What sort of deific being demands:

[MineralMan]

Believe me and worship me or burn in Hell for eternity?

That's like a parent telling his or her young child, "Do exactly as I say at all times or I'll kill you."

That's not love. That's cruelty.

[unblock]

1. Sure. And...?

Gods have always had elements of human emotions and flaws, including pride, ego, jealousy, cruelty, etc.

And love. Some of them anyway....

[MineralMan]

4. That's because they're all invented by humans.

So it seems to me. They all seem to have human attributes, right?

[brush]

77. You raise an issue most don't want to deal with. I'll just say this...

IMO in Christianity the wrathful God is of Windows version 1.0.

The forgiving Christ is the improved Windows 2.0.

I'm a Mac guy.

[Lordquinton]

11. That's called abuse when it's in humans

Most gods are abusive to their followers... That sounds about right, actually.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

2. These fundy nut jobs are going for the whole ball of wax...

They have to be stopped or they'll turn the US into a theocracy.

I believe one way to stop them would be to point out internet porn would be banned under theocratic rule.

[MineralMan]

3. There's always religious porn to fall back on.

Lot's daughters and Randy old King David. Song of Solomon, too. Plenty of action there.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

5. Good point

I'll remember to grab the old testament next time my web connection goes down.

[MineralMan]

6. Yup. Lots of "knowing" and

"Uncovering of nakedness" in there.

[Glorfindel]

7. King David and King Solomon led merry, merry lives,

With many, many lady friends, and many, many wives,
But when old age crept up on them,
With many, many qualms,
King Solomon wrote the Proverbs,
And King David wrote the Psalms.

[Pendrench]

8. Hi MineralMan - Thank you for starting this discussion.

I imagine that we will probably not agree on this topic, but I did have a few thoughts that I wanted to share.

First of all, I DO agree with your basic premise that such an entity (regardless if it omniscient and/or omnipotent) would be cruel and not worthy of worship.

But (speaking only for myself) perhaps there might be another way of viewing belief and worship.

For example, if one looks at the gospel of Matthew, there are the following well known verses:

35 I was hungry and you fed me, thirsty and you gave me a drink; I was a stranger and you received me in your homes, 36 naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you took care of me, in prison and you visited me.' 37 The righteous will then answer him, "When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you a drink? 38 When did we ever see you a stranger and welcome you in our homes, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?' 40 The King will reply, "I tell you, whenever you did this for one of the least important of these followers of mine, you did it for me!' 41 "Then he will say to those on his left, "Away from me, you that are under God's curse! Away to the eternal fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels! 42 I was hungry but you would not feed me, thirsty but you would not give me a drink; 43 I was a stranger but you would not welcome me in your homes, naked but you would not clothe me; I was sick and in prison but you would not take care of me.' 44 Then they will answer him, "When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and we would not help you?' 45 The King will reply, "I tell you, whenever you refused to help one of these least important ones, you refused to help me.


The "righteous" are rewarded because they fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, welcomed strangers, clothed the naked, took care of the sick, and visited those in prison. And they did so because they were motivated by love and compassion - not because they feared punishment (hell) or sought rewards (heaven). In fact, according to the verses they even say "When, Lord, did we ever see you...?"

So perhaps one "worships" god not by selfish words, but by selfless deeds? "...whenever you did this for one of the least important...you did it for me".

And for those that did not feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, welcome strangers, clothe the naked, take care of the sick, and visit those in prison...are they saying that they WOULD HAVE done so if they knew it was the Lord? In other words, their actions would have been motivated not by love and compassion for others, but by fear of punishment and the hope of rewards.

So perhaps god is saying worship me by taking care of those who need help - not because of what you fear might happen if you don't - but because it is the right thing to do.

A few years ago, I can across a prayer that is attributed to an 18th century Muslim woman named Rabia that also seems to speak to this:

O God, if I worship Thee in fear of Hell,
Burn me in Hell.
If I worship Thee in hope of Paradise,
Exclude me from Paradise.
But if I worship Thee for Thine Own Sake,
Withhold not from me Thine eternal beauty.

