile; it's simply a collection of very old books written by authors with differing views and intentions, which has over the years been subject to numerous alterations to the point where the original meaning is at times obscure.
^ The fact that, in that worldview, good and evil are inherent properties, bound with the nature of the universe. It's not "might makes right". Good is not dictated by how God behaves, but God will only do that which is good.
Generally the creation of hell was made as a way to scare sinners into rebutting their ways and as a way to punish those who are not bound my the laws or ethics of Earth, without God having to interfere with the matters of Earth in order to stick to his "Look, Don't Touch" playstyle when it came to micromanaging Earth. Take that as you will. I generally like it, I just hate how different writings clash with the hell that wasn't expanded on very well. Dante's Divine Comedy is a work of fiction, and hell does not work with rings/levels/phases. Every sinner goes to the same hell, regardless of the urgence of their crime. All is fair in condemnation, and being a nicer sinner doesn't mean you are spared to a little rainy patch of dirt where everyone is sad and wandering aimlessly. You sure don't keep your job for being a half-assing bum, nor a embezzling sexual-harassing saboteur.
It came to the fact that after Jesus died, God generally lost interest in Earth and wanted to go somewhere else, so he quit the "Earth Project" and decided to work on something else and closed off heaven to everyone, left hell wide open, and said "Fuck you Earth, go handle your own problems", after that, he decided to take out his anger on the earth by introducing Birth defects such as harlequin ichthyosis, anencephaly and Cyclopia to punish the future generations children to make up for the murder of his own. Later on though, he did come back to find that the world was getting more diverse, and that some other beings out there were not happy with the way he was running things, and then came to the conclusion that his death and dismemberment was the best way for him to pay for his crimes against his own creations. And that is why he never answers your prayers. Because not only does he hate humanity for never learning their lesson, but because of course, he's dead. So far, there are no others watching over the christian sphere of influence on Earth, so generally, until another force decides to take up the abandoned project, anyone who does follow the long-dead Christian God will feel a very empty breeze in his place.
they don't actually believe in that God or in Hell, because they're
complaining about something they don't actually think happened....
One does not have to believe in god to have problem with it. What they complain about is
1) You (I do not know what you believe in and don't pretend to know, so it's just a general "you") believe that god sends people in hell
2)And you believe that your god is good and just
3)So, you believe in god that is de facto (according to his actions which you believe in) evil, but for some reason call it good...
I believe that's the usual interpretation, anyway.