What kind of god would send

Bustem' Down

Give Peas a Chance
What right do we have telling them they should be Christian. About the same right they have telling us we should be muslim.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Most of which I can not use, as I just said. My brain is my most valuable tool because I can evaluate things for myself and question that which I do not understand. The Judeo-Christian God insists I put my emotions first, and I rarely trust them because they are subjective.
Would you like me to research the books out there by prominent scientists who were atheists and became religious based upon their searches to disprove Him?
It's strange that God should ask us to employ our most subjective trait to find such objective truth.
Emotions can be far more important proof. Not always, and no, I would not convict someone of murder based upon a hunch. But, sometimes they're more accurate than what we perceive as fact.
And I guarantee that, once I have found this truth, it will differ in some way and extent to virtually every other person on this planet; that's intellectually dishonest and more than a little frightening.
You can't conceive that God could be a little bit different for each person? I can. Omniscience starts with "omni" for a reason.[/quote]Yeah, could you point to which chunk of information that would be? Because I see a lot of them. TIA.[/quote]You see a lot out there because there is a lot out there.
Actually, I was a pretty good kid and didn't break too many of the rules. But I get your point. But I also have to say that, even though my mom and grandparents worked to instill me with their values and so forth, they have not been outraged and disowned me for not entirely following their ideals. They are actually happy that I have chosen a path with which I am comfortable.
You're making my point about God being kind, benevolant, maleable within tight parameters..... different for everyone.

Do you think that they'd be happy if you were a robber-baron? A serial rapist? I suspect you live pretty close to their values, and they're very accepting. Sounds a lot like my version of what God is.
The Christian God is not typically regarded as being so accepting.
I don't understand this. He sends His son to speak for Him, relating as a human and all. That guy says stuff like we shouldn't judge others, and let's us know that only the person without sin is allowed to cast the first stone, etc. These are God's thoughts, given through His son.

It would probably behoove someone seeking God to seek Him through his own study and soul-searching (which, of course, means you have to believe you have a soul.....) and not through churches.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
according to 2A, each sin is of equal importance in gods eyes. Now, if we accept that, then there is no scale.
I respectfully disagree with 2A on that. Jesus gave us a scale just within the commandments. There is only one commandment with a punishment built into how it's worded. I personally believe there is a difference among sins.
sidewaysly, there should be no scale anyways because when someone (god in this case) is by definition infinate, everything regardless of (global) scale will be infinitly small.

This is a guy who handcrafted each atom, and you're blathering on about scale.
"Blathering on"? I'm just offering my opinions. I'm not trying to tell anyone else to think like me, nor judging anyone else's beliefs.
 

hvp05

Methodically disorganized
However, when speaking of faith for the atheist, we have to go back to the origins of life and the universe. Nothing comes close to any reasonable explaination for either of these things. One must have faith, as HVP earlier stated, that science will "eventually" explain it all.
I do not stake my life on my scientific "faith"; I do not take it personally when an accepted scientific rule is overturned and requires being rewritten.

And I think science has a better track record at uncovering facts, for it has created the modern world we now enjoy. Faith, as I recently said, is built on subjectivity, and what is "real" and "true" has changed over time.



Xaquin44 said:
sidewaysly, there should be no scale anyways because when someone (god in this case) is by definition infinate, everything regardless of (global) scale will be infinitly small.
I have been trying to see TP's point, and I think you are being unnecessarily aggressive, but this is a valid observation.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
why not? I mean this seems to be a belief you hold fairly dear (since you've been arguing it for the better part of 2 hours).
Because that would not be in any way a comforting, helpful thought to get her through her time of need. And, it's not the full thought, as I explained. I believe God cares about her, and any pain she suffers. I believe that as strongly as I believe that, in the grand scheme of things, it's not as important to God as murder on the scale of a Holocaust.
 

Xaquin44

New Member
Because that would not be in any way a comforting, helpful thought to get her through her time of need. And, it's not the full thought, as I explained. I believe God cares about her, and any pain she suffers. I believe that as strongly as I believe that, in the grand scheme of things, it's not as important to God as murder on the scale of a Holocaust.

It should be though.

It all boils down to what happens to a person. If you took all the individual murders in the world, it would make the holocaust look small. Just because they didn't happen all at once shouldn't make them any less important.
 

Tootaloo

New Member
I really don't know the ins and the outs of forums and read FAR more than I post. So, I probably did it wrong! :) I recognize in your posts, my own thoughts and convictions...I have often thought that the reason God gave us the ability to have children is because we too sink entire being into loving this child that has free will. It gives us a window to Him. Our love is not conditional on the choices our kids make, but our blessings and fellowship could be. Other things you say strike me with familiarity, so...most likely I was adding to your position. Sorry if I went about it wrong...I'm new.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I do not stake my life on my scientific "faith"; I do not take it personally when an accepted scientific rule is overturned and requires being rewritten.

And I think science has a better track record at uncovering facts, for it has created the modern world we now enjoy. Faith, as I recently said, is built on subjectivity, and what is "real" and "true" has changed over time.
If you felt I put words in your mouth, I'm sorry. I actually just meant that you said science would eventually figure it all out. To me, that was faith in science.

But, in my opinion, you are staking your after-life on science. By accepting ONLY science as an option, you summarily reject other options.

What's "real" and "true" hasn't changed. What people choose to perceive and teach as real and true may have, but the truth hasn't changed.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
It should be though.

It all boils down to what happens to a person. If you took all the individual murders in the world, it would make the holocaust look small. Just because they didn't happen all at once shouldn't make them any less important.
You make a fair comparrison here. Although, all the murders aren't done by one person, or one small group of people. I was speaking to the crimes of one person - how one person's sins would be perceived by God (in my opinion). Maybe that's why I'm not coming across to you well on this issue. I wasn't speaking that an individual rape or murder is insignificant - I don't think it is. But the one person who raped one person is not the same as the one person who orders and/or orchestrates the mass murder of tens, hundreds, thousands. I was speaking to the person performing the sin, not the sin itself.
 
Top