I interpret this as meaning that if one is motivated solely to escape hell or earn heaven, then their own selfishness will condemn them, not god. What's in it for me vs. What can I do for others.

Anyway, those are just a few thoughts that I had.

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss.

Tim

[yallerdawg]

9. The New Testament is all about a New Covenant...

and relationship between this deity and his creations.

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

[ExciteBike66]

12. Perhaps, but that doesn't change the "fact" that the god in that book

had previously demanded such things. Also, I'm pretty sure most Christians still believe in hell.

[Mariana]

19. Don't most Christians believe that God never changes?

The Bible states that several times, in various contexts. I've even heard some say God cannot change, but of course that's a ridiculous thing to say about an omnipotent deity.

[Mariana]

17. Too bad that's not the only instruction in the book.

The world would be a much better place.

[Voltaire2]

20. That's very nice. But this god still punishes

non-believers and sinners with eternal damnation.

Which is an abomination.

[yallerdawg]

21. An "abomination?"

Only if it's true!

But even every football fan knows the anthem and John 3:16!

[trotsky]

22. "...whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Which is great if you believeth in him, I guess.

What happens to those of us who don't?

[yallerdawg]

23. I guess...

you're going to perish and not have everlasting life?

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. There's no need to guess.

Jesus says what happens in John 3:36. "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

That Jesus. What a guy.

[yallerdawg]

25. John 3:17

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

I have no idea what "the wrath of God abiding in him" would be, but it does sound terrible.

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. John 3:18

Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

[MineralMan]

40. Oddly enough, you don't see signs saying JOHN 3:36 very often.

Subtract 20 verses and you get the pretty picture, rather than the threat. Most people don't read the entire chapter, really. For them, John 3:16 might as well be all that's there.

"Believe me and worship me or I'll kill you." As I said in the OP.

[yallerdawg]

44. It's described as a spiritual death, as a separation from God.

How would this harm an atheist or a non-Christian? Aren't you already experiencing "the wrath of God?"

Of course, everyone wants a benefit from belonging to a "club" - or what's the point?

And every "club" wants exclusivity. Or what's the difference?

"Believe me and worship me or I'll kill you" is hopefully a misinterpretation of the "club's" message.

[MineralMan]

45. Apologetics are for the religious.

They're all based on circular logic, and are false, in my opinion.

How intensely different denominations of Christianity treat the implicit threat in that particular verse and others varies widely. Not all use that particular apologetic to explain that. Not by any means.

[yallerdawg]

47. Apologetics?

I was talking to a Calvinist.

He pointed out to me that my lot in life was predetermined and there was no saving or redemption. Pointless.

There is no need for a "defense" of religion.

If the religion is right, you made a good choice.

If the religion is wrong, there are no consequences.

It has been argued that ultimately, faith is a gift from God.

If you haven't received that gift, that's the way God wants it.

[Voltaire2]

56. The "club's" message is either hellfire and brimstone or some variation on hellfire and brimstone

as in your "separation from god", which condemns the sinners to this eternal ostracism while all the true believers get to bask in the holy spirit.

However you choose to frame this nonsense it is still basically as described in the op.

There are religions that don't have this sort of carrot and stick approach.

[yallerdawg]

57. Oh, I get it now! Been a while?

[Angry Dragon]

85. I will NOT worship you

[trotsky]

26. So you're cool with that?

Everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus gets destroyed?

[yallerdawg]

29. Are you not arguing...

that everyone gets destroyed - regardless of what they believe?

Or - are you arguing God shouldn't be so - "judgmental?"

[Mariana]

33. Trotsky didn't argue anything.

Trotsky asked you a question: "So you're cool with that? Everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus gets destroyed?"

I wish you'd answer it, because I'd like to know that, too.

I'll add another question, though: Is that what you believe? Everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus gets destroyed?

[yallerdawg]

36. Let's go to an authority:

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone,” the pope told worshipers at morning Mass on Wednesday. “‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”

Francis continued, “We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/23/heaven-for-atheists-pope-sparks-debate/

[Mariana]

39. I didn't ask what that writer believes

I also didn't ask what the person being written about believes. I asked what you believe.

[yallerdawg]

46. I believe that we don't practice religious intolerance as Americans...

AND as the more tolerant and inclusive Democratic Party.

We don't have religious tests.

We look for the best in people everywhere - and hope for the best from people everywhere.

We don't condemn Islam. We condemn violence and the threat of violence for religious or ideological purposes.

If Christians were running around killing atheists with the purpose of sending them to hell - that's one thing. Believing they are looking out for your soul, and passing along a message in accordance with their beliefs - that's something else entirely.

[trotsky]

49. I can only read into this that yes, you do believe non-Christians...

will be destroyed and not enjoy eternal life with you and your fellow Christians.

So again I ask, are you OK with that? Does that sound fair? Simply because someone wasn't convinced your god existed, they shouldn't inherit eternal life?

[trotsky]

43. As Mariana pointed out, I'm not arguing anything.

You referred to an oft-cited bible verse. I quoted it, and asked for your opinion about its meaning.

So, what is your opinion? Is the bible correct, and only Christians inherit eternal life? Or is the bible wrong, and everyone does?

(There is a 3rd option I guess, the bible is wrong, and no one outlives their bodies. But I'm pretty sure you don't consider that an option.)

[yallerdawg]

48. It doesn't matter what I believe.

It doesn't matter what you believe.

That is the point.

Do we go back to the mindless and senseless void we all remember coming from? We'll find out, won't we?

[trotsky]

50. Actually, it does matter.

It matters because it affects how you treat others.

Believing that gay people are going to hell affects how conservative Christians treat them.

[yallerdawg]

52. The admonition from Christ...

is to love. To treat everyone as you would want to be treated.

Cast the first stone. The least of these. Lots of examples of how to treat others.

There are many examples of distortions of religion, but those don't define the religion.

Some conservative Christians may treat gays and others with intolerance, but most don't. Many gays are religious, and some are conservative.

There are many, many reasons we treat each other poorly - and religious belief is not required.

[trotsky]

53. Totally and utterly beside the point.

Which is obviously why you chose to write it.

You believe that Christians like yourself are saved and special, and that everyone else is not.

That is the ugly truth that you are trying so desperately to avoid talking about.

[yallerdawg]

54. You are wrong.

You have a distorted vision of the true message of Christianity.

What I don't understand is - if one is an atheist or non-believer, or even of another religious persuasion - what does it matter?

Condemn the homophobia, condemn the conservative values.

But we don't condemn the religion or the religious, right?

[Mariana]

59. And when the religion causes the homophobia, etc.

Haven't we all had the experience of seeing decent people get religion in a big way, and proceed to become hateful bigots because of their newfound faith?

[Lordquinton]

61. It's a simple yes or no question

That you are doing everything but answering.

[trotsky]

64. You think only Christians like you get to live forever in paradise.

The rest of your post is superfluous noise.

[yallerdawg]

65. You want to make it about one individual?

I'm talking about over half of America - not to mention the rest of the world.

Yes, you are entitled to your own opinion, but try to stick to the facts, not broad general statements that don't reflect the significant majority of Christian worship and belief today.

The idea that a 'believer' is rewarded in the afterlife has nothing to do with what may or may not happen to you!

If you don't 'believe,' why do you care?

Hindus believe we can be reincarnated as a cockroach. They have told me to my face this is a damn good reason to follow their faith!

"Do you want to come back as a cockroach?"

Guess what - I don't consider that worthy of a second thought. And I have no issue or problem with Hindus continuing to practice and believe whatever the hell they want!

[trotsky]

66. "...no issue or problem with Hindus continuing to practice and believe whatever the hell they want!"

That's nice, but you still think your god will destroy them for not accepting Jesus.

You keep flailing but the central point remains.

[yallerdawg]

67. Obviously, you have no issue with the Hindu faith, cockroach and all.

Your pointed issue is what a religion you completely dismiss says might happen to you in an afterlife!

That's weird!

If I personally thought you were on the highway to hell, why would you give a shit? It's a freakin' delusional fantasy, same as coming back as a cockroach, isn't it?

Now - you may need to consider "Pascal's Wager" - if hedging your bet is weighing on your...soul (?).

It is my understanding that most Christians only want what is best for you. Is that a bad thing?

[trotsky]

69. "...most Christians only want what is best for you. Is that a bad thing?"

Yes, it's a bad thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

[MineralMan]

75. Someone left out "they believe" between "what" and "is best," I think.

There's a lot of that sort of leaving out of things going on, it seems.

[trotsky]

76. What is it they say again?

The devil's in the details?

Why yes indeed, he is.

[MineralMan]

78. If a "devil" existed, it would consist only of details.

That's my thought about that.

That pesky "devil" always seems to pop up in this type of discussion, it appears.

I'm going to consider whether my time being involved in such arguments is really worthwhile, once again. It's tiring to have to deal with diversion used to derail discussions, and I'm already tired enough, I think.

Besides, I'm about to begin another major website content contract, so I probably won't have time to banter about silly things for the next few weeks. A pity, that, since I'll miss the amusement.

I do miss the level of argument and diversion that used to obtain in this group, though. It was far more entertaining.

[MineralMan]

31. The same thing that happens to the believers.

You die and that's an end to that. The idea that somehow people might live on after death in some form is absolutely illogical and there is no evidence of such a thing even being possible. We have ample evidence of what happens when people and other animals die. Their bodies disintegrate and the electro-chemical activity that makes our minds work ceases almost immediately after death. As far as I can see, nothing is left to "live" eternally or otherwise.

So, the difference really is in whether or not you recognize the effects of the end of life. Believe or don't believe. In the end demonstrable processes occur and the individual person or animal that dies ceases to be a person or animal. That has millions of years of evidence.

Something that is you lives on? There's no evidence whatever of that. Believing that stretches logic past the breaking point, but many people do believe such a thing. That's OK with me. It doesn't matter, in the end. What happens happens.

[MineralMan]

15. Thank you for your reply.

After 72 years on this planet, I cannot see how religion, in general, has improved how people treat each other very much. It seems to me that about the same percentage of both religious and non-religious people are kind, generous, forgiving and peaceful. So are the percentages of people who are cruel, mean, exploitative and treat people badly.

As you say, individuals appear to treat people and life in different ways, just as do people who eschew religion. It does not appear to me that religious belief really influences people in general in any predictable way.

So, I seek out and associate with people based on how they behave, rather than what they believe with regard to supernatural entities an the like. That seems to work best for me.

[3catwoman3]

28. "I cannot see how religion, in general, has improved how people treat each other very much."

It hasn't, as far as I can tell. There are actions that are right, just because they are right, and actions that are wrong, just because they are wrong. Not because some book or "holy" person says so.

I never took my kids to church, and neither of them have ever read any version of "the" bible. We talked a lot, while they were growing up, about being a decent and caring human being, and the idea of the world being a better place because of some way you contribute to it. They have grown up to be fine young men, and my husband and I are regularly complimented on how they turned out. And all without any formal religious indoctrination.

God is totally created in man's image, IMO. Why would a superior and allegedly loving being need the worship of us puny humans, and seek revenge upon us if we are not sufficiently awed and cowed? Makes "Gawd" sound like Donald Trump - in need of constant attention and praise, and pissed off and vengeful if he/she/it doesn't get it.

[MineralMan]

32. Thanks. I agree completely.

I have always thought that right behavior was logical and easy to understand. Simply understanding that we are, as individuals, massively similar to other individuals should teach us that we should treat others in the way we would wish to be treated. And that's about all that's needed to do the right thing in almost every situation.

That's why that principle is held in common by virtually all religions, with some variations. It's a simple idea that extends to just about ever action, if considered well.

[3catwoman3]

37. I told my sons that if...

...EVERYONE could just find it within themselves to go by the "Golden Rule," we wouldn't really need all the others. It covers pretty much everything I can think of.

[Mariana]

18. I wouldn't want to make a decision as important

as whether or not to worship a particular deity based on speculation and wishful thinking. A god worthy of my worship wouldn't have me saying "perhaps it might be that...".

[MineralMan]

35. It's easy if you don't really think about it.

Organized religion counts on that.

[Mariana]

38. I suppose.

I do wonder why it's so damn hard to get a straight answer out of so many religious people about what, exactly, they believe and disbelieve and why. Is it because they don't know themselves what they believe, so it's impossible to for them to say? Is it a matter of intentional deceit? And if it's deceit, for what purpose?

[MineralMan]

41. Yes, often it is that they do not really know.

Knowing what one really believes requires a great deal of thought and introspection. Much of Christianity doesn't really encourage that so much. Christianity is a short-cut religion in many ways. Really, you just have to believe and repent when you do wrong things and you're good. Pretty simple. Not much analysis required.

While some religious people are serious thinkers, that's probably not true for most people, in religious matters as well as other matters.

Or so it seems to me.

[Cartoonist]

10. The asshole kind

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

[MineralMan]

74. The very definition of genocide, isn't it?

Piss off the deity and you will die. Or so it would seem from the scriptures. Thanks for the quote. Of course, the supposed deity did supposedly relent and allow one family to survive the genocide and start repopulating the cursed planet.

[ExciteBike66]

13. The kind that was intended by his creators as a form of social control.

Authorities need a stick. A god is a pretty neat stick; doesn't even cost anything (unlike nukes).

[MineralMan]

14. Bingo!

[gtar100]

16. One who has fooled generations of people into believing the absurd as truth.

God loves you but will torture you for eternity if you mess up in this short span of time we call our lives. That's absurd. But it's also a very effective tool to control people.

I would argue that the concept of "eternal hell" is really about evil acts always leading to bad ends and can never lead to good. That's the "eternal" part of it. Our "souls" (if you will) can learn from past mistakes. That contradicts the notion that eternal punishment comes from a god who loves.

[Moostache]

30. This is my major contention with any religion preaching about eternity...

There is no such thing as "eternal life" in anything resembling a physical form.

I will grant that each of us lives on beyond our physical death in the hearts and minds of the people we interact with...both good AND bad. Those we love and who love us in return are shaped by that interaction forever...sometimes in large ways, sometimes in tiny, almost imperceptible ways. The same applies to those we injure or harm. These actions, reactions and memories chaotically interact in our local sliver of the universe to create a meta organism we call "homo sapiens" now. Go back far enough on the time line of existence and imperceptibly homo sapiens rises from the organisms that came before it on this planet...at some point in the distant past, there was a first life form. It did not look anything like a man or a woman or biped or a mammal. It had no complex nervous system or multi-lobed brain. But it was what eventually became the species that today threatens to destroy the ecology that sustains complex life.

We won't eliminate all life...bacteria have been kicking our ass collectively for 4 billion years and I think they'll find the plethora of food in the form of our decaying carcasses to be a pleasant respite in the aeons old war it fights against extinction. Life is, however, finite unless homo sapiens or its successors determine a way to free themselves from 2 things - the temporal problem of stars consuming their fuel and exploding and the inertial problem of an expanding universe eventually reaching a steady state equilibrium where everything has dispersed to nothing.

That is reality. Everything else religions make up - to tell stories of comfort and to assuage fears - don't really mean a thing. There is no "heaven" or "hell". These diametrically opposed ideas are the product of the feeble mind of man to describe the unknowable and make small the cosmos so as to not confront his own insignificance. Our physical forms, bodies of flesh and blood and chemicals and gasses, all dissipate and return to nature once our very short, very finite lives run their course. Pretending that is not true because it makes someone feel better may be palliative care for the now, but it is damaging to the future...

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. That is why I like that guy in TX who is really rich and wouldnt let the victims of hurricane

in his church until he was shamed into it, doesnt he openly say that god and church exists to make you rich?

What he forgets to tell his flock is god and church exist to make HIM rich at THEIR expense.

BTW did you know JOHNNY CARSON admitted to Penn Jillette right before he died that he felt guilty he had not made his own atheism more known to people, seeing all the harm done by religion?

[MineralMan]

34. I did not know that about Johnny Carson, but

it doesn't surprise me. He always seemed to me to be an intelligent, thoughtful man.

[guillaumeb]

51. An opinion, based on a literal interpretation.

What sort of patriotism excuses dropping an atomic device, killing many thousands of civilians, and then repeats the action with a modified version of the device?

What sort of patriotism excuses the cultural and near literal genocide of the First Peoples in the name of American exceptionalism?

[MineralMan]

58. This is the Religion Group, not the politics group.

My post is about the concept of a deity. Let's not drift to secular governments, if you don't mind. GD is for political discussions.

[Lordquinton]

62. Are we supposed to just know how to interpret every passage?

Is there a wrong way to interpret it? Didn't Martin Luther translate it to the common language so the clergy would no longer control belief? Why is "literalist" considered a valid counter argument, isn't that kind of ambiguity a glaring flaw in the holy books? The Catholic Church takes the bible very literally, for communion they believe the bread literally becomes God's flesh, it's not a metaphor.

The rest of your post makes no sense.

[MineralMan]

68. I see that you have taken your argument out of this thread and

begun your own thread. OK, then.

As for using nuclear weapons in warfare, only one nation on Earth has done that - ours. The stage for that was set by the darling of the Left, FDR, and the weapon used by his successor, Truman. It was a weapon of war, much like other weapons of war. The only difference was in scale. A hand grenade and a 1000-lb. blockbuster bomb are both bombs. A fission weapon is also a bomb, just on a larger scale.

Me? I consider all weapons of warfare, and warfare itself, to be an abomination of humanity. And yet, warfare is used by virtually all nations. One can be patriotic without condoning warfare. Can one be religious without homage to the deity? I think not.

[guillaumeb]

70. Your claim:

Believe me and worship me or burn in Hell for eternity?
That's like a parent telling his or her young child, "Do exactly as I say at all times or I'll kill you."
That's not love. That's cruelty.

I find it interesting that non-theists generally insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, much like fundamentalist believers.



But if a religious belief can be used to divide, so can patriotism, a form of civic religion.



My argument adds the position that any belief system can be used to divide people. A valid argument, but for those who insist on focusing solely on religion, as some here do, my point is that such a narrow focus, and such an insistence on a literalist interpretation, proves nothing about religion and everything about my larger point.

[MineralMan]

71. A literal interpretation of what version of the Bible?

Different translations use different words and different ways of expressing what purports to be the real scriptures.

I'm not dividing anyone. I don't really care. The Christian religion has divided itself thousands of times into sects and denominations, each with its own interpretation of scripture. Each has its own doctrinal interpretation of a huge range of Bible passages.

There is, frankly, no literal interpretation possible, given the history of translation, transcription and passing down of judeo-christian scripture. There is no universally accepted form of the Bible, really. So, no literal interpretation is possible.

I divide nobody. I'm not even part of the Christian religion, or any other. I leave all that division up to those who are part of religion.

It's amusing, really, to see you discussing this with me. I can insist on nothing. You all have to decide for yourselves what it is, exactly, that you believe.

[guillaumeb]

72. Then why did you pose the question in the manner that you did?

You made specific claims in your post, so I responded based on what you wrote.

And your ending:

It's amusing, really, to see you discussing this with me. I can insist on nothing. You all have to decide for yourselves what it is, exactly, that you believe.

contradicts the rest of this response and your post. Are you insisting that God demands specific things, or are you insisting on nothing?

[MineralMan]

73. I generally rely on the King James Version of the Bible

when discussing Christianity with Christians. If they prefer to discuss a different translation of particular passages, I have access to all versions and translations for comparison purposes.

I take it that people who are Christians rely on the Bible as their highest source of information about the supposed dictates of that religion's deity. Is that not the case? If not, what is their source?

I am not insisting that a deity I do not think exists can demand anything of anyone. It is not me who says that there are such demands. It is the people who claim to follow such a deity who say that they use that religion's scriptures to guide them. So, I sometimes ask if they actually follow and believe what is written therein.

That's not a demand. It's a question, as was my original post in this thread a question.

It remains unanswered, so I'm assuming that the question either has no answer or is confusing, although I don't know why it would be. I and others even quoted and cited specific passages in the thread.

The question remains.

[Angry Dragon]

79. Was the Bible written to be a book of riddles??

[guillaumeb]

80. Are allegories riddles, do you think?

Perhaps the Creator was revealing information in a way that Bronze Age people could understand?

[Angry Dragon]

81. could be .............. were the Bronze Age people smarter than today's people??

[guillaumeb]

82. Smarter? Probably the same spread of IQ scores.

But far less scientifically advanced, certainly.

[Angry Dragon]

83. however the only ones with access were the priests

[guillaumeb]

84. All about control. A very human thing. eom

[Angry Dragon]

86. If your god is so great.........why is control needed??

[guillaumeb]

87. All about control. A very HUMAN thing.

No mention of the divine, or the needs of the divine.

[Angry Dragon]

88. Sorry ........... my question was worded poorly

I know if I was true believer in a loving god I would tell everyone about this god.
I would be so filled with the wonder that I would shout it from the rooftops.

I do not find this happening in religion

Could this be because they do not truly believe with all their soul??

What causes religious leaders to feel the need to control??

It is said that god is all knowing: past, present, future .............. yet they have made mistakes as stated in the Bible??

[guillaumeb]

89. A multi-part question.

I feel that every believer approaches belief in a personal way.

As to the issue of control, given that it is a human trait, hat can one expect when humans are involved?

As to the last question, perhaps the mistakes arise when humans "interpret" what they feel the Creator desires.

[Angry Dragon]

90. A multi-part response.

I feel that every believer approaches belief in a personal way.

I agree with what you wrote, but you did not answer the question. Would not a true christian, their soul filled with god and true belief not spread the good news??

As to the issue of control, given that it is a human trait, hat can one expect when humans are involved?

Would this not also apply as above?? True words would stand on their own.

As to the last question, perhaps the mistakes arise when humans "interpret" what they feel the Creator desires.

I was not talking about people, I was talking about the god of the Bible. I read where god kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden and cursed them. I was talking about the Flood. An all knowing god would have known these things were going to happen.

[guillaumeb]

91. What is a true Christian, as opposed to a presumably false Christian?

Second, human behavior can be expected when humans are involved.

Third, if one claims to be a Biblical literalist, one will presumably interpret the Bible literally. I am not a literalist, so any questions that presume a literalist mindset must be addressed to a literalist.

[Angry Dragon]

92. Okay ...... I will tackle the third one first

Throughout my life I have heard that god wrote the Bible or at the very least inspired the writing.
If that is the case then one would have to be very careful not to try to interpret what god was saying.

Are you saying god did not create the universe as it is written??
God did not expel Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and curse them as stated??

[guillaumeb]

93. I am not a literalist.

I have stated that in prior conversation, possibly not with you.

[Angry Dragon]

94. I understand that........

So explain Genesis .............. I have to assume that how the Bible starts out must be important.
As a non-literalist what is being said?? I guess I am more of a literalist. I read it as god created the Universe and within that he created the earth. It says 6 days. It could have taken millions of years.

How do you read that differently??

[guillaumeb]

95. "Let there be light".

The Big Bang in a simplified form for a Bronze Age audience.

[Angry Dragon]

96. We are not in the Bronze Age ........ 21st century

The question was how YOU understand it ..........
You stated you were not a literalist and how that was different
Tell me how you read it

[guillaumeb]

97. I did. That IS how I read it, and how I interpret the text.

[Angry Dragon]

98. Okay ........however the Big Bang says nothing of god or that he/she created anything

so I would think that using the Big Bang to explain creation one would have to expound on that just a little

[guillaumeb]

99. If one believes that the Creator created all of existence,

the Big Bang can be seen as the spark initiated by the Creator.

[Angry Dragon]

100. I wonder why you did not say that to begin with??

The Big Bang Theory, as I understand it, the Universe is expanding after the Big Bang and things happen randomly. not through design.

Is that what you are saying??

[guillaumeb]

101. I would say that the Creator "lit the fuse", so to say,

and allowed the explosion to continue. With all that is implied. I do not believe in a divine director who runs every aspect of the show.

[trotsky]

102. "Lit the fuse" of... what?

Did something else, more powerful and complex than your god, create the bomb?

Maybe you worship the wrong creator.

[Angry Dragon]

105. Thank you for this insight

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

55. The first time I heard the story of God demanding that Abraham murder his son,

I knew God was completely evil and not to be trusted.

Any decent parent would tell God, "NO!"

And at the risk of raising certain gender stereotypes, notice God asked Abraham, Isaac's father, not whoever was Isaac's mother to commit the murder. No mother would go along with such a demand.

That one little story alone would stop me from being a believer. And then there's the bet God and Satan made concerning Job. If that's not another example of utter evil being apologized for and held up as something to admire, I don't know what is. And anyone who goes along with that has no compassion.

[uriel1972]

60. "No mother would go along with that demand"...

I wish I had your optimism...

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

63. Even as I was writing my above post,

I had my own uncertainty.

Every time I see a reference to that story I'm horrified. And to think that what Abraham does, his willingness to sacrifice his son, is actually held up as something to be admired and emulate.

[zipplewrath]

103. You probably can't understand

From your other postings, I suspect you can't understand. But people's imperfect understanding of a deity, have no bearing on the existence (or lack thereof) of that deity.

The usual metaphor is of the 5 blind people all touching the elephant. Each will have a completely different understanding of what they are touching, and none of them will be correct. Yet, it does not change that there is an elephant.

[Mariana]

108. It is more complicated than that.

Maybe there's such things as deities, maybe not. Religious people, for the most part, do not simply claim that a deity exists. They worship that deity. They serve the deity. They do what they believe the deity wants them to do. Some of them will even murder their own children, if they think that's what the deity wants. Abraham and Jephthah are two of those who are described in the Bible.

If the deity in question is cruel and bloodthirsty, according to the only reference material that is available, why would any good person worship and serve it?

[zipplewrath]

109. That is another issue

It's not that it is more complicated, but again with the elephant, just because it exists, doesn't mean it is "good". There are at least three fundamental questions associated with this topic. Are there deities, are they "good", and do we know their "nature"? The three questions frequently get mixed up in the sense that it is often assumed that if they exist, they must be "good". Or more importantly, "bad" ones cannot exist (or is proof that they don't). And even beyond that would be the question of perfection. i.e. can a "good" god be imperfect. Even more so, for a creation god, does their creation have to be "perfect" or can it be flawed? This question CAN get very complicated because then it becomes a question of whether our role would be to "perfect" the creation, i.e. compensate for its flaws.

And for fun, one can have the discussion of whether a deity DID exist, but was finite, or mortal.

[WhiteTara]

104. Brought to us by white male patriarchy.

And everyone suffers for it.

[byronius]

106. Funny story -- all of the most moral, kind, caring people I know are atheists.

Just a fact. Most of the religious people I know are fearful, authority-obsessed, and prone to alienation and violence.

Perhaps it's because atheists act out of home-grown moral precepts -- no belt or stick or carrot needed, just the Idea.

Great post.

[MineralMan]

107. Yeah, well, I know some religious people who are all of those things,

and some atheists who are none of those things.

It's all in who you know, I guess. We all have limited samples from which to draw, I'm afraid.